No joy in Mudville – mighty Gavin has struck out

By John West (elevated from a comment in Unthreaded Weekend, inspired by Casey at the Bat)

Welcome to the WUWT Sports channel! For the debut game we have “The Cause” vs. “The Skeptics”:

First inning: Gavin Schmidt is up to bat for “The Cause”.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/a-barrier-to-understanding/
Norman Page steps to the mound and blisters one in:
“what year would you reconsider the CO2 – Warming paradigm if the CRU Global annual mean temperature is cooler than 2005 – 2009…?”

Schmidt swings:
“You need a greater than a decade non-trend that is significantly different from projections. [0.2 – 0.3 deg/decade]”

And it’s a miss! A decade +1 of essentially no trend (slight cooling):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001/plot/wti/from:2001/trend

Strike 1.

http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2019Note
Page steps down to give John Henriksen a chance; He gives it all he’s got with this pitch:
“what would FALSIFY [linking CO2 to ‘warming’]?”

Schmidt swings again:
”that the stratosphere is not cooling as expected (this is a cleaner test than the surface temperatures because there are less extraneous factors)”

And it’s a miss! The stratosphere hasn’t been cooling in over a decade:
http://www.acd.ucar.edu/Research/Highlight/stratosphere.shtml
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/temp-and-precip/upper-air/uahncdc.ls
http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/RandelEtal.JGR2009.pdf

Strike 2.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/how-much-will-sea-level-rise/comment-page-4/#comments
Richard Wakefield steps up and pitches:
”How many more years of no acceleration [in SLR] will it take to abandon AGW theory?”

Gavin swings:
“AGW is based on the radiative impact of CO2 and other atmospheric constituents – none of those things depend on sea level rise.”

Hit……..Foul Ball. Misdirection doesn’t answer the question. SLR is one of the claimed major impacts of AGW and often presented as evidence for GW. If sea level rise remains constant or drops I find it hard to believe that wouldn’t damage the AGW case among both laymen and impartial scientists considering how many times temperature increase has been connected to sea level rise and the “it’s accelerating” touted as proof it’s anthropogenic. Later in the same thread: “Do you have peer reviewed papers that shows that the cause of B (sea level rise) is because of AGW?” — Wakefield; ”Response: Yes. Domingues et al (2008). – gavin”. So, if SLR is caused by AGW and SLR stops where does that leave AGW? A cause without its signature effect? LOL.

http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=6013
Now, Steve Shaw takes the mound, digs in, and throws a curve ball:
”To clarify what I am wrestling with, whether CO2 warms the planet isn’t the issue. The issue is whether we have enough information yet to say authoritatively that the next 40 years will be more like 1980-2000 than like 2000-2010, in the amount of increase. This is fundamental to determining appropriate public policy. ….. I just need some specific aspects pinned down.”

Schmidt doesn’t swing:

It’s in there, right through the strike zone into the catchers mitt: Obviously, this question is absolutely germane to the “debate”, if we can’t answer “yes”, and explain why in a Willis type elevator speech, then, what the heck is all the hullabaloo about? But instead of commenting with what should be an “easy” answer, this question is relegated to The Bore Hole (#383).
Strike 3; You’re OUT!

Next up at bat its “The Mann” himself and “The Skeptics” are in disagreement over whether they really need to send a picture up to the mound. But we’ve run out of time ….. signing off.

