by Judith Curry
Given the new information now available from the Southern Hemisphere, climate scientists must consider a larger role for natural climate variability in contributing to global temperature changes over the past millennium. – Kim Cobb
A paper recently published in Nature Climate Change:
Inter-hemispheric temperature variability over the past millennium.
Raphael Neukom, Joëlle Gergis, David J. Karoly, et al.
Abstract. The Earth’s climate system is driven by a complex interplay of internal chaotic dynamics and natural and anthropogenic external forcing. Recent instrumental data have shown a remarkable degree of asynchronicity between Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere temperature fluctuations, thereby questioning the relative importance of internal versus external drivers of past as well as future climate variability. However, large-scale temperature reconstructions for the past millennium have focused on the Northern Hemisphere, limiting empirical assessments of inter-hemispheric variability on multi-decadal to centennial timescales. Here, we introduce a new millennial ensemble reconstruction of annually resolved temperature variations for the Southern Hemisphere based on an unprecedented network of terrestrial and oceanic palaeoclimate proxy records. In conjunction with an independent Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction ensemble, this record reveals an extended cold period (1594–1677) in both hemispheres but no globally coherent warm phase during the pre-industrial (1000–1850) era. The current (post-1974) warm phase is the only period of the past millennium where both hemispheres are likely to have experienced contemporaneous warm extremes. Our analysis of inter-hemispheric temperature variability in an ensemble of climate model simulations for the past millennium suggests that models tend to overemphasize Northern Hemisphere–Southern Hemisphere synchronicity by underestimating the role of internal ocean–atmosphere dynamics, particularly in the ocean-dominated Southern Hemisphere. Our results imply that climate system predictability on decadal to century timescales may be lower than expected based on assessments of external climate forcing and Northern Hemisphere temperature variations alone.
From ScienceDaily:
Over the last 1000 years, temperature differences between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres were larger than previously thought. Using new data from the Southern Hemisphere, researchers have shown that climate model simulations overestimate the links between the climate variations across Earth with implications for regional predictions.
In 99.7 percent of the results, the warmest decade of the millennium occurs after 1970. Surprisingly, only twice over the entire last millennium have both hemispheres simultaneously shown extreme temperatures. One of these occasions was a global cold period in the 17th century; the other one was the current warming phase, with uninterrupted global warm extremes since the 1970s. “The ‘Medieval Warm Period’, as identified in some European chronicles, was a regional phenomenon,” says Raphael Neukom. “At the same time, temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere were only average.” The researchers ascribe these large differences to so-called “internal variability.” This term describes the chaotic interplay of the ocean and atmosphere within the climate system that leads to temperatures changing in one or the other direction. Regional differences in these fluctuations appear to be larger than previously thought.
The scientists discovered that most climate models are unable to satisfactorily simulate the considerable differences between the hemispheres. The models appear to underestimate the influence of internal variability, in comparison with external forcings like solar irradiation, volcanic eruptions or human greenhouse gas emissions. “Regional differences in the climatic evolution of the next decades could therefore be larger than the current models predict,” says Neukom.
Climate Audit and WUWT have written several posts critical of the study:
- Neukom and Gergis serve cold screened spaghetti Climate Audit
- Neukom’s science by Proxy WUWT
- Duke Neukom’s secret sauce WUWT
Without going into detail, the main problem seems to be ‘post hoc proxy selection’, otherwise known as ‘cherry picking’.
After looking at the IPCC AR5 Chapter on Paleoclimate, its not clear to me what is actually new in the Neukom et al. paper, but I find this perspective in Nature Climate Change by Kim Cobb entitled Paleoclimate: A Southern Misfit to be illuminating. Excerpts:
For far too long the climate science community has grappled with an inconvenient truth: the vast majority of the datasets used to constrain temperature trends of the recent past come from the Northern Hemisphere. Over a dozen reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperature spanning the past millennium exist and have played a critical role in distinguishing natural from anthropogenic climate change. However, the extent to which recent temperature variations in the Northern Hemisphere resemble those in the Southern Hemisphere remains unclear. Such information is critical to a complete understanding of the mechanisms of global, rather than hemispheric, climate change. Although the new reconstruction resembles the Northern Hemisphere reconstructions in some key aspects — the anomalous nature of twentieth century warming being one of them — it also suggests that temperatures in the two hemispheres may have differed more than they have agreed over the past millennium.
However, the new reconstruction of Southern Hemisphere temperature1 suggests that the climate model simulations of past climate systematically underestimate the magnitude of natural climate variability in the Southern Hemisphere. At first glance, the reconstruction contains the same basic features of the Northern Hemisphere family of reconstructions — a centuries-long cooling into the seventeenth century, and a twentieth-century warming of unprecedented duration and magnitude. But a close comparison between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere reconstructions reveals many intervals when the two series diverge for decades at a time. Notably, some of these differences occur following large volcanic eruptions, when the Northern Hemisphere cools significantly but the Southern Hemisphere does not, at least according to the new reconstruction1. The fact that many of these differences occur within the past 400 years, when the data networks from both hemispheres are most robust, makes it less likely that such temperature differences are artifacts of poor data coverage. That said, it is possible that small but cumulative age errors in single palaeoclimate records may smear out interannual variability in large-scale temperature reconstructions — currently the topic of vigorous debate.
If the new reconstruction of Southern Hemisphere temperature is accurate, then estimates of climate sensitivity — the response of global temperature change to a given amount of external radiative forcing — may be lower than those calculated based solely on Northern Hemisphere reconstructions. Indeed, instrumental temperature data suggest that warming in the Northern Hemisphere has been greater than that observed in the Southern Hemisphere over the past two decades — a feature reproduced in the current suite of climate models11. Therefore, this hemispheric asymmetry may be a fundamental feature of the climate system’s response to a change in radiative forcing, whereby the ocean-dominated Southern Hemisphere acts as a buffer of sorts to global temperature change on decadal to centennial timescales. On the other hand, Neukom et al. propose that divergent hemispheric temperatures arise from strong natural climate variability in the Southern Hemisphere, and have been a constant feature of the past millennium.
Given the new information now available from the Southern Hemisphere, climate scientists must consider a larger role for natural climate variability in contributing to global temperature changes over the past millennium. While the new reconstruction brings strong additional support to the phrase ‘anthropogenic global warming’, it also highlights the limits of our current ability to understand, and predict, global temperature variations from decade to decade. In other words, global temperatures will warm appreciably by 2100, but the road may be bumpy and full of surprises.
JC comments: The hemispheric asymmetries are quite interesting and largely unexplored – there is also a very intriguing see-saw between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice. Whatever the flaws in the methodology of Neukom et al., the paper serves to highlight the hemispheric asymmetries, the importance of internal variability, and concerns about overestimates of climate sensitivity.
FYI, if you have been following Years of Living Dangerously, Kim Cobb was featured in last Sunday’s episode.
Hemispheric asymmetries are largely unexplored? Manabe talked about people analyzing them in the 1970s….
http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/32158_1.html
Manabe also had a lower, more realistic, estimate of climate sensitivity in the 70s.
The Northern Hemisphere is responsible for the ice ages and all things bad. The Southern Hemisphere is the moderator and provider of all things good.
Even the sea in which the Trezona Formation (discussed on the previous thread) sediments – providing a record of snowball earth and the explosion of multi-cell animal life shortly after – were deposited in the Northern Hemisphere (Latitude 7 deg North).
Perhaps I shouldn’t have admitted to this because next the Northern Hemisphere-ites will claim the only golden spike in the SH (mentioned by Terry Krieg http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc-tar-and-the-hockey-stick/#comment-537632) will also be claimed as belonging to the Northern Hemisphere.
If you’d like more on the ‘golden spike’, here’s some on the history and international politics in the world’s scientific bodies that eventually, after 25 years of negotiations, decided Australia is the place to be.
The Ediacaran Period: A New Addition to the Geologic Time Scale
http://www.stratigraphy.org/bak/ediacaran/Knoll_et_al_2004a.pdf
Manabe also had a lower, more realistic, estimate of climate sensitivity in the 70s.
Manabe also had a swamp ocean.
So swamp (slab?) oceans invalidate Manabe’s work on climate sensitivity, but not his and hemispheric asymmetry. When combined with Neukom’s work, you’ve got cherries Jubilee.
“Whatever the flaws in the methodology of Neukom et al., the paper serves to highlight the hemispheric asymmetries, the importance of internal variability, and concerns about overestimates of climate sensitivity.”
It also highlights the lack of a global medieval warm period.
I’m sure the ‘skeptics’ will be very mindful of this.
whatever the flaws in the methodology
lolwot,
” The reconstructed SSA mean summer temperatures between 900 and 1350 are mostly above the 1901-1995 climatology”
That would be from Neukum et al. 2010.
Whatever be the flaws
in the methodology
of the proxy data by
Neukom, Gergis, Karoly
lies concealed in archives
not for public eyes.
Hey, unlock your data,
start doing it now,
unlock your data,
let Steve Mc show you how.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/03/31/neukom-and-gergis-serve-cold-screened-spaghetti/
Capt’nDallas
I seem to recall that you had raised the issue of asymmetry of Northern and Southern Hemispheres more than year ago. Was that based upon the Neukum 2010 article in part?
rihoo8,
“I seem to recall that you had raised the issue of asymmetry of Northern and Southern Hemispheres more than year ago. Was that based upon the Neukum 2010 article in part?”
I found Neukum while exploring the issue but ended up making my own reconstructions. Nice to see that some are starting to catch up though :)
Regarding what lolwot observed.
The skeptics are now stuck between a rock and a hard place.
They can agree that the ECS might be a tad lower, but then they have to admit that the medieval warming period was not as great a global phenomena as they originally asserted.
.
See this figure:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/images/nclimate2174-f3.jpg
webster, the MWP was about the same as today.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UxfO3016ARs/UpvcTaKSfmI/AAAAAAAAKqw/LS89ybhG5PI/s640/2000+years+of+climate.png
The lia was cooler than today and the MWP.
That is all there is to it.
Of course, the borehole data continues to indicate a global MWP as well as a LIA:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/borehole_3.gif
lolwot made an excellent observation regarding the data.
Check the figure I linked to and note the global perspective.
Here’s the regional perspective – http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/04/21/blogs/dotkaufman.html – we can all agree it was very warm in Antarctica 1000 odd years ago and all the warming and cooling seems quite natural.
Most of the responses seen have been in the Northern hemisphere today as well, like a bit of melting in Arctic. So similar to MWP.
BREAKING NEWS
Does El Niño Plus Global Warming
Equal Global Temperature Records In 2014 And 2015?
Answer Today’s NOAA Sea-Surface Temperature Anomaly map says “Yes”. `Cuz the earth’s growing equatorial SST anomaly is a whopper!
Summary Climate-change science shows us plainly:
• Year-by-year, AGW’s accelerating reality is imperceptible.
• Decade-by-decade, AGW’s accelerating reality is debatable.
• Generation-by-generation, AGW’s accelerating reality is undeniable.
Conclusion The impending El Niño-driven pause-end portends political and cultural extinction for climate-change denialism.
Observation Statistical quibbles regarding decadal-scale spatially localized temperature fluctuations are nugatory, eh Climate Etc readers?
The MWP showed quite prominently in the handful of proxies that Neukom used which stretched back that far. Then he mixed the clear ones with some proxies that looked like noise, along with a proxy for local Antarctic ice extent (which isn’t even a good proxy for total Antarctic ice extent, much less global temperatures) and the signal disappeared.
Indeed, the warming is always just about to show up.
Really? What would you call the 0.6 C of warming since 1975, which no skeptic predicted and which no skeptic has ever explained?
I call the 0.8C warming since 1950 a non-alarming decadel trend of 0.13C.
What do you call it?
Apple was able to get in one comment without sneering. That’s gotta be a record for him. The .6 is easily explained. Some , or all, or most of it is very likely caused by anthro CO2. Now you explain why AGW stopped 17 years ago, despite the increasing accumulation of anthro CO2 in the atmosphere. What is the pause excuse, du jour?
What would explain the 0.3C of cooling from 1973 to 1975? Can disco really have that much effect on global temperatures? If you took your starting point as somewhere safely past the disco era, say 1980, you’d knock 0.35 off your 0.6 C.
What could have caused almost 0.6 degrees of warming in the Northern Hemisphere is a bit of a mystery isn’t it.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BiBTagvc7IE/URK27PRnnMI/AAAAAAAABRk/u5fc07IkIcU/s1600/AMO18562010.gif
David Springer wrote:
I call the 0.8C warming since 1950 a non-alarming decadel trend of 0.13C.
Explain it.
Also, tell us what skeptic in 1975 predicted it.
A little bit of methane, CO2, soot, solar grand maximum, land use change, and so forth.
In 1975 global cooling was the scare du jour.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
Cuz the earth’s growing equatorial SST anomaly is a whopper!
You are certainly good at whoppers.The 150m depth anomaly provides a better understanding of the reality.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDYOC006.gif
In 1975 global cooling was the scare du jour.
False.
“The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus”
W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337, 2008
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
A little bit of methane, CO2, soot, solar grand maximum, land use change, and so forth.
What skeptic, circa 1975, predicted 0.6 C of warming by now?
In 1975 what non-skeptic predicted it?
Here’s what NAS had to say, and I suggest you read the whole encyclopedia article to correct your mistaken beliefs about who said what in the 1970’s :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1970s_awareness
P.S. Appell I called global cooling the scare du jour in the 1970’s. I didn’t call it a scientific consensus so your response with an article calling the consensus a myth is a response to a straw man. You’re lame, Appell. You couldn’t argue your way out of a paper bag.
“Generation-by-generation, AGW’s accelerating reality is undeniable.”
If by accelerating, you mean decelerating, I’m with you:
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/8/1/011006/erl459410f5_online.jpg
David Appell keeps asking “What skeptic predicted …”. David, sceptics are critical of the bad (in their view) science promoted by others. The issue is the quality of that science. The way to deal with scepticism is to examine the quality of the doubted science, to see whether sceptics’ criticisms are justified. Prediction is not a necessary part of scepticism.
Dear A fan of *MORE* discourse. Your message written May 1, 2014 at 6:34 pm is OFF TOPIC. Can we try to stay with the article?
David Springer | May 2, 2014 at 9:12 am:
Thank you for the quote from NAS.
It sounds like the NAS was right on the money in 1975.
Nothing has changed.
We still cannot predict the climate, and it will continue to always change.
rmd,
fan is always off topic. It has been his chosen method of communication here and he excells at it.
In case Appell can’t understand the difference between the scare in the 1970’s and the current “scientific consensus” let me see if I can spell it out:
One was based on science with limited funding and was honest enough to state that we didn’t know enough to be sure.
The other is based on the consensus figuring out the best path to keep the funding gravy train rolling.
David Appell,
“What skeptic, circa 1975, predicted 0.6 C of warming by now?”
There were skeptics circa 1975?
Fan writes:
Conclusion
The impending El Niño-driven pause-end portends political and cultural extinction for climate-change denialism.
Observation
Statistical quibbles regarding decadal-scale spatially localized temperature fluctuations are nugatory, eh Climate Etc readers?
I don’t think all El Ninos are the same nor do they all coincide with a long term regime change. At your link Joe Romm has a quote,
The lead author of this study explained when that process ends “as it inevitably will –- our research suggests heat will quickly accumulate in the atmosphere. So global temperatures look set to rise rapidly.”
And then this accountant predicts that some of that heat will find its way to the TOA, as the Earth tries to cool itself. Did we notice the lead author sounded like they were talking about a two state system? Fan, I think you are observing that decadal scale regional fluctuations are of no interest perhaps because you believe there is an overwhelming driver. Have you considered that these short term regional fluctuations might be trying to teach us something? The climate world wonders?
“Conclusion The impending El Niño-driven pause-end portends political and cultural extinction for climate-change denialism.”
_______
Unfortunately, belief systems are not easily destroyed by facts or sound reasoning. These true un-believers will rationalize away facts and stick closely to their emotional and political based belief-systems ever tighter as they feel the memeplex world around them is crumbling.
@ R. Gates | May 3, 2014 at 11:49 am |
“Unfortunately, belief systems are not easily destroyed by facts or sound reasoning. ”
*****
That is so true R. Gates. And no matter how far “measured” temperatures deviate from model output, CAGWers cling to their belief that CO2 will cause catestrophic warming. Go figure.
“And no matter how far “measured” temperatures deviate from model output…”
____
Oh yeah, I did forget this other big area that fake-skeptics love to cling to– model output deviating from actual measurements. There is so many things illogical about this as a basis for not seeing the larger picture of AGW that I hardly know where to start, aside from the actual point that the number one rule put out by the model makers themselves is that the models are always wrong from the start. We can’t even make a model that will predict the exact path of the raindrop trailing down a window. We know it will reach the bottom (assuming the mass is enough to start with), but we can’t predict the exact path that drop will follow- yet fake-skeptics would think models of the climate system should be able to predict the exact path of tropospheric temperatures into the future. Fake-skeptics simply will cling to any irrational thought to protect their memeplex.
“Whatever the flaws in the methodology of Neukom et al., the paper serves to highlight the hemispheric asymmetries, the importance of internal variability, and concerns about overestimates of climate sensitivity.”
Of course Judith didn’t mean it in a negative way, but I think it’s worth noting that the word “concern” WRT the likelihood that atmospheric sensitivity has been overestimated, is consistent with the topsy-turvy world of climate science. In that bizarre world, up has become down, good has become bad.
A 17+ year pause? “OMG, say it ain’t so.”
A lower climate sensitivity? “We’re all going to be ruined!”
Never seen people so resistant to,,,and so resentful of… possible good news. Most of them don’t even bother to hide their yearning for a pause busting super el nino. Better that we all fry, than a few individuals be proven wrong.
They have hitched their wagons to rising temperatures resulting in catastrophe. The pause is killing them, as sunlight wastes the vampire.
Pokerguy, if you go to Vegas, and you bet against the house odds, then in the long run, you will lose.
That’s not negativity; that’s plain mathematical reality.
And in the long run, if our planet sustains a CO2-driven energy imbalance, our planet will get hot.
That’s not negativity; that’s plain scientific reality.
It is a pleasure to remind you of these plain-and-simple realities, pokerguy!
What pause?
“As it turns out, the global warming ‘hiatus’ doesn’t exist,”
Eric Holthaus, Quora, November 15, 2013.
http://qz.com/147049/as-it-turns-out-the-global-warming-pause-doesnt-exist/
“Climate Outsider Finds Missing Global Warming,”
Eli Kintisch, Science, April 25, 2014.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6182/348.full
Try as I might I cannot pretend the planet has stopped warming. The data overwhelmingly show the planet has continued warming over the past 17 years.
So it doesn’t matter whether I want or do not want a record temperature breaking event. It will happen regardless at the next El Nino.
