JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

1200 years of climate change in the Bear River Basin, Utah

A bunch of scientists used tree rings to figure out the streamflow in Bear River, Utah, since the dark ages. This is what a perfect stable climate looks like.

Obviously we need immediate carbon trading to stop whatever is going to happen next:

Streamflow, climate change, millennia, Utah, Great Basin, USA

Figure 1. Reconstructed Bear River decadal-scale drought (brown) and wet (green) periods from cubic smoothing spline with frequency response of 25% at wavelength 10 years. Dashed lines indicate 1 SD from reconstruction mean. Adapted from DeRose et al. (2016).

Thanks to the excellent CO2Science site for analyzing it in their collection.

In   1200 Years of Historic Streamflow we see that there was a dreadful drought in 1210 that lasted 70 years.  The worst wet period lasted nearly 50 years and started in 1378. Spot the effect of CO2. Anyone?

Naturally there has already been a Bear River Climate Change Adaptation Workshop, with “thirty-nine representatives of 20 state and federal agencies, local governments, academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations.”

The old 2010 Workshop  report tells us we have to let go of the idea that the climate is stable  — “stationarity is dead”. *

“ We are no longer working in a world where we can assume climate stability”

Climate stability and persistent ecosystems are no more. Several years ago it became apparent to the conservation community that we are no longer working in a world where we can assume climate stability and persistent ecosystems. Hydrologists now say, for example, that “stationarity is dead.” The assemblages of species we have known as persistent, relatively stable, natural communities will disassemble and reassemble in new and unpredictable ways. In fact, climate change is already causing subtle change, like changes in timing of migrations or leaf-out, and dramatic and sometimes surprising change, such as widespread forest dieback, due to the crossing of temperature and moisture thresholds.

Obviously mums, dads and scout leaders want emissions reductions so we can return to perfect medieval weather:

We must avoid unmanageable climate change by reducing carbon emissions now. The community’s first response to the emerging science of climate change has been to push for reductions in the emissions that may lead to what some of the world’s most prominent ecologists and climatologists call “dangerous climate change.” TNC and other conservation organizations have taken this on in earnest through efforts in Washington, state capitals, and internationally, to promote new policies that would establish emission reduction targets and controlling the global deforestation that causes 17% of GHG emissions.

We don’t know what will happen next but we will figure out what to do about it:

Though there remains some uncertainty about projected climate change effects, now is the time to figure out how to manage risk and minimize loss.

Did billions of dollars buy a single climate model that can model that Bear River flow?

Governments, businesses and individuals have made an enormous investment – billions of dollars – in building an understanding the climate system, and this investment has paid off in greatly increased knowledge about global and regional patterns. Even though uncertainties remain, any action we take now to understand the local effects and to build resilience will help us, over time, become more effective in the face of ecological change that may be more rapid and extensive than any of us can now imagine.

Blah Blah Blah, eh!

Locals may want to add in links to media stories of climate change in Bear River, Utah.

REFERENCES

DeRose, R.J., Bekker, M.F., Wang, S.-Y., Buckley, B.M., Kjelgren, R.K., Bardsley, T., Rittenour, T.M. and Allen, E.B. 2015. A millennium-length reconstruction of Bear River stream flow, UtahJournal of Hydrology 529: 524-534.

* edited to make it clear that the quotes below that were not from the team who did the proxy study.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (84 votes cast)
1200 years of climate change in the Bear River Basin, Utah, 9.1 out of 10 based on 84 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/hzvhnyx

87 comments to 1200 years of climate change in the Bear River Basin, Utah

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Looking at their 1200 yr plot of proxy data, I do not see any long-term trends; hints of periodicity, but no drastic changes or trends. However, this is reconstructed proxy data so that we should expect significant uncertainties from real river flow data. And, that uncertainty will remain unknown in magnitude, direction, bias, etc. until they test their reconstructions on rivers with long-term observed data. They won’t find any observed 1200 year time series but there are century+ observed data available.
    All in all I think it is much like any other non-validated modelling results–pretty figures and not much else.

    133

    • #
      Mari C

      Pretty figures, a pretty graph, and wow, announcing the climate is not stable! Oh, wait, the implication is that the climate -was- stable at some point.