About these ads

59 thoughts on “No joy in Mudville – mighty Gavin has struck out

  1. The original poem (reproduced here), is awesome…..

    The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the Mudville Nine that day;
    The score stood four to two, with but one inning more to play,
    And then when Cooney died at first, and Barrows did the same,
    A sickly silence fell upon the patrons of the game.
    A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. The rest
    Clung to that hope which springs eternal in the human breast;
    They thought, if only Casey could get but a whack at that –
    They’d put up even money, now, with Casey at the bat.
    But Flynn preceded Casey, as did also Jimmy Blake,
    And the former was a pudding and the latter was a fake;
    So upon that stricken multitude grim melancholy sat,
    For there seemed but little chance of Casey’s getting to the bat.
    But Flynn let drive a single, to the wonderment of all,
    And Blake, the much despised, tore the cover off the ball;
    And when the dust had lifted, and they saw what had occurred,
    There was Jimmy safe at second and Flynn a-hugging third.
    Then from 5,000 throats and more there rose a lusty yell;
    It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell;
    It knocked upon the mountain and recoiled upon the flat,
    For Casey, mighty Casey, was advancing to the bat.
    There was ease in Casey’s manner as he stepped into his place;
    There was pride in Casey’s bearing and a smile on Casey’s face.
    And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly doffed his hat,
    No stranger in the crowd could doubt ’twas Casey at the bat.
    Ten thousand eyes were on him as he rubbed his hands with dirt;
    Five thousand tongues applauded when he wiped them on his shirt.
    Then while the writhing pitcher ground the ball into his hip,
    Defiance gleamed in Casey’s eye, a sneer curled Casey’s lip.
    And now the leather-covered sphere came hurtling through the air,
    And Casey stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there.
    Close by the sturdy batsman the ball unheeded sped-
    “That ain’t my style,” said Casey. “Strike one,” the umpire said.
    From the benches, black with people, there went up a muffled roar,
    Like the beating of the storm-waves on a stern and distant shore.
    “Kill him! Kill the umpire!” shouted someone on the stand;
    And it’s likely they’d a-killed him had not Casey raised his hand.
    With a smile of Christian charity great Casey’s visage shone;
    He stilled the rising tumult; he bade the game go on;
    He signaled to the pitcher, and once more the spheroid flew;
    But Casey still ignored it, and the umpire said, “Strike two.”
    “Fraud!” cried the maddened thousands, and echo answered fraud;
    But one scornful look from Casey and the audience was awed.
    They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his muscles strain,
    And they knew that Casey wouldn’t let that ball go by again.
    The sneer is gone from Casey’s lip, his teeth are clenched in hate;
    He pounds with cruel violence his bat upon the plate.
    And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go,
    And now the air is shattered by the force of Casey’s blow.
    Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
    The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
    And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
    But there is no joy in Mudville — mighty Casey has struck out.

  2. Lol, indeed….. of course, data is simply numbers and numbers can be played with. Temps lowering….. we’ll must make up another version and include non existing arctic temps. Sea level decreasing? How about we stop reporting that pesky Envisat …. (we’ll show the adjustments after we get the Jasons back in line) and for the Jasons, we’ll just simply change the data….. I haven’t found any explanation for this…. but what they’ve done to Jason I seems to be an outright unashamed manipulation of the data.

    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/when-even-pretending-seems-dishonest/

    Once the temp records and sea levels get properly adjusted then the Gav can make better contact with the ball.

  3. This isn’t baseball! Shame on you, masquerading whiffle T-ball as the real thing.

    Yeah yeah, I know, first you got to teach the little tot to swing and hit the ball… But, I just don’t think he can hit these pitches, ever. Not even the floaters.

    Maybe if you pony up a review for his arrested boss, so he can swear fidelity forever and ever again. Then he’ll hit the ball, or is that kiss it?…

    /sarc

    Well, not really. I’m incapable of stopping sarcasm, ever.

  4. One whiff you may deem insignificant. But what you must consider is the cumulative cyclonic effect of three consecutive mighty whiffs in a row. And like the islolate butterfly flapping its wings on a leaf on the other side of the globe, the isolated climate scientist, flapping his mouth, may create currents of hot air, which fan others of his kind into motion, whose further disturbances initiate billowing clouds and zephyrs, the cumulative effects of which impart great storms and hurricanes of… Nah.

  5. Bill Parsons says:
    March 31, 2012 at 1:29 pm
    One whiff you may deem insignificant. But what you must consider is the cumulative cyclonic effect of three consecutive mighty whiffs in a row. And like the islolate butterfly flapping its wings on a leaf on the other side of the globe, the isolated climate scientist, flapping his mouth, may create currents of hot air, which fan others of his kind into motion, whose further disturbances initiate billowing clouds and zephyrs, the cumulative effects of which impart great storms and hurricanes of… Nah.

    But, but, he’s got unlimited at bats! What will that do to the cylconic indexes… Or is he left handed and swinging clockwise making for stronger anti-cyclonic forces… The darth vader of climate baseball.

  6. Edits:
    Final para, where the horse is smelling the barn, as often happens:
    “at bat its it’s…”
    “send a picture pitcher to the mound”

    :D

  7. In Clima-ball, the Consensus gets an unlimited number of strikes, in hopes of getting a squibber which will justify all. So far, no luck.

