JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Is the cold weather coming?

Guest Post by Bryan Leyland

El Nino/La Nina effect (SOI) predicts global cooling by the end of 2010

A July 2009 paper by McLean, de Freitas and Carter showed that global average temperatures followed the Southern Oscillation Index (El Nino/La Nina) with a 5-8 months lag. The graph below shows that when the SOI is shifted forward by 7 months the two plots change direction together (except when volcanic eruptions caused cooling).

The chart above shows a projection of temperatures to Feb 2011. The chances are that the present warm spell will end quite suddenly before the end of this year. Over the next few months the SOI will indicate whether or not the cooling will continue beyond Feb 2011. Evidence from studies on past climate and sunspot cycle related effects gives a strong indication that the cooling will continue.

Where can I find more information?

The paper is here and contains more graphs (see especially Figure 7)

Wasn’t this paper disputed?

Yes, but because the critics failed to understand the process (“derivative”) that was used to match the peaks and valleys in the two sets of data and derive the 7 month delay. Therefore they refused to accept that the above plot is actual temperatures and SOI. (They are). The response by the authors is here.


A few thoughts on the peer review process

Jo Nova

The Response by the Authors (here)  tells the story of how their paper was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR). Prior to publication on July 23 2009 they received glowing referee reviews, but afterwards the usual ClimateGate Team leapt into action for speedy damage control.

Within a couple of weeks Foster et al (Grant Foster, James Annan, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Jim Renwick, Jim Salinger, Gavin Schmidt and Kevin Trenberth) submitted their critique of it to the editor of JGR Atmospheres. At the same time as this, it was posted on the Internet – formatted in JGR style, as if it had already been accepted by JGR.

About then new editor was appointed at JGR (Editor-2).

The editor asks for suggestions (from Forster) for unbiased expert reviewers and Forster et al suggested six. But all six were well known to Phil Jones. Jones comments to friends that “All of them know the sorts of things to say – about our comment and the awful original, without any prompting.” So much for independent impartial reviewers.

Editor-2 was advised twice of the existence of these Climategate emails but was not concerned. Nor was he concerned that the paper had been published already on the internet (on August 7), and worse, with the JGR page header, in clear breach of the JGR rules.

Editor 2 invites McLean et al to reply to the critique of them (as is the norm), but then rejects the McLean reply. There are few official guidelines that a reply has to meet, and there were no obvious problems with the science, yet McLean et al was not allowed to even reply to the criticism.

Yet the three reviews of our response that we were provided with were scientifically insubstantial. Only one reviewer mentioned the time lag that we established, despite its pivotal importance to our findings. And two reviewers focussed mainly on the derivative technique that Foster et al.’s comment falsely implied was the basis of our conclusions.

So the guys who pervert the system by suggesting friends as reviewers, and who breach the rules by falsely prepublishing, are given a free pass to the printing press, and the team who ought to be entitled to defend their own work are shut out for no clear reason.

This is the state of modern peer review: A few anonymous unpaid reviewers, whose names are suggested by the reviewees themselves; this is rigorous? Who are we kidding. We have tighter controls and better standards for peer reviewing Cab Sav.

The McLean et al response is published in full at SPPI (Appendix B is the reply to the rebuttal that was rejected  – pages 21-25).

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 3.3/10 (4 votes cast)
Is the cold weather coming?, 3.3 out of 10 based on 4 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2vnngrg

No comments yet to Is the cold weather coming?

  • #
    BobC

    This is peer review as Old Boy’s Network — the Old Boys try to suppress any work that would contradict their own. Unfortunately, this isn’t new or unique to climate science.

    HOWEVER: McLean, de Freitas and Carter have made a clear prediction — cooling over the end of 2010 and beyond (depending on the future track of the SOI. This prediction treats the effect of CO2 increases as negligible.

    Let’s have the Warmist’s prediction in the same unambiguous language and see what actually happens. (If they are too chicken to make one, we can just use Hansen’s old prediction, which is already way out of the money.)

    It’s put up or shut up time, warmists; and Nature calls the game. This is how science is really done.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike Jowsey

    Where can I find more information?
    The paper is here and contains more graphs (see especially Figure 7)

    Seems to require a login in order to see the paper, so am unable to look at more graphs.

    The second graph in your article does have some uncorrelated points between the two plots – end-2001, mid-2006, mid-2008. Therefore, without being able to investigate in more detail, I would have to say that the degree of certainty over a fall in temperatures by end-2010 is eroded by these disparities.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Socold

    “A July 2009 paper by McLean, de Freitas and Carter showed that global average temperatures followed the Southern Oscillation Index (El Nino/La Nina) with a 5-8 months lag”

    This SOI global temperature lag was already known. Widely known. Is still widely known. Even among laypeople. I spotted it before McLean published. All you have to do is plot SOI and detrended global temperature and voila you can see they both match up well.

    If McLean’s paper was simply pointing out something that obvious then it was worthless. They might well have published that there’s an 11 year solar cycle. What news!

    The issue was not with the correlation between detrended global temperature and SOI. The issue was that their paper was being exploited to claim SOI explained the global warming itself. Which was utter rubbish because in order to get the correlation the longterm warming is removed. The SOI explains the variation around the longterm warming trend, not the longterm warming trend.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    To Socold 4:

    Explanation of climatic oscillations by oceanic oscillations drive (SOI, PDO, AMO) is sufficient for debunking the current implementation of CO2 driven climate theory as it disapproves the sensitive climate system assumption with the crazy positive feedback of water vapors.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Good for you, Bryan

    from Brian


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Socold @ 4. If the paper was so worthless why did Jones and co go to so much trouble , falsly prepublishing and stopping the response from the authors etc ? To go to all that trouble it must have been noteworthy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    To Socold @4:

    What you are referring to as “long-term warming” is, apparently, only the last 150-200 years since the Little Ice Age ended. A longer perspective (from NOAA ice cores) shows that chaotic cycles much larger than the present warming are common at the 200 – 500 year scale. The trend over the last 3000 years is definitely cooling.

    Note the “hockey stick” in the last 700 years — also note how it is not the least bit unusual; in fact is small compared to previous cycles.

    If you want to see an interesting animation of this data (with considerably more detail) see here.

    So, if CO2 really explains the current warming, as you seem to imply, surely some prominent climate scientists will confidently issue their predictions of (near) future climate and we can judge for ourselves who is right.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    LOL

    6 Aug: SMH: Daniel Gros: Cheap, abundant coal means the world is still not warming to a carbon tax
    Daniel Gros is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies
    Determined action at the global level will become possible only when climate change is no longer some scientific prediction, but a reality that people feel. But, at that point, it will be too late to reverse the impact of decades of excessive emissions.
    A world incapable of preventing climate change will have to live with it.
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/cheap-abundant-coal-means-the-world-is-still-not-warming-to-a-carbon-tax-20100805-11kvv.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    I’m of the mind that this was (as socold admits) well known. So well known, that the real CAGW advocates (Green activists and carbon traders) knew they had a window to get their crap embedded in the laws of all the world. They had to politically leverage the rising temperature cycles before the down trend started. Perhaps they have missed the boat!

    As Adolf has noted at #5 the overall sensitivity of the climate is not what Warmists suggest. With up trending Co2 (for years) and nearly flat temps. for the last 10 years (or more) and now this report. It doesn’t look good for their Co2 hypothesis does it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    I hope the paper under estimates the fall because as Jo said in a thread a few months back, it isn’t over yet. Look at what is being discussed this week

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_sc/climate_change

    If this goes any where then any doubts about if there is going to be a double dip recession
    in Europe , at least, will be gone. It will be an absolute certainty.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Mark D @ 10

    The other item of interest is that the lag between changes in the SOI and global temperatures is about 6 months. Whereas the AGW advocates are claiming that global warming from today’s emissions will occur some years in the future due to the long lag time between heat input and global temperature rise. The alarmists use this lag to explain the “missing heat” when they compare their climate models with the real world measurements. If this lag didn’t exist, or was only a few month’s duration, then they would have to admit that increases in atmospheric CO2 has not affected global temperatures. The SOI data indicates that the lag is, in reality, reasonably short.

    So the question is – why would a SOI change show up after 6 months, while a “greenhouse” effect requires 10-plus years – apparently?

    Unless the AGW crowd can answer this, then this issue is just another flaw, probably fatal, in the global warming theory.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    The issue was that their paper was being exploited to claim SOI explained the global warming itself.

    Scold, if I follow your logic then any paper being exploited to claim Co2 explained the global warning itself should also be arbitrarily dismissed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Socold # 4

    This SOI global temperature lag was already known. Widely known. Is still widely known. Even among laypeople.

    It seems we are in violent agreement here. So why do you think that some global warming advocates feel the need to invent such long time lags between the impact of CO2 increases and global temperature rise?

    Either there is a very long lag between thermal inputs and change in temperature (which you and I know not to be the case) or the warming effect they are claiming just hasn’t happened.

    They can’t have it both ways, eh?

