Recent NOAA Study: Climate change not all man-made

Cites Natural Causes

Tom Spears, Canwest News Service

noaa_rhcd

It’s wrong to blame our warming climate on human pollution alone, says a major analysis by U. S. climate scientists who say North America’s warming and drying trend also has important natural causes.

Natural shifts in ocean currents have caused much of the warming in recent decades, and almost all of the droughts, says the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Most climate researchers today deal exclusively with man-made “greenhouse” gases, and often dismiss suggestions of naturally caused warming as unscientific.

Yet NOAA says Western Canada has warmed by two degrees and Eastern Canada hasn’t warmed at all because flows of air from naturally shifting Pacific currents have affected the West most.

The lengthy re-analysis of climate data doesn’t dispute that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels cause a warmer climate. But it raises questions about the details: How much warming? How many causes? And why isn’t it the same every-where?

It also stresses that we don’t understand climate as well as we like to think, because scientists only have good data from about 1948 onward.

“Most of the warming [worldwide] is the consequence of human influences,” said Martin Hoerling, a NOAA climate scientist. But he said the question remains, “What does that mean for my backyard?”

Policy-makers need to know whether natural changes or pollution is causing local conditions such as the current drought from California across to Texas, the report notes.

“All regions are not participating [in warming] at the same rate as the global temperature is changing,” Mr. Hoerling said. Some in the West are warming rapidly, and some not at all (the southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada).

Oceans carry vast amounts of heat, releasing heat and moisture into air, which then travels inland. The re-analysis focused on this fact.

Some of the changes in North America’s warming trend of the past half-century have been due to shifting ocean currents, the NOAA team found. It estimates the “natural” change is substantial and could be close to half of all warming in North America (though it is still less than the amount caused by greenhouse gases.)

The study found:

- The 56-year trend of annual surface temperature showed a rise of 0.9C, plus or minus one-tenth of a degree.

- The greatest warming — up two degrees — has taken place across Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon and Alaska. Quebec and Atlantic Canada stayed cool.

That East-West difference “is not what we would expect from the effect of greenhouse gases alone,” Mr. Hoerling said. Greenhouses gases should have influenced both. However, NOAA believes Western Canada is receiving more warm air due to shifting patterns of the Pacific Ocean currents.

- Variations within North America “are very likely influenced by variations in global sea surface temperatures through the effects of the latter on atmospheric circulation, especially during winter.” The term “very likely” is defined as a chance of 90% or more.

- It’s “unlikely” that patterns of drought have changed due to global warming caused by human pollution. Rather, natural shifts in ocean currents are probably to blame. For instance, the current drought in Texas and the southwest are due to La Nina, a Pacific Ocean current that starts and stops periodically (such as El Nino), and cuts off the movement of moist air inland. Warmer temperatures from greenhouse gases, however, would worsen the basic drought.

- Seven of the warmest 10 years since 1951 occurred in the decade from 1997 to 2006. The data in the study cover only to the end of 2007.

The study, Reanalysis of Historical Climate Data for Key Atmospheric Features, was completed in December but hasn’t been widely publicized.

(Read the report here, PDF 8 MB)

Meanwhile, a study published in the research journal Science last week raises further questions about our under-standing of global warming. It disputes the theory that global warming is causing more major hurricanes.

NOAA and the University of Wisconsin at Madison blame, instead, a reduction in the number of volcanic eruptions and dust storms near the equator. When there’s less airborne dust and ash, more sunshine reaches the planet’s surface, which warms the tropical oceans and spawns strong hurricanes.

106 thoughts on “Recent NOAA Study: Climate change not all man-made

  1. ‘Most climate researchers today deal exclusively with man-made “greenhouse” gases, and often dismiss suggestions of naturally caused warming as unscientific.’

    Can anyone point to any climate scientist who deals exlcusively with man-made greenhouse gases, and dismisses suggestions of natural caused warming?

    I am only familiar with climate scientists who show natural influences vs climate, with no match, human influences vs climate with no match, and then a combined human and natural influence vs climate – which matches.

  2. I see the obligatory tip of the hat to global warming. So, in another 20-30 years, I wonder how they’ll be responding to conditions as the current negative phase of the PDO comes to its end.

    As for human influences, how many are real and how many are a result of UHI, bad siting (as shown at surfacestation.org), massive loss of rural stations, and the ever present computer ‘adjustments’?

    With all the equivocations in that piece, it sounds like they’re starting to painfully straddle the fence.

  3. Ladies and gentlemen
    For your entertainment, Recent Uni ad…This is how low the standards at Australian Universities is reaching …

    Purpose of Position

    The Postdoctoral Research Fellow will assist in a project funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC) to address key issues in the evaluation of the environmental health risk of heatwaves associated with global warming. The appointee should have a background in statistics, epidemiology, public health or social sciences.

  4. - It’s “unlikely” that patterns of drought have changed due to global warming caused by human pollution. Rather, natural shifts in ocean currents are probably to blame. For instance, the current drought in Texas and the southwest are due to La Nina, a Pacific Ocean current that starts and stops periodically (such as El Nino), and cuts off the movement of moist air inland. Warmer temperatures from greenhouse gases, however, would worsen the basic drought.

    Here is a nice chart of Lake Mead water levels:

    http://www.arachnoid.com/NaturalResources/index.html

    And here is a scare story to go with it:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23130256/

  5. 1. ‘Warming in the West’ – PDO having been in positive phase?
    2. ‘No warming in the East’ – was there a little rise/fall, then a little fall/rise due to AMO?
    3. ‘The greenhouse gases’ they refer to: is that water vapour or seeohtwo?

    Seems to me that the tectonic plates are starting to shift……..

    High time too…….

  6. “we don’t understand climate as well as we like to think”. And yet governments are proposing to spend trillions based on poorly understood science. Incredible!

  7. April 3rd 2009 and the temperature outside right now is 3C (39f).

    For this time of year it should be 8C or better. Forcast is frost on
    Saturday and all my fruit trees are in blossom. aahhghgh….

  8. To Michael Hauber. What matches would these be? Computer model predictions? Pull the other one.

  9. Alright, I just downloaded this 156 page “Reanalysis” and will predict that almost no one will read more than a few pages.

    The key findings are reported beginning on (pdf) page 19. But my download skips pages 14 to 22 which is where, I think, it explains what they have done.

    This seems to be a typically dreadful (gov.) read. However, I need some sleep before trying again. I hope by the time I get back someone will have managed to look at this document and tell what it is about!

  10. Michael Hauber-If you’re referring to the “attribution studies” like this:

    I have to be perfectly honest. They are model based crap. Here’s my rant on them:

    “”Natural” forcing is solar irradiance and volcanoes. Before about 1980 there are no measurements of TSI and even after that no continuous, verifiable record. Before Pinatubo, volcanic forcing is adjustable, too. Anthropogenic forcings include aerosols and GHG’s-and while the time history and forcing ability of GHG’s is fairly certain, aerosols are not. Not to mention other anthropogenic forcings, like soot, land use, etc. Solar forcing does not contain the effects of UV/Ozone interactions or the more controversial effects of cosmic rays on low altitude cloud cover. Finally, the effects of natural, internal variability are not-cannot-be considered-but are dismissed because models don’t produce such internal variability (even though it is known that this is actually a failure on their part!).”