      And species are adapting! Trees, non-woody plants, animals – all altering their timings, locations, populations, to match current conditions! The horror of it all – species adapting to new conditions! Evolutionary progress! We MUST put a stop to this!

      282

      • #
        Olaf Koenders

        Too right. The fact that it always rains after a drought is unconscionable. And that it’s overcast without a breeze outside today means the weather’s way too wild for me. The gubbermint must throw money at the sky so I can play outdoors.

        91

        • #
          Alan

          Speaking of “overcast without a breeze” I have just (1pm Perth) had a look at the NemWatch graph on electricity generation. Currently wind for the entire country is a tick over 2% of total generation with solar just under 5%.Would also question the 210 MW of small solar for WA as it is fairly overcast here in Perth which would be were most of the panels are. SA is only producing a total of 1030 MW (660 MW gas,thinks that’s about half there demand.

          70

    • #
      TedM

      This is not modelling Leonard, it is graphing proxy data. Yes it may need error bars, but to dismiss it as you appear to have done suggests that you do not like the conclusion.

      132

      • #
        ianl8888

        … you do not like the conclusion

        So, TedM, what is the precise conclusion, please ?

        I’m having difficulty in finding anything like an actual, solid conclusion, but perhaps you’ve better luck ?

        100

        • #
          What Class?

          Wrong word, I think. There have never been any real conclusions in this debate. Nor are there likely to be any.Try inferences.

          61

      • #
        RB.

        TedM – the label says reconstructed so not simply a response from a detector. I’ve only read the CO2Science summary but it looks like its reconstructed from tree rings. I didn’t find out which juniper trees but the utah juniper grows in dry soils so a very wet few years could mean stunted growth.

        41

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        TedM Using proxy data as a model for real river flow data is indeed modeling. I see no indications that their conclusions are based on scientific fact or real streamflow data.

        30

    • #
      Albert

      The long term trends are simply, ‘climate always changes’

      101

    • #
      RobK

      As to be expected, the data seems to show some deterministic character underlying what is otherwise a bounded random walk. That is very characteristic of this kind of climate stuff.
      The rest of the conjecture is man’s propensity to speculate wildly…the basis of AGW.

      81

  • #
    tom0mason

    So Dendrochronology can be used as a climate thermometer or streamflow meter or…

    … or are they all barking up the wrong tree here…

    131

    • #
      Yonniestone

      When a method is not utilised properly the method itself becomes tainted along with the results, as with the case of Mann’s Hockey Stick graph Dendrochronology is met with scepticism and cynicism, s$&t sticks.

      This article The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick gives a good account of the infamous events that perhaps prove Lysenko’s ghost haunts us through CAGW.

      83

      • #
        tom0mason

        Yonniestone
        And how they’ve taken to modeling their ideas –

        To explore the climatic drivers of stream flow variability, we examined the circulation anomalies associated with the seasonal delivery of precipitation to the region and subsequently on stream flow. Monthly gridded precipitation compiled by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at 0.5-deg resolution (Jones et al., 2012) was utilized. Circulation anomalies were calculated using the Twentieth Century Reanalysis (V2) performed with the Ensemble Filter as described in Compo et al. (2011), which assimilates observed surface pressure and sea level pressure and sea surface temperature (SST) every six hours. The SST dataset used here was adopted from the NOAA Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (SST) V3b monthly values (Smith et al., 2008; Xue et al., 2003).

        Well after all that utilizing, calculating, adopting of other peoples records, that was only part of the job …

        To understand further the stream flow (and tree-ring) response to precipitation throughout the water year, we regressed the monthly CRU precipitation (from a box averaged within a 12 km x 12 km domain surrounding the stream gage, i.e. the upper Bear River watershed) with (a) the reconstructed flow, (b) the gaged flow, and (c) their difference. A regression was done on the precipitation percent from normal (1971–2000 mean) for the previous year and the current year, and the percent difference was calculated to show the monthly anomaly that drives stream flow. We then constructed the regression maps of 250-h Pa geopotential height, a height important for understanding upper-level circulation known to drive precipitation delivery to topographically diverse northern Utah (Wang et al., 2010) and precipitation that correspond to a–c above, for the October–December and April–June seasons, respectively.

        from DeRose, R.J., Bekker, M.F., Wang, S.-Y., Buckley, B.M., Kjelgren, R.K., Bardsley, T., Rittenour, T.M. and Allen, E.B. 2015. A millennium-length reconstruction of Bear River stream flow, Utah. Journal of Hydrology 529: 524-534.