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    For what its worth …. Years ago (1990) I thought I could see an 18 month or there about lag between the SOI and Australia’s terms of trade. Seems the effect on the SOI on climate comes out the other end as an influence on agricultural production.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    So, if CO2 really explains the current warming, as you seem to imply, surely some prominent climate scientists will confidently issue their predictions of (near) future climate and we can judge for ourselves who is right.

    They already have, Bob, and as you noted in your first post, it’s already well out of the money, thus far.

    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/05.02.jpg


    Report this

    00

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    On further thinking about this I guess I’m sort of agreeing with Socold (#4) in that I would have thought the relationship between SOI and temperature/climate was already well known. Where I disagree is that I cannot understand why this known pattern with nothing to do with CO2 hasn’t been extracted from the global temperature data to show the residual trend which may be CO2 related. (In fact I dont believe even this long term trend is CO2, since most of that is the trend out of the Little Ice Age and clearly pre-dates any rise in CO2 emissions. But lets let that through to the keeper for the moment in the interests of advancing the SOI plot.) I think it is utterly duplicitous of the un-sceptical to keep the non-CO2-related SOI trends in the data and then claim the steep rise where the SOI rise adds to the long term trend rise as some sort of crisis.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Speedy

    It looks like it takes ~10 years for todays anthropogenic CO2 (& todays combustion heat) to get in on the act hanging around in the infra red light districts & getting into mischief. It must be the civilizing effect of human influence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    AC of Adelaide

    I won’t mind so much if they ignore the effects of La Nina on climate for the next 2-3 years. Bet they don’t, but…

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    OT – unbelievable – Joe Hockey’s appearance on 10′s 7.30 project. They are so left biased it makes the ABC look like a kindergarten. they introduced him after another budgie smuggler attack on Tony.

    well done Joe – I would have screamed!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bryan Leyland: If McLean et al (2009) had used NINO3.4 SST anomalies (instead of the SOI), they could have reproduced global temperatures back to the early 1900s (instead of the 1960s), Refer to:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html

    That post assumes the oceans integrate the impacts of ENSO and there is evidence they do. The East Indian and West Pacific SST anomalies warm in response to El Nino and La Nina events. Refer to:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/06/la-nina-is-not-opposite-of-el-nino.html

    Regards


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Does it really matter? so the temperature rises by 2C or drops by 2C – can anyone produce any scientific evidence that either would be detrimental to our survival.

    I’m sure that if it were positive and we increased by 2C we’d be better off based on past experience.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Climate science and science in general are so wrapped up in chemical analysis, mathematical equations and individual studies that they missed a HUGE areas of science.
    Has any of these areas include the planet rotating at a speed of 1669.8km/hr at the equator?
    The speed is faster as you move to the poles due to the change in size on an axis?
    The position of our planet relative to the sun plays an important factor as the suns heat is hottest at the equator of the sun?
    Science could not figure out how and what centrifugal force was and deemed it a psuedo-science.

    Physics says that the moon slows the planet. Not where rotation is concerned. Infusing a planet with energy and allowing the natural friction and energy use creates the slowdown. Speed changes the mass of an object and stores energy.

    Our concern over a single molecule with so much other science missing is a joke at best.
    All of the above conflicts with the current scientists views of physics so they will not be looked at.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    If you look at a circle and the radius of that circle, they become totally different when rotated with an axis. The center of balance then is not the center but 2/3 from the axis in a roating circle.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    but the moon is a spaceship dragged into place – you can see the vehicle that moved it parked on the far side of the moon.

    (reference to some crazy website that proves it.)

    That’s where we are today – we are so bombarded with BS we don’t know what is real anymore.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Jo

    Apparently large slabs of the globe had cold temperatures last year as well. We are earnestly assured that this is due to global warming…

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KR

    The problem with the McLean paper (which I have read) is that their filtering of the data is essentially a bandpass for the 7 month SOI period – removing long term trends. I work on signal processing – this is very clear from their methods.

    The McLean paper show that once you filter out the long term trend (warming) and short term noise, the SOI matches temperatures very well with the 7 month delay. As was stated before, this was known – and it’s good science.

    The problem that prompted the many replies was that McLean et al then concluded (and blogged, and talked up) that the SOI oscillation compared to the temperature record (filtered to exclude short term and long term effects) explained long term trends that they had filtered out. There’s no support for that or discussion in the paper – it’s just added into the conclusions.

    That’s where folks got upset. You remove the long term trends, then from a medium term match claim that you’ve explained the long term trends?

    As someone with (as I noted) signal processing experience, I find the trend conclusions McLean et al draw from this analysis bogus and offensive. It certainly doesn’t prove that the SOI drives long term temperature averages.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    McLean et al did not just suggest there was a 7 month lag between the SOI and global Temps. Similar things had been shown by Jones (1989) and Wigley (2000) (6 month and 7 month lags respectively.

    What made this paper so worth attacking was that it claimed to show that the SOI explained 70% of the variation in global temperatures. McLean et al still stand by that claim even after the Foster critique.

    From the Abstract

    “Change in SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA for the 29-year-long MSU record and 68% of the variance in GTTA for the longer 50-year RATPAC record. “

    If that is right, it doesn’t leave much room for the “effects” of CO2.

    They are accused of using detrended data to find a trend (which would be silly), but they used the detrended data to establish the lag. Then used the the original data.

    From their censored reply to Foster (Appendix b):

    “In the light of criticisms by Fea10 [Foster et al] about the use of derivatives, it is worth emphasizing that Figure 7 presents the data in its original form; namely, data that is not detrended, but with a time shift in SOI that has been determined from the detrended data”.

    Figures 7(b) and (c) show that global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies for the last 50 years have fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier, except during periods of cooling caused by volcanic eruptions, and reveals the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation during this time. This conclusion also implies that a high frequency of occurrence of El Niño conditions will cause a relatively sustained period of elevated temperatures, such as might popularly be termed ‘global warming’, whereas a high frequency of occurrence of La Niña conditions might be termed ‘global cooling’.

    … if the sustained increases in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide have a significant influence on temperature we would expect to see the temperature graph line consistently rising relative to the SOI graph line. The absence of this divergence implies, contrary to the claims of Fea10 and IPCC (2007) to which they refer, that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the mid-twentieth century have had a negligible impact on global temperature.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KR

    When McLean et al compare unfiltered data to their conclusions, they use one data set (RATPAC-A weather balloon) up to 1979, then a second data set (UAH TLT satellite) from 1980. The weather balloon data is available after 1979, but rises over the entire 1960-2008 period, which is quite clear if you look at all the data. The satellite data also trends up over the 18 years included, although it’s hard to see on their (two separate) graphs, as the UAH data has a ~0.2K offset from the weather balloon.

    Switching from one data set to another halfway through the comparison period – and switching to a data set with an offset? That certainly obscures the long term trends… but it’s not good science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    KR @29

    Switching from one data set to another halfway through the comparison period – and switching to a data set with an offset? That certainly obscures the long term trends… but it’s not good science.

    Isn’t that what Mann did in to create the infamous “hockey stick” graph?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KR

    [ Isn’t that what Mann did in to create the infamous “hockey stick” graph? — Mark D.] (Sorry, I don’t have the quoting showing correctly)

    No – Mann used lots of data sets, 50-60 different temp records and proxies, and looked at how they averaged, indicated long term trends. He didn’t switch valid data sets halfway through.

    I won’t kid anyone, the ‘bristlecone pine’ data was a problem in his original paper, that data set has some issues, but I don’t believe his later paper used that data set. And even the most basic reconstruction from various proxies and records indicate much the same graph as Mann had – there’s a quick-and-dirty independent reconstruction from the data here. And that link includes where to go for the original data on the 50 proxies used for the reconstruction.

    That clearly shows the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and the current increases in temperature. I encourage taking a look.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    amargi

    #22. August 6th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
    janama:

    Does it really matter? so the temperature rises by 2C or drops by 2C – can anyone produce any scientific evidence that either would be detrimental to our survival.

    I’m sure that if it were positive and we increased by 2C we’d be better off based on past experience.
    ***********************************

    You are looking at the past (and present) as if it were static. It is not. There is a transition period involved in which things get chaotic as they change from one state to another.

    If the Arctic Sea were to open up in a few decades, we would get hit by those changes much harder than if the same thing happened over a period of several centuries.

    Furthermore, we are not Hunter/Gatherers anymore. They were adapted to the changes in the Natural World. Our Civilization is, instead, very fragile and billions could die. What would be the sense of going through that?

    Even if you don’t believe it is being caused by Global Warming, the situation in Russia is a clear example of what would begin to happen. And happen repeatedly throughout the Earth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KR

    One last note on the Hockey stick, and then I’m on vacation for a week+ (much needed).

    The Mann 1999 paper included some bristle-cone pine data (known to be problematic, now), as part of the ~100 temperature records.

    The Mann 2008 update uses something like 1200 proxy data sets, not ~100. If you leave out all tree ring data whatsoever you get a hockey stick showing current temps above the max proxy temps (including uncertainty ranges) for the past 1300 years. If you include the tree ring data you can extend that to the past 1700 years, same result, essentially unchanged hockey stick graph.