    So, in sum, while it is true that studies claim that you need anthropogenic forcings and some weak aspects of nature (mostly cooling) that are poorly defined and not measured, to get models to agree with the GMST. Not to impressive really.

  11. Not difficult to spot “editorial additions” designed to conform with “the company line”, is it?

    ““Most of the warming [worldwide] is the consequence of human influences,” said Martin Hoerling, a NOAA climate scientist.”

  12. “It estimates the “natural” change is substantial and could be close to half of all warming in North America (though it is still less than the amount caused by greenhouse gases.)”
    so its close to half but still have to reinforce that its not quite half. I suppose in real terms it does not make much difference if it is say .49 or .51 but in newspaper headlines it changes from almost half to majority.

    almost on topic

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warming-discovered.html

  13. Slowly back away from the mad man.

    Is this the second of some important back peddling efforts we can expect to see in the next few years as the planet cools?

    First Hadley admitting UHI effects and now NOAA admitting ocean currents and other natural climate impacts are imprtant. Interesting, no?

  14. on the one hand, western proximity to the largest ocean combined with gg emissions caused the warming in the west. on the other, non-proximity to the largest ocean combined with gg emissions caused no temperature change in other regions?

    hmmmm.

  15. ” Claude Harvey (22:18:00) :

    Not difficult to spot “editorial additions” designed to conform with “the company line”, is it?

    ““Most of the warming [worldwide] is the consequence of human influences,” said Martin Hoerling, a NOAA climate scientist.” ”

    I did have a little chuckle at that particular “reality disconnect”

    Natural shifts in ocean currents have caused much of the warming in recent decades, and almost all of the droughts, says the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)………………………..
    “Most of the warming [worldwide] is the consequence of human influences,” said Martin Hoerling, a NOAA climate scientist.

    Incredible!

  16. OT, but another chink of light appears … <a href=”http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7980441.stm””US to be pragmatic on climate change.” And this from the BBC, of all places. Of course, there isn’t a hint from anything in the article that AGW/CC is utter tosh, but it looks like some pre-positioning going on.

  17. Sounds like a rivetting read. [yawn]

    So, a gentle repositioning of the NOAA stance. Not well publicised now, but in a couple of years time they’ll ba able to point to it:
    “Oh we’ve been saying that for ages”

    At least they won’t be able to do so much arm waving with both hands covering their cheeks.

  18. NOAA are simply hedging their bets with this re-analysis of climate data.

    They understand that skepticism over climate is on the increase and that it has finally entered mainstream thinking.

    Under the certainty that the planet is cooling NOAA now fear the political consequences of putting all their faith in computer models.

    Like Real Climate who declared that the Antarctic is both cooling (observed) and warming (statistical infilling) at the same time, NOAA are simply stating the modelled claims are real but that natural variations can over-power the data.

    There can only be one winner in the clash between the real world of scientific obeservation and the virtual world of climate modelling. The planet will win every time.

  19. Richard Heg @22:30:53)

    That NS article is another “the MWP was local” argument and the hockey stick is true. I haven’t purchased a copy of the enviro-mental propagandist organ for years; I used to be an avid reader

  20. Anthony ..any comment on the photo of the weather station featured at the head of chapter 1 on page 5 of this report.
    There seems to be a problem with the shadows-the shadow of the pole of the MMTS sensor seems to be opposite of that of the guy with the red jacket taking the readings and the Stephenson Screen. I may be wrong.

    Either way surely NOAA has a photo of a better weather station than this!

  21. What is this crazy black line?

    http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg

    Let’s be charitable and just say that it’s the result of grafting the thermometer record on to a spaghetti plot of proxy-based reconstructions. A case of comparing apples and bars of chocolate . To avoid giving a misleading impression, which I’m sure is unintentional, the plot should just show proxy reconstructions which have been updated to the present day.

  22. @ Richard Heg & Robert Wood,
    I stopped buying New scientist several months ago for the obvious reason.
    First, I note that they still use the term ‘climate change denier’. As a major sceptical argument is that climate is always changing, that’s completely bizarre as well as insulting (it’s obviously intended to sound like holocaust denial). In fact it’s the IPCC and their followers who are the climate change deniers. They deny that there was significant climate change over the preceding ten centuries. In fact the whole essence of the hockey stick is climate change denial.

    This report certainly seems to concede that there was significant warming during the MWP. And one of the scientists who commented on this warming is Michael Mann. Can this be the same Michael Mann who created the Hockey Stick we all love? The sports implement that triumphantly whitewashed the MWP from history? Yes, it can. In fact, his 2008 hockey stick does show signs of the MWP, though naturally a lot smaller than the 20th century warming.

    I think this is actually quite hopeful. It may be that science is slowly – painfully slowly – in the process of correcting itself, just as it has in the past. Clearly, science often gets things spectacularly wrong, for example the denial of continental drift in the early 20th century, but in the end the scientific truth usually triumphs. Unfortunately the climate scientists have huge vested interests in AGW (political influence, money, jobs, pensions) so it will be a very slow process of self-correction, probably taking decades. But, yes, there are signs that this is happening. I’m getting on in years. I just hope it will happen in my lifetime.

    Chris

  23. “Robert Wood (00:56:43) :

    Richard Heg @22:30:53)

    That NS article is another “the MWP was local” argument and the hockey stick is true. I haven’t purchased a copy of the enviro-mental propagandist organ for years; I used to be an avid reader”

    I always go to the NS web site thinking ok this time i will ignore the story about how the latest computer model proves AGW and anyone who questions it is ignorant or worse and just look at the articles on all the other science/news areas i am interested in. But every time i am drawn to the headline and every time it puts me off reading about anything else. But i think that is the problem with the whole AGW issue, so much attention has been given to it that it has left many more important issues ignored.

  24. Natural shifts in ocean currents have caused much of the warming in recent decades, and almost all of the droughts, says the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Climatology is one of these qualitative sciences where (almost) everything is explained by using terms like “much of the” “most likely” “almost all” and such.

  25. Painful straddling that fence. One slip and …

    What I would like to know is how you draw the line. Man vs the rest, is it another fudge fator? It’s become obvious to most, the Ocam’s Razor of climate is the sun. How could we possibly have missed it. I am, sure if we continue to spend billions, we will find the “most likely” culprit for “almost all” of the heat on earth.

    Pollution is not Climatology, and CO2, the very stuff of life on earth, is not pollution.

  26. “Effects Of Climate Change On Infectious Diseases Questioned By Ecologists

    Recent research has predicted that climate change may expand the scope of human infectious diseases. A new review, however, argues that climate change may have a negligible effect on pathogens or even reduce their ranges. The paper has sparked debate in the ecological community.”

    “Lafferty agrees that climate isn’t the only issue that affects disease ecology, and maintains that climate may play only a small part in determining disease ranges.