        Yep, they modeled some more.

        Ain’t trees great, so much information from some growth rings …

        111

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Computer Modelling can easily morph into creative writing, even the translation of raw data to visual graphs are open to manipulation depending on where a point is taken on a bell curve.

          82

          • #
            tom0mason

            Yes some curves ring true.
            :)
            Especially when not tuned to Joseph Goebbels favorite 440Hz standard pitch but to Verdi’s 432 Hz standard.

            But that’s well OT, so I better desist.

            82

    • #
      Dave in the States

      I’m very familiar with this area and its weather history and this river. One thing the tree ring study completely missed was the abnormally wet years of 1948 and 1949. Was this spike thrown out as too anomalous?

      These years were so wet with so much snow fall that they are legend and totally dwarf all the other years we have record of for this area, and therefore they had massive spring run off through the Bear River. So I’m not sure the Utah Juniper is an “excellent” and “robust” tree ring proxy after all.

      One thing that is true, is that this area’s climate and this river’s flow is not “stable” with extreme variation being the rule from season to season and from year to year.

      170

      • #
        Dave in the States

        O

        ne thing that is true, is that this area’s climate and this river’s flow is not “stable” with extreme variation being the rule from season to season and from year to year.

        That could be better written as: ..this area’s climate and this river’s flow is not “stable”, rather extreme variation is the rule from season to season and from year to year.

        110

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        We are no longer working in a world where we can assume climate stability

        And that is where their whole thesis collapses.

        Can Messrs DeRose, Bekker, Wang, Buckley, Kjelgren, Bardsley, Rittenour, and Allen cite for me, me any occasion in history where we can definitively state that a temperate zone climate was stable, for any significant period that was measured in years?

        As Mari C points out, “… the implication is that the climate -was- stable at some point.”

        Naturally random patterns in nature are, well, naturally random. That is what nature does. Nature does not have a rule book for the Earth – we might have one, that says, “gravity hurts, when you fall out of a tree”, but nature doesn’t care about those sorts of rules.

        I have a hypothesis. My hypothesis is that Messrs DeRose, Bekker, Wang, Buckley, Kjelgren, Bardsley, Rittenour, and Allen have run out of government largesse, and are looking for some more to further support their hypothesis.

        Who wants to make a wager on whose hypothesis is most likely?

        151

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I appear to be channelling George Karlin in my fourth paragraph. I really do need to get out more.

          90

        • #
          Radical Rodent

          Hasn’t Hansen recently stated that the past 10,000 years have been “unusually stable”? The implication of that statement is, to me, that the fluctuations that we have seen and recorded are not particularly excessive, and that this period has to end, either soon or some time further in the future, with the planet reverting to real extremes!

          What to do, hey…?

          60

      • #
        RB.

        If what you are saying is true, then it looks like growth is stunted after a long drought even if there is massive rainfall that year.

        And maybe they needed to hide the incline. A few decades in the late 20thC look like they were in perpetual flood.

        40

        • #
          Dave in the States

          A few decades in the late 20thC look like they were in perpetual flood.

          Hardly. This is an arid region. But it can look like a perpetual flood during the spring off, depending on the year. During the spring run off there has been times in the past century when the river has flooded. However, the river has now been tamed with a series of holding reservoirs used mainly to store irrigation water for use during the dry season, which is the growing season. Before these reservoirs were installed, the river would often run dry by the month of August. Now it is controlled and managed flow almost the year around. There are dams and reservoirs almost all the way to where it terminates into the Great Salt Lake.

          Since the flow is managed, this, of course, creates a problem for gathering usable recent data for this study. Hence, the dependence on tree ring proxies and the use of flow records from the border gate which is up stream from the dams and reservoirs. However, the gate is at quite a high altitude above sea level and only miles from this gate the snow pack may persist well into the summer months, elongating the run off flow through a longer time span with a relatively low peak flow value.

          Nonetheless, I find the actual data presented and the analysis of that data showing a great range of natural variation going back 1200 years to be not badly done and more or less correct. It matches known patterns fairly well.