The only reason we yearn for it is that it will force climate skeptics to admit the planet is still warming, and finally they will have to accept the cause is man given that blaming the Sun and PDO are no longer going to work.
Always a pleasure to be singled out, Fan. The flaw in your analogy …which is revealing…is that you’ve set the alarmists up as “the house.” I bet if you think about it a second, you can see how that might be a mistake.
“Try as I might I cannot pretend the planet has stopped warming.”
Guess you’re just going to have to try a little harder. Either that or call Kevin and tell him he can quit hunting for the missing heat.
Do you try hard to pretend the warming has stopped?
So, the memo from warmista HQ today was: Respond to any mention of the pause that we are trying desperately to hide with the following:
What pause?
You may also preface that with a:
Huh?
Keep you little plastic decoder rings handy. There will be another “ain’t no pause” directive at 0200 zulu.
Keep da faith! Praise be!
It’s a magic warming that the most sophisticated thermometers can’t detect. My theory is that the air molecules are somehow vibrating purely perpendicular to the surface of any measurement device we use.
AFOMD,
You are quite right. If the Earth sustained a (positive) CO2 driven energy imbalance, it would get hot.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing. This explains why the Earth has cooled in both hemispheres, globally, overall, and quite a bit, over the last 4.5 billion years.
Maybe you need to generate more heat. That definitely warms things. Maybe you could form a consensus and generate enough heat to arrest the Earths cooling, and get it back to a molten state. I doubt it, however.
But good luck anyway
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
What pause?
Are you anathema to actual data?
I gave mine. Where is yours?
This explains why the Earth has cooled in both hemispheres, globally, overall, and quite a bit, over the last 4.5 billion years.
You do your cause harm when you refer to wacko arguments like this one.
You really cannot see the warming in the data?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/from:1970/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:1997/trend
Just extrapolate that little green line forwards – the line that ends when you claim the pause started.
Perhaps when the red line jumps above 1998 you will suddenly realize.
But it’s not going to look good in hindsight when people ask you to point to the “pause” on a graph and you can’t even find it.
What pause?
The asymmetrical one ie a planet of two halves.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1997.2/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1997.2/mean:12/trend/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1997.2/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1997.2/mean:12/trend
maksimovich: HadCRUT4 is not using the best method of infilling for regions with no temperature data.
The better method, from Cowtan & Way, shows that the “pause” is about half what it’s been claimed to be. More information here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/04/more-accurate-temperature-trends.html
Nothing about the Pause gives any reason at all to suspect that AGW is not happening. Nothing.
Berkeley Earth has a better infilling method (incl for the arctic) than cowtan and way, some of this is starting to come out
Don’t forget your instructions, boys. You need to stick with: What pause?, until at least 0200 zulu. I hope the pause excuse du jour for May 2, shows a little more imagination. You people are really struggling. It’s pathetic. Your nature tricks have not worked out well for you all.
lolwot, you said “Just extrapolate that little green line forwards – the line that ends when you claim the pause started.”
Um, the line ends there because that’s when the pause started. To extrapolate it forwards would show the straight line deviating more and more from the recorded data, which is now called “the pause” because it didn’t remotely follow the upward green line, it started following a horizontal line.
curryja wrote:
Berkeley Earth has a better infilling method (incl for the arctic) than cowtan and way, some of this is starting to come out.
Really?
Where is this better method described?
What says it is better?
How do trends calculated with their method, whatever it is, compare to those for GISS and HadCRUT4?
Because I’ve seen Stephen Mosher say, within the last month, that Cowtan & Way is an obviously superior method. I forget if it was here or on WUWT, but he said it.
“Um, the line ends there because that’s when the pause started. To extrapolate it forwards would show the straight line deviating more and more from the recorded data”
Perhaps the problem is you don’t understand what extrapolation is.
Here, I’ve extrapolated the pre-1997 trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/from:1970/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/detrend:-0.16/offset:-0.152
As you can see the recent data is bang on the extrapolated trend meaning that it’s extremely consistent with a continuation of that trend.
Try as I might I cannot pretend the planet has stopped warming. The data overwhelmingly show the planet has continued warming over the past 17 years.
So it doesn’t matter whether I want or do not want a record temperature breaking event. It will happen regardless at the next El Nino.”
_________
So yes, should we get a good-sized El Nino, some will use it as an opportunity to suggest is “proves” the Earth is still warming, while of course skeptics of AGW will naturally point to the cyclical nature of ENSO.
The correct and honest approach is to keep looking at the better metric proxy for AGW, which is ocean heat content, and see what an El Nino does to that. We know OHC took a little dip after the 1997-98 El Nino, as it drained a bit of energy out of the IPWP. So it will be interesting see what effects an El Nino has on this energy reservoir, and where in the system the energy goes after it leaves the IPWP. How much will go to space? How much to melting ice and glaciers? How much to other ocean basins?
So it is not so much the El Nino that will tell us about AGW, but how the energy in the climate system recovers after the event has passed through the initial phase where it causes a spike in SST’s and then on to spike tropospheric sensible heat.
David Appell,
You wrote –
“This explains why the Earth has cooled in both hemispheres, globally, overall, and quite a bit, over the last 4.5 billion years.
You do your cause harm when you refer to wacko arguments like this one.”
I point out I don’t have a cause, as far as I know. Scientists claim the Earth’s surface used to be molten.
If you don’t believe this, bully for you!
If you do, however, look around. Then tell me why you can’t see a lot of molten rock in the immediate vicinity. I believe the surface cooled. Oh well, I could be wrong. I’m sure you will educate me if I am.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Here’s what a pause would look like:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/from:1970/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/detrend:0.08/offset:-0.152
Surely you can see the red temperature line has continued to climb since 1997.
infilling
that proves that there is no pause
infilling
really, he said infilling
Cowtan and Way’s model breaks down in the antarctic at a number of stations.The Geoid centric geometry centered on a boundary station (ie spot the byrdie) where Foehn climatology is dominant, tells us that the authors have a significant understanding of either meterological physics or geometry.
The emergence of asymmetry (nh/sh) is not only present in the T record it is now seen in independent records such as the Co2 fraction,wind flows in the southern ocean,and mid latitude stations,
lolwot
You “cherry picked” the “last 17 years” to show no stop in warming.
Here I “cherry pick” the “last 13 years” to show slight cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend/detrend:-0.026/offset:-.115/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2001/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001
Conclusion: It has cooled slightly since the new millennium started (January 1, 2001).
Hope this bowl of cherries suits you, lolwot.
Max
Appell. Cowtan and way is superior to hadcrut and giss which are garbage untested hacks.
Comparing berkeley to cw is a task that kevin and robert
Are working on. We cooperate with each other and both teams want the most acurrate results. Right now we are focused on daily data and are happy to let kevin and robert
Nail down the final comparisons on the monthly products.
As it stands there are a few zones that are being invesigated. I owe them feedback.. so its premature for me to comment. Kevin and Robert are smart honest thourough and very open. I trust them implicitly .of course I still double check.
I didn’t pick 17 years let alone cherry pick it. Someone else picked 17 years to claim temperature had paused. I merely used the data to show that claim was wrong.
You pick 2001 instead, but it shows the same thing. Temperature since 2001 is consistent with a continuation of the warming trend up to 2001 and so it cannot be claimed something different (pause, or cooling) is happening:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2001/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend/detrend:-0.2/offset:-0.12
really, he said infilling
Some method of infilling must be chosen, in order to calculate an average global temperature.
What method do you choose, and why?
maksimovich
If we start the “cooling trend” on January 1, 2001 (the official start of the new millennium) we show:
– Slight cooling in both hemispheres
– The cooling in the Southern Hemisphere is at around twice the rate of that in the Northern Hemisphere
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:2001/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:2001/mean:12/trend/detrend:-.024/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:2001/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:2001/mean:12/trend/detrend:-.038
So we have a “global pause” since the end of the last century, but with a variation in the rate of cooling between the NH and SH.
Max
lolwot: Try as I might I cannot pretend the planet has stopped warming.
You “pause” deniers are funny!
Rude Mosher wrote:
Cowtan and way is superior to hadcrut and giss which are garbage untested hacks.
That’s what I said, and what I said you said — but without the rude, chip-on-the-shoulder attitude.
lolwot
Here’s a corrected version of your curve, showing slight global cooling since 2001.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2001/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend/detrend:-0.024/offset:-0.024
As you can see from the detrended linear trend line, the cooling trend was around -0.024C per decade.
Hope this helps.
Max
As you can see from the detrended linear trend line, the cooling trend was around -0.024C per decade.
And what has the change been since last Tuesday? Per decade, of course.
Scientists claim the Earth’s surface used to be molten.
And so you can’t possibly imagine why the Earth’s surface might have cooled in the last 4.5 Byrs, independently of any considerations of CO2.
That’s really your position?
You need to stick with: What pause?, until at least 0200 zulu.
Please stop whining. Just present your data, and explain why it’s better than my data.
“Some method of infilling must be chosen, in order to calculate an average global temperature.”
When you don’t have any data, of course you have to make some up to be able to claim you know things you don’t know.
No one knows what the surface global average temperature is, to within tenths of a degree as claimed. Let alone the real GAT, which would include OHC. Infilling from proxies of proxies of proxies may be the only way to manufacture a number you can call “global average temperature” for political purposes, but it doesn’t mean you have actually determined global average temperature.
Appell read harder.
You said superior. Unqualified
I said superior to giss hadcrut. Qualified and precise.
Superior is a relative term Requiring qualification.
You would have failed my freshman comp class.
Appell read harder.
You said superior. Unqualified
I said superior to giss hadcrut. Qualified and precise.
Yes, because of course I meant superior to the way they do it on Kepler 186f.
Read harder, Mosher. THINK harder.
GaryM wrote:
When you don’t have any data, of course you have to make some up to be able to claim you know things you don’t know.
If you want to calculate a global temperature, you have to choose a method of infilling. Even for the little spaces in and around your backyard, or your county, or your state. Thermometers can’t be everywhere.
No one knows what the surface global average temperature is, to within tenths of a degree as claimed.
And the data models aren’t calculating the surface global average temperature — they’re calculating the *trend* of their MODEL of the surface temperature, and comparing that trend to those projected by models.
The little fella said:”Some method of infilling must be chosen, in order to calculate an average global temperature.”
If the satellite data is good enough for infilling, it’s good enough for the whole globe. Satellite says warming stopped. That’s why everybody talkin bout the pause. Try to catch up. The pause is killing the cause.
The data overwhelmingly show the planet has continued warming over the past 17 years.
No, No, No, Only, Model Output shows the warming. Actual Real Honest Data does not agree. Actual Real Data does not support the Alarmist Warming.
Satellite says warming stopped.
False. The 15-yr trend for UAH LT is +0.14 C/decade.
And the LT is not the surface. Or the ocean, where the vast majority of the warming happens.
No, No, No, Only, Model Output shows the warming. Actual Real Honest Data does not agree.
False. Cowtain and Way shows it, and ocean warming definitely shows it.
Satellite Data Flatlined
Warmistas Panic
The Pause Is Killing the Cause
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah-land/from:1997/to:2015/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2015/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2015
details at 11
In case the nitpickers complain:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2015/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2015/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2015
The scotch is good tonight. One more time:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2015/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2015
Split the difference.
Yes, Steve Mosher, think harder. You have to think harder when conversing with Appel (and other members of the Crusher Crew) because you have to think for two. They don’t think. They just regurgitate the pre-agreed attack points.
Serious question: Who is more disingenuous? Dana Nutticcellii, or Davey Apple? Dana has definitely been more successful.
Manacker describes a -0.02C/decade trend as cooling
Don describes a +0.08C/decade trend as flatlining.
The reality is that the last 17 years of data is consistent with a continuation of the prior warming trend.
There is no statistically significant cooling, flatlining or “pause”.
Besides multiple lines of evidence (sea level, ocean heat, arctic temperatures) show the Earth continues to warm.
Dear Pokerguy Your message written at May 1, 2014 at 6:42 pm begins with the hemispheric asymmetry but then goes off on a tangent to what you call the “17+” pause. Unfortunately, everyone jumps on this. Can we PLEASE stay on topic?
Dear rmdo…., the pause is the elephant in the room. It get’s talked about. It’s a fact pregnant with implications. They wail about all the CO2 humans are pumping into the atmosphere, but WTF! it ain’t getting warmer. That’s why little lollie et al are pause deniers. They duck and dodge and dance around the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming in about 17 years, period. And if you compare the observed temperatures with the GCM projections, they get all apoplectic. The wheels are coming off the CAGW bandwagon. It’s headed for the ditch. The pause is killing the cause.
The pause is the most irrelevant elephant in the room in the history of elephants in rooms.
Add another little anonymous blog clown to the list of pause deniers.
fan,
not a bad analogy. Except that people can and do beat the house on a regular basis.
A friend financed his graduate school education through sports betting in Vegas. There an individual has access to pretty much the same information as the “house” does. If they can analyze it better, they stand to win (be correct) more often than they lose.
People with good memories can count the cards played, allowing them to wager in an informed manner. They will regularly beat the house, which is why it is not allowed. Perhaps similar to some scientists not releasing data or wanting to prohibit debate.
‘What pause?’
I would describe it as more of a stair step. Unless it actually goes down and stays down. It could be described as a pause if you go by the IPCC model since they only show continued advance upward in the whole range not even trying to show the breaks in trend that appear on actual historical charts. It’s all just silly semantics that give the partisans something to quibble about I suppose as demonstrated here.
ordy, ordy
If your boss promised that he would steadily increase your salary if you remained a loyal and hardworking employee, put in a lot of overtime, paid your carbon taxes and didn’t complain, yet 17 years later you were still making close to the same amount of money, it would probably dawn on you that you had been had. Or am I overestimating you?
“And the data models aren’t calculating the surface global average temperature — they’re calculating the *trend* of their MODEL of the surface temperature, and comparing that trend to those projected by models.”
I forgot that they don’t teach logic in science school,
When you can’t measure a phenomenon to within tenths of a degree, there is no way to determine a decal trend within tenths of a degree either. You can claim that you have, but it is nonsensical.
And don’t get me started on measurements of global sea levels to within tenths, let alone hundredths, of a millimeter.
You know what it means when you have to make up precise, accurate data when you have none? It means you don’t know what you think you know after doing so because you have no way of knowing how imprecise and inaccurate your data is.
“If you want to calculate a global temperature, you have to choose a method of infilling.”
And therein lies the problem. The fact that you want to calculate something, does not mean that you can.
And you, we, the consensus, whoever, cannot currently calculate global average temperature (whether surface or truly global) to within tenths of a degree. Therefore, you, we, the consensus, whoever, cannot calculate trends in global average temperatures (or heat content) with the precision and accuracy claimed.
decadal, not decal
Don the problem with your “pause” is that it isn’t supported by actual data.
For example the UAH trend since 1997 for example is 0.09C/decade +-0.2C/decade.
While that means the low end could be below zero (and you rely on this for your claim of no statistical significance), it’s more likely that it’s above zero – and could be as high as 0.25C/decade.
Don’t worry as each further year of data comes in the uncertainty will reduce and we’ll find out what the actual trend since 1997 has been, and I will be around to say “I told you so” when that happens.
Don Monfort I left a reply but it went to the bottom of the whole thread
It’s not my pause, lollie. And the problem with the pause is not mine. Es tu problemo. The pause is killing your cause, lollie.
You promote it, you have to take responsibility of it.
Now if you are saying you are knowingly promoting a concept you don’t even dare try to defend, well…
Pokerguy what a great response to your remarks. Don, keep the pressure going. The pause is certainly causing major problems.
It is interesting how NOAH and NASA and IPCC do not have any upfront guys coming out and commenting on or investigating the pause.
Instead we have a couple of regular Skeptical Science commentators, both confirmed believers in AGW, with enough maths background to make up a model which just happens to show extra warming that no one had realized before. Just when needed.Just when the elephant is getting far too big and everyone is feeling squashed.
Its not a problem because Steven double checks them even though they are smart honest thourough and very open.
A disconnect here, either you do not check them because of their being honest or double check them because they may not be?
Its not their character references that bothers me, it is their deep commitment to the cause, verifiable by their past admitted comments
This raises the risk of bias through noble cause corruption, the risk that the programmes are written with Gergis like accuracy. that whatever you feed into your Krigging even upside down data will produce an Arctic temp anomaly rise of biblical proportions.
Still, not to worry, Thermometers will still be reasonably accurate. attempts to continually escalate warming with increasing upwards modifications have to hit a wall because of that fact , and the wall is looming larger and closer.
Thank god Mosher will be keeping an eye on the data collection and raw data as I do trust him to do this diligently.
David Appell
To my point to lolwot that the past 13 years showed a net cooling trend of the global average surface temperature, you retorted:
Are you seriously comparing 5 days to 13+ years?
Get serious, David – you only make yourself look like a fool with such silly questions.
Max
lolwot
There is only one thing to “defend” with relation to the pause in global average surface temperature, which has been observed by the HadCRUT4 globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature record since at least January 1, 2001 (with a slight overall cooling trend since then).
It is the accuracy of the HadCRUT4 temperature record itself.
If this record is bogus, then so is the pause, which it has measured.
As you once wrote: “you can’t have it both ways”.
Max
Max
If climate change is due to the emissions of CO2, why studying hemispheric asymmetries?.
I have studied IPCC’s theory in
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2TWRnRVhwSnNLc0k
and the conclusion is that IPCC’s claims have no scientific basis.
But my conclusions (and the scientific discussions) do not care the average person. In general, people are happy being missinformed.
Do you know a contactable journalist that tends to inform objectively about climate science? (then, please, send me his/her email).
Because, for one thing, there is more aerosol cooling in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, because more are emitted there. (About 90% of the world’s population lives in the northern hemisphere.)
There is also far more black carbon (soot) warming in the northern hemisphere but on the other hand NH albedo is much higher. Crazy, huh?
David Appell and David Springer
Yeah.
Win a little, lose a little.
Max
Black soot from coal, aerosols from coal – wonder how it all sums up?
Well if yer gonna use, in a proxy reconstruction of Southern
Hemisphere temperatures of the Medieval Period, Californian
bristle cone chronologies, upside down Finnish lake sediments
and European temperatures but omit Antarctic ice core data,
as did the IPCC relying on Mannian data,any wonder that the
MWP doesn’t show up.
A bemused serf.
vhttp://climateaudit.org/2013/10/28/the-ipcc-southern-hemisphere-reconstructions/
I feel that “no scientific basis” is a bit strong. I certainly do not believe that anything is settled, however. CO2 is well mixed in both hemispheres and is increasing. The uncertainty, and the whole point of climate research, is how (or whether) the regional climates will change with this increase. As mentioned in the article, the ocean plays a major role in the southern hemisphere. The fact that the two hemispheres are not as coupled as we thought is interesting. The global models are far from perfect but these additional bits of information (the asymmetry) can be investigated.