    Now, maybe there are problems in the 1200 data sets. If there are, are they all going to be problems in the same direction? If not, the results are pretty robust.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KR

    PS – sorry if I’m inexact about the particular number of proxies. I think Mann 1999 was ~100, and I know the data download from Mann 2008 has 1357 different records.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Amargi @ 32

    Your entire post is fearmongering pure and simple. I could easily say the reverse of anything you posted.

    I find it particularly egregious that you would suggest “Billions could die”.

    Your comments are an example of exactly why I spend any time blogging skeptically. It is a person ranting as you have, that starts a skirmish that becomes a war.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    amargi

    August 7th, 2010 at 5:15 am
    #35. Mark D.:

    Amargi @ 32

    Your entire post is fearmongering pure and simple. I could easily say the reverse of anything you posted.

    Janama asked a question of what difference an increase 3.6F would make. I gave a brief answer emphasizing the quickness by which AGW works would, by being faster than most of Nature’s transitions, effect us harder with little time to adapt.

    This will become obvious when the Arctic ice cap reduces in size drastically. Janama asked for scientific evidence but you only need basic facts and common sense deductions. Perhaps I should have included them in my original post to clarify matters.

    Here goes. Ice cap shrinks exposing more water. Dark blue water absorbs 80% of Sun’s energy as opposed to ice which reflects 80-90%. Thus water warms up (estimated 6-9F). Exposed water evaporates more than ice covered water and more importantly warmer water evaporates even more still.

    This will increase the precipitation generated at the Arctic regions and directed south. The alteration in air flow will also change normal weather patterns.

    Civilization has relied on predictable and stable weather patterns to grow its crops. With unpredictability and changes, crop failures will be normal.

    Everyone is going to follow their stomachs.

    I think I’ve been rational so far. Can you address yourself to the specific issues that have been brought up about exposed waters, etc.?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce Cunningham

    KR

    The two Mann studies you mention as being “robust”, have been discredited so thoroughly that even Gavin Schmidt has pretty much given up defending them. Mann 1999 showed a cooling trend when Bristlecone data was removed. Mann 2008 is the study where two of the 4 proxy datasets (Tiljander) were mistakenly used upside down, and yet still managed to show a hockey stick!! You really need to read Jo and ClimateAudit.org more.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KR

    Bruce Cunningham

    Haven’t left the office quite yet…

    There’s a 2007 review of the Mann 1999 paper by Wahl 2007, courtesy of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which shows some statistical differences based on calibration considerations from the Mann 1999 paper (on average +0.05C over the results over Mann’s) but really shows the same graph. They examine the various criticisms of Mann, (Rutherford et al. 2005, Mclntyre and McKitrick, 2003, 2005 are included), and demonstrate that the criticisms are invalid.

    Mann 2008 has 1357 datasets. Changing 4 data sets in or out doesn’t significantly change the results – that’s ~0.3% of the data averages. And the 1300 year record without any tree ring proxies whatsoever shows the same shape. Mann has, I understand, re-generated the graph with the correct orientation of those 4 data sets – no visible change, which again isn’t surprising considering it’s 0.3% of the data.

    If you don’t believe that, or if you for some reason feel there’s malfeasance in data processing in the Mann papers (when he’s posted all his data), look at an independent 50-record proxy reconstruction here, using Ljungqvist’s list of proxies available at this link.

    You can’t generate anything but the hockey stick using the proxy data, unless you throw out the majority of it – and I haven’t seen any justifications whatsoever for discarding 90% of your data.

    I’ll just have to disagree with you on Mann being discredited, based on the open data sources, reading the various criticisms, the analyses of the criticisms, and the fact that you can generate the same graph yourself with openly available data sets – with or without tree ring data.

    It is, I suppose, possible that the 1357 data sets he used are somehow biased – that some hundreds of them are all biased in the same wrong direction – but unless somebody can demonstrate that, I’m going to run with what the data shows. I’m kinda hard-headed that way! :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    “Global Warming, the situation in Russia is a clear example of what would begin to happen…”

    Gosh, Amargi, It’s like where to start? Obviously, weather is not climate…except when the weather seems to supports Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    “This will become obvious when the Arctic ice cap reduces in size drastically. Janama asked for scientific evidence but you only need basic facts and common sense deductions.”

    As a matter of fact, common sense shows no evidence for the ice caps disappearing, so get back to us when it “becomes obvious” that they are disappearing.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/03/open-water-at-the-north-pole/

    “Here goes. Ice cap shrinks exposing more water…”

    Please spare us… duh, daisy world models are at least as old as James Lovelock’s books from the early 1980′s.

    We all understand pos and neg feedbacks. What might be new here is…correct me if I am wrong… it seems as if all CAGW supporters today admit CO2 really can’t put the catastrophic in the AGW without assuming massive run away positive feedback loops that have never been observed. Gaia is the most robust homeostatic nonlinear complex system in the solar system (as far as we know.)

    There is no evidence of positive runaway feedback happening in the Earth’s climate for at least the last ~500 million years. Certainly, the last several million years of cyclical ice ages seems to show the Earth’s climate is forced by something much greater than a couple of hundred parts per million of CO2? If not then every second super-volcano or major asteroid would lead to run away global warming. No geological record of that.

    “Civilization has relied on predictable and stable weather patterns to grow its crops. With unpredictability and changes, crop failures will be normal.”

    True. Not that this has anything to do with your argument, other than to reveal some interesting subtextual assumptions.

    The idea that civilization relies on stable weather patterns implies that in the past there was this wonderful Garden of Eden climate stasis. As the results of the “Original Sin” of The Enlightenment resulting in capitalist industrialism we were cast out of this Rousseaian paradise and now live in a fallen state of decay.

    I call this subtextual narrative (and probably unconscious belief on Amagi’s part) Climate Creationism. It assumes an oxymoronic entity – a climate stasis – actually existed and that this climate stasis was paradisiacal. This is exactly what Mann, et al set out to create with their paleoclimate reconstruction that flattened out the MWP and LIA. A perfect climate paradise from which to build anomalous and sinister modern warming upon.

    Most disturbing is that all Climate Creationists believe that humanity should be forced to recreate this mythical climate paradise here on Earth today…No matter what the cost to today’s decadent and “dirty” civilization based as it is upon sucking the life blood of Gaia for it’s sustenance. As such, Amargi’s gestalt, is an example of messianic millenarian thinking, exactly in the evangelical mode of a religious prophet or, if you prefer a secular example, Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution.

    The end result is always the same.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

    Amargi, you are polite, but hardly rational.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KR

    A followup on the Wahl 2007 – the problems they found with the Rutherford et al. 2005, Mclntyre and McKitrick 2003 and 2005 criticisms of Mann 1999 is that Rutherford and M&M chose very small subsets of the proxy data, without providing solid justifications for those subsets. Reconstructions based on those (small) subsets give nonsense results and statistics, which Wahl shows – invalidating the criticisms.

    But don’t take my word for it – read Wahl 2007 and see what you think.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Curt

    I vote that the word “robust” be forever abandoned. It is the most ridiculous fad word of the pro-AGW crowd, and paints all of its non-sarcastic users as parrots. Do the AGW hustlers send out approved word lists along with their talking points?

    Until this year, I never heard anyone use “robust” in a sentence, because it was considered archaic and pompous. Now, every pro-AGW crackpot uses it in every article, study, and PR release. Somebody started this, and I suspect it was Pachauri (sp?). It’s even more offensive than “basically.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    “I’ll just have to disagree with you on Mann being discredited, based on the open data sources, reading the various criticisms, the analyses of the criticisms, and the fact that you can generate the same graph yourself with openly available data sets – with or without tree ring data.”

    Maybe hard-headed KR oughta take that insightful thought over to the proper thread. I think they need some of his unskeptical thinking to clear up a few, ahem, issues with Mann’s work…

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/01/the-no-dendro-illusion/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KR

    Well, Curt, if you have a better term for “Gives essentially the same results when run with different subsets of independent data, noise, standardization, and uncertainty assumptions” than “Robust”, I’d love to hear it. And use it.

    “Mountain man sturdy” (still looks like/functions as a mountain man even after you kick him a lot) is just silly, “Ford Tough” is a copywrite ad logo… I’m open for suggestions. :D


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KR

    Wes George

    Interesting link you gave there on Mann – I hadn’t heard about that Aug. 1 posting; it appears that’s still a question in flux. Is McIntyre going to write this up with actual numbers? I’d like to see the statistical significance of inclusion/exclusion of those records.

    There’s also considerable noise on the other side of that particular question – Stoat has something to say.

    I’ll try to download the Ljungqvist proxy data sets (71 proxies) when I get back to town in a couple weeks, and see if I can exclude subsets of dendro and Tiljander proxies (I don’t know off the top of my head if Tiljander data is included there) – find out what changes that makes. I don’t know that I’m up to dealing with the 1357 Mann data sets – since I’m not getting paid for this!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    From my dictionary>

    Robust – “…(of an intellectual approach or the person taking or expressing it) not perturbed by or attending to subtleties or difficulties; uncompromising and forceful…”

    Actually, that sounds exactly like AGW theory. Catechetical.