          It is the BS about man made climate change injected into the results, summaries, and conclusion that I question. BS at odds with the actual data and findings presented. For example, they raise fear that Wasatch Front communities may not be able to count on flow at the end of the line at some point in the future because of assumed effects of future climate change. Previous to the building of the dams and reservoirs the river would often run dry hundreds of miles up stream, and it dumps into a dead sea anyway. Now that the flow is managed that is no longer the case.

          70

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Too hot, too cold, too dry, too wet — stuff happens.
    Plants (and other things) can be stressed.
    Age happens too. Trees grow, and get old. Then they die and often burn.
    None of this is new.
    [Note: Many agencies have to submit grants for funding. The submissions have to follow the guidelines. If not, no funds. In Obamaland the rules are clear. Simple.]

    Anyway, here is a link of interest regarding trees in western Washington State.
    http://komonews.com/weather/scotts-weather-blog/its-still-august-so-why-are-autumn-leaves-already-falling

    In that is an incorrect link to this: http://usna.usda.gov/PhotoGallery/FallFoliage/ScienceFallColor.html

    As long as folks are reading, they might as well read something useful.

    81

  • #
    TdeF

    No matter what the evidence, no matter how unconnected to CO2, no matter how the facts demonstrate man does not control the weather and the weather changes continually anyway, people want action to stop everything. Then we will be fine. Only in Western democracies though. Those poor Chinese need the work so they are exempt. Third world countries too including Russia. Only evil democracies should stop their evil industries and return to the halcyon days of the early middle ages when everything was wonderful and people lived happily and talked all day on their iPhones made in China and powered by windmills. Nuts.

    162

  • #
    Robber

    In their analysis they omitted to add the hockey stick to show CAGW – I’m sure Michael Mann can show them their error.

    113

  • #

    Eleven years ago I visited Mesa Verde, the drought recorded in the tree rings was the explanation why the location was deserted by 1300.

    80

  • #
  • #
    David S

    The word stationarity says everything about this article and AGW, a make up word to describe a made up problem.

    102

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      stationarity n. (a) (Physics, now rare) the condition of stationary motion; (b) the state of being stationary or unvarying; stationariness; constancy. [The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993 Edition].

      The only time that I have heard the word use in a practical sense was in describing the state of a church bell, when it is inverted, and ballanced by the bell ringer, just before it is allowed to rotate to produce another chime.

      The word appears to have been chosen in order to introduce an air of mystisism that is not warranted by the subject matter.

      100

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘…there was a dreadful drought in 1210 that lasted 70 years.’

    It was the end of the MWP and start of the LIA, and we can see clearly that the cool/wet conditions in Europe were not the same in Utah.

    41

    • #
      el gordo

      It could be argued that the drought conditions came with the LIA and not the MWP.

      ‘The SST averaged over the eastern and central equatorial Pacific for a continuous period from 1320 to 1462 AD. The coral suggests that La Niña-like conditions prevailed during this century and a half. Elsewhere we have sought to explain this as a response to solar and volcanic radiative forcing.’

      Richard Seager

      41

  • #
    crakar24

    What happened to the decline? Perhaps they hid it.

    51

  • #
    TdeF

    Possibly the greatest deceit of the anti carbon, anti coal, anti fuel lobby is now the paramount one.

    While increased CO2 has not changed the temperature even slightly in 20 years, it is directly and solely responsible for the weather even in the Bear River Basin. In particular every event is directly caused by more CO2 than in 1900 and of course the increase in CO2 is man made. So every tornado, hurricane, flooding rain even bushfire is Climate Change and Climate Change is caused by CO2.

    When was the actual logic , the scientific explanation of how CO2 causes Climates to change actually laid out by anyone?
    Why and how could tiny CO2 change the weather when it cannot even change the temperature? Why should CO2 be responsible at all for weather extremes? Has even the infamous climate guru Professor Tim Flannery even explained from his kangaroo entrails how CO2 changes the weather and produces bushfires or storms? Or is this an alleged and unsubstantiated conclusion from the same infamous computer weather models which cannot even predict even the temperature, cannot predict El Nino or any given storm? From first principles though, how does CO2 change the weather?

    Where are the peer reviewed papers which show that increased CO2 changes the weather, even the Climate without even changing the temperature? When did that become accepted science fact? Or is it all just made up?