Because the SH is mostly ocean, one would expect the temperature record to be smoother, because the oceans have such a large store of heat. On the other hand cyclones only persist over the water, so we would expect more cyclones in the SH. Nino (SOI) effects seem to be more apparent in the SH, but also seem to have a large effect on the western US. All of this indicates we are still a long way from predicting regional weather and climate.
I pulled out of the Hadly-Oxford experiment in ‘grid’ computing because the Nino effects were not predictable. 13 years later there seems to be no improvement.
That is indeed what I find — using GISS data for the average global surface temperature anomaly for each hemisphere, calculated monthly since January 1880, I find the standard deviation of the northern hemisphere is 0.38 C, and for the southern hemisphere it is 0.28 C.
Data:
NH http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/NH.Ts+dSST.txt
SH http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/SH.Ts+dSST.txt
“That is indeed what I find — using GISS data for the average global surface temperature anomaly for each hemisphere, calculated monthly since January 1880, I find the standard deviation of the northern hemisphere is 0.38 C, and for the southern hemisphere it is 0.28 C”
It is always a comfort when you find you have less noise in a population with a very smallest sample size and a larger amount of noise in a population with a much larger sample size.
It is always a comfort when you find you have less noise in a population with a very smallest sample size and a larger amount of noise in a population with a much larger sample size.
So you think the amount of noise in the temperature record depends on the number of people in that hemisphere?
How so, exactly?
Hmmmm, Appell doesn’t know ‘population’ in this case does not refer to a number of people. Interesting reveal for a science writer.
Population. Look it up
Hmmmm, Appell doesn’t know ‘population’ in this case does not refer to a number of people.
Sorry dude — learn to calculate for yourself.
“90 percent of the world’s people live in the Northern Hemisphere.”
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/90-of-people-live-in-the-northern-hemisphere-2012-5#ixzz30W244f7u
“Sorry dude — learn to calculate for yourself.
“90 percent of the world’s people live in the Northern Hemisphere.”
Maybe I’m on Mars with my thinking here, but I interpret what Doc wrote to mean statistical ‘population’ of temperature data. Nothing to do with human population.
I interpret what Doc wrote to mean statistical ‘population’ of temperature data.
What does that mean?
The algorithms that calculate average global surface temperature control for the areal density of temperture monitoring stations.
Because, of course they would.
‘What does that mean?’
It means you are out of your depth walking on the morning dew.
“What does that mean?”
Oh gawd, it’s like being trapped in a bad sitcom… Forget it Appell.
I interpreted DocMartyn’s use of the word “population” also in a statistical sense. There is a dearth of long term measurements in the southern hemisphere which cannot be denied.
David Appell: thank you for supporting my view of the smoothing effect of the oceans in the SH
DodMartyn: Thank you too.
David,
RE Doc Martyn’s comment: I believe he is referring to population of data, not population data.
The HadCRUT4 record shows more cooling since 2001 in the globally averaged record and Southern Hemisphere record than in the Northern Hemisphere record.
Hemispheric asymmetries are indeed most interesting, and understanding the full range of causes for them will lead to better and better climate models (better in terms of more accurate dynamics). It has long been noted that the NH simply gets a greater amount of energy being advected toward the polar regions from the tropics. This greater flux of energy can be seen from deeper ocean currents all the way to the mesosphere. The greater quantity of both SSW events and hurricanes and typhoons are perfect visible examples of the asymmetric energy flow toward the NH. Additionally of course, the SH has a huge ice covered continent right at the pole, surrounded by the vast expanses of the Southern Ocean. These additional features of the SH, combined with the asymmetric energy flux, lead to the natural expectation that, except for large and prolonged forcings, the hemispheres would naturally display a great deal of variability.
This is about the most optimal set of results anyone on the AGW Gravytrain could have hoped for. No MWP. Link between cold periods. High temps since the 1970s. And it’s AGW forcing, but really, it’s complicated by natural variability: send more $ to the South. Such as, we need to examine the Antarctic more: where’s our boat, we aren’t out for an adventure on taxpayer $, we are Scientists!
Leave it to Judith to find a Pony in the pile of manure! Amazing how someone can find a rose in this pile of sh*t (with respect, Judith!).
Anybody wanting historical records prior to 1910 will have to do without the temperatures for the Australian continent.
Quote from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology –
” . . . records began in 1910. . . .”
All temperature records prior to 1910 officially no longer exist. Gee, I wonder what the reasons for this can be? Thermometers reading too high prior to 1910? Wonderful new methods of temperature measurement introduced in 1910?
Obviously, the rest of the WMO should follow the Australian BOM lead, and abolish all temperature data measured using thermometers, and substitute temperatures derived from the examination and divination of tree entrails. Apparently Michael Mann is an adept in this arcane procedure.
That’s the Southern Hemisphere dispensed with. Just ignore South America and Africa, and hey presto! – a few adjustments, and it’s worse than we thought, again!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Link?
David Appell,
Why? What will you pay me for doing your work? Don’t I deserve compensation for my intellectual efforts in finding information that a trained and experienced journalist should be able to locate?
I wouldn’t be surprised if you have already found plenty of links, and are just trying to play some strange Warmist game. I’ll choose when and how to waste my time, if you don’t mind.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
“All temperature records prior to 1910 officially no longer exist. Gee, I wonder what the reasons for this can be?”
Maybe the convicts stole them.
Pierre-Normand,
I overlooked that possibility. You could be right. A cunning plot by those pestilential English authorities to employ convicts to steal the high Australian temperatures before Federation, and use them to raise the cold UK winter temperatures.
Unfortunately, Federation was in 1901, so the English plot was a failure.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
JC comments: The hemispheric asymmetries are quite interesting and largely unexplored –
….
But … but … the science is settled!!! You renegade!
s
We seem to have a semantic confusion with the MWP. If the findings of the paper were correct, then NH was hotter than usual and SH was average, which implies global temperature was above average. Global average SAT is pretty much the definition of..global temperature. Especially odd for them to make this argument given their finding that the hemispheres don’t sync up lots of the time even when forcings are strong.
TREE-RING AND GLACIAL EVIDENCE FOR THE MEDIEVAL WARM EPOCH AND THE LITTLE ICE AGE IN SOUTHERN SOUTH AMERICA
RICARDO VILLALBA*
Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-260, U.S.A.
Climatic Change 26: 183-197, 1994.
Abstract. A tree-ring reconstruction of summer temperatures from northern
Patagonia shows distinct episodes of higher and lower temperature during the
last 1000 yr.
The first cold interval was from A.D. 900 to 1070, which was followed by a warm period A.D. 1080 to 1250 (approximately coincident with the Medieval Warm Epoch).
Afterwards a long, cold-moist interval followed from A.D. 1270 to 1660, peaking around 1340 and 1640 (contemporaneously with early Little Ice Age events in the Northern Hemisphere).
In central Chile, winter rainfall variations were reconstructed using tree rings back to the year A.D. 1220. From A.D. 1220 to 1280, and from A.D. 1450 to 1550, rainfall was above the long-term mean. Droughts apparently occurred between A.D. 1280 and 1450, from 1570 to 1650, and from 1770 to 1820. In northern Patagonia, radiocarbon dates and tree-ring dates record two major glacial advances in the A.D. 1270-1380 and 1520-1670 intervals. In southern Patagonia, the initiation of the Little Ice Age appears to have been around A.D. 1300, and the culmination of glacial advances between the late 17th to the early 19th centuries.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/TreeRing.pdf
See Figure 5 in link at bottom (p39)
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Volume 369, 1 January 2013, Pages 482–492
Late Holocene air temperature variability reconstructed from the sediments of Laguna Escondida, Patagonia, Chile (45°30′S)
Julie Elbert et al.,
“The temperature reconstruction from Laguna Escondida shows cold conditions in the 5th century (relative to the 20th century mean), warmer temperatures from AD 600 to AD 1150 and colder temperatures from AD 1200 to AD 1450. From AD 1450 to AD 1700 our reconstruction shows a period with stronger variability and on average higher values than the 20th century mean. Until AD 1900 the temperature values decrease but stay slightly above the 20th century mean.”
Paywalled publication
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212006517
Proof with text and figures
http://boris.unibe.ch/17200/1/Laguna_Escondida_Elbert_PPP.pdf
DocM quotes “The first cold interval was from A.D. 900 to 1070, which was followed by a warm period A.D. 1080 to 1250 (approximately coincident with the Medieval Warm Epoch).”
In fact that first cold interval was the MWP killer. That was the peak of the NH MWP, and as you can see from Neukom, it was squashed by an SH cold period, only leaving a small remaining coincident blip in both hemispheres later.
Jim, around 950 AD the northern hemisphere was colder than normal. In fact, it was colder than normal during quite a bit of the MWP. Large natural variations didn’t just stop because it someone called it a ‘period’. Also, if you use Neukom’s actual proxies instead of his erased version of them, you see the big SH MWP signal.
Getting possibly interesting conclusions (higher natural variability and hemispheric decoupling per Cobb) using suspect to aggregiously faulty methods is still not valid methodology. Being right for the wrong reasons isn’t science. It’s climb down.
There is greater corruption of latter day temperature data for the Northern Hemisphere. It results from the sighting of official thermometers in urban heat islands — lending a positive bias to the data — especially, during winter months due to the tarmac effect in places from France to Alaska and Russia–e.g., official thermometers are located at airports that are continually cleared of snow and therefore are considerably warmer compared to the surrounding countryside that is blanketed in snow, reflecting 90% or more of the incoming solar energy.
There is a symmetry about the Greenland and Antarctic ice mass loss in the last decade.
http://www.ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velicogna/files/slide2.jpg
Good point Jim. Don’t expect the fake-skeptics to pay any attention.
I was hoping someone would say, but it’s only a decade, to which I would have responded, yes, it is only declining during the “pause” period, so we should wait a bit to make sure.
But it’s only a decade!
All that ice loss while the NH temp declined over the period. Looks like there might be some regional cause for this.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:2002/to:2012/trend
Analysis of gravity data from GRACE satellites indicates that the Greenland ice sheet lost approximately 2900 Gt (0.1% of its total mass) between March 2002 and September 2012. The mean mass loss rate for 2008-2012 was 367 Gt/year.[36] yes, Wikipedia
“Arctic Report Card: Update for 2012; Greenland Ice Sheet”
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html
Unfortunately the 2012 Report Card has been replaced by the 2013 one but the 2013 one seems to say within the ballpark of what I quoted.
Assuming a current rate of 1450 Gt per year that would be .05% per year. 20 years for 1%. I hope I am not confused here.
The Greenland Ice Sheet might have the resilience of the oceans. I think I read that the freshwater runoff freezes at a higher temperature, so would apparently fight back a bit around the edges. The fine people who chart the Grace data might add percentage losses per year to not coin a phrase, to add information that is useful for management, please.
I find it interesting that when this freshwater melts, it ends up right where it’s needed. Where it can make icemaking easier. It’s a good thing someone put it there.
Ragnaar, it is better to translate it to sea-level, and the current rate is 1 mm/yr, which is double what it as 5 years ago. Maybe in another 5-10 years it will be 2 mm/yr and so on, plus Antarctica’s contribution seems also to be increasing.
Greenland stayed icebound even during the previous interglacial when palm trees were growing in Canada. I would dial down the Al Gore.
The CO2 level will soon be or is already above that when Greenland glaciated, so its on its way out, as we see from its ice budget. When is the question, not if.
Jimmy, are you currently a resident of this planet? Sorry, I am talking about earth.
Jim D. The Greenland ice variability has a rather nice seasonal cycle. Whereas there is a lot of noise in the Antarctic. Both are trending downwards. Interesting graphs.
So they are showing ice mass loss for Greenland and Antarctica as negative recently, ie they are both gaining mass. If that isn’t what they meant to show perhaps you have a graph that is appropriately labeled
“So they are showing ice mass loss for Greenland and Antarctica as negative recently, ie they are both gaining mass.”
The y-axis are labelled in Gt, with positive ice mass anomalies going up. It’s very far fetched to interpret those falling curves as representing mass gains.
So if I label a graph change in income and show it going down into negative numbers you would assume that my income is increasing? Interesting point of view. How hard can it be to properly label a graph? Anyway, this is just a minor irritant to me. The fact is GRACE measurements of ice loss have the same problems that GRACE measurements of sea mass have. People that take these numbers to the bank are engaging in wishful thinking that we really have a handle on ice mass changes.
Jim D:
We’ve been watching and wondering about the Great Lakes as they seem to be dropping. I heard an interesting comment on that. It was about a resilient shore line. That it was natural for the lake levels to vary. That if it didn’t, you’d get some stagnation.
Jim D and R. Gates
Before you crow too loudly about GRACE results, you’d better make sure they have their system debugged fist.
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1122/2011GL049277/body.shtml
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1122/2011GL049277/2011GL049277.pdf
http://geodesy.ceegs.ohio-state.edu/course/refpapers/Han_JGR_GRACE_aliasing_04.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04508.x/abstract
Max
manacker, you may be referring to this GRACE result which shows an accelerating ice mass loss in both Greenland and Antarctica. While you may doubt their trends, they are also consistent with half the sea-level rise rate, so there are independent lines of evidence.
http://www.meltonengineering.com/Rapidly%20increasing%20polar%20ice%20loss%20.jpg
As with ARGO, I think a longer GRACE-type record will finally make the skeptics succumb to the reality of what is going on, but in the meantime we would expect increasingly shrill complaints about increasingly insignificant measurement errors.
The MWP regional? Just North America, Asia and Europe…and that’s it? Oh, and maybe Africa and South America, other little bits and pieces.
C’mon. Let the Aussies join in the complex interplay. Or was that a chaotic interplay? (Sounds so irresistibly cool, like the blurb on a Bergman movie.)
We’re not allowed into Eurovision and now this. You’re treating us like we treat the Kiwis!
I believe that’s why it’s called spatio-temporal chaos.
Prof Curry: Whatever the flaws in the methodology of Neukom et al., the paper serves to highlight the hemispheric asymmetries, the importance of internal variability, and concerns about overestimates of climate sensitivity.
Given the flaws in the methodology, I don’t see how you can conclude anything. The authors used only about 1/3 of the available records, and I did not understand why any of them were excluded from the analysis. Once the idea of variability is accepted, it makes no sense to include only series that have high correlation with some other series: it is bound to produce a downward bias in the estimation of variability. The only reasons I can see to discard any of those series would be (a) knowledge that the measuring apparatus was degraded and (b) the knowledge that change over a long period was caused by identifiable human activity (logging, construction, etc.)
The measures that go into the multivariate ENSO index do not correlate especially highly, why should any other of these measurement series in such a complex system?
As I have said on a previous thread, as far as paleo goes, the skeptics are having circles run around them by the mainstream. If there had been so much evidence for the MWP in the SH, they should have put it forwards before Neukom, because now it just looks like they are making it up to compensate this finding. It’s a constant story that the skeptics are just not doing the science they need to be doing, and this kind of thing happens leaving them yet again on the defensive. If I was a skeptic, I would be very annoyed with your side’s paleo people sitting on their data like this. Make a fight of it. It’s just too easy at the moment.
Jim D,
What’s to fight about? Facts are facts. Whether you like it or not, the only period not subject to accusations of cherry picking, is from now back to the formation of the Earth. So, over that period, what do you think has happened? I know, I know, a rhetorical question, but valid nevertheless.
Does the longest term average we have available show cooling, warming, or are we still living in a molten state? Go on, change the subject – or maybe invoke the consensus, launch an ad hominem attack, claim that the Earth is warming – Warmists usually have a library of irrelevant and pointless from which to select.
So go your hardest, keep fighting the Warmist fight. Maybe you can get the greenhouse effect to work if you try really, really hard!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Jim, scientists did put forward southern hemisphere reconstructions that clearly showed the MWP, and they did it prior to the Neukom paper, because Neukom cited them and used their reconstructions in his statistical mish-mash, one which only had about eight or nine proxies extending back to the MWP, of which half were noise.
Neukom showed a mismatch in the timing of the SH MWP, which he had, with only a small overlap with the earlier NH version, so it is partly this definition of when it happened that has been a cause of confusion.
Jim D
For evidence of a MWP in the southern hemisphere see:
Author, Date, Location, Temperature
Loehle 2007 rev., Global, 0.15°C warmer than today
Rosenthal et al. 2013, Pacific Ocean, 0.65°C warmer than today
Cook 2002, New Zealand, no temperature difference given
Wilson 1979, New Zealand, 0.75°C warmer than today
Newton 2006, Tropical Ocean. 0.4°C warmer than today
Lückge 2005, Coastal Peru, 1.2°C warmer than today
Goni 2004, Venezuela, 0.35°C warmer than today
Max
Mike Flynn
Without even getting into the molten Earth period, it looks like the surface temperature of our plane has generally been significantly warmer than today, with a few cooler glacial periods in between:
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
It also does not seem to have much long-term correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Max
Neukom also showed a Medieval Warm Period in the SH. The key was it didn’t overlap with the peak of the one in the NH. You might think a displacement by a century or two doesn’t matter, but when you are talking about a global average it matters a lot. It depends what “Medieval” means, doesn’t it? Lots of people are confused by the vagueness of this in terms of actual timing and coincidence of events.
Jimd
So what’s your definition of medieval and the timing and coincidence of events?
Tonyb
Tonyb, the NH peak seems to have spanned 1000 AD. The SH one was a couple of centuries later, with some evidence of being cool around 1000 AD. The LIA and current coincidences of events are better supported. For example we see this from Neukom.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zxViiz69ebE/U2ID324qN0I/AAAAAAAAFqo/4HjSvSxAx00/s1600/NeukomFig2.gif
Jimd
Is this the neukom who won’t archive his data in a move reminiscent of that other chronicler of paleo reconstructions, dr Mann?
http://climateaudit.org/2014/03/31/neukom-and-gergis-serve-cold-screened-spaghetti/
Tonyb
Tony,
Didn’t you notice the update of the post you quoted:
That was written the next day after the post and more than a month ago.
tonyb, instead of checking Neukom’s data you can look at references manacker keeps listing. The SH MWP seems to be near 1200 AD, not 1000 AD. I found that the Cook 2002 one for example seems to be quite cold around 1000 AD and warms up later by 1200 AD. The term MWP is just misdirection because it is so vague. The two MWPs while both being medieval and warm for sure, didn’t coincide. More precise terminology would be the 11th century NH and 13th century SH warm periods.
Pekka
Thanks Pekka. I can see Stevens reference to it on the 1st April and from 8.19 on the 3rd April onwards he seems to make a few comments based n the archives. He still seems less than impressed . I haven’t seen any more up to date articles than this from Steve. Is there one?