    Robust in AGW literature means peer reviewed by my mates and therefore certified as conforming to the orthodox model. Gives essentially the same results when run with different subset of data derived from the same hidden source, while the assumption never varies. AGW is robustly axiomatic. Standards are therefore unnecessary, so robust is the axiom. Uncertainty equals zero. Robustly.

    But KR I have a mildly robust question…What the heck is “independent noise?” ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    There is a post at CA stating that Judith Curry has pulled the plug on the hockey stick. That will be worth finding. Meanwhile, perhaps KR might take his critique of SM’s methods over there and see how he goes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Mann has huge problems with sloppy work and subsequent sloppy peer review by his mates
    ( not picking up errors )

    http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/07/mistake-with-consequences.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wendy

    SNIP

    (Second time I snipped you down in the thread.You need to drop the name calling attacks of others who comment here.Discuss the topic instead) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wendy

    The Mt Isa rodeo is one of the biggest cultural icons of the Australian Outback sporting calendar, but it is sobering to realise that the Greens do not believe in rodeos and would have them banned.

    It is also important to note that the Labor party is in partnership with the Greens. Only the Liberal National Party is committed to not going into partnership with the Labor party or the Greens to ban rodeos.

    This is just one of the many Greens policies that would hurt regional Australia and regional Queensland in particular. The Greens also want to end coal mining. The Greens want to end the live cattle trade and the Greens believe in a top tax rate of 50 cents in the dollar and death duties. Under a Greens-Labor government they will take half of your pay while you are working and the rest after you die.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    elsie

    Ho hum. I see again that with a predicted increase for La Nina that the BOM is forecasting increased cyclones. Well, they have been forecasting that every year for ages now even though the numbers have been down. But one year, perhaps this one, they will be right. And if one does cross the coast say in north NSW the AGW side will go berserk with delight at their wonderful self perceived prescience. They will ignore the protestations it has happened before. If it was before they were in nappies then it just never happened.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Curt

    From dictionary.com:

    “ro·bust   /roʊˈbʌst, ˈroʊbʌst/ –adjective
    1. strong and healthy; hardy; vigorous: a robust young man; a robust faith; a robust mind.
    2. strongly or stoutly built: his robust frame.
    3. suited to or requiring bodily strength or endurance: robust exercise.
    4. rough, rude, or boisterous: robust drinkers and dancers.
    5. rich and full-bodied: the robust flavor of freshly brewed coffee.”

    The word is ludicrous, and does not fit anything the AGW theorists put forth. Pachuari is an idiot, and his minions are even dumber. They (collectively) are equating their alleged scientific findings with the flavor attributed to bean-infused water.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    amargi:

    ‘Civilization has relied on predictable and stable weather patterns to grow its crops. With unpredictability and changes, crop failures will be normal.’

    The most beautifully elegant, and purest piece of ignorance I’ve ever read.

    Modern civilisation owes its success to a worldwide agricultural trade that provides a buffer against locally unpredictable and unstable weather patterns. Crop failures are normal.

    This goes right back to Roman, and ancient Chinese empires. The bigger the geographical spread of the Empire, the greater the buffer against locally unpredictable and unstable weather patterns, and the normal occurrence of crop failures.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    amargi

    #39. August 7th, 2010 at 8:05 am
    wes george:

    Amargi said:
    “Global Warming, the situation in Russia is a clear example of what would begin to happen…”

    Gosh, Amargi, It’s like where to start? Obviously, weather is not climate…except when the weather seems to supports Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    Wes, if you read my statement carefully I stated that “Even if you don’t believe it is being caused by Global Warming, . . .”. In other words a what if situation.

    As far as the general principal of the “Part in contrast with the Whole” better known as weather/climate, it is a matter of proper phrasing.

    It is CHERRY PICKING if specific examples are taken without a reference to the WHOLE SITUATION.

    On the other hand, when the WHOLE SITUATION or state of the Climate is briefly described prior to making any specific weather statements, it is no longer taking things out of context i.e. “cherry picking”, but it is simply highlighting.

    As far as your citing anecdotal information brought up by on Anthony Watts site as somehow disproving that the Arctic has been tremendously thinning and extensively shrinking since satellite observations began in 1979/80, please realize that a simplistic point such as that can easily be explained by other reasons.

    It is absurd to imagine that an approximate loss of 80% of the one year or thicker ice (when compared from summer minima to minima) can be disproven by what can easily be interpreted as a polynya. A polynya is a body of water that can open up in the ice one moment and disappear the next hour when the ice closes in.

    As far as the chain of events that I described as happening when the Arctic ice cap does disappear, that is a prediction that is too robust to not happen.

    Certainly, the last several million years of cyclical ice ages seems to show the Earth’s climate is forced by something much greater than a couple of hundred parts per million of CO2? If not then every second super-volcano or major asteroid would lead to run away global warming. No geological record of that.

    I’m sorry Wes, but it seems you don’t understand the basic explanation of how our current Ice Age cycles, the Pliocene/Quaternary, operate.

    When an Interglacial period begins you first have the Milankovitch Cycles slowly warming up the Ice caps. Second, after warming up a bit, Carbon Dioxide starts getting released from the Oceans (Warmer water holds less CO2) and quickly raises the temperature. The CO2 averages 180 ppm during the Glacials and 280 ppm during the Interglacials.

    Yet you believe otherwise because you are of the opinion that every super volcano is capable of-what exactly? Pouring out more than “a couple of hundred parts per million”? What is this figure based on?

    Please get in the habit of Googling before making such statements. In this case the key words would be “volcanic gases climate”
    http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php (Paragraph 5,8)

    Last, and most bizarrely, you have created this notion of “Climate Creationism”, to supposedly “understand” those whose opinions are different than yours.

    I was simply referring to the literal fact that Civilization came about when the present Interglacial stabilized because it needed ahhh, errrhhh :D CLIMATE STABILITY! 8)

    By climate stability I mean, uhhh, oh goodness, you know what I meant! The Interglacial which is just like Goldilocks bowl of porridge. Not too Cold and not too Hot.

    You seem to have been thinking about “Primitivism” which has absolutely nothing to do with the simple point I was making about this civilization not being able to withstand the punishment of a relatively quick and major climate change.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    amargi

    August 7th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
    #52. Binny:

    Modern civilisation owes its success to a worldwide agricultural trade that provides a buffer against locally unpredictable and unstable weather patterns. Crop failures are normal.

    You should read up on the periods within the last Ice Age, and how they made dramatic swings in temperature, before you make such declarations binny. When you talk about Civilization and the buffer it provides against “locally unpredictable” crops you are at most talking about small patches of territory, a 100 or so miles in extent, which may fail to get rainfall. Compare that with entire regions of a sub-continent like Europe which may become so intensely cold that even Homo Sapiens had to move out temporarily.

    So if you want to project weather fluctuations of the past 5 or 6 thousand years; which was often times enough to collapse a small civilization, into what I’m describing about the effects of Man Made Global Warming in the next 50 years, please go ahead. I just hope you’re not much older than 30 years old. :(


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    amargi:
    You are getting a bit incoherent, are you saying an ice age is looming?
    If you just looking for something to wet your bed over, there is heaps of stuff out there.
    The possibility of an ice age, the possibility of an major asteroid impact, the possibility of an alien invasion.
    Hell if you want to keep yourself awake at night, worry about what would happen if the Daleks never defeated Doctor Who.
    Then we’d REALLY be in trouble.
    P.S. my cattle station is 100 km from one end to the other, Australia’s periodic droughts effect areas a touch larger than that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    amargi…..

    ahhhhh it’s all over wahhhhhhh I’m gonna die whhhhhhhn….the end is near the end is near whhhhhhhhhhhhh…!!!!!

    holes in the ice!!!
    I feel less chilly
    Wahhhhh
    !!!
    !!!!!
    SLAP SLAP SLAP….
    …..
    ….
    Are you feeling better now?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    amargi:
    August 7th, 2010 at 6:28 am
    …”Can you address yourself to the specific issues that have been brought up about exposed waters, etc.?”

    30 years of growth in Antarctic sea ice will cause what feedback effects then?
    Oh and what is the albedo of a dead fish on it’s way to fertilise the oceans.
    http://www.boliviabella.com/1-million-fish-dead-in-bolivian-ecological-disaster.html

    http://www.iceagenow.com/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] that we are past the primaries, anyone want to talk global warming? Is the cold weather coming? « JoNova __________________ Veritas Vos [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    socold

    “Socold @ 4. If the paper was so worthless why did Jones and co go to so much trouble …”

    Because it was being exploited to make claims that the paper didn’t support. Namely that SOI explains global temperature. It doesn’t. Plot them, SOI is flat. Global temperature goes up. Only if you detrend global temperature first then global temperature and SOI correlates.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    socold

    Speedy: “So the question is – why would a SOI change show up after 6 months, while a “greenhouse” effect requires 10-plus years – apparently?”