    111

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You need to consider CO2 in a free atmosphere. The scam is primarily based on the effect that CO2 has, on the human physiology. As a small child, I would put my head under the blankets, and feel myself getting hotter, and hotter, and then starting to sweat, as a result. But I wasn’t really getting any warmer, because I had a thermometer in there with me, and it didn’t change. My body was reacting to an increase in CO2 in my lungs, and thus a corresponding lessening of oxygen. It is a physiological thing, that has nothing to do with the actual temperature (which stayed the same on the thermometer).

      Any kid who has done this, is primed to think that CO2 makes the world hotter. It doesn’t, but an increase in the concentration of CO2 does. They use CO2 in submarines as a fire retardant. The down side is that you always feel hot in a submarine, even though the temperature (on the thermometer) hasn’t gone up at all.

      That is where “global warming” comes from – we have too many submarines!

      100

      • #
        TdeF

        “We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer”

        That’s amazing. 8% CO2 and healthy. 0.04% seems quite trivial, almost zero. You would feel hot in high humidity too. Hydroponic vegetables would love it.

        81

        • #
          PeterPetrum

          Mmmm! 0.8%, I think, TdeF, not 8%? Still, 20x what we have now and never to be reached with all the coal and oil in Christendom.

          101

          • #
            TdeF

            Yes, happier. 100, not 1000. Your output breath is as high as 24% but generally as the 22% Oxygen is only reduced to 15% Oxygen, the average CO2 content should be 7%. So I could imagine 10% but it would have expected serious health effects long term. No need to be amazed anymore. They were also discussing 1.5% then as often experienced, again without health effects.

            40

            • #
              TdeF

              As for all the oil in Christendom, most of it is not. Also clearly the CO2 was in the air before the industrial revolution. So why was it at 0.025%? Why not zero or 1%? What sets this figure?

              My view, the obvious one is based on the undisputed fact that 98% of all free CO2 is dissolved in the oceans where it is uniquely very compressible and soluble at depth, far more than any other gas. At the boundary with the air, the relative ratios are set by Henry’s law, dependent on temperature and pressure only. All you have to do to get more CO2 is to heat teh surface slightly. It is fascinating that since I made this point that the oceans were 340 x heavier than the atmosphere (average depth 3.4km), even Tim Flannery is pointing to ocean warming. However he is saying the oceans stole the heat somehow because of CO2 increase instead of the obvious that they are getting hotter and so the CO2 is increasing.

              The difference is that Flannery, not being a real scientist, does not understand he has no way for oceans to steal heat if the air does not in fact get hotter. However simple heating of the ocean surface explains fully the increase in CO2.

              How can total CO2 go up without coming from somewhere? The only explanation an non scientist has is that we did it and that produced the sudden heating, which stopped. The logical and very simple explanation is that CO2 is increased by ocean surface heating. It does not however suit the man made global warming send money story.

              50

              • #
                TdeF

                It is an interesting question, how heating releases gas. Molecules enter and leave the water surface dependent on kinetic energy. So hotter water, more enegetic CO2 molecules, greater chance of leaving. CO2 leaves the oceans at the equator and is absorbed in higher colder latitudes. You can also calculate the loss of CO2 from the graph of solubility of CO2 against temperature, which is the same thing as Henry’s law. You would think it would stabilitize and involve only the top layer. We cannot however simulate 3400 atmospheres of pressure, so I have an idea that CO2 is a near infinite sink in the deep oceans even without heating and outgassing continues as a depletion in the surface 10metres is refreshed from below, multiplying the effect dramatically. This means a much greater output of CO2 than you would otherwise expect and a great sensitivity of CO2 output to what should be a surface only effect as possibly liquid CO2 at depth converts to gas an rises.

                Of course with all the nonsense about fossil fuels being the cause, the sole cause of the steady incrase in CO2, no one seems to be investigating what should be interesting science, the sensitivity of CO2 in the atmosphere to ocean surface temperature. I also suspect the annual fluctuations in CO2 levels are not from vegetation, but in delayed changes to CO2 concentrations between summer and winter, due to the same ocean effect.

                We are a water world. This thin atmosphere is a side effect except in our ego driven interpretation, the people on land are all powerful. In fact half of the new oxygen comes from the oceans too, from Phyto plankton and carbon dioxide capture.