Tonyb
Jimd
There seems to be some problem with the manner in which the proxies have been assembled so I will wait until the data has been parsed more before commenting too much on The medieval portion of it
Neukom seems to have missed out on the sharp warming from 1700 for forty years so perhaps this data is like dr mann’s proxies in as much they are at a coarse resolution and the fine detail of annual and decadal variability falls through the sieve.
Tonyb
Jim D
Without getting into the many historical references, which tony b covers very well, Neukom (which you cited) uses 22 paleo climate proxies covering southern South America, and states (all bold face type by me):
Rosenthal et al. (2013) covers the North and South Pacific Ocean (a major chunk of the Southern Hemisphere), and states:
Hemer, M.A. et al. (2003) covers the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, concluding:
Wilson, A.T., et al. (1979) studied New Zealand:
Rein et al. (2005) studied the coast off Peru
Goni et al. (2004) studied the Cariaco Basin off Venezuela, concluding
So the MWP certainly does NOT sound like a localized Northern European event.
In fact, there is no evidence to show that it was simply a European or Northern Hemisphere event, but a lot of data showing just the opposite.
Max
manacker, you can pick warm proxies, and cold ones for various parts of the medieval period. None seem to be sustained warm for centuries. The NH MWP peaked around 1000 AD and by 1200 AD had mostly declined away, while the SH proxies I have seen so far are low in 1000 AD and rise through 1200 AD (Antarctic Peninsula, New Zealand). If you find an SH site with a warm anomaly corresponding to 1000 AD, it will be an unusual one, and regional.
Jim D
I’ve listed specific studies which conclude that there was a period over the late Medieval time (AD 800-1250) that was somewhat warmer than today, in several separate locations spread all around the Southern Hemisphere and you remain skeptical that these are really telling us anything.
Selective skepticism, I’d call it, Jim.
You know what’s right even if the data are telling you something else.
Max
manacker, I am skeptical that any of those sites were warm for four centuries. Usually the warmth is for a sporadic periods within that, and this is where there is no global matching up.
In other words, global temperatures will warm appreciably by 2100, but the road may be bumpy and full of surprises.
In other words, they don’t know enough to say anything “will” happen by 2100. They didn’t know what was going to happen in 5, 7, 11, 15 or 17 years. The future is going to be filled with more and more failed forecasts, that is for sure.
For the night is dark and full of terrors.
Some times I think we are too harsh. Yes, much of the article is a worry, or out and out trash. BUT when
“…imply that climate system predictability on decadal to century timescales may be lower than expected…” and
“…most climate models are unable to satisfactorily simulate…” and
“…climate scientists must consider a larger role for natural climate variability in…” and
“…have been a constant feature of the past millennium.”
These acknowledgements are a start. The fact they still pay homage to the meme is expected, but I can’t help but smile to read these lines.
Timothy Sorenson: These acknowledgements are a start. The fact they still pay homage to the meme is expected, but I can’t help but smile to read these lines.
At first I had a similar reaction, but after reading their data rejection “procedure” (in quotes because it was poorly defined), I thought it best to try to cleanse my mind of any thoughts that seemed to depend on the paper.
I don’t like being so sour but I don’t see any other alternative. It’s hard to know where to begin as there is so much foolishness in this discipline. But a few points.
1. although Kim Cobb said that Neukom and Gergis represents “new” information, when parsed, its proxies reaching back to the MWP are the same ones that have been around since before AR4 and even AR3: Ed Cook’s Tasmania tree rings, Cook’s Oroko swamp trees, Lonnie Thompson’s Quelccaya, some Villalba tree rings. Most were used as early as Mann et al 1998.
2. none of the proxies going back to the MWP has much low-frequency variability. A reconstruction using only these “long” proxies has negligible MWP, but also negligible modern warm period. Neukom and Gergis get their stick-ness by splicing non-descript long proxies with proxies with considerable LIA-modern variability. Neukom also uses instrumental data in the modern period – hardly a proxy. It’s even more bizarre because he uses instrumental precipitation readings as a temperature index (as did Mann et al 1998). It’s worth re-reading Mann’s caterwauling about precipitation in Mann et al EOS 2003..
3. the SH reconstructions of Mann et al 2008, used by IPCC AR5, were more similar to NH reconstructions than the Neukom reconstruction is to NH reconstructions. But the reason for this was typical goofiness: Mann et al 2008 used the same proxies in his SH reconstruction as he used for his NH reconstructions i.e. bristlecones, upside down Tiljander. I know it sounds crazy and impossible, but it’s true nonetheless.
4. in prior iterations eg. PAGES2K, Neukom’s methodology resulted in some proxies being used upside down e.g. Quelccaya d18O and accumulation. His new article has very sketchy methodological information, but says that he uses principal components regression. So the orientation of series can easily be flipped. In any reconstruction, the authors should show the weights applied to each of the constituent proxies – all procedures are linear and the weights can be extracted – a step that I’ve advocated for years.
5. Neukom uses some NH proxies, including Kim’s Palmyra coral, which, like YAD061, doesn’t always drink beer, but when it does, drinks Dos Equis, as it is the most influential coral in the world.
Because Kim’s editorial plays into a theme that you (Judy) like – about natural variability – it’s easy to let down your guard and presume that these new squiggles might mean something, but they really don’t. SH proxies are very interesting and the relationship between SH and NH proxies is equally interesting. I think that some interesting results can be teased out of the proxies. But Neukom and Gergis are on the wrong trail: it’s foolish to think that any “science” can be built on such ramshackle foundations.
Ouch. At least she acknowledged that the southern hemisphere was inconvenient…
My usual comment on these things: Dr. Curry hardly censors comments. If Neukom and Gergis think their science is good, _or if any climate scientist in the world agrees with them_, let them respond to these claims, in detail, here – where others can respond back. Or do it at the original post (referenced in the blog post) on the subject at climateaudit – McIntyre censors, but only for Off Topic near as I can see. A quick glance at that post shows me that none of Neukom, Gergis, or Karoly posted a single comment there.
Lots of skeptics who aren’t scientists read these skeptical blogs. Lots of them will not read the research papers, or can’t. Since people tend to prefer sources that agree with them, they probably won’t see defenses on Skeptical Science or such, or won’t trust them.
Don’t post links from those sites where “all these questions are answered”. McIntyre made specific claims. Answer them in detail.
An effective defense here will go a long way to making some of us think that the science is good. I was impressed by Robert Way’s effective defense of his work at climateaudit and here and elsewhere, and I think others were as well. Apparently he does good work.
Lack of any defense will go a long way to making some of us think what we think already: this science only goes in the echo chambers of the heavily censored pro-AGW blogs. It can’t be defended in an equal arena.
Appell, you’re on. Get your friends, or do it yourself. Spare me your claims about peer-reviewed journals. If you’re really interested in hearts and minds, come to where they are found. If the science can’t be defended here, it’s probably wrong and even bogus.
I am curious, Steve, why you don’t run the statistical analysis the way you think is appropriate on the datasets? Not knowing the details, is it a lot of work?
Or perhaps you don’t have all the information? If I recall correctly, you once mentioned you don’t get all the datasets, because some were ruled out for inclusion, but are not archived/accessible.
Miker.
It would be nice if people showed up to defend their work.
But that is an “internet” expectation. Most scientists dont live
on the internet. They show up to defend their work at conferences
and in journals.
That said it would be nice.
Now, Ive been on both sides of the fence. Ive both called for more direct participation and have tried to defend my published work.
My experience is that there is not much to be gained from defending your work on blogs.
1. its a black hole time sink
2. its wacka mole on steroids
3. 99% dont actually read what they attack.
4. All discussions get hi jacked to Wagathonville, or FOMDland, or oh hell
pick your favorite distractor of the day.
5. On occassion you get a good question, or a curious reader, or a good
suggestion. These are best followed up offline.
6. It’s theatre.
The only folks who I have seen who can do it well are Zeke Hausfather and Robert Way.
“The only folks who I have seen who can do it well are Zeke Hausfather and Robert Way.” That’s interesting. But I have seen a number of effective AGW supporters on climateaudit and here and Lucia. I forget the names of the ones who recently wrote a paper on melting ice caps in Canada, various skeptics attacked it, and they defended it very effectively. “Effectively” meaning that no-nothing skeptics such as myself came away saying – “Huh – sounds like that might be good work after all. I’m not sure if you can draw all those conclusions from some pieces of lichen, but it was clear that no one made them look foolish at all.”
Even right now, Nic Lewis posted on climateaudit on Bayesian priors, about which I know nothing. But there were some pretty good arguments there, and at least one skeptic (me) came away saying, “Gosh, I thought statisticians at least agreed with Nic Lewis’ sensitivity calculations, and climate modellers – well, they aren’t statisticians so who cares what they think about statistics. But in this post it wasn’t at all obvious that he got the better of those arguing with him. And I don’t even know who they are, it was just a couple of guys with handles.”
That is very very different from the impression I come away with from paleo papers like the one discussed here. Read McIntyre’s comments: the paper is idiotic garbage. Okay, you can leave me with that impression or not; it’s up to you. But don’t blame me.
If climate scientists want to stay in their journals, that’s their business. But if they want to convince interested skeptics, skeptical blogs are the place to do it.
David Appell | May 1, 2014 at 6:16 pm | Reply
Hemispheric asymmetries are largely unexplored? Manabe talked about people analyzing them in the 1970s….
============================================
What is it about the world “largely” that you don’t understand, David?
BREAKING NEWS
Scott Deming gets the science right!
Judith Curry sets good priorities!
Pope Francis focuses upon right answers!
Conclusions
• Purely statistical climate-science is weak climate-science.
• Quibbles regarding local metrics and decadal timescales have no enduring relevance in the climate-change debate.
• Policy debates should focus upon millennial time-scales, not decadal time-scales.
That’s strong science *AND* strong morality, eh Climate Etc readers?
AFOMD,
Concrete blocks absorb and re emit thermal radiation. So – obviously not obvious to you – does everything else with a temperature.
No prizes for Deming, as he is stating the blindingly obvious.
Pope Francis is no doubt a holy man. Unfortunately, he represents a minority of humanity. Even that minority may well choose to do what they want, rather than that which Pope Francis desires.
Have you any scientific facts to present, or just more Warmist religious dogma?
Well may the world wonder, eh, AFOMD?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
On behalf of Climate Etc readers, this appreciation is extended you Mike Flynn, for plaining exhibiting the strongest varieties of denialist science, the strongest denialist rationality, the strongest denialist mathematics, the strongest denialist maturity, and the strongest denialist morality.
Summary Even the strongest climate-change denialism is anti-scientific, irrational, innumerate, juvenile, and amoral.
AFOMD,
Thank you for your most kind affirmation.
It is welcome indeed to be recognised as being the strongest in not just one, but a plethora of disparate areas.
I hope that I have provided a suitable role model to which you might eventually aspire. The road is hard, but the reward justifies the journey.
Once again, thank you for your fulsome approbation.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
AFOMD,
I don’t wish to appear picky but I think you meant to write plainly rather than plaining. I don’t believe plaining is appropriate in this context, but you may respond that Warmist words mean anything the Warmist desires.
Of course, I accept this. Where would Warmism be if it had to rely on fact?
Actually, this could be the start of a new paradigm. Say anything you wish, and let people know that your words are flexible enough to cover any eventuality, if necessary changing meaning between the mouth and the ear, for example. What do you think? I think you are well on the way to mastering the art.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
“Even the strongest climate-change denialism is anti-scientific, irrational, innumerate, juvenile, and amoral.”
You left out loutish, sex crazed, and corrupting of children.
Fan:
I really appreciate your teal signature banner. It is a great visual cue, showing me when to stop scrolling.
d
My vote for best comment so far:
David Jay’s “I really appreciate your teal signature banner. It is a great visual cue, showing me when to stop scrolling.”
A fan of *MORE* discourse: Policy debates should focus upon millennial time-scales, not decadal time-scales.
That is an excellent suggestion. I think that the conversion from fossil fuels to everything else should be carried out gradually throughout the next millennium.
But our expectations of future warming are not based on extrapolation of recent trends. Rather, we expect climate to be warmer in the future than in the past because we know that greenhouse gases absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation.
In that case, there is no rational basis for expecting any particular increase over any particular length of time. But the quote is incomplete, at best, and probably false: Scott Deming clearly expects that there will be no future increase in cloud cover; possibly he just forgot to mention it. An expectation of no future cloud cover is not strongly supported by the science — it’s just another conjecture.
“Purely statistical climate-science is weak climate-science.”
Really?
Remind me again, what is “climate science”? The study of the long term statistics of weather, isn’t it?
So, doesn’t your statement logically lead to “All climate-science is weak.”?
Where’s your skepticism now, Fannie?
A fan of *MORE* Discourse: Purely statistical climate-science is weak climate-science.
Other than the laboratory investigations of the absorption/emission spectra of CO2, do you have any non-statistical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is affecting climate? From the lab came a reasonable conjecture; in the climate there are nothing but statistical relationships, or their absence when hoped for (such as the missing “Equatorial hot spot”.)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:191/mean:193/last:384/plot/esrl-co2/mean:191/mean:193/scale:0.011/offset:-3.7/plot/hadcrut4nh/mean:191/mean:193/last:384/plot/hadcrut4sh/mean:191/mean:193/last:384
This is what the fuss is about? Antarctica has five times the ice to melt as the whole Northern Hemisphere combined, and a different structure to how it moves heat in transition from the surface due its different ocean-land arrangements.
How is a widening North-South gulf, a steeper North-South shear, supposed to be a good thing?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:101/mean:103/last:384/plot/esrl-co2/mean:101/mean:103/scale:0.011/offset:-3.7/plot/hadcrut4nh/mean:101/mean:103/last:384/plot/hadcrut4sh/mean:101/mean:103/last:384
Of course, to all appearances, what’s been buffering the rampant heating of the Northern Hemisphere is all in the drag plundered from the Southern Hemisphere (in a model we’re used to in Economics: the North getting what the South has while giving nothing back). This isn’t surprising: the South has a solid land mass at its pole, and a far higher ratio of ocean to land, and is far less densely populated for a reason. You pretty much had to be transported there against your will to settle most of the South, its inhospitable and whacky climate extremes no small part of that.
Well, what happens when the North-South shear increases, except that those extremes increase, too?
Not really what the South needs sent down from the North. But what goes around comes around: those extremes are happening in the Northern Hemisphere, too. That shear took 35 years to grow into the gap it is now. Chaos Theory predicts the return to equilibrium will follow at least as complex a path, at least as extreme, as the course to get to where we are, but it doesn’t say how long that will be. It could be a year, with all the extreme events supersized and packed into twelve months, or it could be a century of polar vortices, droughts and floods.
And why can’t I get compensated for this damage done by fossil fuel?
Though chromium occurs naturally in the body, the best
way to get rid of gynecomastia, this could be your answer.
But before nice man chest surgery, you can make the problem worse.
It’s nothing new, and some experts estimate that as much as ninety percent of males at some point in their lives, will be diagnosed with Gynecomastia or at least experience Gynecomastia symptoms.
The cost of surgery to reduce male chest fat and usually surgery is
the first solution men look to for solutions.
TED Presentation by Gavin Schmidt: http://www.ted.com/talks/gavin_schmidt_the_emergent_patterns_of_climate_change?share=1329cbb33a
Question to Climate Etc. Group: Can links be provided for “objective” discussion on what Models can predict fairly well? I’m not asking for “the problems in what we can’t model well” but rather any hopeful consensus on what we’ve been able to model well.
“One of the few tests we can expose climate models to, is whether they are able to represent the observed temperature record from the dawn of industrialization until present. Models are surprisingly skillful in this respect, considering the large range in climate sensitivities among models – an ensemble behavior that has been attributed to a compensation with 20th century anthropogenic forcing: Models that have a high climate sensitivity tend to have a weak total anthropogenic forcing, and vice-versa. A large part of the variability in inter-model spread in 20th century forcing was further found to originate in different aerosol forcings.”
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/09/climate-model-tuning/
These links are readily supplied Stephen Segrest! Please keep in mind that:
• purely statistical climate-science is weakest;
• computational climate-science is relatively weak; and
• thermodynamical climate-science is strongest.
The strongest climate-change science thus rests on energy balance foundations that both explain and are verified by global-scale observations.
Fairly Reliable Climate-Science Predictions
• sea-level rise without pause or obvious limits;
• oceanic heating without pause or obvious limits; and
• ice-mass loss without pause or obvious limits.
Conclusion The most robust predictions of the strongest climate-science are robustly affirmed by the largest-scale observations.
What is your next question, Stephen Segrest?
“Detection does not imply attribution of the detected change to the assumed cause. ‘Attribution’ of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence . As noted in the SAR and the TAR, unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with the climate system. Since that is not possible, in practice attribution of anthropogenic climate change is understood to mean demonstration that a detected change is ‘consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing’ and ‘not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings’.”
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/16/climate-model-simulations-of-the-amo/
“Lucia’s comment: This seems to be an admission that modelers have known their models would be compared to 20th century data early on. So, early models were tuned to that. We are now in a situation where models can — mostly– match 20th century data. So, the good match in the hindcast for the historic surface temperatures in no longer a very good metric for determining which models are good or bad.”
http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/09/climate-model-discussion-thread/
Stephen. Climate models have been discussed extensively here. Here is a list of informative posts from Climate Etc concerning models.
http://judithcurry.com/category/climate-models/
Stephen, I think you can now see that asking what climate models do well isn’t adequate. You also have to ask WHY models do these things, whatever they may be, well.
“Fairly Reliable Climate-Science Predictions
• sea-level rise without pause or obvious limits;
• oceanic heating without pause or obvious limits; and
• ice-mass loss without pause or obvious limits.
——
Yep, until the external forcing of increasing GH gases is removed, the climate system will continue to accumulate energy. To be sure, that external forcing will eventually be removed, either voluntarily by humans using sound Anthropocene management, or involuntarily.
• sea-level rise without pause or obvious limits;
• oceanic heating without pause or obvious limits; and
• ice-mass loss without pause or obvious limits.
=============
each of these events started at the end of the last ice age and will end at the end of the current interglacial. the ice ages are evidence of cyclical climate change a time scales from tens to millions of years.
attributing these to CO2 is the stuff of superstition. we threw a virgin into the volcano and it rained. therefore we can make it rain in future so long as we have virgins. we started burning fossil fuel and it got warmer. therefore if we stop burning fossil fuel we can make it stop.
Superstitious proclamation by ferdberple, debunking by Roy Spencer.
Thank you ferdberple, for your vivid exhibition of anti-scientific/innumerate/superstitious denialist cognition!
As noted in the SAR and the TAR, unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with the climate system.
============
we have that after a fashion. the climate models are screaming at us, telling us the answer, but no one is listening. here is what they are saying:
dozens and dozens of models, all with the same basic assumptions, all returning a different answer. these different answers are not a result of forcings at all. the forcings have remained the same.
what the models are telling us is that there is a large natural VARIABILITY in the system that has nothing to do with forcings. instead, what the IPCC and climate science community has done is to focus on AVERAGES.