    Because they are not the same thing. An increase in greenhouse gases causes the Earth to warm, but that takes time because of the thermal inertia of the oceans. SOI on the otherhand as an indicator of ENSO episodes is an indicator of upwelling/downwelling of ocean waters which means it indicates transfer of heat within the system reather than transfer into or out of it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    socold

    “On further thinking about this I guess I’m sort of agreeing with Socold (#4) in that I would have thought the relationship between SOI and temperature/climate was already well known. Where I disagree is that I cannot understand why this known pattern with nothing to do with CO2 hasn’t been extracted from the global temperature data to show the residual trend which may be CO2 related.”

    The problem is we cannot conclude SOI is not affected by co2. If oscillations like ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc are affected by temperature then co2 will affect those oscillations. AMO for example is based on North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperatures, but what happens if the North Atlantic warms due to rising co2 (or increasing solar output, or any other external forcing)? Surely that will affect the AMO index – in which case these indices are not independent of external forcings.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    socold

    Joanne: “What made this paper so worth attacking was that it claimed to show that the SOI explained 70% of the variation in global temperatures. McLean et al still stand by that claim even after the Foster critique.”

    But noone disagrees that the SOI explains most of the variation of global temperature. I’ve already pointed out that scientists accept this. It’s well known even before the McLean paper.

    The problem is that *variation* isn’t *trend*.

    Here’s the difference: co2 could have caused all of the warming trend in global temperatures the past 30 years and SOI could still explain 70% of the variation in global temperatures, or even 100% of it. The cause of the variation doesn’t necessarily contribute anything to the trend.

    Your conclusion “If that is right, it doesn’t leave much room for the “effects” of CO2.” was exactly the misunderstanding that the Foster paper was published to set straight in my opinion. A lot of people didn’t rate the way that the misunderstanding seemed to flow so easy from the paper.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Socold:

    It seems that logic is not your strong point. At #60 you say:

    Speedy: “So the question is – why would a SOI change show up after 6 months, while a “greenhouse” effect requires 10-plus years – apparently?”

    Because they are not the same thing. An increase in greenhouse gases causes the Earth to warm, but that takes time because of the thermal inertia of the oceans. SOI on the otherhand as an indicator of ENSO episodes is an indicator of upwelling/downwelling of ocean waters which means it indicates transfer of heat within the system reather than transfer into or out of it.

    But the thermal inertia results from an input to the oceans so it must increase their surface temperature as and when the heat is put in (n.b. not 10 years later). Please note that the heat from greenhouse gases is input to the ocean surface so is first experienced by the oceas at their surface.

    If – as you say – an increase to ocean surface temperature from a “transfer of heat within the system” causes nearly instantaneous temperature rise then a rise to ocean surface temperature from an input of heat must cause instantaneous rise temperature too (unless the heat invokes a phase change; i.e. increased evapouration of water or increase to melting ice).

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    It’s like turning up the heat of a stove, the pot of water takes time to reach it’s new higher temperature because of the heat capacity of the water, it doesn’t happen immediately.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    This one should be interesting in the extreme. The effects are either here or not here within the predicted time period, very close in, no waiting 50 years to see something. So McLean, de Freitas and Carter will be subjected to the “peer review” that really counts. Does the world behave as they predict or not?

    Let him whose prophecies come true be the real prophet.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Socold:

    At #64 you say:

    It’s like turning up the heat of a stove, the pot of water takes time to reach it’s new higher temperature because of the heat capacity of the water, it doesn’t happen immediately.

    Oh, yes it does!

    The temperature of the water is determine by the heat it contains. Add heat and its temperature rises instantly. Stop adding the heat and the temperature rise stops instantly.

    There is no time delay; none, not any.

    I thought your problem was lack of logical ability. But your statement in #64 demonstrates that your problem is total ignorance of physics at even schoolboy level.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Socold wrote:

    “Because it was being exploited to make claims that the paper didn’t support. Namely that SOI explains global temperature. It doesn’t. Plot them, SOI is flat. Global temperature goes up. Only if you detrend global temperature first then global temperature and SOI correlates.”

    But I didn’t plot “detrended” SOI. If you follow the references I gave you can produce the same plot as I did.

    For the time period that McLean et al used – the longest they could get without using the dubious surface temperature records – temperature followed SOI. So over that period there simply is not much room for a significant man-made GHG influence. If it exists it is small. If it is small, we have bigger problems to worry about.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wendy

    SNIP

    (Name calling are unwelcome here) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Socold:
    August 8th, 2010 at 2:05 am
    and
    Richard S Courtney:
    August 8th, 2010 at 7:33 am
    Thermal time constants and capacitor time constants are similar. It takes five full time constants for a new equilibrium to be approximately reached.
    See this guys diagram.
    The strength of the previous more powerful solarcycles applied more heat a long time ago. However it was less than five time constants ago. So a percentage of that heat is still leaving as the earth cools down again to the new COOLER destination temperature. Positive feedbacks if they exist would be increasing the rate of cooling. Socolds thermal inertia delay time is the best proof that the sun caused most of the recent warming.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    amargi

    Wendy:
    August 7th, 2010 at 10:29 am

    Yet another GREEN COMMUNIST, this one called “amargi”.

    PATHETIC LYING CONTROL FREAKS THE LOT OF THEM!

    They should all be sentenced under RULE 303!!!

    Wendy, nice to see you have ESP and can figure out my ideology. Perhaps you can tell me my age, race, skin color, country of origin, etc..

    One thing peaks my curiosity, what is “RULE 303″?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    The 303 rifle was the standard military issue for the British Empire from the South African Bore war until after the Second World War.
    The term ‘rule 303′ originates from the South African Bore war. Commandos operating in the field far from support bases were instructed to take no prisoners.(Shoot them with your 303 rifle)
    Rule 303 also came into play against the Japanese, particularly on the Kokoda track.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    amargi

    Siliggy:
    August 8th, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Socolds thermal inertia delay time is the best proof that the sun caused most of the recent warming.

    If the Sun, with a time delay, is causing our recent warming then:

    1) What is the time delay?

    2) Why is NASA saying that the Sun has practically leveled off in radiance since the 1970s (with a slight drop recently)? Does that not imply that there should have been no “recent warming”.

    3) Since sunspot activity has dropped several years ago, causing a slight drop in overall temperatures, should we predict a drop in the future after the “time delay” plays itself out?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    amargi

    Thank you for the info Binny. I fired a 303 once. Fast for a bolt action rifle.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    amargi

    #68. Wendy:
    August 8th, 2010 at 8:35 am

    Obviously the reason why this BRAIN DEAD CONTROL FREAK “Socold” is experiencing difficulty thinking intelligently is that mental processes slow down when it is SO COLD!

    You are such a charmer, Wendy. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    Richard S Courtney: “”It’s like turning up the heat of a stove, the pot of water takes time to reach it’s new higher temperature because of the heat capacity of the water, it doesn’t happen immediately.”

    Oh, yes it does!”

    Let me rephrase, although I think I was clear enough in the first place:

    It’s like turning up the heat of a stove, the pot of water at room temperature takes time to reach boiling point because of the heat capacity of the water, it doesn’t happen immediately.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “3) Since sunspot activity has dropped several years ago, causing a slight drop in overall temperatures, should we predict a drop in the future after the “time delay” plays itself out?”

    Yes indeed.

    History tells us that, virtually without exception, a long sunspot cycle is followed by cooling. The last sunspot cycle was 12.5 years.. The previous one was 9.5 years. Expect 1-2 deg of cooling. If the climate models were any good they would predict this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    socold

    “3) Since sunspot activity has dropped several years ago, causing a slight drop in overall temperatures, should we predict a drop in the future after the “time delay” plays itself out?”

    If the solar cycle stayed in minimum and nothing else changed that would be so, but the solar cycle is now leaving minimum and also ghgs are rising.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “If the solar cycle stayed in minimum and nothing else changed that would be so, but the solar cycle is now leaving minimum and also ghgs are rising.”

    It is the length of the solar cycle as much as the intensity that seems to matter. And, as I pointed out, a long solar cycle is FOLLOWED by cooling. And where is the evidence that greenhouse gases have any effect on temperature–outside of climate models, of course.