                20

          • #
            TdeF

            Also, I know how Chinese people feel. We work in units of 1000 and % is an odd measure, units of 100. Many Asian languages work in 10,000 units, so instead of thousands, millions, billions, trillions they use multiples of 10^4. Just talk thousands and millions with Chinese people and you will get a big pause as they convert in their heads and often end up a factor of ten out.

            30

        • #
          RobK

          8,000/1,000,000=8/1000=0.8%
          I think that’s how it goes.

          61

  • #
    Ruairi

    Earth’s climate,though changing, is stable,
    But alarmists pretend that they’re able,
    By a spurious plan,
    Blame foul weather on man,
    Just to further their climate-change fable.

    210

  • #
    handjive

    Who questions the 97% ‘science’? (throws report in general direction …)

    Climate and sea level were relatively stable over thousands of years of recorded human history up to the 19th century, although with some variations (Figure 2.1b).”
    . . .
    That’s some “variations” you got there.

    Nothing like the corresponding CO2 graph.

    61

  • #
    Keith L

    Well the graph indicates that there is no stability. Sometimes it goes up and sometimes it goes down.
    Not only that but sometime it is green and sometimes it is brown!
    How can anyone possibly cope?!

    50

  • #
    John Smith

    “we must avoid unmanageable climate change”
    Progressives may have unrealistic confidence in their capabilities.

    110

    • #
      TdeF

      Yes, humans, even governments now control the weather through UN taxation. It is part of the modern God complex. Non science people and Greens worship science which can do anything, even control the weather. The truth is a casualty of the war on carbon.

      70

    • #
      TdeF

      You have to laugh at the chosen name of Progressives, when everything about the Greens is regressive, stopping things. STWIWTGO syndrome.

      81

    • #
      ROM

      John Smith @ # 15

      Progressives may have unrealistic confidence in their capabilities.

      They have!

      Fortunately for the future of the human race, their “capabilities” are of a self inflicted, deep red coloured, entirely “delusional” belief in their own powers over Nature and mankind. Allied with an ideologically and pathologically warped and twisted view of Nature, the World and Mankind that even Lewis Carrol of “Alice in Wonderland” fame would be envious of.

      50

  • #
    Eugene WR Gallun

    You down under school kids just don’t get it.

    That 1200 year period has an average. Any change after that 1200 year period will differ from that average. That proves the climate has become unstable. Don’t mock what you so obviously don’t understand.

    Eugene WR Gallun

    90

  • #
    Peter C

    Dr Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick (UNSW-Climate Change Research Centre)has written a response to Malcolm Roberts (Q and A)assertion that there is “not one piece of empirical evidence” that climate change is caused by humans.

    Catallaxy files does a good job of exposing her errors!
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2016/09/01/dear-sarah/

    I thought I would rub it in a little and sent her an email

    Could you answer just one thing that I have actually looked at before. The Central England Temperature series.

    You said ” including one British station with records from as far back as 1659″

    Could you advise which is the one British station to which you were referring?

    I looked at the British Met bureau website and I could not find the list of stations, nor the measurements which comprise the CET record. However it is your specialty and I am hoping that you can let me know.

    To her credit she came back with a reference from the Met Office website.

    After some to and fro emails she agreed that it is not one station, it is a network. She still does not know where the measurements were collected.
    She did not conceeded that statistical monthly average temperatures are not instrumental measurements. She says that the mean temperatures are indicative of the state of the climate in that region. Sounds a bit vague to me.

    60

  • #
    Dennis

    The CLEXIT Coalition, please note the participants/office holders;

    http://pickeringpost.com/story/the-clexit-coalition-grows-and-will-not-be-silenced/6395

    60

    • #
      el gordo

      From that link, a breath of fresh air.

      ‘Solar cycles get no consideration in the IPCC climate models but Clexit has astro-physicists and long range weather forecasters who have demonstrated that solar and lunar cycles have big effects on Earth’s climate and weather cycles.’

      50

  • #
    el gordo

    Australia has warm wet winter.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/sydney-weather-records-tumbled-in-wet-warm-and-often-wild-winter-20160901-gr6434.html

    Second wettest on record is of some concern, if above average precipitation continues for the rest of the year we can expect sea level to slightly fall.

    30

    • #
      ROM

      Australia has [ had a ] warm cold wet winter.