Study your history. Read Demings. The father of modern quality control. Ignored in Detroit he went to Japan and the rest is history. His message is plain for those who will listen. It is VARIANCE not AVERAGES that are important. Averages hide the truth. It is variance that reveals the truth in your data.
Gates writes:
“Fairly Reliable Climate-Science Predictions
• sea-level rise without pause or obvious limits;
• ice-mass loss without pause or obvious limits.
Imo, you are jumping to conclusions based upon your bias. The effects of AGW on both sea level rise and ice-mass loss could be easily overwhelmed by other factors in the system in timescales important to humans. If climate models were in fact reliable in this area they would be able to give forecasts of the changes for the next few years within tight margins of error, but they are not.
Superstitious proclamation by ferdberple, debunking by Roy Spencer.
=========
when Dr Spencer, or anyone else, has shown an ability to reliably predict future climate better than simple chance we will know if “debunking” is anything more than rationalization based on false assumptions.
Until that time we are all stumbling in the dark. Trying to make sense of what we see. The problem is that all of our understanding rest on a foundation of both facts and assumptions, with no guarantee that these assumptions are correct.
The only test in science that has any value is the ability to predict the future better than chance. A straight line RMS projection from the little ace age to present does a better job than the climate model ensemble mean at predicting temperatures. Which demonstrates that so far chance is doing a better job.
The scientific community is aware of your difficulties ferdberple, and is working diligently to illuminate your mathematical, scientific, technological, economic, and moral ignorance!
The steady cumulation of rational illumination is (we all hope) a rewarding adventure for conservatism in general, and for you individually, ferdberple!
Rob Starkey said:
“he effects of AGW on both sea level rise and ice-mass loss could be easily overwhelmed by other factors in the system in timescales important to humans.”
_____
Yes, massive volcanic eruptions or a comet strike could do it. But the effects of those would be guaranteed catastrophic. I think it best that humans just begin to be good stewards of the planet and get their GH gas emissions under control.
fred berple
Amen.
For more on that, see Nassim Taleb’s reference to the man who drowned while wading across a river that was 4 feet deep on AVERAGE.
Max
Stephen, they are tuned to hind cast spacial temperature anomalies well. That is all. As Dr Curry posted in her APS presentation, they do not hindcast absolute temperature well. Which is one reason (dew point) that they cannot do clouds well. Inability to get absolute temperature and clouds means they cannot hind cast precipitation well either. My book has about a hundred peer reviewed references detailing those things.
In short, they hind cast the T anomaly because that is what they were tuned to do (often via aerosols). Anything else claimed is an ensemble average that mixes the bad with the ugly into a pretend blended OK. ( Frequent and very cogent RGBatDuke point).
And there is no easy fix because the smallest grid cells today’s supercomputers can handle is still orders of magnitude large than the convection cells essential for humidity transport into the upper troposphere, and so for cloud formation and precipitation. That is why CMIP5 still produces a tropical troposphere hotspot when none exists. See Christy’s APS presentation.
Mosher: “Cowtan and way is superior to hadcrut and giss which are garbage untested hacks.”
C&W begins in 1979, which happens to coincide with the bottom turn of the AMO which influences large parts of what C&W is better at filling in. If we think that AMO and the Arctic are relevant for global temperature, we will also have to consider the possibility that if hadcrut and giss missed some recent warming, they also missed some cooling during a falling AMO pre 1979 (and again missing warming pre 1945, etc).
So, in a sense hadcrut and giss might be superior to C&W in reducing the effect of the AMO and thus better show the longer trends, if that is the objective.
Yes, I think C&W does a better job at showing the whole picture. But those who embrace it for showing that there has been no recent hiatus but rather some warming (which I think might well be true) should not be surprised if this warming stops or even reverses post 2015 (or whenever the AMO peaks), while this is not reflected in hadcrut and giss.
You have an assumption here that the AMO activity is completely independent of the highest GH gas levels in 3.2 million years. Seems a rather weak and unjustified assumption.
Heat transport to the N Atlantic is already slowing and the heat content of the N Atlantic is dropping. The C&W method will be attacked by the same people supporting it now because it will cause the drop in temperatures to be more dramatic than if older methods are used. One the other hand those attacking it now will think it is OK. I find it all rather humorous.
steven, “The C&W method will be attacked by the same people supporting it now because it will cause the drop in temperatures to be more dramatic than if older methods are used. One the other hand those attacking it now will think it is OK. I find it all rather humorous.”
It is pretty funny.
CW is probably mostly right, but it doesn’t tell us muc about the processes yet. We don’t know what happened in the arctic in the past.
The arctic warming probably has little to do with GHGs. The convergence of heat in this location would also be a negative feedback, the concentration of warmth means it is radiated away faster.
“The arctic warming probably has little to do with GHGs.”
____
To be sure there is always some natural variability at work, but equally certain is that increasing GH gas emissions add net energy to the climate system and some of that energy will be advocated to the Arctic, leading to net sea ice decline, and, later this century, the first ice free Arctic conditions in quite some time.
Right, but the % of the energy from GHGs is tiny.
The implication that GHGs are causing the melt is very misleading. The best we can conjecture so far is that GHG may have very slightly increased the rate of melt.
“The implication that GHGs are causing the melt is very misleading.”
______
Hardly. The implication follows from very basic physics. Add more net energy to the climate system and the ice begins to melt. Increasing GHG’s allow the system to retain more net energy. This is so fundamental that only those who deny it are the misleading ones.
“
I am speaking only of METHODS not of results.
1. the GISS method was never published and tested as a METHOD.
2. the hadcrut method was never published and tested as a METHOD.
C&W use a known tested method.
This is not rocket science. The GISS method has always been presented in conjunction with results. That is, they describe the method (RSM) and present results. What’s missing? tests on synthetic data to show the effectiveness and short comings of the method. Same with HADCRUT.
no separate methods paper.
Now, when it came to publishing our paper we used a standard accepted method. Kriging. Journals and certain reviewers from england demanded a separate methods paper. That is,
they would not publish the results paper until the methods paper was published. Then they sat on the methods papers. They sat on a paper that
used a standard, proven, tested method. Hell, one of the top cited articles in the journal was an explanation of the method they wanted us to prove.
As if they would retract all the papers in their journal that used kriging. Right.
C&W use the same method. data sources are different, but the method is
what it is.
Mr. Mosher, kriging across land/sea/snow and ice make no sense. So for tome where between 4 and 6 months out of the year, it can be done but should not be. Plus the C&T also kited from UAH grid cells to manufacture Artic warming when UAH does not show it in the same region.
You may be impressed with the method and results. As an econometrician and a believer in independent results verifications, I am not. They set out to manufacture polar amplification by kriging from warmer lower latutude surface data. They cherry picked UAH to get an inconsistent with UAH result. And publicized their synthetic result as showing the pause isn’t. But It is. Defense of the indefensible is unbecoming.
R, Gates you write “Hardly. The implication follows from very basic physics. Add more net energy to the climate system and the ice begins to melt. Increasing GHG’s allow the system to retain more net energy. This is so fundamental that only those who deny it are the misleading ones.”
I get awfully tired of this wrong logic. No-one, I hope, is denying that as you add more CO2 to the atmosphere from recent levels there will be more net energy in the system. The argument is HOW MUCH MORE energy is there in the system? There is absolutely no empirical, measured data to show that anything more than a negligible amount of net new energy was caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Zero, nada, zilch. All the warmists have to back up this claim, are some hypothetical estimations and the output of non-validated models. Yes, CAGW is a viable hypothesis, but that is ALL that it is. There is no measured empirical data whatsoever to show that it is correct. Ever single change in climate that we have observed over the last centuries can readily be explained by assuming that the causes are natural, and have nothing whatsoever to do with more GHGs.
“There is absolutely no empirical, measured data to show that anything more than a negligible amount of net new energy was caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.”
really. If there is no data, you cannot conclude anything about the amount.
Your argument is there is no data. yet you conclude, given no data, that the effect cannot be more than negliigible.
Measured physics says you add 3.7 Watts
“Mr. Mosher, kriging across land/sea/snow and ice make no sense. So for tome where between 4 and 6 months out of the year, it can be done but should not be.
1. silly man of course it makes sense. The issue is always the accuracy.
basically you can include an indicator variable in your drift function.
2. they employ an ice mask, as do we.
3. The biggest issue with kriging in the polar regions are
A) the correlation length may be too long as the correlation length
in the arctic can have strong seasonal variations
B) inversion layers which will play havoc with your predictions.
4. The proof is in the pudding of out of sample testing and comparison
with AIRS..
“Plus the C&T also kited from UAH grid cells to manufacture Artic warming when UAH does not show it in the same region.
You may be impressed with the method and results. As an econometrician and a believer in independent results verifications, I am not. They set out to manufacture polar amplification by kriging from warmer lower latutude surface data. They cherry picked UAH to get an inconsistent with UAH result. And publicized their synthetic result as showing the pause isn’t. But It is. Defense of the indefensible is unbecoming.”
Well, the problem is you are wrong. They did validate against Bouys and if you followed my work
on AIRS you should have a good sense of what is coming in an AIRS validation
Finally, you can check against the latest long series for polar surface temps
just published ( previewed at AGU.. ) go find that on your own. Look at all the data, all the sources and then speak to me.
for all the blather about data skeptics never actually look at it
Steve, Jim C is using the scientific method to conclude that CO2 has a positive yet negligible effect on temperature. You know, he formed a hypothesis, tested it, analyzed results, formed a conclusion which validated the hypothesis. Except he didn’t do the test part because he already knew the effect of CO2 on temperature cannot be directly measured. So he skipped that part. He therefore had no data to analyze, but he formed a conclusion anyway. He is certain CO2 has a positive effect which is supported by no measurements, so therefore it is negligible. That is how Jim’s scientific method works.
Oh, and Jim got a value of 0.0 with a precision of 2 significant figures.
Steven, you write “Measured physics says you add 3.7 Watts”
Wrong. Calculated physics says you add 3.7 Wm-2. There is no physics that shows that all of the change of radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2 is retained. A small rise change in lapse rate could cause it to all be radiated into space. No-one has estimated how much OHC rises for a doubting of CO2.
Steven, you also write “Your argument is there is no data. yet you conclude, given no data, that the effect cannot be more than negligible.”
Again, wrong. I use no such logic. I observe that no-one has measured a CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. This can never prove anything, but it gives a strong indication that the climate sensitivity of CO2, however defined, is indistinguishable from zero.
Rud, according to C&W the Titanic hit an island in the Atlantic.
John, you write “Oh, and Jim got a value of 0.0 with a precision of 2 significant figures.”
Wrong. I guessed the value of 0.0 C to 2 significant figures.
John, you also write “Steve, Jim C is using the scientific method”
Again wrong. No-one can use The Scientific Method when it comes to climate. You cannot do controlled experiments on the earth’s atmosphere. Why of why do warmists always put words into my mouth that I never wrote?
”
“There is absolutely no empirical, measured data to show that anything more than a negligible amount of net new energy was caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.”
really. If there is no data, you cannot conclude anything about the amount.
Your argument is there is no data. yet you conclude, given no data, that the effect cannot be more than negliigible.
”
Learn to read Steve – “There is no data to show that…” is NOT THE SAME as “there is no data.” – to turn around an oft used phrase, evidence of lack is not lack of evidence!
And further, a change that is (several) orders of magnitude larger than cyclic data (day/night, summer/winter, glacial/interglacial etc) could reasonably be defined as “negligable” I would think.YMMV.
”Wrong. I guessed the value of 0.0 C to 2 significant figures.”
Jim, I hate to break it to you…. again…. but there are no significant figures in the expression 0.0. You can not divide 0 into smaller parts. There is no less than nothing. You cannot express 0 with any more or less precision. It’s nothing. Didn’t Serl teach you this in physics 101?
John, you write “Jim, I hate to break it to you…. again…. but there are no significant figures in the expression 0.0.”
Sometimes I wonder why I bother to reply to nonsense. I can write 1.0 C, and there are 2 significant figures. Similarly, I can write 2.0 C, or 3.0 C, etc., and there are 2 significant figures. Why is 0 different from 1, 2, 3 etc?
Further, I can write 0.001 C, and this has meaning to 4 significant figures. So why cannot I write 0.0 C and claim that it is right to 2 significant figures?
Jim, you really need to read up on significant figures because you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding.
1.0 two sig figs, correct
2.0 two sig figs, correct
0.0 two sig figs, wrong
0.001 four sig figs, wrong
Zero cannot be expressed with any more or less precision than just plain 0. It represents nothing. You can’t make nothing any more or less precise, therefore there is no significance in reporting it any other way.
0.001 has only 1 significant figure. The zeros only place the significant figure, but are not significant. 0.00100 OTOH represents 3 significant figures. The zeros after the 1 in this case are significant the same as 0.00123 would be a value represented as 3 significant figures.
Zeros after a numerical significant figure on the right side of a decimal are always significant because it is saying that one is capable of measurement to that degree of precision. All zeros between numerals are significant. However, zeros after a numerical significant figure on the left side of a decimal MAY NOT be significant. For example:
1000 may be an expression to either 4, 3, 2, or 1 significant figures. We only know if we know to what degree of precision we are capable of measuring. If I am measuring 1 liter of water from a container with only one line marked as 1 liter but I want to express it as ml, I would write 1000 ml with the understanding it has only 1 significant figure. If I measured the 1 liter of water in a graduated cylinder with graduations every 100 ml, I would understand I have two significant figures.
Understanding significant figures properly is essential for understanding error in measurement. You cannot express error in measurement without knowing to what degree of precision you can measure along with the accuracy of the measurement. Significant figures tells us to what precision we are capable of measuring and therefore reported.
Read rules here:
http://www.usca.edu/chemistry/genchem/sigfig.htm
More here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures
John, Fair enough. I will just say 0.0 C to one place of decimals.
Jim:
When I went to school I was taught to use scientific notation to determine significant digits.
So .001 can be written 1 times 10 to the minus 3, and has only one significant digit.
1000 can be written as 1 times 10 to the positive 3, and has only one significant digit.
1.234 can be written as 1.234 times 10 to the zero, so has 4 significant digits.
0 is a bit tricky to handle – so I don’t know about that.
But this is why I was confused earlier about your 0 to 1 significant digit.
I assumed you meant 0.x – with the x being the one significant digit.
Now I understand your thinking better.
However, try the scientific notation trick for figuring out significant digits.
Perhaps northern hemispheric data sets have been subject to more scientific scrutiny and thereby receive more “adjustments” than southern data sets?
Overall, I find it troubling that anyone in climate science or media presents the entire AGW topic as “settled” science, when hugely important issues like this are poorly understood.
@ “the fan”atic
Holland Serreze and Stroeve, Climate Dynamics 2010 state explicitly:
“Coupled global climate models project continued decreases in sea ice extent and thickness through the 21st century” Reference 4 papers. “In soume cases the simulated loss is quite abrupt and can lead to near ice-free September conditions in the middle of the 21st century. However, rates of loss vary greatly between models. yielding large uncertainty…”
So which model do you want to use? Llater on page 186, they state the ensemble mean says a growth of .2 over 1980-1999. The model runs then predict a continuing decrease in Arctic sea ice.
So after the baseline of 1980-1999 and the 2010 runs: how have they done?
Your question is excellent, timothy sorenson!
*ALL* climate-models predict that if we keep doing this then we will get this this; that’s why thoughtful citizens say this this.
That’s the main climate-consensus, eh timothy sorenson?
Question Why do denialists obsess over precise schedules? Is it a non-rational avoidance mechanism? The world wonders!
Any trend taken to infinity is unsustainable, and there are huge numbers of such trends to consider.
But it is foolish to solve hypothetical problems at the infinite, or even far distant bound.
Our farm has been in the family for 150 years; we have always planted trees with a view to time-scales of one century, and we have always planned for soil conservation on time-scales of 500-1000 years.
The payoff for long-range planning is well-worth the effort (at both the family level and the community level) eh Eunice?
Needless to say, plenty of folks plan ahead on multi-millennium time-scales
Are long-vision folks wise?
Wiser — as common sense tells us! — than all-too-common special-interest CEOs, computerized commodity-traders, childish Randian ideologues, and greedy politicians-for-hire?
The world wonders!
“Are long-vision folks wise?
Wiser — as common sense tells us! — than all-too-common special-interest CEOs, computerized commodity-traders, childish Randian ideologues, and greedy politicians-for-hire?
______
Funny and right on target at the same time. Fan continues in prime form today.
Another inconvenient truth about the oceans:
http://boxoffice.hotdocs.ca/websales/pages/info.aspx?evtinfo=22809~446634ba-e848-4237-9b3c-72aceddb5263&epguid=b314c44a-eed5-4434-9c2c-cc86c0bf61ee&
Many ocean stocks, of resources that can take decades to mature to come to market, are at one percent of the level of a century ago due unsustainable levels overexploiting the reserves.
We’re past peak fish protein.
Draw your own conclusions.
R. gates – But warmer than 750 Million years ago.
Yes. After cooling for 300 My, the oceans are now a couple degrees warmer than snowball earth. What’s your point? That oceans are too warm to extinguish multi-cellular terrestrial life? hmm. maybe you have been listening too much to bart r.
Another inconvenient truth about the oceans:..
…ocean stocks, of resources that can take decades to mature to come to market, are at one percent of the level of a century ago due unsustainable levels overexploiting the reserves.
As around a third of the energy required for deep ocean upwelling is thought to be from biological mixing (swimming) and hence effects the climate.
http://www.whoi.edu/science/PO/turbulence/download/papers/dewaretal.2006.pdf
Inconvenient fact: it could be cooler. “In fact, the planet is currently its coldest in almost 300 million years.” ~Paul MacRae
But warmer than 750 Million years ago.
_____
What irrelevant timeframes won’t denialists try to use to support their fake-skeptic memeplex?
History is hard, especially when it’s so much fun to dance around the fire and look at all the pretty shadows on the walls of Plato’s cave.
oops May 2, 2014 at 8:21 pm
May 2, 2014 at 8:21 pm
R. Gates | May 2, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
But warmer than 750 Million years ago.
What irrelevant timeframes won’t denialists try to use to support their fake-skeptic memeplex?
None. But to remove a double negative perhaps, I think we are looking at all time scales
The correlation between levels of CO2 and Temperature during Earths history, over the last 4.5 billion years, are pretty much non-correlated.
It isn’t odd when you think of the changes in the biosphere and the biosphere sculpting of the oceans, land and atmosphere.
whoops; missing graphic
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/co2_temperature_historical.png
Look at the trend on the graph and consider that the ‘human effect’ the EPA worries about — humanity’s release of CO2 – is so small it must be measured in parts per million of our atmosphere as if it is a poison that in small amounts contaminates the world around us and if unchecked will kill us all and yet, as Dr. Happer observed, by comparison the Earth is actually CO2-starved.