    “If we over-emphasize the role of climate, which we have little control over, at the expense of other factors that drive disease dynamics, we may be missing the forest for the trees,” he says.”

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/144822.php

  27. Michael Hauber (20:47:57) :

    Can anyone point to any climate scientist who deals exlcusively with man-made greenhouse gases, and dismisses suggestions of natural caused warming?

    The folks behind Realclimate come to mind. High on the dismissive score! I confess I don’t follow them too closely any more. I do pay attention to James Hansen, if he gives ascribes any warming to natural effects it’s drowned out by his campaign against coal and its death trains.

    I am only familiar with climate scientists who show natural influences vs climate, with no match, human influences vs climate with no match, and then a combined human and natural influence vs climate – which matches.

    Dr. Syun Akasofu’s updated paper looking at PDO and Little Ice Age recovery, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/20/dr-syun-akasofu-on-ipccs-forecast-accuracy/ , shows shows a very good match between those and a century’s worth of matching.

    On a shorter scale, Joe D’Aleo’s stronger correlation between PDO and temps than CO2 and temps, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/ convinced me it was time to join this fray.

  28. AG ON LINE [ http://dgroups.agriculture.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&webtag=agfarmbiz&tid=7139%5D an american agriculture web site is currently running a poll for farmers headed;

    “Do you believe the earth’s climate is warming?”

    At 6.06 AM the poll numbers were
    Yes; 160 votes. [ 24% ]
    No; 466 votes. [ 70% ]
    Don’t know; 41 votes [ 6% ]

    Polls of this nature of course, are subject to complete manipulation but from the comments box it would seem that the vote numbers are running roughly in line with the comments and in line with the attitudes of the farming community.
    Certainly here in Australia those figures would probably be quite close to any similar poll held amongst Australian farmers.
    I have seen this skepticism about global warming and even more so about claimed climate change amongst farmers for a long time.
    Farmers spend a great deal of their working life out in the weather and just trying to make a living by taking head on all the vagaries, the constant changes and all the subtleties of a very cunning and impossible to pin down opponent that forms our weather and climate.
    Few farmers will ever believe that it is getting permanently warmer or colder or if it seems as though it is, it will change again to something different just when you least expect it to.
    That’s weather and when it happens next year as well, that’s climate!
    Don’t worry, it will do something completely different the following year!

  29. They have known since 2004 that AMO and PDO are responsible for 52% of all droughts in America http://www.pnas.org/content/101/12/4136.full.pdf+html

    They have also known for many years that PDO affects the western half of the continent more and AMO affects the eastern coast more. Both are global climate makers and not just North America.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/115

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/115

    http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceananddrought.html

    This is especially true for Canada. A plot of Canadian east coast temperature anomalies shows that it follows the AMO and a plot of Canadian west coast temperature anomalies shows that it follows PDO. Canadian National temperature anomalies follow a combined index of PDO plus AMO. They do no follow co2 trends.

    It is no surprise that
    NOAA says Western Canada has warmed by two degrees and Eastern Canada hasn’t warmed at all because flows of air from naturally shifting Pacific currents have affected the West most.
    In the period of the study [1948-2007] PDO was cool in the period l948 to1976, but warming the last 30 years1976-2007, while AMO was warm1948 to 1964, cool from1964 to1994 and again warm 1994 to 2009.
    The west received more warming recently while the east received more cooling recently. Since the PDO went negative in 2007 and the AMO went negative in Jan2009, both coasts as well as Canada as whole has been cooling two years in a row , with 2009 winter temperatures in the northwest dropping as much as 7.1c degrees from the 2006 levels.

    The positive sign in my opinion is that NOAA is the first major climate monitoring organization finally admitting that oceans play a significant role in global warming .However when they again state that “Most of the warming [worldwide] is the consequences of human influences” without offering any proof that this warming greater than the influence of the oceans, they again diminish all their new acknowledgement about the effect of oceans. But still it is a positive sign that some real science is entering the global warming debate finally.

  30. Ah, another place for the sceptics to hang out and pat each other on the back over their amazing intelligence and ability to know the truth against the scientific concensus. You just don’t get it do you, yet it’s there for anyone to see, not just scientists.

    The latest poster, ROM, seems to think farmers are better qualified than scientists to make intelligent judgements about climate change, excuse me, but in my experience farmers are just interested in a quick buck, which is why they are responsible for soil erosion, water pollution, pesticides in everything, animal abuse and a lot more.

    I would suggest that the so-called sceptics are the ones who don’t know their arse from their elbow, don’t live in the real world, ie. the environment, but instead are city dwelling nerds who spend most of their lives in front of a screen reading nonsense to back up their deranged ideas from a collection of inane websites peddling folk ‘wisdom’. IF any of you doubters had a clue about the environment, you would KNOW the climate is changing, you would KNOW the planet is warming; why else would birds be nesting earlier, why else would plants be surviving more northerly than ever and dying out in southern, warmer, parts, why else would droughts be affecting many countries while floods are the norm in others?

    Most of you are probably too young to even know what the climate was like thirty years ago, forty years even, you get all your ‘knowledge’ from websites, and believe it. If you did have experience of the climate in the past, you would know it’s changed, it wouldn’t be a subject for discussion. Which is why I rarely waste my time trying to inject some common sense and intelligent discussion into places like this. You’ll see; when the floods have wiped out millions, when starvation is taking care of the rest. Won’t be so cocky then.

  31. First, I note that they still use the term ‘climate change denier’. As a major sceptical argument is that climate is always changing, that’s completely bizarre as well as insulting (it’s obviously intended to sound like holocaust denial).

    What is needed is collective legal action by those scientists labelled deniers. The accusers know full well that climate realists have said time and time again that climate is always changing. Being labelled a denier or criminal is an act of defamation, slander and misrepresentation.

  32. “Most of the warming [worldwide] is the consequence of human influences,” said Martin Hoerling, a NOAA climate scientist.

    I agree with this statement. UHI temperature record contamination, poor siting, and rural station dropout are the human signature on the temperature record!

  33. It is hugely significant that an outfit as prestigious as NOAA admits that nature plays a part in climate change. This is a major crack in the facade of consensus science which until now has held the preposterous view that man was entirely responsible. (Investigating man-made global warming is the sole purpose of the IPCC to the exclusion of any other cause). Watch now as this crack widens into fissures and the whole rotten edifice crumbles. Maybe the Goreacle will be forced (or shamed) eventually to hand back his Nobel as his fraud is laid bare for all to see.

  34. Now that advocacy is being translated into policy
    and “energy prices will necessarily skyrocket”,
    this is a CYA move. Bart Simpson would be proud!

  35. Richard Heg,

    I find that article you linked us to quite annoying, because it suggests Mann is now attempting to construct an elaborate link between the La Nina and NAO, employing thermohaline circulation, in order to once again shrink the MWP.

    What is annoying is that Dr. Bill Gray was itching to study thermohaline circulation, back when Gore was VP, but funding for such study was over and over denied to him. I’m not sure, but I think 8 requests were denied. They basically told Dr. Gray to mind his own business and stick with hurricanes, and sent all the funding to Dr. Hansen.