    For example have a look at figures 5,6 and 7 of http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf

    Predictions from history are more reliable than “projections” from unproven climate models!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    Socold at 61
    I think you are wrong. If you establish the oscillation in the 1880 to 1945 data i.e. pre the 1945 CO2 rise and remove that – the bit that is left osscilating or not is arguably a CO2 effect. Clearly the pre-1945 oscillation is not CO2 related. No argument there. Similarly you can determine the trend out of the Little Ice Age in the period 1880 to 1945 which is also pre CO2 influence, and take that off as well. Then we have the basis for discussing just what has the potential to be CO2 related. Now there is a possibility that the extension of these previous trends into the present day may be wrong – but until someone can actually come up with a reason for rejecting that working hypothesis and explaining why they have suddenly stopped the hypothesis should not be lightly rejected. This is what William of Occam would have advised – and its a starting point I would use too.
    Again I repeat it is utterly duplicitous to point to the rise in temperatures from 1999 to 2000 and say they it is totally CO2 related as if the oceanic oscillations just stopped for no reason.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    Incidentally, I cant get hold of the above paper because I’m working, but does it actually show the magnitude of the trend they extracted when they “de-trended” the data? It might be interesting to see what they took out.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    amargi:
    August 8th, 2010 at 10:35 am
    If the Sun, with a time delay, is causing our recent warming then:

    The question is incorrect. If the Question was re written as ‘If the sun caused the recent warming and the more recent cooling’ then the answers to your questions would become.
    1) Infinity ( How long is 63% would have been a better question).
    2) Part a) Perhaps its the same reason they predicted “Bumper sunspot crop” that never came.
    Part b) There has not been any very recent warming.
    3) Yes temperature will
    change 63% of the remaining excursion in one time constant if the goal posts don’t move.

    Socold:
    August 8th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
    It’s like turning up the heat of a stove, the pot of water at room temperature takes time to reach boiling point because of the heat capacity of the water, it doesn’t happen immediately.

    The largest rate of change is at the beginning.
    http://www.process-heating.com/PH/2006/10/Files/Images/ph1006_heating01_lg.jpg


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “Incidentally, I cant get hold of the above paper because I’m working, but does it actually show the magnitude of the trend they extracted when they “de-trended” the data? It might be interesting to see what they took out.”

    They did not extract anything because the data was raw data. Claims that they “detrended” the data are simply not true. As has been said before, they used derivatives to make a more accurate assessment of the time lag. For the comparison plot, they used raw data. Just as I did.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Socold:

    At # 75 you say:

    Let me rephrase, although I think I was clear enough in the first place:

    It’s like turning up the heat of a stove, the pot of water at room temperature takes time to reach boiling point because of the heat capacity of the water, it doesn’t happen immediately.

    There was no need to “rephrase” because you are plain wrong.

    The temperature rise is coincident in time with the thermal input. So, an increased rate of thermal input results in an instantaneous change to the rate of temperature rise.
    (I understand that this is a bit difficult for you, but try to think about it and – if it is beyond your mental capacity to understand – then seek an elementary school science teacher who will try to explain it to you).

    There were two periods of global temperature rise in the past century. They were
    from ~1910 to ~1940
    and
    from ~1970 to ~2000 (or to 1998 if you want to ‘cherry pick’ for maximum temperature and maximum rate of temperature rise).

    It is univerally agreed that there was little increase to greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the air and little emission of GHGs from human activity, during the first period.

    More than 80% of the emission of GHGs from human activity was after 1940, and the GHGs in the air continued their increase.

    But the rate of temperature increase during the two periods was the same. In fact, the rate was slightly (but not significantly) higher in the earlier period. Therefore, the additional GHGs did not “turn up the stove”.

    Importantly, there is not – and cannot be – a time delay of “10 years” from “turning up the stove”. It happens instantly.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    amargi #73:

    I’ve fired a number of SMLE .303′s a great many times. More than my “fair share” because I was such a terrible shot. Some were stamped “1918″. The .303′s were allegedly dumped in Gage Roads after CMF Army Cadets were dissolved. Well the organization was dissolved, not the cadets. :-)

    Army Cadets taught me that nature isn’t warm and cuddly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    hmm Richard I think we are talking at cross purposes and I don’t disagree with what you are saying. You are talking about when temperature starts rising due to an additional input of energy whereas I have been talking about when temperature stops rising.

    The thermal inertia of the oceans means the time it takes for the earth to complete it’s warming is drawn out. For example, if solar output increased by 1% and held it would take years for the climate to complete warming in response to that. Without oceans it would happen much faster.

    On the otherhand the solar cycle, unlike the longterm co2 rise, consists of an oscillation and the maximum and minimum solar output in that cycle is not maintained. The Earth isn’t given time to perform it’s full temperature change until the cycle changes direction. As a result the solar cycle has only a very small effect on global temperatures – at most about 0.15C from maximum to minimum.

    Along these lines I notice that the solar maximum around 2003 and the deep solar minimum around 2010 will have resulted in as much as 0.1C cooling during this period due to the sun. This would have taken a big bite out of the global warming from rising greenhouse gases over this period and explains why the global temperature trend 2003-2010 is flat (that and the ENSO trend which is also negative over this period, although the two are not necessarily independent)

    This effectively would have negated much of the background warming, which is why I and others expect a step change upwards in global temperature in the next few years as the solar cycle is no longer detracting from the background warming trend, but is in fact going to be shortly contributing to it in the run up to solar cycle 24 maximum.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    Socold~ just out of curiosity, When is that solar maximum coming? They’ve be calling for Cycle 24 to ramp up since the end of 2006. About every 4-6 months, they set it back further.

    As of three weeks ago, the sun has still not yet begun to follow through with the increased activity that keeps being predicted: http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/2010/07/-latest-on-solar-predictions-noaa-behind-the-curve.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Quentin Wallace

    Richard S Courtney @83

    GHG’s are not the ONLY things to effect the climate.

    There was increased solar activity and relatively low volcanic activity in the early 20th century. These two factors can account for the rise in temperatures during the first half of the 20th century, during which there was a small increase in CO2 concentrations.

    The shorter cooling period during the mid 20th century could be attributed to an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution.

    The late 20th century has seen an increase in volcanic events (generally have a cooling effect) and steady solar activity. Whereas CO2 concentrations have dramatically increased.

    So it would seem reasonable to assume CO2 increases are largely responsible for the temperature rise of the late 20th century.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    So it would seem reasonable to assume CO2 increases are largely responsible for the temperature rise of the late 20th century.

    Quentin Wallace,

    Is this the best you can offer in support of global warming? It is not reasonable to “assume” anything. I am appalled at the lack of critical thinking ability some people display.

    Many years ago someone pointed out to me that the first word in “assume” is ass, which is what you make of yourself when you assume something to be true (or false) without actual knowledge to back it up.

    We still ask the one question that counts. Where is the empirical evidence to support the claims behind global warming — or if you prefer it, climate change? And after all the years of alarm and scare mongering we still get no answer. We do get truckloads of lies, doctored up data, political opportunism, science that can’t stand up under examination and just plain ignorance of basic physics. And after all this time the predictions of the alarmists have yet to come true.

    At post 65 I said this.

    Let him whose prophecies come true be the real prophet.

    Can you withstand that simple test? Can any proponent of this nonsense withstand that test?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    “Socold~ just out of curiosity, When is that solar maximum coming? They’ve be calling for Cycle 24 to ramp up since the end of 2006. About every 4-6 months, they set it back further.”

    Dunno. It’s rising now, I assume it will max out somewhere in the range 2012 to 2014


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Quentin Wallace

    Roy Hogue @88

    Directly observed empirical data showing a rise in CO2 concentration.

    Directly observed empirical data showing a drop in infrared radiation escaping back into space.

    Directly observed empirical data showing the planet accumulating heat.

    Directly observed empirical data showing a long term warming trend.

    Directly observed empirical data showing steady solar activity.

    Directly observed empirical data showing the number and extent of volcanic eruptions.

    I repeat that, from the directly observed empirical data, together with a theoretical knowledge of the physical processes involved, it would seem reasonable to assume CO2 increases are largely responsible for the temperature rise of the late 20th century.

    How much empirical evidence do you need ?

    Perhaps you could provide us with a robust alternative theory that explains current warming ?

    Also as you seem to be enamoured of critical thinking and are probably aware of the idea of falsification: Perhaps you could tell us what extra empirical evidence you would require to reach a point of reasonable assumption ?

    Please note here that I am not; accusing you of a “lack of critical thinking” or hinting at the idea, without empirical evidence to back it up, that you might be a “ass”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    Q wallace~ Perhaps You could provide links for each of those ‘direct observed empirical data’ you mention?

    Socold~ Thanks. I notice the current activity of the sun is falling Way below NOAA projections for this point in time, so I had to wonder.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Perhaps you could provide us with a robust alternative theory that explains current warming ?

    Quentin Wallace,

    Alas, since there is no current warming I can’t provide you with a robust alternative theory that explains current warming.

    Your other points:

    Directly observed empirical data showing a rise in CO2 concentration. True. But not linked by any empirical evidence to any effect here on Earth (unfortunately).

    Directly observed empirical data showing a drop in infrared radiation escaping back into space. Really?

    Directly observed empirical data showing the planet accumulating heat. Not for quite a while (warming stopped in what year?) and hardly convincing of anything by itself.

    Directly observed empirical data showing a long term warming trend. You need to state the time period for this to mean anything. You can pick different start and end dates to get just about whatever you want.

    Directly observed empirical data showing steady solar activity. Only recently. Again, over what time period? Solar activity is not steady except in the short term.