      At least down here in western Victoria it has been a long cold, moderately wet winter, very similar to the PDO cool phase winters of the 50′s, 60′s and early 70′s.

      Not that we knew anything about the PDO which was only discovered or uncovered would be a better term , not by climate researchers who get very well paid to disentangle all things climate but who with their extremely narrow fixated concentration on that despicable “Carbon” as the catastrophic source of everything “Climate” could not in their “carbon” fixation, see the forest for the trees so it was left to the fisheries researchers in about 1996 to discover and disentangle the data that led to the discovery of the PDO.

      The term PDO was coined in about 1996 by Steven Hare at the University of Washington. He, along with colleagues Nathan Mantua, Yuan Zhang, Robert Francis and Mike Wallace discovered the pattern as part of work on fish population fluctuations.

      Which says quite a lot about the quality or lack of, of the research being done by the alarmist climate scientists and climate modellers. 

      Secondly, whenever the BOM announces that some record has just been achieved at one of their stations somewhere, go to that station and check when it began operations and when and if it has been re-located sometime in the not so distant past.

      As an example; our local Station, one of three in close proximity to one another, is the Horsham A/D station. ID; 079100.
      Details can be found here

      We have had a few Records at this station over the years BUT as you can see from the details, this station ; ID 079100 was only established in 1990 at the local airfield.
      So it doesn’t take much to create yet another record to re-inforce the guilt complex of some who are too bloody ignorant and too isolated in their man made concrete jungles to know anything much about about Nature and Weather and Climate in the raw.

      So every time a new record of some sort somewhere is announced by the BOM, their guilt complex, by proxy naturally, its always somebody else’s fault, kicks into gear and they believe that the weather is all messed up again by humans so somebody, not them of course ,” has to do something”.

      50

      • #
        el gordo

        On the Central Tablelands of NSW it has been typically bitter and its been around 62 years since the big floods in the early 1950s. Coincidence? I think not.

        10

  • #
    pat

    jo/mods -
    on jo’ previous thread re Colorado Springs Uni censorship, comment #66 is in moderation.

    it is the final connecting of the dots between Pope Francis CAGW speech yesterday and George Soros-connected entities, which is the subject of the previous two comments on the thread.

    hoping it can be released soon, so the story is complete.

    20

  • #
    tom0mason

    OT

    Joanne this site is getting to be very, slow at responding.
    I have loaded other sites from all over the world, and by far this one is taking the longest, do you have equipment problems?

    TM.

    [I've noticed it too Tom. I don't have the keys to the server room though.]ED

    20

  • #
    sophocles

    Show them these graphs esp. graph 2, and they might, just might, catch on to the idea that the climate is never stable. It sure hasn’t been over the last 65 million years.

    The climate over the last 3 million years (graph 3) looks like the blade of a lumber-jacks tree splitting saw.

    No environment can be called stable in an Ice Age which has had over 30 stadials and their interstadials over the last 2.8 million years…. either that or stable is redefined to include the phrase “short term.”

    40

  • #

    Hard to play hockey with that stick. Maybe use it as a comb, or a hedge-trimmer blade?

    When you look at the change in rainfall in Northern Australia since the 1970s (wetter!) it’s hardly a surprise that what used to be green (like Roman North Africa) is now less so. Places we think of as pretty humid, like New York, are really just enjoying a pluvial, which too shall pass. The rains over Eastern Australia between the late 1940s and the Long Drought beginning in the late 50s brought an end to a half century of rainfall deficit.

    The biggest failing of climate change preachers is that they either do not believe in actual climate change or they do not want to hear about it.

    Climate changes. Duh.

    31

  • #
    Uncle Gus

    You know, sooner or later all this is going to be as irrelevant and boring as collections of 19th century sermons…

    20

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    Utah report

    Hard to know what the significance of this is ….
    The Scientists would say it is a problem ?
    like anyone here in Utah has noticed or cares.

    Next important issue is the road works on I15 and I215 .. and 13th Street (again)…

    10

  • #
    Reed Coray

    Now hold on a minute. I thought tree rings were a proxy for temperature. Now I’m being told that tree rings are a proxy for water flow in rivers. Doesn’t this open up a whole new area of climate study to wit water flow in rivers is a proxy for temperature (or is it the other way around: temperature is a proxy for water flow in rivers–it’s all so confusing)? Either way, 97% of scientists believe (the results of my personal poll) that I should receive grant money ASAP so that I can (a) study this burgeoning (but settled scientific) area of study, and (b) stay off welfare–think of my poor children.