  8. Why anyone tries to have an intelligent, informed conversation at RealClimate is beyond me.

  9. I started looking at the CO2 – climate scare about when I retired about10 years ago because the whole Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming paradigm seemed extremely unlikely for a few basic reasons. My approach to science is very empirical – in the oil business your ideas will soon be tested by the expenditure of sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars – hard data is everything.
    First – Anthropogenic -CO2 provides 0.12% of the greenhouse gas effect.
    Check http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
    for details. Suppose CO2 doubled – right off it seems most unlikely that such a little tail would wag so big a dog as earths climate. – particularly when the evidence of solar control via orbital and solar changes ( eg Milankovich Cycles) is very clear in the geological record.
    Even the alarmists -eg Hansen and co are willing to concede that a doubling of CO2 by itself would only increaae temperatures by about 1degree therefore they have to say that increases beyond that are driven by positive feedbacks – most notably by an increase in humidity. A system with positive feedbacks always runs away to disaster . If feedbacks were in fact positive – since CO2 levels have been much higher in the past – up to several thousand ppm – we wouldn’t be here to talk about it . For a good discussion of this based on data check the following. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
    The climate wars have been carried on to a large extent in the blogosphere . I have posted to various threads on various websites from time to time . Here is a post which briefly outlines my basic views.
    ” Climate Metric – and current trends.
    There is currently a difference in approach to climate science between the sceptical Baconian – empirical appraoch solidly based on data and the Platonic IPCC approach – based on theoretical assumptions built into climate models. The question arises from the recent Muller – BEST furore -What is the best metric for a global measure of and for discussion of global warming or cooling. For some years I have suggested in various web comments that the Hadley Sea Surface Temperature data is the best metric for the following reasons . (Anyone can check this data for themselves – Google Hadley Cru — scroll down to SST GL and check the annual numbers.)
    1. Oceans cover about 70% of the surface.
    2. Because of the thermal inertia of water – short term noise is smoothed out.
    3. All the questions re UHI, changes in land use local topographic effects etc are simply sidestepped.
    4. Perhaps most importantly – what we really need to measure is the enthalpy of the system – the land measurements do not capture this aspect because the relative humidity at the time of temperature measurement is ignored. In water the temperature changes are a good measure of relative enthalpy changes.
    5. It is very clear that the most direct means to short term and decadal length predictions is through the study of the interactions of the atmospheric sytems ,ocean currents and temperature regimes – PDO ,ENSO. SOI AMO AO etc etc. and the SST is a major measure of these systems. Certainly the SST data has its own problems but these are much less than those of the land data.

    What does the SST data show? The 5 year moving SST temperature average shows that the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows an nine year global SST cooling trend since then .The data shows warming from 1900 – 1940 ,cooling from 1940 to about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period .There has been no net warming since 1997 – 15 years with CO2 up 7.9% and no net warming. Anthropogenic CO2 has some effect but our knowledge of the natural drivers is still so poor that we cannot accurately estimate what the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is. Since 2003 CO2 has risen further and yet the global temperature trend is negative. This is obviously a short term on which to base predictions but all statistical analyses of particular time series must be interpreted in conjunction with other ongoing events and in the context of declining solar magnetic field strength and activity – to the extent of a possible Dalton or Maunder minimum and the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillationa global 20 – 30 year cooling spell is more likely than a warming trend.

    It is clear that the IPCC models , on which AL Gore based his entire anti CO2 scare campaign ,have been wrongly framed. and their predictions have failed completely. This paradigm was never well founded ,but ,in recent years, the entire basis for the Climate and Temperature trends and predictions of dangerous warming in the 2007 IPCC Ar4 Summary for Policy Makers has been destroyed. First – this Summary is inconsistent with the AR4 WG1 Science section. It should be noted that the Summary was published before the WG1 report and the editors of the Summary , incredibly ,asked the authors of the Science report to make their reports conform to the Summary rather than the other way around. When this was not done the Science section was simply ignored..
    .Most of the predicted disasters are based on climate models. Even the Modelers themselves say that they do not make predictions . The models produce projections or scenarios which are no more accurate than the assumptions ,algorithms and data , often of poor quality,which were put into them. In reality they are no more than expensive drafting tools to produce power point slides to illustrate the ideas and prejudices of their creators. The IPCC science section AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the climate models .This IPCC science section on models itself concludes:

    “Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”

    What could be clearer. The IPCC itself says that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t yet calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the “plausible” models to be tested anyway. Nevertheless this statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given “with high confidence.” in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed.

    A key part of the AGW paradigm is that recent warming is unprecedented and can only be explained by anthropogenic CO2. This is the basic message of the iconic “hockey stick ” However hundreds of published papers show that the Medieval warming period and the Roman climatic optimum were warmer than the present. The infamous “hide the decline ” quote from the Climategate Emails is so important. not so much because of its effect on one graph but because it shows that the entire basis if dendrothermometry is highly suspect. A complete referenced discussion of the issues involved can be found in “The Hockey Stick Illusion – Climategate and the Corruption of science ” by AW Montford.