Realclimate has something about paleo temperature graphs. See the section on Bad Graphs, because this one is included.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/can-we-make-better-graphs-of-global-temperature-history/#more-17010
They asked for people to submit better efforts. One I liked was this one.
http://philip.brohan.org.transfer.s3.amazonaws.com/Cenezoic.pdf
I noticed the Weather Channel has fallen prey to disastrous climate change derangement syndrome. I’m hearing snippets in reporting–e.g., about heavy rain in Pensacola — mostly from the new guy that started last week — like…
I don’t know how you feel about global warming but ‘they’ say it will bring heavy rains.
They?
In the same hour the same guy eluded to global warming when talking about the latest spate of tornadoes. I’m sure his reporting on the California will also be dripping with aspersion and innuendo. Looks like the time has come to exercise the common sense vote and wave bye, bye to TWC…
LOL … Waggy, is *ANYONE* left in your “bubble” of denialism?
Let’s see … there’s you, Anthony Watts, Lord Monckton, “He who must not be named”, Duke Energy, Peter Lang, Eunice, the Koch Brothers, Joe Bast, Mark Steyn, the ghost of Ayn Rand … and Judith Curry as an occasional visitor?
Conclusion The denial-o-sphere is getting kinda crowded!
How much do we want to admit that most of what we believe is shaped by government employees and a brainless media of blubbering talking heads spewing regurgitated nonsense through bleached teeth like sausage through a meat grinder?
Insight by Wagathon, visuals by FOMD!
“This reckless move by DIRECTV will have an impact on our role as part of the national safety and preparedness fabric of our country at a time when the volatility and frequency of weather events seems to be increasing…” ~David Kenny, CEO of TWC — channeling Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth — after DirecTV drop kicked’m down the rabbit hole into Oz.
I am not sure if I would be quoting the St. Crispin’s Day speech from Henry V if I were a member of a large, well funded consensus facing a smaller, equally determined, and better armed band of skeptical brothers.
The takeaway from that particular incident should be – don’t count your chickens while you still might get slaughtered.
Come to think of it, Copenhagen did have elements of an Agincourt like loss for the consensus, without the skeptics even showing up.
Obliviousness by GaryM, visuals by FOMD!
Schizophrenic of TMC to blame those who would watch their show for destroying the world and essentially say to us that we’re too stupid to see government scientists and education interest groups must continue to save the world from… US. Does TMC think it is America’s version of the BBC–Left-wing and anti-business?
Well I see there’s the usual scintillating wit and wisdom – not to mention scientific acumen – being demonstrated.
Although there is limited SH data – e.g. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/pcn/mann2008fig1.jpg – it seems a 1000 years may be just a little too short for Antarctica at least.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/04/21/blogs/dotkaufman.html
The is as well no real reason to expect simultaneous regional climate change – e.g. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-12/ggph-rcc120413.php – now why would that be? Note the abruptness of the changes.
There is an interesting annual difference between hemispheres. Reflected SW peaks in December with the larger NH albedo and is at a minimum in August. IR losses peak in July or August as southern oceans cool and is at a minimum in December or January. Net (= -SW – IR) is warming in January and cooling in June. Fun to see but not all that significant.
You can find the data here – http://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSelection.jsp
Climate is an emergent property of internal system reorganizations that integrates all forcings. It is more like a kaleidoscope than a control knob. Shake it up and a new pattern emerges. The current pattern suggests non-warming (oceans and atmosphere) – at least – for decades.
AGW is dead is the water – both as a theory and as the surface temperature fails year after year to show any warming let alone 0.2 degrees C/decade. How long until this is widely recognized? Judging by CE – it is all just deeply entrenched narrative and struggling with the simple bits.
Generalissimo Skippy
“You can find the data here – http://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSelection.jsp”
It seems that the asymmetry of Northern and Southern Hemispheres is evident morning noon and night, 365 days, going from March 2000 to December 2013.
Hmmm. Now the IPCC heralded climate control knob CO2 is a global well mixed gas. Is the data from CERES suggesting “It ain’t necessarily so…” The Southern Hemisphere behaves separate from Northern Hemisphere? or at least not in concert?
Probably more the distribution of ocean and land in the 2 hemispheres.
I will note that it interesting to watch people argue from data that they dont trust.
Certain data is questionable. Stomata CO2 proxies suggest that the ice core concentrations miss variability and are too low on average. Jason and GRACE are inconsistent with ARGO heat and salinity. Surface temperatures over land are inconsistent with satellite troposphere data.
Ultimately you look for consistency, consilience and artifacts. In the case of surface temps over land the essential problem is water availability – the lack thereof over land – making the surface record however well krigged obsolete for monitoring climate.
Did no one ever show you how to evaluate data? Perhaps they just don’t cover that in philosophy school.
The only way such an argument makes sense is if it is framed as “Even if your temperature reports are true, they show a pause of x years.” Ditto for arguments regarding sea level, climate sensitivity, etc.
Which is why I generally refer to the “reported” GAT when discussing the “pause.”.
Why should anyone trust corrupted data: May 1, 2014 at 9:27 pm
sorry
surface temps are consistent with sat records.
Good one Don! I’ve been wondering why I make the same every year since 2006. I can’t blame it it on my boss though as I’m self employed (I still feel screwed though). I look at it more like the stock market. The general trend is up due to economic growth but there are corrections and recessions and even crashes and depressions. We are in a correction and it’s a recession for the alarmists. They cheer themselves up convinced it will all be over soon and we can start up the BBQ again.
… as the global warming alarmists pray for disaster and point to today’s weather as proof of their predictions of catastrophe 30-50 years from now.
“… as the global warming alarmists pray for disaster and point to today’s weather as proof of their predictions of catastrophe 30-50 years from now.”
It’a amazing how in the last few years all the predictions from the alarmists have gone from disaster in 5-10 (just like the “ACT NOW!” infomercials) to not less than 30 years.
They’ve learned that when their certainty that british schoolchildren in 2008 will never experience snow or that pacific islanders will be treading water in 2010 are proven by reality and the calendar as rubbish it tends to make them appear rather buffonish.
And one of these days they’re going to stop awarding grants to buffoons.
harkin,
I think you are being far too optimistic about the cessation of awarding grants to buffoons. The buffoons awarding the grants are ex buffoons in many cases, with access to a heretofore bottomless pit of money extracted from an unknowing and probably uncaring populace.
Fortunately – or unfortunately, depending on your personal buffoonery tolerance quotient – it’s possible the money extraction process may be slowly grinding to a halt. The folly – buffoonery even – of borrowing one’s way out of debt is becoming evident to some countries.
The populace may eventually decide that being able to eat and keep warm is more important than paying one set of buffoons to agree with another set of buffoons that oxidising carbon is bad, evil, uncouth, and thoroughly to be discouraged at all levels.
Oh wait! You can oxidise as much carbon as the High Council of Climate Buffoons allows, and a skerrick more. After all, they must maintain their ability to indulge in Buffoonery without cease or obvious limit. The High Buffoon needs to maintain his capacious buttocks to fit his trousers, doesn’t he?
I remain sir,
Your most humble and obedient Buffoon.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
YES!!! Just like harkin sez … it’s *INCREDIBLE how much IPCC4 differs from IPCC5! How much our appreciation of energy-balance has altered climate-science in recent years! How much Pope Francis’ Vatican differs from Pope Benedict’s Vatican in regard to climate-science!
Oh wait. Precisely *NONE* of these denialist claims are true, are they?
Summary In recent years climate-change science has gained steadily in strength, while remaining substantially unchanged in scientific, economic, and moral focus.…
Uhhhhh … ain’t that right, harkin?
On the other hand, for-hire climate-change astro-turfing sure has picked-up!
Saying humanity has caused global warming is a political statement: the latest Gallup poll shows that global warming believers are mostly Democrats. While not scientific it is good politics to defame scientists like William Gray who are skeptical of human-induced global warming (the AGW hypothesis) and call them, deniers.
Both hemispheres appear equally inconvenient, not to say uncooperative.
Failure to behave as the models suggest is hardly surprising. How anyone expects the Earth to act in 132 different ways (given that 132 models show different results) is beyond me.
Given the impossibility of measuring the average surface temperature of the Earth by any means at all, the Climatolgists – Climate Buffoons, if you prefer – are reduced to modelling, guessing, estimating, infilling, interpolating, krieging, or any other passing buffoonery that can masquerade as measurement.
An average is an act of buffoonery anyway. It is completely useless to anyone suffering at -80C or 55C to be told that the Earth’s average temperature is, say, 15C.
It is equally silly to quote average rainfall for 30 years as normal, when the 14 years of severe drought which wiped out a civilisation may have been followed by 16 years of heavy rainfall which were of no use to man nor beast, given the lack of resident population. But gee, the climate remained unchanged, so nothing much happened, did it?
Nature tends to be unpredictable and capricious, and that’s the inconvenient truth of it.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Since predictions of a coming ice age in the 70s there has been warming… in the blue urban heat islands of Leftist liberal Utopia where the productive sweat to keep the government bureaucracy comfortable in Cancun sipping margaritas with Al Gore and the Eurocommies.
” It is completely useless to anyone suffering at -80C or 55C to be told that the Earth’s average temperature is, say, 15C.”
It is completely useless to tell someone 100% employed or someone 0% employed that the average unemployment rate is 6.2%
It is completely useless to tell someone in a plane that starts at 0 mph and flys as fast as 600Mph, that the average speed is 450.
System metrics BY FRICKING DESIGN do not tell you anything of interest at the subsystem level. But we do understand the health of a system by looking at the system metrics. Understanding the average behavior of a system gives us something to track to alert us to changes at the subsystem level.
The point of saying the average is 15C is best understood by also noting that the average might go up to 17C.
Whats the point in that.? well to someone suffering at -80C.. not much
to some running a ski slope .. that 2C might be make or break.
to someone living in the desert, that difference can be life or death.
Steven Mosher,
Thank you for initially confirming that averages can, and often are, completely misleading.
You go on to write –
“System metrics BY FRICKING DESIGN do not tell you anything of interest at the subsystem level. But we do understand the health of a system by looking at the system metrics. Understanding the average behavior of a system gives us something to track to alert us to changes at the subsystem level.
The point of saying the average is 15C is best understood by also noting that the average might go up to 17C.”
Once again, a Warmist assertion supported by the heat of the asserter. If someone designed, as you say, a metric to tell you something about the average of temperatures over a period, then they were either stupid or foolish. The metric describing an average is the value of the average. If one wants to see if an average has decreased or increased, one merely looks at the previous calculation, and determines whether it has increased or decreased.
Possibly, if your name is Jones, you may have mislaid your previous paperwork so that you are free to falsify a previous average to give you the desired result.
In any case, as you say, an average is fairly pointless most of the time. What is even more pointless is pretending that the average of concocted figures is somehow more credible than the nonsense on which it is based.
Warmists claim that more extreme weather events will occur because of climate change. The put the cart before the horse, but let us humour them for the moment. Cold, hot, flood, drought – all more likely to be extreme.
Just suppose that extreme hot temperatures increase by one degree, while extreme cold temperatures drop by one degree. The average remains the same, does it not? You have cunningly designed a system metric which s not only stupid, but meaningless to boot.
Finally, you write –
“Whats the point in that.? well to someone suffering at -80C.. not much
to some running a ski slope .. that 2C might be make or break.
to someone living in the desert, that difference can be life or death.”
I am glad you agree that it’s the extremes that can kill you, not your stupid averages. Bear in mind, the weather from which you derived the average has already occurred. It is not much use telling someone the average rainfall has increased after they have died in the flood that caused the changed average, is it?
Away with your averages, sir! Your supposed Climatology has provided no utility to anyone apart from its practitioners, and their parasites. No breakthroughs, no advances, no benefit to humanity.
If you can show any evidence to the contrary please do. It couldn’t possibly be as pointless as I make out, could it?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
“How anyone expects the Earth to act in 132 different ways (given that 132 models show different results) is beyond me. ”
Imagine being a (baseball) batting instructor who analyzes videotape and the 132 kids who sent in tapes for advice were ALL swinging too high (with one pudgy little tyke cursing as he swung a hockey stick).
by the ”normal” laws of physics, it’s not possible extra warming on both hemispheres. The more one hemisphere gets warmer -> INSTANTLY the other hemisphere gets colder.
The ”see-saw” theory is my theory and applied always to the atmospheric temperature, even today – same ”normal” laws of physics were always as today. When one place gets warmer – other place/places gets instantly colder than normal, ALWAYS! Overall tropospheric temp is ALWAYS the same, every day, every month, every year and every century! :http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/global-warming-or-climate-change/
Feel free to chime in with the theory that more CO2 doesn’t increase temperature in the atmosphere – just the downwelling IR. The atmosphere is then warmed by convection. Presumably – this explains why the atmosphere isn’t warming and the oceans are.
Or that cooling by 0.05W/m2 is the significant fact of the climate system.
Or that it warms and then it cools – which is why it always will be the Holocene optimum.
Or that …
It is all seeming very empty headed – any narrative will do.
“Overall tropospheric temp is ALWAYS the same, every day, every month, every year and every century! ”
——–
Completely wrong, but useful as further proof that “skeptic” is not an appropriate for some denialism.
R. Gates | May 2, 2014 at 10:14 pm said: ”Completely wrong, but useful as further proof that “skeptic” is not an appropriate for some denialism”
Gates, thank you for supporting me; what the ”skeptics” promote, I would be ashamed of. As a ”Denier, I have the real proofs. ”Skeptics” became as Warmist’ Fig Leaf, to cover up the warmist’ lies, here is in what the ”skeptics believe: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/skeptics-stinky-skeletons-from-their-closet/
R. Gates,
I stand in awe of your omniscience.
I am curious to know how you measured the overall temperature of the troposphere at 00Z on a day of your choosing. I don’t believe its possible, but I’m sure you will set me straight.
How do you differentiate between denialists, skeptics, unbelievers, and those who show complete indifference? Do you really care? I am interested in the psychopathology of those who hold such strong opinions about something that doesn’t exist. Maybe you can help.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
This is totally pathetic. The alarmists should hang their heads in shame.
From the article:
…
Child psychiatrists, psychologists and educators say they’ve seen an escalation in the anxiety levels of today’s youth, who are constantly exposed to doomsday talk about the destruction of our planet. But despite the fact that we live in a world with more volatility and fear, experts say there is hope. And to stay mentally strong, they all advocate not just calling for change, but acting for it.
Dr. Anthony Levitt, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre’s director of research in the department of psychiatry, agrees climate-change anxiety increasingly enters into the discussions he has with many of the young people who come to see him. “Younger people [teens to mid-20s] appear to be much more accepting of the science and facts than older people,” Levitt observes. He’s also seen an uptick in climate-change-related anxiety in parents with younger children.
“For most people who are anxious about climate change, the anxiety is escalated by the fact they do not see an answer or a way to make a change. Worry plus powerlessness leads to distress,” says Levitt, who is also a professor in the psychiatry department at the University of Toronto.
…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/youth-anxiety-on-the-rise-amid-changing-climate/article18372258/
jim2 | May 2, 2014 at 11:03 pm said: ”This is totally pathetic. The alarmists should hang their heads in shame”
Jim, Alarmist are not to blame; there was always conmen and always will be – the politically bias / corrupt media is to blame – If the kids can hear both sides of the story, that wouldn’t be the case…
If this is true, that they are distressed, education is an answer. Perhaps their own investigation of the situation. Perhaps it’s an opportunity. Support counseling for climate anxiety. I am seeing a 12 step program:
# We admitted we were powerless over the climate for the most part
# To believe that a power greater than the alarmists could restore us to sanity
# A decision to turn the surface temperature, sea levels and polar ice extent over to the care of Gaia as we understand Her
# Make a searching and fearless moral inventory of CO2
# Admitted to Gaia, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs and past mistakes
Skeptic – denier – flat earther – neanderthal
Warmist – environut – watermelon – hysteric
What others am I missing?
Oxford Dictionaries estimates there are about one quarter million words in the English language.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/how-many-words-are-there-in-the-english-language
Eunice | May 2, 2014 at 11:08 pm said: ”Skeptic – denier – flat earther – neanderthal, Warmist”
Eunice, correction: the ”skeptics” are the ”Flat Earthers” – they ”pretend” to know exact GLOBAL temperature for every month for thousands of years – for when the earth was still flat and people were scared to sail west of Portugal – not to fall off the planet…
“And the data models aren’t calculating the surface global average temperature — they’re calculating the *trend* of their MODEL of the surface temperature, and comparing that trend to those projected by models.”
I see. The sensor data is ‘adjusted’ (by humans) and fed into a global model of average surface temperatures (developed by humans), producing a ‘trend’ of rising global surface temperature.
Well, if nothing else, you have confirmed that the observed global warming is indeed anthropogenic.
Bob Ludwick | May 2, 2014 at 11:25 pm said: ”“And the data models aren’t calculating the surface global average temperature — they’re calculating the *trend* of their MODEL”
Bob, they don’t ”calculate” they harvest data from thin air… they can get away with anything, using the religious fanatics…
Suddenly ”discovering” the temp data for the last 1000y for the S/H is correct as much as it is the ”proxy” data for the N/H. For example: how many bushels of grain was produced in some corner of England = the temp on the WHOLE northern hemisphere… WOW!
Those ”discoverers” for the S/H temp for the last 1000y should be put in the same jail cell as for the WHOLE of northern hemisphere. the truth: nobody knows what was the whole global temp for last year to save his/her life, BUT, pretending that they can read the temp data for the S.H on the waves of Pacific = is another con on the top of the rest, only more fodder for the fanatic zombies…
Steve Mc Intyre , 2/5/14 @ 12.37pm observes that
‘Neukom and Gergis get their stick-ness by splicing non-descript
long proxies with proxies with considerable LIA -modern variabiliy.
Neukom also uses instrumental data in the modern period –
hardly a proxy [and] instrumental precipitation readings as a
temperature index.’
Say, what’s a poor, committed climate scientist ter do when the
the data jest doesn’t conform?
Jim D | May 3, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
A true skeptic would be skeptical of the pause. Take out 1998 and it’s gone.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
Some are blue liners, some are red liners. I want to say, don’t look at the red line as you’ll miss the blue lines, but I think it’s some of both. It’s interesting that Tisdale as I understand him has drawn graphs similar to the escalator with certain El Ninos being in the neighborhood of the upward steps though I am not saying his graphs match the one here.
Step shift:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=e9b04g&s=5#.U2Vjm4FdWO4
If the question is, Is the pause real? Are the blue lines real or just wishful thinking? I think skeptical blue liners (referring to the sks link above) think there are both red and blue lines. So to your point I think, I don’t want to remove 1998. That’s where it’s interesting. A signature year of the system. A shift to a new state.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CNGyDN5WRpY/UrH8SGtYQUI/AAAAAAAAGM4/qKDycRzFSHA/s1600/DK.png
PDO went negative around 1983 – contributing less to warming each subsequent year
Starting around 1942 it took one decade for the PDO to bottom out. Starting around 1983, it has taken around 3 decades.