    Directly observed empirical data showing the number and extent of volcanic eruptions. Yes and possibly a significant influence on global temperature. But we don’t know to what extent, do we?

    Now all of these things have been dealt with in one form or another on this blog — and repeatedly I should add. You are not the first to come along and blow smoke in our face with this nonsense that it’s still warming when, in fact, it is not. And that’s the way I have to read what you’ve said.

    You’re welcome to post your opinion and engage in the discussion. But don’t be surprised when you get challenged.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Socold:
    August 8th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
    As a result the solar cycle has only a very small effect on global temperatures – at most about 0.15C from maximum to minimum.

    Which solar cycle there are many.
    Are you saying that there is only ONE solar cycle.
    So that 0.15 figure would be for the Gleissberg cycle right?
    http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/site/longterm_solar_activity.png


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Siliggy

    Socold:
    August 9th, 2010 at 7:31 am
    11

    Ah so what is your figure for the Gleissberg cycle then?
    http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot5.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Quentin Wallace

    Roy Hogue @92

    “Alas, since there is no current warming I can’t provide you with a robust alternative theory that explains current warming.”

    By the word “current” I mean the period from approx 1970 onwards (as a trend), as I originally referred to in my response to Richard Courtney.

    “Directly observed empirical data showing the planet accumulating heat. Not for quite a while (warming stopped in what year?) and hardly convincing of anything by itself.” and “Directly observed empirical data showing a long term warming trend. You need to state the time period for this to mean anything. You can pick different start and end dates to get just about whatever you want.” -

    Approximately 1970 onwards for instance ? Isn’t that the time period mentioned ?

    “You can pick different start and end dates to get just about whatever you want.” – Yes you could choose a short time period to show warming or cooling. That is exactly what you do when stating “there is no current warming”. Some people even say there has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years – while failing to explain what “statistically significant” means. The level for statistical significance is arbitrarily set at 95%. The temperature data for the last 15 years shows a warming trend with a ~92% statistical significance – hardly insignificant.

    “Directly observed empirical data showing a drop in infrared radiation escaping back into space. Really?” -

    Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 – Harries et al – 2001
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/pdf/410355a0.pdf

    Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present – Griggs et al. 2004
    http://rose.bris.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/1983/999/1/paper.pdf

    Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008 – Wang et al 2009
    http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd0919/2009JD011800/2009JD011800.pdf

    Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate – Evans 2006
    http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

    The above papers also respond to – “Directly observed empirical data showing a rise in CO2 concentration. True. But not linked by any empirical evidence to any effect here on Earth (unfortunately).”

    “Directly observed empirical data showing steady solar activity. Only recently. Again, over what time period? Solar activity is not steady except in the short term.” -

    The ACRIM and PMOD total solar irradiance reconstructions – one showing a slight upward trend and one showing a slight downward trend.

    I will rephrase my previous question -

    Perhaps you could provide us with a robust alternative theory that explains the overall warming trend from approximately 1970 onwards ?

    and again as an exercise in falsification – what extra empirical evidence would you require to reach a point of reasonable assumption ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    amargi

    Richard S. Courtney, @83:

    There were two periods of global temperature rise in the past century. They were
    from ~1910 to ~1940
    and
    from ~1970 to ~2000 (or to 1998 if you want to ‘cherry pick’ for maximum temperature and maximum rate of temperature rise).

    According to the UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature charts, which measure both land and ocean temperatures, your figures are wrong. By the way, these charts are put out by Dr. Roy Spencer.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    There was, just outside of the range of this chart an increase in warming starting about 1976 which seems to have stabilized in both El Nino (high curves) and La Nina (low curves) phases.

    Then in late 1995, the first of three subsequent La Ninas, came about, with a .2C jump compared to prior La Ninas. From 1998 onward, El Ninos also took a jump, of about .2C higher, compared to prior El Ninos.

    Even though 1998 appears to have been the hottest year, it wasn’t as far as land temperatures alone. It was somewhat warmer a couple of other years, on land, throughout the next decade.

    The entire decade of 2000-2009 did not have any record breaking Super El Ninos like 1998 which implies they would have been hotter still. Furthermore, the Solar Minima started in the middle of the 2002 yet, in spite of that temperatures went up from a La Nina up to the point previously mentioned-.2C above 1979-1998 levels. This Solar Minima has obviously masked, further still, the effects of Global Warming.

    I suggest printing out Roy Spencer’s chart and using it as a reference point.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Quentin Wallace:
    August 9th, 2010 at 7:48 am
    …”and again as an exercise in falsification – what extra empirical evidence would you require to reach a point of reasonable assumption ?”

    May i suggest that you compare the timing of what Richard was pointing out here:

    Richard S Courtney:
    August 8th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
    …”There were two periods of global temperature rise in the past century. They were
    from ~1910 to ~1940″…

    With this below to see that CO2 peaked AFTER temperatures did:
    http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Quentin Wallace and Socold:

    I think I can help both of you to grasp the degree of your misunderstanding by answering the question that Quentin Wallace poses at #96: i.e.

    Perhaps you could provide us with a robust alternative theory that explains the overall warming trend from approximately 1970 onwards ?

    The answer to your question is very simple: the “alternative theory” is the null hypothesis.

    In science the null hypothesis is that nothing has changed unless a change is observed to have occurred.

    The null hypothesis is the governing assumption unless and until empirical evidence of a change is obtained. Adoption of any other assumption is not science (in fact, adopting an assumption other than the null hypothesis in the absence of empirical evidence of a change is a denial of the scientific method).

    So, what do we observe concerning climate change?

    The global temperature seems to vary in cycles that are overlaid on each other. The cause of these cycles is not known but some are associated with known phenomena (e.g. ENSO, NAO and PDO) although the causes of these phenomena are not known.

    There is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that provided
    the Roman Warm Period (RWP),
    then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP),
    then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP),
    then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and
    the present warm period (PWP).

    And there is an apparent ~60 year oscillation that provided
    cooling from ~1880 to ~1910,
    then warming from ~1910 to ~1940,
    then cooling from ~1940 to ~1970,
    then warming from about ~1970 to ~2000,
    then cooling since.

    These oscillations form a pattern of climate change over time.

    And if this pattern continues then either
    (a) cooling will continue until ~2020 when the ~60 year oscillation change phase and warming will resume until global temperature reached the levels it had in the RWP and the MWP
    or
    (b) the ~900 year oscillation will change phase and the globe will start to cool to the temperatures it had in the DACP and MWP.

    There is no observation that indicates there has been any change to this pattern.

    So, the explanation of the “the overall warming trend from approximately 1970 onwards” is that the global temperature has continued to behave in a manner that shows no evidence of any variation from its previous behaviour.

    And, therefore, the only scientific conclusion is that the null hypothesis applies:
    i.e. nothing has changed global climate behaviour in recent decades or centuries.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Quentin Wallace,

    Wow! Nature as an authority!? Sorry but they’re not known for being exactly strict about the quality of what they publish.

    It’s clear we believe different sets of observations. By what I would consider reliable evidence, satellite measurements, warming stopped (if my memory serves) in 2001. At present there is a quite discernable cooling trend. Hence my statement that…

    Alas, since there is no current warming I can’t provide you with a robust alternative theory that explains current warming.

    It ain’t there so it can’t be explained.

    I was, I think, extremely charitable on your other points. For instance, since cooling is actually being measured total radiation out must be greater than total input. Or has 1 + 1 suddenly become equal to 3? And I now see your time frame and disagree with what it means.

    The ACRIM and PMOD total solar irradiance reconstructions – one showing a slight upward trend and one showing a slight downward trend.

    At face value these are in conflict with each other so at best only one can be correct. Which one is it? And again, over what time period? When you make the assertion it falls on you to provide basic details.

    No one on this blog since I’ve been following it has ever even tried to deny that CO2 can cause some warming of the planet. But we do dispute and object to a number of things:

    1. The only evidence your side of the fence has ever claimed as linking CO2 to increasing temperature, the tropical hot spot, has never been found. It hasn’t been found right up to this very day and in spite of some God-awful contortions to try to make it look like it’s really there. So as of now you have yet to link atmospheric CO2 with anything happening on Earth.

    2. We take grave exception to the use of land based thermometers large numbers of which are provably in places where they are measuring anything but what we’re supposed to believe they’re measuring. Oh but that’s all right they say because we take that into account. But each one is a unique situation with its own bias that can’t possibly be taken into account by one nice easy adjustment as claimed. Were debating fractions of a degree of temperature difference over time and these things may have a bias of possibly several degrees — up to 5 degrees according to one estimate. The best prediction is now down to what, about 3.5 degrees for doubling CO2? And the measuring devices may be off by as much as 5 degrees, at least certainly by an unknown error. [Put your favorite expletive here.]

    3. But it gets worse. The number of thermometers has steadily been decreased until the whole thing looks more like voodoo than science.