    Dr. Gray had noticed a correlation between what happened in the North Atlantic and what happened in the Pacific, and felt warming might be explained if the link between the two systems was studied. However, because he was prevented from gathering data, his hunch remained merely a hunch. In fact, over at Real Climate, they like to dismiss Dr. Gray by saying, “He has no data.”

    It always seemed to me that Dr. Gray lacked data because they prevented him from gathering it. I imagined he represented a threat, because raw data is real, while Hansen’s models were in essence fondled data, massaged data, and extrapolated data.

    The threat represented by the study of thermohaline circulation seemly reached a degree where the response can be called denial. One of the richest deep-sea upwelling on earth is off the coast of Peru during La Ninas, yet your Wikipedia map of Thermohaline circulation shows no branch leading to the coast of Peru. (In other words, that upwelling comes from no-place.)

    Considering all this effort was made to ignore the thermohaline link between the North Atlantic and La Ninas, when Dr. Gray was involved, it seems the height of audacity for Mann to now use that same link (without data) to once again attempt to explain away the MWP.

  36. Let’s do a bit of logical thinking about climate change drivers backing it up with some math.

    Let’s assume that phenomena (presumably all natural) are cooling the earth to a degree that warming (man-made plus or minus natural) is no longer apparent.

    In mathematical terms, factors or drivers of cooling (natural) are as quantitatively important as drivers of warming (natural + man-made), which can be expressed as:

    natural cooling (nc) = natural warming (nw) + manmade warming (mmw)

    It is illogical to consider that natural drivers only cause cooling. It is likely and logical that, overall, over short-to-medium time spans (say 30 years), nc=nw.

    nc = nw + mmw
    nc=nw
    nc = nc + mmw
    mmw=0

  37. MarcH (01:48:19) : I agree with you that the shadow looks wrong in the picture. But, on a larger issue, I think I recall it being said that a rooftop weather station was a real no-no. It’s cute that a thumbnail version of the shot is repeated on every page of that chapter. My guess is that the pic was chosen because it was colorful and ‘pretty’ not for any scientific merit.

  38. This is hardly new: read Favre and Gershunov 2006, 2008 and the MPH trajectories in teh Pacific, read Alexis Pommier thesis for the same in the North Atlantic aerological space. The demonstrations are there and Marcel Leroux and his students did not wait for NOAA to publish their conclusions. the climatic shift of the the mid-1970s is the key:

    From Favre and Gershunov 2008
    Clim Dyn
    DOI 10.1007/s00382-008-0417-3

    “Around 1976–1977, the North Pacific region has experienced
    a deep climatic modification, which was
    characterized by intensification and weakening of cyclonic
    and anticyclonic activity, respectively, in the Northeastern
    Pacific (FG2006). This shift in the mid-latitude atmospheric
    circulation has contributed to warming over western North
    America (e.g., Karl et al. 1984, 1986, 1993; Easterling
    2002; Groisman et al. 2004) and more frequent intense
    precipitation over the southwestern United States (Gershunov
    and Cayan 2003). These observed circulation changes
    over the North Pacific run counter to those observed over
    the global midlatitudes, and also to changes projected by
    most models including CNRM-CM3, as well as to physical
    intuition about synoptic changes to expect from greenhouse
    warming. We therefore conclude that the mid-1970s North
    Pacific climate shift, although it contributed to the observed
    winter warming of the West, was a result of natural NPO/
    PDO variability that happened to temporarily suspend most
    of the other regional weather and climate modifications
    expected from anthropogenic climate change.”

  39. re: Michael Hauber (20:47:57) :
    “Can anyone point to any climate scientist who deals exlcusively [sic] with man-made greenhouse gases, and dismisses suggestions of natural caused warming?
    Of course, the word “exclusively” is a weasel word that allows one to escape unharmed under scrutiny. However IPCC AR4 (see figure SPM.2) essentially does “dismiss suggestions of natural caused warming.” According to IPCC ARF, since 1750, natural forcings have been only 0.12 W/sq meter, and anthropogenic forcings have been 1.6 W/sq meter. This is quite dismissive of natural caused warming.
    Regarding comments about matches on “human influences” versus “natural influences,” actually the models referenced by the IPCC do get a good match with their definition of human influences versus historically estimated GMT. Adding natural influences adds little to the match. However, two cautions to emphasize: First, these natural influences in the analyses contain only volcanoes and a questionable measure of TSI, not natural influences such as oscillations. Second, they would not get a good match with human influences if not for opportunistic and controversial choices of the aerosol impact.

  40. Ah come on, James…trolls have to eat too!

    Apparently Pete Simmons thinks that ad hominen attacks, tearing down straw mans like farmer opinion polls, and making assertions without evidence qualifies as “intelligent discussion”. But alas, this is what we have come to expect from the true believers. No mention of scientific evidence, just tired old slogans and false moral grandstanding. Please Pete, indulge us, give us some of that common sense and intelligent discussion!

  41. The declining probability of anthropogenic global warming…

    In November 2007 “most” of the warming had at least a 90% probability of being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. A year later, “more than half” of the warming has at least a 66% probability of being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions…

    Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.

    –IPCC, November 2007 Fourth assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers

    More than half of this warming is likely the result of human-caused greenhouse gas forcing of climate change.”

    –NOAA, December, 2008, Reanalysis of Historical Climate Data for Key Atmospheric Features: Implications for Attribution of Causes of Observed Change

    One of the greatest difficulties in reading these qualitative assessments is in quantifying the adjectives, nouns and adverbs…In both of these reports “likely” means at least a 66% probability and “very likely” means at least a 90% probability. Do “most” and “more than half” mean the same thing? I don’t know. To me “most” means significantly or much more than half.

    In 2007 there was a 90% probability that lets say 75% of the warming was due to capitalism…So about 2/3 of the warming of the last 50 years was anthropogenic.

    Now, there’s only a 66% probability that lets say 55% of the warming was due to capitalism…So just a year later, only 1/3 of the warming of the last 50 years was anthropogenic.

    Since both of these studies are based on surface temperature measurements and ignore the more reliable satellite data…They both assert that about twice as much global warming occurred in the late 20th century as the satellite data do. And neither study picks up on the cooling trend since 2005 that is obvious in the satellite data. Yet…The amount of anthropogenic global warming over the last 50 years appears to have miraculously and quietly been cut in half.

    And yes, I do realize that I am comparing the IPCC’s work to NOAA’s work…So on top of the subjectivity; there might be an apples and oranges thing going on…But the tepidness of NOAA’s anthropogenic finger-printing is quite interesting.

  42. Michael D. Smith (02:56:47)

    Nice analysis of UHI!!

    Too bad it isn’t mentioned in the editorial.

  43. Pete,

    Please explain to me (since you seem to know so much) why the planet has been cooling for 10 years when all climate computer models predicted a temperature increase? Preferably, please use NASA satellite data as the basis for your explanation. Also, it would be helpful if you could explain the rationale behind the aerosol forcings assumed in the climate models since they don’t appear to match reality. Finally, please prepare a summary of the programming logic used in the climate models that determine climate sensitivity to CO2. Links to the pertinent lines of Fortran code would be helpful. Thanks!