So in the next 10 years one can reasonably expect a major upward ascent in the PDO.
Kiss the pause nonsense goodbye.
JCH | May 3, 2014 at 10:56 pm |
So in the next 10 years one can reasonably expect a major upward ascent in the PDO.
Ten years is my guess for the next warm phase of the PDO.
Similar politico-scientific claims have been made before:
• the Bible was written by humans (not God), and
• life arose by evolution (not Genesis), and
• life is sustained by chemical processes (not vitalism), and
• kings rule by custom and force (not divine will), and
• public education is effective (compared to illiteracy), and
• plagues arise from poor sanitation (not divine will), and
• racial differences are minor and inessential (not major), and
• smoking causes most lung cancer (not viruses or chance), and
• abstinence education is ineffective (compared condom-use), and
• markets are inefficient and irrational (not Randian).
Example Today’s far-right outcries against carbon neutrality are comparably wrong-headed to Victorian far-right outcries against public sanitation.
Thank you Wagathon, for so consistently and vividly exhibiting to Climate Etc readers, the far-right’s centuries-old embrace of willfully ignorant, innumerate, non-rational, anhistorical, obfuscating, FUD-spreading, astro-turfing, anti-scientific denialism!
AFOMD,
What has any of this to with climate? Is it supposed to be humorous?
Do you copy this stuff out of a book, or just make it up as you go along?
The world laughs, gently, as it wonders, eh, AFOMD?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Just reminding Climate Etc readers of the centuries-old far-right faux-libertarian practices of ignorance, innumeracy, and irrationality in service of denialist cognition!
Summary Reasoning that “Libertarianism is true (`cuz markets are efficient) therefore climate-change can’t be real“ is common-place cognition … that makes *ZERO* rational, historical, economic, scientific, or moral sense.
Isn’t that obvious, Mike Flynn?
Fan oh Fan, if there’s something ter be gleaned,
fer a serf, from yer list, it’s this … Beware dogmatic
certainty! Re yer * markets are inefficient and irrational’
Nope! Markets are about trial and error feedback loops
and that’s evolutionary, the wisdom of nay-chur’s feed-
back system , NOT top down guvuhmint “qui bono’ -stone
-walled-hive-non-skin-in-the-game-non -suffer-the-conn-
sequences-fer-we-will-retire-with-the-largess-pay-offs
-despite-the-wide-spread-damage-of-our-abstract-decision
-making- remenber-Fanny-Mae–see-Nassim-Taleb’s-‘Anti-
Fragile’- on Irresponsible-at-a- distance-decision-making.
-Tsk!
Fan, yer makin’ me hypo-apostrophate- and-that-ain’t-good.
beth -the-serf.
AFOMD,
Are you trying to pretend that climate doesn’t change without the involvement of man?
Maybe you are right. Maybe the climate only started to change with the arrival of Homo sapiens. I doubt it though.
I get a strong impression that you live in a mental bizarrium of your own construction, slightly disconnected from reality. Some zealots speak in incomprehensible tongues, you write in incomprehensible links.
You ask me if it’s obvious. Obviously, it is. The world need wonder no longer, eh, AFOMD?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
You are right, beththeserf!
In this regard, it’s funny (ain’t it?) that among Amazon reviewers of Thomas Piketty’s blockbuster best-seller Capitalism in the 21st Century, the (favorable) ✮✮✮✮✮ reviews are largely by folks who have bought the book, whereas the (unfavorable) ✮ reviews are by folks who haven’t.
Conclusion Denialist thought-processes are pretty largely immune to history, science, data, or logical reasoning … `cuz denialist’s minds are made up!
That’s common-sense and everyday experience, eh beththeserf?
AFOMD,
It is interesting to note that Warmists continue to claim the globe is warming, in spite of an observed lack of rising temperatures. This is apparently explained by the rays of the Sun declining to heat the land, and instead going for a cooling dip in the abyssal depths.
I am sure you can provide a link to the missing heat hiding in Hansen or Gore’s trousers but it doesn’t make it true.
Do you suffer from mental perturbations, perhaps? The world waits and wonders, eh, AFOMD?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
There is no observed lack of rising temperatures Mike. Both the UAH and RSS record are compatible with 0.2C/decade warming over the past 17 years.
Also check this:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
If there really was a pause in warming why has sea level continued rising?
The best explanation is that the oceans are expanding as they are continuing to gain heat.
Ocean heat content data is also up:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Any time someone starts quoting a French economist, they are certainly scraping the bottom of the barrel for intellectual substance. Even the French finance minister has expressed concern about the French culture and its trend to having a mentality of civil servants with a commensurate loss of entrepreneurship. Knowing that Fan has to rely on a Frenchman for his ideas on economics says everything that needs to be said. Fans ideas on economics are as regressive as they are on global warming. I know the learning curve is steep for some.
Remark by Flynn, observational data by FOMD!
Mike Flynn, your continuing exhibitions of paradigmatic denialist cognition — including the pathognomonic elements of willful ignorance, cherry-picking, personalization, and gratuitous abuse — are appreciated by Climate Etc readers!
Thank you for helping Climate Etc readers learn about denialism, Mike Flynn!
lolwot,
I’m not sure how silly you think I am. However, that’s probably irrelevant
when you consider the silliness of reliance on the data to which you refer. Do you really believe it is possible measure the average global surface temperature in any meaningful way? Actually, I suppose you do.
You have to be joking about supposed sea level rise, surely. I don’t wish to embarrass you by pointing out the slightly unbelievable and demonstrably wrong assumptions made in the first link you included.
Can you really not see the most serious failing in their methodology? I suppose there’s one born every minute, and they keep approving funding for this sort of nonsense.
As to your question as to whether sea levels could change by any other means than changes in volume due to thermal expansion or contraction, I cannot believe you cannot think of other reasons, for which evidence is abundant and world wide.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
AFOMD,
I am not sure why you persist in trying to arm yourself with fantasy when engaging in a fact fight. Of course, it’s a free world, so you are free to espouse anything you want.
I appreciate your assistance in ensuring that people realise that facts do not care whether you deny them or not. Your denialism is a tribute to your fervour, and I salute you for it. It changes nothing of course.
The world wonders when you accept that denialism won’t change facts, eh, AFOMD?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
lolwot
I have to join Mike on this one. You should know that the steric component is only one of several factors influencing sea level rise. NOAA has apportioned that in their 2012 study. The shoreline/sea interface ultimately is what counts most. In many regions subsidence accounts for more than half of the rise in the local sea level. Urbanization and its influence on accelerating watershed drainage as well as groundwater abstraction also have increased the mass component in the last 100 years. I dont see any sign in the last 20 years of the CU data that the rate has increased. It seems stuck on 3.2 mm/yr.
Mike Flynn vs Mike Flynn on measurements.
Mike Flynn #1: “It is interesting to note that Warmists continue to claim the globe is warming, in spite of an observed lack of rising temperatures.”
Mike Flynn #2: “Do you really believe it is possible measure the average global surface temperature in any meaningful way?”
“I dont see any sign in the last 20 years of the CU data that the rate has increased. It seems stuck on 3.2 mm/yr.”
Because warming and it’s steric contribution to sea level rise continues.
To believe otherwise you’d have to believe the steric component of sea level rise has vanished and by complete coincidence at the same time something else (what?) has risen to take it’s place.
Measuring trends in global temperature in a meaningful way:Werner Brozek at WUWT shows us why the CAGW acolytes have their panties in a bunch over the big pause:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2004.65/trend/offset:-0.1/plot/rss/from:1996.55/trend/offset:-0.6/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/offset:-0.6/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.4/trend/offset:-0.72/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2000.8/trend/offset:-0.42/plot/gistemp/from:2001.65/trend/offset:-0.57/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/offset:-0.4/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996/normalise:0.5/trend/detrend:0.8/offset:0.55
The faithful is still praying for that super El Nino to bail them out. It’s really pathetic that they desperately need heat. They are supposed to be against heat.
All that proves is that due to the continuing he’s had to start many of those trends in 2001 and 2002, and the UAH trend in 2004! A few years ago he would have plotted them all from 1997/1998.
You should get up to speed on why sticking OLS trends since X is a failed method.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/
Here’s the short version:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
That’s cute, lollie. So, the warmistas have their panties in a bunch trying to explain away the big pause, for nothing. You better send a memo to HQ, lollie. Now resume your whining.
“The faithful is still praying for that super El Nino to bail them out. It’s really pathetic that they desperately need heat.”
______
As an El Nino does not create any additional energy in the climate system (but actually removes just a bit more than normal from the ocean), it would be hard to understand why those who think AGW is happening would actually care or be “desperate” for an El Nino. Sure it might boost tropospheric sensible heat to the highest on record, but that is just because that energy came from the ocean, and that’s also why watching the ocean makes far more sense than watching the low thermal inertia and low energy of the troposphere.
It’s skeptics who are obsessed with the pause, they are even the ones who invented that term. It’s your pause and yours alone. See when skeptics talk about a pause they are talking from ignorance about an imaginary stop to warming that isn’t supported by the data
When scientists talk about a pause they are talking about short-term variation over the last decade, because on the longterm the data tracks a continuation of the warming since 1997. It doesn’t track flatlining since 1997:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/hadcrut4.jpg
lowlot:
Yes, and that includes X = 1980, 1970, 1830, or any other year for that matter.
In short, OLS shouldn’t be used on any time series – full stop.
But we’ve been through this many times in the past, haven’t we, lollie?
We don’t “pray” for El Ninos. This is a climate science blog and we comment on the science. For example, to see one theory behind the dynamics of the ENSO driving El Nino, read my latest blog post. Here
http://contextearth.com/2014/05/02/the-soim-substantiating-the-chandler-wobble-and-tidal-connection-to-enso/
That is just the tip of the iceberg of our understanding. Watch this space and that space for more extra goodness to come. Climate science is fun, not boring.
phatboy, I don’t think criticizing OLS would work as an argument against the pausists. They use it as their only proof of the pause, so if I was to say OLS in an invalid method, how do you think that would play?
The only good thing about an El Nino is that it will finally put an end to this pause nonsense.
“…when skeptics talk about a pause they are talking from ignorance about an imaginary stop to warming that isn’t supported by the data.”
_____
Great point! And when the actual issue of energy in the climate system comes up, they try to discount the strong data that shows the net energy increasing consistently over many decades without any “pause”.
As long as the fake-skeptics can focus on the narrowest possible proxy for energy in the climate system over their own cherry-picked timeframes, they can have some faux-leg to stand on. Actually rather pathetic.
“The only good thing about an El Nino is that it will finally put an end to this pause nonsense.”
_____
Well, as surely as day follows night, some form of La Nina will follow any El Nino, and then, as they’ve done with 1998 for some many years, they will chose the next El Nino high water mark for tropospheric temperatures to show the cooling afterwards proves that AGW is not happening. They will not give up their memeplex easily.
R. Gates, it might just postpone the pause talk for another 15 years. I think we have pauses every decade, usually following a sunspot max, and sharp rises between them. This is just the latest one enhanced by the long solar minimum.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/mean:80/mean:40/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:80/mean:40/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/scale:0.001/mean:12
You might be right Jim D. But it is hard to predict exactly where the next irrational argument against AGW will come from in regards to the fake-skeptics since it is not rational, it is not predictable. As the actual data is constantly mounting against any rational argument, they will have to rely on the irrational or the conspiracy type thinking or find some other Climategate event to keep their faithful engaged (but not discussing actual science).
Jim D, don’t you believe your eyeballs unless there’s some sort of straight line?
The above are *TWO* great points! Well said, lolwot and R. Gates!
No wonder the world’s STEM community (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) has utterly abandoned climate-change denialism!
That’s plain common-sense, eh Climate Etc readers?
She’s overloadin’, Capn! I canno hold ‘er much longer!
For the past 17 years, all the excess energy has been building up in the bottom of my sock drawer, where even Kevin Trenberth can’t find it.
The pause denying alarmist crowd doth protesteth too mucheth. They ain’t afraid of no pause. They ain’t praying for a super El Nino. They ain’t straining their little brains to come up with pause excuse du jour number seven hunnert ninety eleven. What, me worried about a pause? What pause? (The pause that is killing the cause. Shhhh! Don’t upset the little fellas.)
Jimd
Yes, you are right. There does seem to be a regular series of rises and pauses. We can watch this pause and rise all the way back to 1650
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/graph09.png
Tonyb
R. Gates
With this sentence you have revealed that you are not as proclaimed by yourself a “skeptical warmist”, but rather one who believes the “science is settled”.
A true “skeptical” scientist would accept that our climate is “not predictable”.
Only a “nonskeptical” warmist would think that we can predict future climate simply by predicting future concentrations of CO2 (and other GHGs).
Think about it a bit, Gates. You aren’t “skeptical” at all.
Max
Fan’s postings are even more devoid of content and relevancy than usual eh, Climate Etc readers? Thank you Fan for providing the objective and curious among us deep insight into the dogmatic fanaticism that characterizes the extreme green progressive mind. Thank you also for the comic relief and bufoonery you provide to us all.
Max has hit the nail on the head about Gates. To have a record that is non-prejudicial, one has to at least show signs of agreeing with both sides once in a while. But I don’t remember Gates ever taking up the more informed, skeptical view. It appears he feels more comfortable in the hysterical camp.
“Max has hit the nail on the head about Gates. To have a record that is non-prejudicial, one has to at least show signs of agreeing with both sides once in a while. ”
——
What you fail to grasp is that real skeptics don’t have “a side”. AGW is more likely tight than not, based on data and basic science, and I don’t care which “side” this perspective is on.
Of course, AGW is more likely “right” than not.
Some would like the HCV to be of little or no consequence, or even beneficial. Unfortunately, as long as GHG continue rising ad fast as they are, the probability is higher that the consequences will not be net beneficial for current existing species,
A true skeptic would be skeptical of the pause. Take out 1998 and it’s gone.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:1997/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/trend
It hinges on one anomalous year. That’s not how to interpret climate trends.
“A true skeptic would be skeptical of the pause.”
———
Certainly Skeptical of how this period of flattening of the rise in tropospheric should be interpreted related to AGW. The most simple fake-skeptic interpretation is that it proves AGW is not happening, the more sophisticated, though equally incorrect interpretation, is that if proves the sensitivity of the climate to rising GH gases is lower. Both of these interpretations of the significance of the “pause” tell us more about the person making these interpretations than about actually what is going on with the climate and the effects of anthropogenic forcing.
The little fella has put his foot in the doo doo, again:
“A true skeptic would be skeptical of the pause. Take out 1998 and it’s gone.”
Take out 1998 and you got nothing to scare the people with, nimrod. That’s why you characters are always praying for another super El Nino. It’s not working for you. But keep up the struggle.
Don M, you are right. A step scares people more than a 45 year steady gradient. It doesn’t matter that the step is less than half of the size of the gradient in terms of warming magnitudes, the step is more scary. It is very psychological, how people react to temperature change. They need to step back and look at the bigger trend, and not obsess with single El Ninos.
“A true skeptic would be skeptical of the pause. Take out 1998 and it’s gone.”
The trend operates prior to the emergence of El Niino ,which is also in area of both the volcanic excursions of Pinatubo and Hudson, and solar minimum which depress the trend prior.
Marvin 1919 suggested
“each striking feature on a long record is, therefore, no evidence of the persistent recurrence of peculiar irregularities, but is simply the residual scar or imprint of some unusual event, or a few which
have been fortuitously combined at about the time in question.”
Chance is poorly understood.
Don Monfort and Jim D
This is obviously wrong.
Start with the official beginning of the new millennium, January 1, 2001, and HadCRUT4 tells us is has been cooling ever so slightly since then.
This slight cooling is a “pause” in warming, which has lasted 13 years, and is apparently continuing.
And, guys, we have emitted almost one-fourth of all human CO2 emissions since that date – and the atmospheric concentration has increased by almost one-fourth of the total anthropogenic CO2 rise since 1850.
Yet the global average surface temperature is cooling slightly.
And the 1998 El Nino peak has nothing to do with it.
Max
.
jimmy,jimmy
Live by the step, die by the step. In 1998, you characters were squealing about the step and gloating, “We told you so!”
The step was proof of dangerous global warming, and it had to be CO2 (which has increased steadily without noticeable effect). We were promised more frequent and stronger El Ninos, no more snow and ice, unprecedented terrible droughts, floods, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, wars, prostitution, cats and dogs sleeping together, murder, and general mayhem. We kept getting bitterly cold winters, so that was added to the list. We haven’t seen hide nor hair of the next step. But keep praying for it, jimmy. What a pathetic existence. You should stop talking about the pause, jimmy. It’s making you sad and irritable.
manacker, by starting in 2000 and ending now, you are starting in a warm period of natural variability and ending in a cool one. It is easy to fool yourself when natural variability is +/- 0.1 C and the decadal changes aren’t much bigger. Skeptics promote natural variability, then invariably proceed to forget about it when constructing trends over short periods. To remove natural variability properly you have to do decade-average on decade-average trends.
1998 was a wake-up call. It could be argued that it was an emphasized trend because Pinatubo suppressed warming temporarily, hiding the effects of growing CO2 until the dust had gone, so what we see with the next El Nino is unlikely to be another 1998, but it will end the pause and follow the model trends, and this will be noticed by the general public who will see the skeptics as once-again being proved wrong.
Jim D
You are an expert at pulling out rationalizations to show that the current pause really isn’t one.
Sure, there were (and are) “natural variations”. Most of the late 20thC warming could be rationalized away with these “natural variations”, just as you are now trying to rationalize away the current period of slight cooling with these same “natural variations”.
What we know from the global surface temperature record is that:
– there has been an underlying warming trend since the modern record started in 1850 of around 0.6C per century.
– on top of this long-term trend there have been multi-decadal oscillations of around 30 years each, with an amplitude of about +/- 0.25C.
There does not appear to be a statistically robust correlation between atmospheric CO2 and this record.
The long-term warming trend started as we were still emerging from the Little Ice Age, long before there were any appreciable human CO2 emissions, later reconstructions going even further back (BEST) confirm that the warming trend started even before 1850.
There were no 30-year oscillations in anthropogenic CO2 emissions or concentration, which could explain the 30-year temperature oscillations.
Where there is no robust statistical correlation, the case for causation is weak.
It’s up to YOU to show a robust correlation – not up to ME to demonstrate that there is none.
So have at it, Jim.
Max
manacker, you may not think this is statistically robust but I do. The gradient of 1 C per 100 ppm is right where IPCC expects it to be, and this is the period with 75% of the CO2 we have added where the signal is quite clear (to me, at least).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1950/scale:0.01/offset:-3.3
Jim D
Why does your temperature curve start in 1950, when HadCRUT4 starts in 1850?