    10

    • #

      Hi Reed,

      Have you found some that have actually futzed with thermal EMR? Not just read about it in some peer reviewed scientific journal? What does the AR-ion laser machine do when it cannot emit do to incoherent self induced opposing radiance? The ones I have observed shut themselves off within 5 seconds with ‘over-temperature indication. What do you get?

      11

      • #
        Reed Coray

        Will,

        In response to your first question: “Have you found some that have actually futzed with thermal EMR”? What does the word “some” refer to: tree rings, river flows, temperatures, horses, …?

        In response to your second question. I have absolutely no (zero, nada, nil, zippo) experience with “AR-ion laser machines”; and as such have no response.

        00

        • #

          Reed Coray September 3, 2016 at 1:56 pm

          (“Will, In response to your first question: “Have you found some that have actually futzed with thermal EMR”?)

          ” What does the word “some” refer to: tree rings, river flows, temperatures, horses, …?”

          Some refers only to some earthling that have futzed with thermal EMR. No need for defining ‘thermal EMR’ only with finding some (earthlings) that have futzed with thermal EMR!

          Seems in your travels you have not bothered to identify such!

          In response to your second question. I have absolutely no (zero, nada, nil, zippo) experience with “AR-ion laser machines”; and as such have no res

          01

    • #
      tom0mason

      Reed Coray,

      Modern scientific methods have made tree rings the new universal proxy — atmospheric temperature, sunlight levels, tidal change, rain water run-off, water flow rate, changes in levels of bear pee in the woods, lunar phase changes, etc, etc…

      They can also give a useful rough guide of vegetative growth for any one arboreal sample.

      Heck with the correct statistical model tree rings also indicate winning lottery numbers worldwide (with low p-level and high bear confidence.*)
      ¯
      ¯
      ¯
      ¯
      * Note projected winning numbers are correct (error ±2)and within the nominal time period (± 30 years).

      10

      • #

        We had high confidence in our the black bear swaggering of young Vladmir. Two years later shows up with adorable playful cub, not to get near with mommy about, now renamed Vladmira, still with same swagger and with same front paw finger up! upon swaggering away! Ya sir, Yasir three bags full!

        01

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Tom,

        Now if you can just get those tree rings to predict the outcome of elections…

        00

  • #
    david gregg

    Dear Jo spectral analyses of western USA precipitation may be of interest cf. Utah stream history. e.g. ‘Interannual variability in West US precipitation’, Rajaopalan B, Jo. of Hydrology, 210 1998, p51-67. Key finding is a range of cycles
    related to the El Nino – SOI time series. I have analysed these in detail and the activity cycle ‘fingerprints’ of the Sun dominate. I find the same for a dozen other regional climate series such as AMO and PDO…All this work is based on peer reviewed, published spectra. See my book ‘Climate Chaos’ …it’s on Amazon. Let me know if you’d like a copy. Professor Dave Gregg.

    [Thanks for offering your input. I'll leave this here for Jo to see] AZ
    [Thanks David, I'll try to email you tomorrow. Cheers - Jo]

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    When I first saw this I was going to stay silent. But somehow I can’t make myself do that. So…

    This nonsense is just more “science” types trying to look important. The Bear River Basin, not to mention the rest of the world would be the same with or without them.

    00

  • #
    david gregg

    Dear Jo I have now found the Bear River paper and analysed the MTM spectrum therein. All the ~12 spectral peaks above 95% confidence are easily related to solar activity periods. All ~23 peaks above 90% likewise. The 1210 year data length gives very good detail. This kind of data is the key generally to sorting out the climate nonsense…empirical evidence should decide the ‘debate’. Your Utah stream flows share long cycle periods with AMO and PDO climate series and others. Let me know if you’d like a copy of the analysis.

    Prof. dave gregg

    00

  • #
    William Palmer

    If you know enough, can’t you always find the cause of anything…until you get down into the Angstrom range of quantum randomness? But even here, if you can see and record the stochastic behavior, you can attribute causes from it…just as we explain the cosmic microwave background.

    00