  44. Pete Simmons said

    “Most of you are probably too young to even know what the climate was like thirty years ago, forty years even, you get all your ‘knowledge’ from websites, and believe it. If you did have experience of the climate in the past, you would know it’s changed.”

    I know of no one at all on this web site that denies the climate is changing. Equally perhaps they know -as you don’t appear to- that climate change is something that occurs on a permanent basis, and instead of glancing back only thirty or forty years, we look back scores, hundreds and thousands of years.

    Then you would know that plants could live much farther north than now, that trees grew at higher altitude than now, that people farmed at higher places than they do today, that the Arctic ice has melted every 60 years or so and there are vestiges of an ancient civilisation in the High arctic regions.

    Has the MWP, the Roman warm period, the Holocene optimums completely passed you by? Are you unaware of the considerable warming in the 1920’s and 30’s which triggered exactly the same headlines as we see now? Are you unaware of the warming that Thomas Jefferson wrote about? Have you never heard of the Vikings and their habitation of Greenland?

    Before you start making unsubstantiated comments I suggest you learn more of the subject and be a bit more aware of the earths continually changing climate which strectches back much further than thirty or forty years and were marked by storms and droughts much greater than we see today.

    Please think before you post and look at some of the numerous threads here that may open your mind a little.

    Tonyb

  45. I posted this yesterday off topic on a different thread. Thought I would put it on topic.

    Using the new article, I’ve done a “back of the envelope” estimate that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is ~1.65C.

    Here’s the relevant bits from the story:

    —snip—
    Some of the changes in North America’s warming trend of the past half-century have been due to shifting ocean currents, the NOAA team found. It estimates the “natural” change is substantial and could be close to half of all warming in North America (though it is still less than the amount caused by greenhouse gases.)

    The study found:

    – The 56-year trend of annual surface temperature showed a rise of 0.9C, plus or minus one-tenth of a degree.

    – Seven of the warmest 10 years since 1951 occurred in the decade from 1997 to 2006. The data in the study cover only to the end of 2007.
    —snip—

    So a bit more than half of the 0.9C increase is due to GW. I’ll use 0.9C * 55% = ~0.5

    I’ll also use the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements for the study start and end dates:

    1951: 311 ppm
    2007: 383 ppm

    If I understand it correctly, the change in temp can be calculated as:

    tempchange = forcefactor * ln(CO2[end]/CO2[start])
    so:
    forcefactor = tempchange / ln(CO2[end]/CO2[start])

    Plugging in the above values we get:

    forcefactor = 0.5 / ln(383/311)
    forcefactor = 2.4

    And sensitivity to doubling of CO2 as:

    sensitivity = forcefactor * ln(2)
    sensitivity = 1.65C

    This is significantly less than the 3.0C estimated by the model ensemble used by the IPCC.

    Also interesting, this is consistent with Bill Illis’s analysis from a while back:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/25/adjusting-temperatures-for-the-enso-and-the-amo/

    A few points:

    – I haven’t read the actual study. It’s based solely off the news story.
    – I couldn’t determine if the reported trend was for North America only or global.
    – The article did not mention which temperature record was used, but being a NOAA study, I can guess.

    All the usual caveats and discussion points apply.

    AJ

  46. Pete Simmons (05:15:54) : Awh. . ., come on Pete, lighten up.

    We are neither young nor old, neither farmers nor apartment dwellers, nor any other category you would like to put us in. I guess we could all be from Missouri, “The Show Me State.” This “conotates a certain self-deprecating stubbornness and devotion to simple common sense.”

    I think most here acknowledge the Earth’s climates change but not that human activities have much to do with it. Apparently you believe the opposite.

    So, explain to me why Earth had an ice age 20,000 years ago and this is not so today? I can show you the ice age existed. You cannot show me how humans caused it to go away.

    Chill! Have a drink! Cheer up!

  47. I have read the Executive Summary’s key findings of this report and have some thoughts on them.

    • Seven of the warmest ten years for annual
    surface temperatures from 1951 to 2006
    have occurred between 1997 and 2006.

    Just common sense would tell you this was true since it was the only period during the study when both AMO and PDO were warming simultaneously

    • Virtually all of the warming since 1951 has
    occurred after 1970.

    Again this is the only period when PDO was warming 1976 -2007 and AMO was warming 1994-2009

    • More than half of this warming is likely
    the result of human-caused greenhouse gas
    forcing of climate change.

    What does LIKELY mean. To me this implies doubt?

    • Changes in ocean temperatures likely explain
    a substantial fraction of the human caused
    warming of North America.

    This is very confusing. How can changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of human caused warming? They are two different causes entirely. Are they trying to say that ocean temperatures account for much more of the PREVIOUSLY AND ERRONEOUSLY attributed human caused warming?

    What does substantial fraction mean [ if more than half of warming is human caused and a substantial part of this is ocean caused , what is left that is human caused. VERY LITTLE

  48. Pete Simmons (05:15:54),

    I’m sure you will get lots of responses. However, You clearly don’t understand the position of most AGW skeptics. Although many skeptics have their own pet theories I’d say the vast majority feel that no one understands climate well enough to say anything conclusive about the causes and effects.

    That doesn’t mean skeptics feel that man is not PART of the equation, just that there’s no way to determine how much impact should be atrributed to man. Until this can be understood we should not be running off half cocked trying to fix something we have no idea is broken. The latest mitigation experiment (dumping iron into the ocean) covered here recently is ample evidence of that.

    Please stay around and try and understand the facts and the data. I think you will be surprised if you keep and open mind.

    I also find it humorous that you assert the skeptics are all young. Another recent attempt to generalize skeptics claimed we were all old. The truth is if you want to generalize skeptics then what you will find is they are mostly intelligence logical people that like to understand the world around them.

    Finally, maybe you should take some time to get to know and understand farmers. You might be surprised as to what you can learn. However, if you truly hate farmers then I’d suggest you boycott all their products. That would demonstrate you really believe what you have stated.

  49. Caleb (06:10:48) : & Richard Heg,

    Note that while the article seemed to imply an attempt “. . . to once again shrink the MWP”, as you say, it emphatically drew simutaneous timing links between most of the major climate makers around the world.

    As for the MWP, it is being continually re-certified, here:
    http://co2science.org/ . . . on a weekly basis
    Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week
    Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published
    by 687 individual scientists from 402 separate research institutions in
    40 different countries … and counting!
    Keeping with my previous post, this fits the “show me” category.

    Bruce Foutch (06:17:30) : Thanks for the link to missing pages.

  50. Pete Simmons (05:15:54) :
    You need to calm down.
    We know climate changes – always has, always will. Man’s effect on climate is pretty much nil, though, and that is what the debate is all about.
    And, FYI, ranting, name-calling, or otherwise attempting to belittle or denigrate is not an effective tactic to use, and in fact not only puts you in a bad light, but diminishes whatever argument you are trying to make. The science disputing manmade warming is sound, and readily available. The “consensus” argument is not a sound scientific one, and whatever “consensus” there was is actually falling apart.