    4. We take an even more jaundiced view of the likes of Dr. James Hansen who advocates trying those who voice an opinion he finds inconvenient for crimes against humanity (as if he had the right to determine what’s a crime against humanity, which clearly he does not have). Then there’s his good friend Keith Farnish who along with Hansen seems to have no problem advocating outright criminal activity and they justify it with nothing more than their own desire to see a certain policy forced on the human race. Let’s call a common thug a common thug and be done with it! I didn’t even mention the lies he’s been caught in.

    5. On the other hand, Al Gore, CRU and the IPCC have now been caught in so many lies and distortions that the very mention of them seems more like a joke than anything to be taken seriously. And on these you do rely, they are the foundation you stand on whether you like it or not. You would not even have thought about global warming if not for them. They built this charade and you are stuck with them!

    You never bothered with the skeptics as much as you do when we were not influencing public opinion so well. But the pendulum is swinging back the other way. We’ve begun to influence people with a clear concise consistent message backed up by sound argument and sound science. We’re slowly changing the whole calculus of climate change nee global warming and you’re desperate my friend, desperate or you wouldn’t be spending your time on us. But one after another you show up and make the same arguments over and over and over. You might as well be following a script. As long as we just keep going the way we’re going you’ll lose every battle and ultimately the war.

    Now let’s mention one other thing, basic openness. As I said, you’re welcome to post here as long as you follow rules amounting to basic civility, which you do. I can challenge you here like this strictly on the issues without fear of censorship. But I doubt that a post like this would ever be allowed to show up on realclimate and several others. So my point is what? It’s that character also counts. We are not at all afraid of those on your side of the fence. Unfortunately there is no reciprocity and that’s a sad commentary on believers in global warming/climate change. We would debate this anytime on the science but you will not. We would debate on realclimate and elsewhere but no takers there either. And finally I reach a point where I put it down in words exactly how wide the gulf between us really is. And it’s the Grand Canyon for size, believe me, it is!

    And I will not make an assumption where I have no knowledge. If I have evidence I will say what I think the evidence means. And there is lots of evidence but it works against you in my opinion. But nothing is proven and that’s why I so steadfastly oppose taking action which at this point certainly would be based on assumption. That’s the wrong road to take.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Richard,

    Thank you for the factual data at 99. But I fear that it’s lost on our friends socold and Wallace.

    I reached a boiling point at 100 and laid it down exactly the way I see it. I’ve refused to bandy facts around with these people because they twist whatever you say and try to use it against you. It’s a dead-end street.

    They are, as I said, becoming desperate or they wouldn’t bother us nearly as much. It’s like a bad dream — first one and then another and another. But the good news is that their desperation means we’re having an effect that threatens them, so we’re succeeding!

    Roy


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Tel

    If the 11 year solar cycle causes 0.15 degrees C variation peak-to-peak then that is a maximum time-rate-change of 0.43 degrees C per decade (presuming sinusoidal) or 0.27 degrees C per decade (presuming triangular), either way it easily explains the “alarming” rate of change reported by the IPCC back in 2000 which was only 0.20 degrees C per decade.

    Naturally, I’ve used the worst case example, but given that the alarmists regularly cherry pick the data they want to report, I see it as a fair comparison.

    Of course, the IPCC predicted that the “alarming” rate of 0.20 degrees C per decade would be sustained for the following century, and this hasn’t happened (nor will it happen). Long term warming has only been about 0.6 degrees C per century and at least part of this measurement consists of adjustments and fluff so maybe to be safe scale it down to 0.4 degrees C per century. If we see this much warming in the 21st century then no one would be particularly surprised.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Guys

    I know there a few heavy hitters who man the ramparts on this page ( & I stand in awe ).

    I found this @ CR this morning & would be interested at any comments it might inspire.

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=171


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian W

    An interesting thread.

    One point that needs to be raised is that despite all this argument and discussion – there will be a real world validation of this paper within months. If the forecast is shown to be correct by real world temperatures dropping precipitately then the AGW proponents are going to have to do a lot of fast talking. It may be of little interest to the rest of us though as food shortages tend to concentrate the mind on things other than philosophical debate.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mike Jowsey, August 6th, 2010 at 5:58 am, said:

    The second graph in your article does have some uncorrelated points between the two plots – end-2001, mid-2006, mid-2008.

    Funny that isn’t it? I suspect with the latter two data points you mention it’s because the temp data is from NOAA or HADCRUT and as we know they’ve been tweaking the temps up hence ruining the correlation. Well spotted.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    John S

    The comforting thing is that we don’t need to wait very long to see who is right. Warmists have made wrong predictions year after year for the past decade. The law of averages should have at least given them a lucky year by now, but science doesn’t play along with luck :-D

    2010 warmest year on record? NOAA might have you believe it, but they don’t even measure past 80N, so what use is their data? That’s the main reason why NOAA states 2005 as the warmest year on record and HADCRUT states 1998. The only true measurements you can believe are the satelite measurements. Guess what, they aren’t showing 2010 as being the warmest on record ;-)

    Quentin, as for another theory, someone already posted it here, but here it is again http://www.accuweather.com/video/407515952001/sea-ice-and-common-sense-explain-global-warming.asp

    You don’t have to wait long to see if the theory is right. As the video explains, in the next few months you will see a significant cooling trend and this will continue until 2015. From 2015 you will see even more cooling as the drivers behind the past 30 year warming reverse and provide a 30 or so year cooling.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] skeptical and enjoy the Holocene Interglacial, while it [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John

    This is very interesting, in many ways.

    Fig 7 on pg. 20 of the McLean et al reply shows very tight correlation between SOI and temps, lagged 7 months, except when a Pinotubo or an El Chinchon reduces temps, regardless of whether the MSU or RATPAC (earlier) temp data is used. A very important finding.

    Another thing I do find intriguing is that it seems that this tight correlation may be breaking down a little bit, post 2008. If you look at the second graphic from the top, you will see that the temp record from 2008 is about 0.2 degrees above the shifted SOI line, although the shape (as before) parallels the SOI line.

    There was a period in 2001 where the temp line was above the SOI line for about six months, but the two merged again. However, since 2008, the temp line has been consistenly above the SOI line. Looking back at Fig. 7 in the McLean et al reply that wasn’t published, I can find only brief periods in 1999 and 2001 where the temp line is above the SOI line for even brief periods of time.

    Post 2008, the jump of temps relative to the lagged SOI is in the context of a sun with very few sunspots. Most of us think that if the sun is inactive for a longer period of time than normal, this should mean cooler temps, not warmer ones.

    So I do find some significance in the fact that the temp line, even in a time of less solar activity, seems to have broken above the SOI line shifted 7 months, with which it was very tightly correlated prior to 2008.

    Comments?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John,

    Remember that the SOI (the pressure difference between Darwin and Tahiti) is a crude indicator of the El Nino effect. So while the shifted SOI it does indicate WHEN the temperatures will swing, it gives a poor indication of the magnitude of the swing. If there is a definable linkage, it is probably NOT linear!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Meme Mine

    Pollution, Population and Birth Control, NOT Climate Control!!!!!!!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    KR:
    August 7th, 2010 at 3:15 am

    [ Isn’t that what Mann did in to create the infamous “hockey stick” graph? — Mark D.] (Sorry, I don’t have the quoting showing correctly)

    No – Mann used lots of data sets, 50-60 different temp records and proxies, and looked at how they averaged, indicated long term trends. He didn’t switch valid data sets halfway through.

    To the contrary: Mann switched from tree ring proxy data to instrumental data in the 1950s where the tree ring data started showing decreasing temps. (LINK)

    It was obvious that his actions were to conceal the unreliability of tree ring proxies: If they don’t track temperature now, how do we know they were tracking it in the distant past? Mann wanted to dodge this question, in his quest for a propaganda coup.
    (Of course, they may actually track temperature — just not the “adjustments” to temperature so popular with the data custodians today.)

    That’s where folks got upset. You remove the long term trends, then from a medium term match claim that you’ve explained the long term trends?

    The “long term trend” (for the last 3000 years, anyway) is cooling. (See post #8 for data source) Nobody knows how to explain that yet, except to note that all previous interglacials eventually came to an end.
    McLean et al were trying to explain relatively short term oscillations and showed that these oscillations accounted for most of the warming in the 20th century — thus falsifying the claim that the warming was mostly due to CO — hence the resistance from the AGW community.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    NIWA v cranks 3: the economics of truthiness

    [...]

    [link removed ED]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    The preceeding article (NIWA vs) is an ad-hom against skeptics from one end to the other.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I am an engineer. In things like this, I ignore nay gut feelings I might have. I just note that, all over the world, long sunspot cycles are followed by cooling. We have just had a long sunspot cycle. Therefore we can expect cooling. The previous sunspot cycle was short so if carbon dioxide was also warming, the last sunspot cycle should have been warming steadily. It wasn’t.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SolarCycleLengthandGlobalTemperatureAnomalies1.pdf

    It is much better to spend time looking at the evidence instead of making ad hominem attacks.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] on August 6, 2010, when the UK BOM was predicting a warm winter, and every Met Agency in the West was already [...]


    Report this

    00