Why have you superimposed the GISS record, which only makes it more difficult to see if there is a correlation?
Go back to 1850, when the modern HadCRUT4 record started. Eliminate GISS.
Add in the ice core estimates for atmospheric CO2 prior to 1959 when Mauna Loa started.
You will see that the magical correlation stops before the mid 1970s and is completely gone for the mid 20thC cooling period, when CO2 started increasing exponentially during the post WWII boom.
There is also no correlation since the turn of the millennium, when around one-fourth of the total human CO2 was emitted, yet there was no warming.
You will also see that there is no correlation with CO2 for the early 20thC warming period (which was statistically indistinguishable from the late 20thC period you like to use as your “poster period”).
The same is true for the turn of the century cooling period and the 19thC warming period.
You can always take a “blip” in the overall record to try to prove a point, Jim.
But it does not work if the correlation is not robust for the ENTIRE period.
Max
Jim D | May 3, 2014 at 9:11 pm |
…so what we see with the next El Nino is unlikely to be another 1998, but it will end the pause and follow the model trends…
I agree the next El Nino will probably warm the atmospheric system. Will it be a game changer?
Rough dates in Tsonis 2007 with the last one pulled from a Climate Etc (1/04/11) post with my adding of the descriptions Warm and Cool/Flat:
1913 Warm
1942 Cool/Flat
1977 Warm
2001 Cool/Flat
The average time between shifts about is about 29 years with a minimum time of about 24 years.
Rough PDO shifts:
1924 Warm
1947 Cool
1975 Warm
1998 Cool
The average time between shifts is about 25 years with a minimum time of about 23 years.
Interesting that the syncing occurs both before and after the PDO shifts. I may be wrong and the Tsonis syncing will occur earlier than above and the PDO will not be enough to maintain the pause. But it is an interesting time. Is the system stable enough at this time to remain locked into its current regime? The Pacific Warm Pool is trying to break out. Will Gaia be able to hold enough of it in place?
Jim D
Aw, c’mon, Jimmy.
“1C per 100 ppmv CO2” works for the late 20thC warming period during which roughly 35% of all human CO2 was emitted. In fact, it’s actually 1.1C per 100 ppmv over that period.
But that’s the ONLY time period for which it works.
It does NOT work for the 21stC cooling period, during which 24% of the human CO2 emissions were emitted. Over that period it is -0.06C (cooling )per 100 ppmv
It also does not work for the mid-century cooling period, when temperature sank by around -0.1C while CO2 rose by 20 ppmv (19% of all human CO2) and the correlation was -0.5 (cooling) per 100 ppmv.
Nor does it work for the early 20thC warming period (statistically indistinguishable from the late 20thC warming cycle); CO2 rose by only 12 ppmv (11% of total), but temperature rose by 0.48C, with a correlation of 4.0C warming per 100 ppmv.
And over the entire 160+ year temperature cycle it warmed by 0.78C while CO2 increased by 108 ppmv, for a long-term correlation of 0.7C per 100 ppmv.
Your “1C per 100 ppmv” only holds for one cycle out of the entire record, Jim. That’s a pretty low “hit rate”.
And, as you noted earlier, that cycle may well have been influenced largely by cyclical “internal variability” (as you are now claiming for the current cooling period).
Your correlation is bogus, Jim.
Max
manacker, the graph is for the whole 60+ years since 1950, during which CO2 has risen from 310 ppm to nearly 400 ppm, which is 75% of the total rise from the natural 280 ppm (where do you get 35% from?). Therefore this is the place where the CO2 signal is clearest. During this period, we expect 2/3 of the total forcing to have been added, compared to only 1/3 in the whole century or so prior, an accelerated rate of forcing that has now become very visible to all but a few of you in the temperature records that I showed. It’s just observations here, no models, no paleo reconstructions.
The ENSO phenomena contributes to the pause by compensating the global warming during La Nina conditions. See the CSALT model where the motto is The Cause of the Pause is due to thermodynamic Laws.
… and you really have to ask me what it is like to have found the keys to the kingdom when it concerns being able to accurately model ENSO based on the Earth’s rotation data:
http://contextearth.com/2014/05/02/the-soim-substantiating-the-chandler-wobble-and-tidal-connection-to-enso/
Way beyond the 3-point arc. Swish.
“A true skeptic would be skeptical of the pause. Take out 1998 and it’s gone.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:1997/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/trend
It hinges on one anomalous year. That’s not how to interpret climate trends.”
I suspect many skeptics really can’t see the increase in temperature when the 1998 spike is there. Perhaps some people can only see peaks and cannot take into account the full data. It’s quite clear the temperature data is following an upward trajectory and does not flatline after 1997.
Jim D: “The gradient of 1 C per 100 ppm is right where IPCC expects it to be, and this is the period with 75% of the CO2 we have added where the signal is quite clear (to me, at least).”
+1
It’s a shame the skeptics cannot honestly look at the good correlation between CO2 and warming. Focusing on time periods that are too short and ignoring the context of natural variation on such short time periods is all they’ve got.
Given that you can take 1998 out and get a clear warming signal, it is very artful how the skeptics have used 1998 as an argument _against_ global warming. You have to give them points for creativity.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:1998/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/trend
Given that you can’t “take out” 1998, your argument is meaningless.
Jim D | May 3, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
A true skeptic would be skeptical of the pause. Take out 1998 and it’s gone.
…It hinges on one anomalous year.
Take out the anomolies to see the system
or
The anomolies are the system.
Ragnaar,
“A true skeptic would be skeptical of the pause. Take out 1998 and it’s gone.
…It hinges on one anomalous year.”
Get rid of the El Ninos for the last 40 years and the reported warming trend during that period goes poof with them.
lolwot | May 4, 2014 at 10:06 am said: ”I suspect many skeptics really can’t see the increase in temperature when the 1998 spike is there”
lolwot, 98 wasn’t warmer than any other year in the last century, or this one.
the only reason it turned out warmer, was because: ”was the year after Kyoto Conference”. The ambitious Warmist believed that: they can con everybody to sign on the doted line instantly PLUS all countries will decrease CO2 emission -> then when the phony global warming doesn’t show up; they will say that they prevented it..
after 99 they realized that: they can con only the zombies, not the rest, AND, all countries kept increasing CO2. Therefore, they had to lower the temp, otherwise the temp in nature would stay the same, but their temp will go trough the roof. In other words: they started to face the reality: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/
Oh I’m into the historical record, fan, check out the 5th
Edishun of Serf Underground, especially me conclusion
and reservations regardin’ closure of context.
A serf.
http://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/268/
Beth
Thanks for posting this link. I missed your excellent (and beautiful) essay on the “history of history” the first time around.
Gotta tune in to your site more often.
Max
Thx Max, hope you do. A couple of quotes from you and others
from CE included in it.. )
beth the serf.
“public education is effective (compared to illiteracy)”
Think of skeptics as the charter school of science and alarmists as the public teacher’s unions. The unions put their own interests ahead of the kids, gamed the system and formed a cycle of corruption with the politicians and the kids’ level of learning dropped significantly (the only area they made gains in was indoctrination).
Now that common sense has allowed public funds to be used for charter schools (to actually teach the real world to the kids with no indoctrination), charter schools are flourishing, the kids’ level of achievement is up and the teachers unions are (instead of doing their jobs properly or improving in any way) demanding that all public funding for the charter schools be stopped.
The unions in DC did it by stopping all funding for charter schools (with the support of one B Obama) where black kids in Wash DC had escaped to actually LEARN.
Change You Can Believe In!
Great analogy!
There are many lessons to be learned from the Dutch.
First, wind power. It was a huge step forward from man-powered or animal-powered operations. But as soon as carbon-based fuels became practical for power generation, the windmill was phased out. This is why it is correct to say that USA Dimowits and environmentalist Luddites are walking us backwards. Note how the advent of carbon-fueled power is described as “a radical revolution.” Learn from history you CAGWers.
From the article:
In later ages cattle power was employed, as in the horse-mills, and finally the forces of nature were harnessed: wind and water. This latter method already called for some technical knowledge; the water mills, which naturally occurred only in the eastern and southern parts of the country, probably existed before the windmills, for their construction was simpler.
Towards the end of the eighteenth and in the early part of the nineteenth century the discovery and application of steam power caused a radical revolution in social economy, and this initiated the end of the supremacy of windmills as prime movers for all purposes.
Then, if due to subsidence, global warming by whatever mechanism might occur, the good people of Manhattan, being of an environmental bent, can use windmills to pump out the water from their fair borough. I’m sure their faith in wind power is sufficient for them to be assured it will keep them dry.
From the article:
In the period up to about 1000 A.D. Holland could hardly be called habitable; it consisted of marshes with small sluggish streams, separated from the sea by a belt of dunes, and the inhabitants had to hold their own mounds. It was only after 1000 A.D. that they succeeded in checking the water to a greater extent. In the raw climate prevailing in these parts they had to keep warm by burning dried peat and wood from the neighbouring forests. Their existence in those years must have been extremely rough and distressing indeed. In the period up to 1400 the centres which led to the rise of the towns were formed. The land was repeatedly ravaged by floods, when large tracts were swept away and disappeared into the sea; inland seas were formed (the Zuiderzee was formed thus about 1300), villages were destroyed, and great were the losses in goods and chattels and human lives. A notorious flood was the St. Elizabeth’s Flood, from 18 to 19 November 1421, when in a single night 72 villages and hamlets were swallowed up by the water and thousands of men, women, and children with thousands of cattle met their death in the waves.
After 1400, when major sea-defences had been first constructed and the communication of several waters with the open sea had been dammed up, it became possible to drain pools and lakes. For this purpose windmills were used, and accordingly were built in constantly increasing numbers. At first these were not yet the large mills as we know them, which date especially from the seventeenth century, but smaller mills of the hollow post-mill type.
As windmills grew better and larger their water-lifting capacity increased and they became more numerous. According to the records it was about 1526 that a wip mill was replaced by an octagonal smock mill with a revolving cap. This must have had a winch in the cap, for it was not until the second half of the sixteenth century that smock mills with tail poles were constructed. After that, the possibilities increased rapidly. We find entries about the first oil mill in 1582, a paper mill in 1586, a timber sawmill in 1592; after 1600 windmills arose everywhere and were constructed for a wide variety of purposes.
In the seventeenth century the Dutch made more and more progress in the fight against their hereditary foe, the water. It is a fight that has had to be continued every day and the windmills have played an all-important part in it for more than two centuries. They delivered the country of the water and kept it dry, in spite of the fact that it lies several feet below sea level; in this way they made and kept it habitable. Holland owes its creation as well as its development in the most literal sense to the windmills, for it was thanks solely to the windmills that is was possible repeatedly to reclaim new land for the ever growing population.
The land between the towns of Holland consisted largely of peat-bogs. These bogs were of the utmost importance. How else were the inhabitants to heat their houses in winter in a country which had no coal fields, while wood from the forests could only be brought from remote regions? The peat around the towns and villages therefore was generally cut away, and as greater depths – and thus water – were reached the peat was scooped out, dried in summer, and burned in winter.
Because such peat-cutting took place on an ever increasing scale, new pools and lakes were formed in addition to the original ones and the expanses of water grew larger and larger, particularly because the water lashed by the wind tended to encroach more and more upon the banks. The lakes were becoming a great danger to towns such as Amsterdam, Haarlem, Alkmaar, and Leiden, and the necessity of draining the peat-bogs was growing more and more urgent.
It was in the years between 1608 and 1612 that the Beemster was drained. This lake had a depth of ten feet and it was drained in one year with 26 windmills, working in two stages. But the Zuiderzee dyke burst, the new ring-dyke was unable to check the water, the polder filled up, and the work had to be done all over again. In 1622 the Purmer followed, in 1625 the Wormer, and in 1629 the Heerhugowaard. In all these projects and activities the renowned hydraulic engineer Leeghwater took a very active part. In 1631 the States of Holland and West Friesland granted to the town of Alkmaar a patent for dyking and draining the Schermer according to Leeghwater’s plans. For this purpose the polder was divided into 14 plots, each with its own mill. These 14 mills pumped the water into a storage basin, from which the water was pumped into the ring-canal by means of 36 mills, twelve sets of three working in stages, in order to raise the water to the high level. Altogether 51 mills (of which one served for a separate plot at a higher level) worked in this polder and they pumped out water at a rate of 1,000 cu.m./min. In four years the polder had been reclaimed and the soil could be cultivated.
The mills in question were smock mills, the familiar large octagonal wooden windmills of the North-Holland type; the span of sails, i.e. the total length of a stock (over twice the length of one sail), was 90 to 100 feet. This length formed the limit, in view of the length of the tree-trunks from which they could be made. For the same reason the wind shaft was tied down to a maximum section of about 2 x 2 feet; heavier timber was not available!
It looks as if DimJim2 scored an “own goal”. If you don’t understand, do as Bart recommends, Read Harder.
Well, WHT, I’m not seeing what you do. Why don’t you share your bit of infinite wisdom with us?
Perhaps, WHT, you can point out the “own goal” in this post by Jo Nova.
From the article:
…
Astronomical Cost of Major Measures to Combat a Non-Existent Threat:
Politicians and the Media have listened to the proponents of Global-Warming-Climate-Change, but don’t seem to have made any critical assessment of it all. Perhaps they were bemused by the Global Warmers constantly naming themselves and associates as “Scientists”. As has been shown, those people disregarded the basic rules of true Science. Their political and media audiences innocently believed the statements – which contained grave errors.
Innocents in politics and the media were badly mis-led. They gladly supported projects to combat the non-existent threat of Global-Warming-Climate-Change. The projects were unnecessary because there was no threat; extremely costly in money time and effort; full of praise where ridicule was deserved misleading about benefits & options; and above all diversionary away from today’s real problems.
A huge international bureaucratic industry was born – with Cabinet Ministers, government departments, company sections, travel, conferences, treaties, carbon credits, and carbon trading, and very much more. The challenge was often heard that we must curb our carbon emissions or sacrifice our grandchildren’s well-being. In truth, those children were being saddled with a gigantic debt to pay for everything
encompassed by the Warmers’ “carbon footprints”, including the salaries and expenses of the loudest proponents.
The widespread obsession with Global-Warming-Climate-Change, in opposition to all factual evidence, is quite incredible. It leads to unfair treatment of some citizens, and a massive bill for all, for nothing useful. When will citizens revolt effectively against such callous disregard for their observations and wishes, by those who are essentially their elected employees? When will the perpetrators examine the basis of their ideology, and realise that it’s based on unfounded unscientific beliefs, not on confirmed, widely-available investigations by real scientists who abide by the moral standards of their profession?
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/david-kear-former-director-general-nz-dsir-says-a-non-existent-threat/
David Kear, former Director-General of NZ Scientific Research, says global warming is a non-existent threat
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/david-kear-former-director-general-nz-dsir-says-a-non-existent-threat/
Kear’s comments about the failed
projections on apocalyptic sea level rise is fascinating. A compilation of such errors for the last 30 years would make a great book about how global warming was hijacked by a bunch of fanatics.
Last 12 months, while still above the 20 year average, have seen return of stability to the CET daily maximum / minimum temperatures
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-dMm.htm
lolwot,
Sorry I’m too idle to put this in the right place. I trust you will excuse me.
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn vs Mike Flynn on measurements.
Mike Flynn #1: “It is interesting to note that Warmists continue to claim the globe is warming, in spite of an observed lack of rising temperatures.”
Mike Flynn #2: “Do you really believe it is possible measure the average global surface temperature in any meaningful way?” ”
Some Warmists claim that surface temperatures have stopped rising for over a decade. This is supposedly a travesty, and is due to missing heat hiding somewhere. The IPCC appears to take this view. Other Warmists appear to contradict this, and claim that they can measure the surface temperature of the Earth. I have taken the word of the Pausist Warmists, as to the existence of the lack of observed rise in temperatures. I then move to the Fundamentalist Warmists, who claim that warming continues unabated, having redefined the word warming to include modelled missing heat causing non measurable temperature rises in invisible locations.
So in relation to point 1, the Warmist claims bear out my statement.
In regard to point 2, both sets of Warmists adopt the same standard of silliness relating to measuring the heat content of the Earth by using the alleged surface temperature as a proxy. I point out that the temperatures used for Warmist propaganda purposes have little to do with the surface, particularly over the non liquid surface of the Earth. Trying to get a Warmist to define the surface is about as easy as teaching quantum physics to a goldfish.
With respect, I find that in the case of Flynn vs Flynn, Flynn wins on both sides. A good effort all round. I therefore award 2 for Flynn, 0 for lolwot.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
+100
I’ll second that: Flynn 2, lolwot 0
Max
I think all lolwot can do now is to flop and claim a foul or (if that fails) to claim offsides.
Extra points for humor. Very well argued at that.
Four paragraphs of contortions to try and wriggle out your contradiction. The length itself of your reply speaks louder than it’s contents.
The fact is you quite clearly made a contradiction, on one hand arguing:
1) It’s not possible to measure global surface temperature.
and
2) There’s an observed lack of rising temperatures
This isn’t uncommon, I’ve seen lots of other skeptics do it! Contradictions are your forte.
lolwot,
In the best Warmist tradition, I have to point that if 1) is true, then 2) must also be true.
Is that brief enough for you?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
Why are there so few published Southern Hemisphere proxy studies?
Why do so many SH proxy studies have to draw data from NH studies?
As an Australian scientist, I will suggest that some past proxy studies here have been buried because they did not produce the desired answers.
Also, for many proxies calibrated against the thermometer record, that record is inadequate either bcause the weather stations are too sparse to relate well to the proxy site, or because the temperature records have been excessively adjusted.
The low population density of Australia, especially 100 years ago, did not permit station densities typical of the NH. Scientific awareness was high and there were many fine climate scientists or gifted non-scientists. I wish I could say the same about the present Australian crop of vocal climate scientists however defined, who seem to spend too much time in political space.
Geoff Sherrington | May 5, 2014 at 8:44 pm ask: ”Why are there so few published Southern Hemisphere proxy studies? Why do so many SH proxy studies have to draw data from NH studies?”
Geoff, this post and the other few posts on my blog will giver you the answers on your questions, and much more: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/
Reblogged this on Truth, Lies and In Between and commented:
Global warming scam Tuesday.
As temperatures climb, it is time to start greening our lawns the natural way.
After detailed analysis of the lawn, they develop a program keeping in
mind the weather conditions throughout the year. If you’re
certain of what you wish and what your budget is,
also because the execs and cons of every quite wood, you ought to don’t have any issues
in creating the proper selections.
I so much indisputably will make sure to do not overlook this site and give it a glance on a constant basis|regularly
Pingback: some cooling apparent … | pindanpost