  51. John F. Hultquist (08:16:45) :

    Caleb (06:10:48) : & Richard Heg,

    As for the MWP, it is being continually re-certified, here:
    http://co2science.org/ . . . on a weekly basis
    Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week

    And here this week:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5923/78

    A piece from the article:

    “We present here a 947-year-long multidecadal North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) reconstruction and find a persistent positive NAO during the MCA. Supplementary reconstructions based on climate model results and proxy data indicate a clear shift to weaker NAO conditions into the Little Ice Age (LIA).

  52. Here’s a nugget I found on the PMEL website. Check out this paper on modeling arctic climate using AOGCMs:

    “Intrinsic versus forced variation in coupled climate model simulations over the Arctic during the Twentieth Century, ” Wang et al., J. Climate, 20(6), 1093–1107 (2007).

    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/wang2804/abstract.shtml

    The paper compared “predictions” from over 20 models with historical data. Here’s the money quote:

    “We consider that the eight models [GISS-AOM, GISSEH, GISS-ER, IPSL-CM4, MIROC3.2(hires), MIROC3.2(medres), MRI-CGCM2.3.2, and FGOALSg1.0] that did not pass both criteria (magnitude in 20C3M simulation and control runs variance) do not have enough intrinsic decadal variability to produce a reasonable magnitude for arctic warm anomalies.”

    In other words these 8 models couldn’t even ** hindcast ** the arctic climate very accurately! And what do you know – all the GISS codes failed. Gavin – what say you??

  53. The biggest drought I know of in N. America occured in the last half of the 1500’s. There was another one in the 8th century (735-765).

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFMPP71C..04S

    There was no AGW cause for either one.

    Yes, it is wrong to blame everything on man, not that man is innocent.
    The public is really getting sick & tired of the constant spew of AGW scare.
    It reads like sour grapes and a slick con job.

  54. From Spaceweather.com:

    NEW: Spotless Days
    Current Stretch: 26 days
    2009 total: 80 days (87%)
    Since 2004: 591 days
    Typical Solar Min: 485 days

    Is that “Typical Solar Min” number right? How do you define the boudaries for the minimum and maximum anyway?

  55. and…the cure I have told it already, but I need to repeat it, it is CASTOR OIL; the old and faithful castor oil. It will empty gwrs’ guts and, in so doing, it will liberate them of all those harmful toxins circulating through their already small brains.

  56. The study found:

    – The 56-year trend of annual surface temperature showed a rise of 0.9C, plus or minus one-tenth of a degree.

    Let’s see: 56 X .9C = 50.4C ??

    Probably should read either: The 56-year period showed an increase in temp of 0.9C, or, the trend over the 56-year period was 0.016C/year. C’mon Mr. Spears, get it right.

  57. “In other words these 8 models couldn’t even ** hindcast ** the arctic climate very accurately! And what do you know – all the GISS codes failed. Gavin – what say you??”

    Any programmer who has looked at the GISS code knows full well the code has many errors. That much code that has been modified several times and lacks proper documentation will have programming errors. PERIOD! If a first year compsci student wrote this code they would get a big red F.

    What’s interesting about this situation is the algorithms could actually be fine and simply programmed wrong.

  58. Aron (00:25:45) :

    What is this crazy black line?

    This chart is credited to Robert Wilson of Edinburgh University. A quick look at his homepage offers this:

    “I am currently funded through the European Union on a project entitled, “Millennium – European Climate of the last Millennium. The Millennium project is a multidisciplinary consortium of more than 40 European universities and research Institutes, with the aim of answering a single question:

    Does the magnitude and rate of 20th Century climate change exceed the natural variability of European climate over the last millennium?”

    The Millenium project appears to apply global-climate against Euro-climate. But it does include the phrase “natural variability.” Something we can expect to hear more of as AGW is phased downward.

  59. Now “they” are admitting the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. Explained by
    the North Atlantic Oscillation. And Mann is cetting close to admitting a solar driver:

    Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University says that based on the analyses and modelling that he has done, increased solar output and a reduction in volcanoes spouting cooling ash into the atmosphere could have not only kicked off the medieval warming, but might also have maintained it directly.

  60. ” It’s wrong to blame our warming climate on human pollution alone…’

    So, if a Mt Redoubt spews x tons of SO2 into the atmosphere, that is natural, but if coal-burning plants spew the same molecule, that is pollution?

    Maybe the whole biosphere is pollution.

  61. More than half of this warming is likely
    the result of human-caused greenhouse gas
    forcing of climate change.

    What does LIKELY mean. To me this implies doubt?

    It means that’s the reason they’ve chosen, therefore it’s “likely”.

    It’s more likely that we’re still shooting in the dark, and one reason is as likely as any other at this point.

  62. Francois GM (06:10:53) :

    Let’s do a bit of logical thinking about climate change drivers backing it up with some math.

    Let’s assume that phenomena (presumably all natural) are cooling the earth to a degree that warming (man-made plus or minus natural) is no longer apparent.

    Obviously assuming that all natural forces are cooling the planet is a bad assumption or presumption, since the Earth has been warmer than now many many times in the past, even the recent past. So your analogy falls apart right there.

  63. Having skimmed through the entire report:

    PDO and AMO are treated very superficially as if they are not relevant. No plots of PDO or AMO together with temperature anomalies to show relationships. This appears to be strange as they clearly say that the STRENGTH OF LINK BETWEEN ATMOSPHERE AND OCEAN IS STRONG for both the AMO and PDO.

    The shift of climate when PDO went negative in 1976 is strangely explained as
    “From an oceanographic perspective, changes in ocean heat content and SST’s that happened suddenly over the Pacific basin north of 30 degrees N were caused by atmospheric circulation anomalies.”

    Warm periods are highlighted, cool ones are not

    El Nino’s are talked about; la Nina’s are hardly mentioned

    No evidence to support why for a North American study, they would say “most of the warming [worldwide] is the consequences of human influence. They suddenly jump to worldwide from a local study and just assume that the same applies.

    When they use the term LIKELY it means more than 66 % PROBABILTY

    This report is clearly prepared to support the AWG point of view primarly

    The report is about weather and climate but no professional or working meteorologist is part of the team.

  64. Pete Simmons (05:15:54) :

    Gee, Pete, that was very well done. I checked out YOUR “Fool On The Hill” (very appropriately named, I must say; self knowledge is a wonderful thing) site and noticed that there does not seem to be a way to post comments. Very open minded of you. That anti-Christian diatribe at the bottom was a very nice touch.

  65. I’m going to throw this out there. realclimate.org has a post up about science vs advocacy, and I pointed out that their criticism applies to themselves as well, using the example of the CO2 time lag. I am curious what your response is to Chris Colose’s response:

    It should not at all be surprising that CO2 can “lag” planetary temperature changes. After all, changes in vegetation and other biological activity from enhanced (reduced) ice cover or temperatures, changes in the solubility of gases in ocean water, etc should alter atmospheric chemistry. Such carbon cycle feedbacks, in fact, were predicted before it was observed in the ice core record.

    In order to put as much CO2 into the atmosphere at the end of each ice age as is recorded in proxy records, the deep ocean must have been involved. A principle mechanism is the creation of upwelling favorable conditions in the Southern Ocean to vent CO2 from the deep waters, particularly as the Intertropical Convergence Zone shifted closer to the equator and the southern westerlies shifted further toward Antarctica. This is discussed on my blog with corresponding comments from the lead author of a recent Science paper on the issue. Key mechanisms and ideas resulting in changes in biogeochemical boundary conditions going along with temperature changes between glacial-interglacial cycles is described in

    http://faculty.washington.edu/battisti/589paleo2005/Papers/SigmanBoyle2000.pdf

    One of the key papers cited by global warming skeptics for making the “CO2 lags temperature” (for instance it is done so in the popularized “Swindle Video”) argument is Caillon et al 2003. In their conclusion, they specifically note that changes in pCO2 have come essentially exclusively from anthropogenic sources in the industrial era. As gavin noted the rate of glacial-interglacial CO2 variation is significantly less (he quotes ~20 ppm/degree C change) and at least an order of magnitude slower than today. Isotopic signatures and increased carbon in the oceans show that the CO2 rise today is not from natural feedback.

    It would be much more common to see CO2 “lagging” in this context because you don’t expect massive injections of “externally forced” carbon into the atmosphere, although relevant paleo-examples can be found if you look hard enough (e.g., the PETM). Because rather abrupt injections at the rate which occurred during the PETM or industrial age is rare in the geologic record, there are no very good analogs for climate change on the timescale of a century associated with greenhouse gases. The paleoclimate record is very consistent however concerning the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures over geologic timescales.

    In contrast to chemical feedbacks associated with disturbances in the ocean and biosphere, CO2 warms the planet through established principles of radiative physics, particularly the ability to allow the inflow of energy in the planet system to exceed outflow. Accordingly, thinking of CO2 as “leading” or “lagging” all the time is not very good, since the two mechanisms are intrinsically related…although important carbon feedbacks from natural temperature changes occur on timescales longer than the last few decades, and so the change in CO2 is essentially all from fossil fuel emissions and deforestation/land use changes.

    AGW makes no claims about the ability of “other factors” to be involved in climate change– either contemporary or in the past. Changes in the Earth’s orbit and many other things can change temperature. The relevant claim and the dictates of the physics says that CO2 must warm the planet, regardless of any superimposed natural variability. There is no contradiction between orbital changes putting more sunlight at the poles on millennial timescales to take the planet in and out of ice ages, and the ability of modern CO2 to cause warming. The paleo-record confirms that we understand the basic workings of climate change much more than it contradicts it.

  66. “AGW makes no claims about the ability of “other factors” to be involved in climate change– either contemporary or in the past. Changes in the Earth’s orbit and many other things can change temperature. The relevant claim and the dictates of the physics says that CO2 must warm the planet, regardless of any superimposed natural variability.”

    What claims does AGW make? And how do those stand up to observation?

  67. Mike N.,

    Sorry, pal, but your thesis goes up in smoke when you state:

    The paleoclimate record is very consistent however concerning the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures over geologic timescales.

    Yeah, the ‘relationship’ is that rises in CO2 follow temperature rises.

    Any warming caused by CO2 has long since been incorporated into the planet’s current temperature. Log scale effect, dontcha know.

    I have yet to see any credible evidence showing that further rises in CO2 will result in a warming climate: click

    The planet itself is falsifying your conjecture. And to pretend that RealClimate isn’t advocacy doubled and squared is nothing but psychological projection.

  68. Smokey wrote in response to Mike N “The planet itself is falsifying your conjecture.”

    Agreed.

    The fact that there could be this much cooling…even in the face of increased CO2….yet the planet still cools. Fancy that.

    Speaking of “warming” and the global temp spike in 1998….ya’ll might want to mosey on over to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/01/nasa-headline-deep-solar-minimum/ and check out Hotrod’s post at (17:54:00) :

    Comparing the 1998 spike in global temperatures, to a steep-walled, non-linear rogue wave.

    Damn fascinating connection.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  69. The above report would be like saying that the snowfall record set in Spokane, Washington, of recent vintage, as in the past 24 hours, was 49% caused by natural variation, and 51% caused by global warming. In 1920 record snows were recorded in a system that has data since 1881. It would be reasonable to say that there wasn’t global warming back then. Spokane was not exactly a coal belching metropolis. So what is causing this extreme weather now? Same area. Same extreme weather pattern variation. But different cause? That seems so disingenuous. Any investigator must deal with the first encountered pathology. What was it back then? An arctic jet stream loop? More than likely, yes. Also probably a very cold Northern Pacific ocean. What is going on now? An arctic jet stream loop and a very cold Northern Pacific ocean. It really is 1 plus 1 equals 2. Unless you are an AGWer who says with a straight face that global warming can mimic the affect of a cold ocean and jet stream loop on poor “had enough of snow” Spokane.

    RECORD REPORT
    NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SPOKANE WA
    126 AM PDT FRI APR 03 2009

    THE SNOWFALL AT SPOKANE AIRPORT IN THE PAST 24 HOURS WAS 2.4 INCHES.
    THIS WAS A RECORD FOR THE MOST SNOWFALL FOR THIS DATE. THE PREVIOUS
    RECORD OF 1.2 INCHES WAS SET IN 1920. RECORDS HAVE BEEN KEPT AT
    SPOKANE SINCE 1881.

  70. Nasif Nahle (07:37:04) :

    Out of topic but interesting: Medieval Warming Period was warmer than the last recent warming and it was global. Now the debate centers on what caused the MWP. From Science Magazine this week:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5923/78

    That paper says the MWP (in EUROPE) was caused by a long positive NAO. A positive NAO warms Europe- but doesn’t it also cool Northern Canada and Greenland?

    It seems to me that if the NAO is responsible for the MWP, then the MWP couldn’t have been global- the European warming being offset by Canada and Greenland cooling.

  71. Dave Middleton (and others) :

    The NOAA study only deals with the causes of climate changes in North America, NOT the entire globe.

  72. Chris V.:

    “- the European warming being offset by Canada and Greenland cooling.”

    The Viking settlements in Greenland during MWP are documented historic facts. The vikings even had agriculture there. They were extinguished in the 15th century, presumably by much colder climate. Last year of recorded settlement is 1408. You are aware of these historic facts, aren’t you Chris?

  73. Chris V.:

    The NOAA study only deals with the causes of climate changes in North America, NOT the entire globe.

    From Lubos Motl:

    The global sea ice area anomaly is actually slightly positive right now. It means that the excess of ice in the Southern Hemisphere, relative to a typical early April since the late 1970s, exceeds the deficit of ice in the Nothern Hemisphere.

    In other words, global sea ice is increasing! And since the AGW/CO2 hypothesis claims that the planet is warming globally, something isn’t right.

    What isn’t right? Obviously, it is the incorrect assumption that global warming is occurring. If global sea ice is seeing a net increase overall, then the AGW/CO2 hypothesis takes another fatal hit.

    How many hits does your AGW/CO2 hypothesis need to take, before globaloney warmists run up the white flag? According to Albert Einstein, it should only take one:

    ”To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
    ~ A. Einstein

  74. Chris V. (21:01:58) :
    …MWP couldn’t have been global- the European warming being offset by Canada and Greenland cooling.

    As JAN already pointed out, there was agriculture in Greenland during the MWP, specifically the farming of wheat and flax. The Greenland colony produced a surplus, which was shipped to Northern Europe. Again, these are recorded historical facts…no proxies required.

    Today it is too cold in Greenland for wheat and flax to germinate. This is a clear indicator that temperatures were significantly warmer during the MWP globally not just in Europe.

  75. JAN (02:48:07) :

    The NAO is a change in atmospheric circulation patterns in the northern hemisphere. If the NAO is warming some area up, then another area is not warming (cooling).

    IF the NAO is responsible for the MWP in Europe, that does not support the idea that the MWP was a global event (as the poster who linked to that paper seemed to think- unless I misinterpreted him).

  76. Smokey (04:47:51) :

    As is your habit, you’re responding to things I never said.

    The NOAA study does just deal with North America, so you can’t extrapolate their conclusions to the rest of the world (as other posters have done).

  77. Smokey et al, your responses do not respond to what I posted.
    I guess I’ll assume you guys aren’t very knowledgeable in the science, and have nothing relevant to say.

  78. Chris V.: “As is your habit, you’re responding to things I never said.”

    MikeN: “…your responses do not respond to what I posted.”

    Are you both nuts??

    I quoted what each of you wrote. Verbatim. Word for word. In blockquotes. Then I posted my response to exactly what each of you had said.

    You kids need to take an aspirin and lie down. You’re not making sense.

  79. Smokey, the first line of what I posted(not mine but Chris Colose)

    ‘It should not at all be surprising that CO2 can “lag” planetary temperature changes.’

    The second line of your response(and the essence of it)
    Yeah, the ‘relationship’ is that rises in CO2 follow temperature rises.

    So I’ll ask again. Do you have anything of substance to respond to this statement by Chris Colose?

  80. NOAA says Western Canada has warmed by two degrees and Eastern Canada hasn’t warmed at all because flows of air from naturally shifting Pacific currents have affected the West most.

    I n Canada East and West coasts warm up and cool differently because of different factors affect each differently.
    It would appear to me that PDO has a greater impact in the western part of Canada and AMO has the greater effect along the east coast whether warming or cooling. The temperatures of each ocean are also different as are the impact of polar jet streams especially during La Nina’s and El Nino’s.

    http://facstaff.unca.edu/chennon/classes/atms223/ppt/climatic_oscillations.ppt#298,44,Slide 44

    http://facstaff.unca.edu/chennon/classes/atms223/ppt/climatic_oscillations.ppt#297,43,Slide 43
    SINCE 2006-2008[after the report]
    CANADIAN NATIONAL ANNUAL TEMP ANOAMLIES DROPPED 1.7C
    EAST COAST ANNUAL TEMP. ANOMALIES DROPPED 1.1C
    NORTH WEST FORESTANNUAL TEMP. ANOMALY DROPPED 2.0C

    SINCE 2006-2008[after the report]
    CANADIAN NATIONAL WINTER TEMP ANOAMALIES DROPPED 3.6C
    EAST COAST WINTER TEMP ANOMALIES DROPPED 1.8C
    NORTHWEST WINTER TEMP ANOMALIES DROPPED 7.1C

    So all that two degrees of warming is gone in just a couple of years.

  81. JAN (12:38:12) :

    So, Chris, what does that tell you about the hypothesis that the MWP was caused by NAO?

    You should take that up with the guy who originally posted the link; he said it supported a global MWP. FYI- I haven’t read the paper, only the abstract.

  82. Smokey (12:12:48) :

    Are you both nuts??

    I can’t speak for Mike, but as for me, no.

    All I said is that the NOAA study only covers North America, which is true. I’m not sure what global ice anomalies have to do with that.

  83. Chris V. (14:10:12):

    I’m not blaming you for someone else’s opinion here, Chris. My point was only that either:

    1. Your understanding of the NAO is incorrect, or
    2. The MWP wasn’t caused by the NAO, since the idea of a cooling Canada and Greenland during that period is contradicted by undisputed historical facts.

    FYI, I didn’t read the post by Nasif Nahle (07:37:04) as saying the linked paper supported a global MWP, just that the cause of the MWP is now being discussed. A statement the paper does support, in my opinion. If Nasif Nahle meant to say what you imply, I’m sure he can answer for that himself.

  84. Regarding the hockey stick (which zeroed-out the MWP), here’s Monckton’s long paper describing the shenanigans behind protecting it from criticism and “verifying” it, followed (pages 16-29) by summaries of 21 published papers that provide evidence of warming during the MWP. (Ten papers deal with Europe and the North Atlantic, eleven scientific papers address the period elsewhere on the planet.) Each summary occupies about half a page and contains a graph that illustrates key data points.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/what_hockey_stick.html

  85. Chipping away. When a view is being disowned gradually, one can see that the “science” is characteristically unrigorous. Paying reduced homage to AGW, especially if it is done in parallel to global temperature cooling trends will have them “right all the time”. The Hadley Centre broached it first by admonishing over zealousness in putting forward galloping AGW and excesses in the press. Stay tuned for further GHG -temp shifts by the AGW congregation.

  86. MikeN (12:39:38):

    I don’t know if I’m the right person to answer your question, but here is my take:

    1. NO. It’s not a surprise that CO2 is lagging temperature rise and fall on a geological timescale.

    2. YES. Increasing CO2 concentration today is probably from anthropogenic sources.

    3. YES. The paleoclimate records are very consistent. A rise in CO2 always follows a rise in temperature, and a reduction in CO2 always follows a fall in temperature.

    4. YES. The paleoclimate records don’t contradict that the present rise in CO2 may cause increased temperature. However, the records show that this hasn’t happened in the past in a degree that is detectable. The question is, if this is happening at all,
    what is the extent of this effect?

  87. Reputations are at risk…

    It will be payback for all those unwarranted free-bee Nobel prizes tossed left right and center some years ago. While scientist and believers of the “AGW Titanic” are back peddling and slowly manning the lifeboats, Captain Gore holds the course wishing the iceberg truly melts away…

  88. Dear MikeN,

    > Isotopic signatures and increased carbon in the oceans show that the CO2
    > rise today is not from natural feedback.

    Puuh, I wonder if these wrong statements will be straightened out . .
    – the decrease of pH-value in the near surface sea water in in correspondence to the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere
    – the C13-depletion shows that we indeed burn fossil fuel
    Both say nothing about the reason for the raise of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Ferdinand made some diagrams with rather long time constants in order to blame the anthropogenic CO2. Others say something like “the natural sinks get smaller” which basically means, that the oceans are changing, otherwise the sinks must get bigger with an increase of atmospheric CO2.
    Well, if this is true, you simply cannot blame one source, it is way more complicated.
    __
    All the best,
    LoN

Comments are closed.