    Temperature reconstructions based on tree ring proxies are a total waste of time and money and cannot be relied on.
    There is no evident empirical correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, In all cases CO2 changes follow temperature changes not vice versa.It has always been clear that the sun is the main climate driver. One new paper ” Empirical Evidence for a Celestial origin of the Climate Oscillations and its implications “by Scafetta from Duke University casts new light on this. http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf Humidity, and natural CO2 levels are solar feedback effects not prime drivers. Recent experiments at CERN have shown the possible powerful influence of cosmic rays on clouds and climate.
    Solar Cycle 24 will peak in a year or two thus masking the cooling to some extent, but from 2014 on, the cooling trend will become so obvious that the IPCC will be unable to continue ignoring the real world – even now Hansen and Trenberth are desperately seeking ad hoc fixes to locate the missing heat.
    I’ ve dumped a number of posts on my website at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/
    There is a lot of repetition because the same points needed to be made again and again.
    Obviously all this has political implications – but the science has to come first- I confess I am embarrassed to find myself on the same side as Limbaugh ,Santorium etc – but probably by chance they have got the science right. Personally I would describe myself as a rational Libertarian not quite a la Paul – but any philosophy carried to extremes -self detructs.
    Check my website for my views on Waxman Markey if you’re interested.
    As an afterthoug re melting Arctic ice — check http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
    to see the actual current situation.
    Today all the basic data re climate is there on the web in real time – while the details of climate change mechanisms are horrendously complex – if you stand back – .the gross picture is reasonably clear -cooling is more likely than warming for the next thirty years and beyond that we really can’t say much at this time. Cooling would be more dangerous than warming – for possible problems see . http://www.iwp.edu/docLib/20120312_FourHorsemenPart2.pdf

  10. James Sexton says:
    March 31, 2012 at 1:02 pm
    …. but what they’ve done to Jason I seems to be an outright unashamed manipulation of the data.
    ===================
    Of course they did…..the only way to get sea level rise is adjustments
    Don’t forget, sea level rise is exactly what they added to make up for the ocean floor sinking…..

  11. Foul Ball. Misdirection doesn’t answer the question. SLR is one of the claimed major impacts of AGW and often presented as evidence for GW.

    The link below shows 879 (at last count) the number of things presumably caused by global warming. How many of these have not happened as well in addition to no SLR?

    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/causedby.html

  12. Humour might just be the ‘killer app’ that makes the whole stupid AGW hoax go away. If we can reach a point where belief in global warming is something to be admitted, not proclaimed; if Warmists get a faceful of laughter every time they proclaim their faith they might just crawl away and hide under a stone.

    I have an idea: could we find some rich philanthropist to finance a billboard campaign of Josh’s cartoons? Let’s LAUGH ‘em out of business!

  13. Norman Page says:
    March 31, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    What does the SST data show? The 5 year moving SST temperature average shows that the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows an nine year global SST cooling trend since then .The data shows warming from 1900 – 1940 ,cooling from 1940 to about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period .There has been no net warming since 1997 – 15 years with CO2 up 7.9% and no net warming.

    Well said! They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I believe I have plotted what you say above. Feel free to tweak as desired and to use this next time.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1900/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1900/to:1940/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1940/to:1975/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1975/to:2003/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1957/normalise

  14. @ hagendl
    Yep “picture” should have been pitcher!

    Brain f:;t. LOL

    How come stuff like that doesn’t jump out until after you hit the button?

  15. “There’s Coogan’s Bluff, Brooklyn, there’s Highlanders’ Park / “The Old Polo Grounds, somewhere else in New York. / “At ‘Play ball!’ the populace lets out a roar, / “Hooting Bronx Cheers through nine innings and more.” (From “Strike the Bum Out” by JPB, 2003)

    There’s more, but Lines 11 and 12 in Verse 3 seem apropos: “It’s all in fun, yessir, long’s our team’s ahead! / “Down one, we’d prefer that the other drop dead.”

    Tamam

  16. In his opening shot Gavin sabotages his own cause whilst speaking of the barrier closures. He quotes “My contact at the Environment Agency noted that “I have read the Defra statement that you mentioned; it seems that it is a misunderstanding or simply a poor written account of what the Barrier does. The barrier does not maintain river levels during low tides and it never has.” However, he counsels that “the pattern [of closings] is erratic and the years of operation too short for it to be an indicator of sea level rise”.
    To summarise, Thames Barrier closings tell a complicated story which mix climate information with management issues and are probably too erratic to be particularly meaningful – if you want to say something about global sea level, then look at the integrated picture from satellites and tide gauges. But it is a good illustration of adaptive measures that are, and will increasingly be, needed to deal with ongoing climate change.”” The principle reason that it normally closes, as I understand it ( probably faulty) is to prevent a “double whammy” rainfall over land raises the Thames to a fairly high level very quickly as it’s the main drainage in the flood plain that London was built in, (which is also subject to subsidence ) which is also a tidal estuary. Hide tide at such a time would overflow into the flood plains, hence the closures. It has nothing to do with sea level rise, therefore the opening salvo was at the very least, a strike, (if Schimdt was at bat at the moment, given I don’t understand baseball all that well.)

  17. Only in government programs do we have this notion that everybody plays and everybody wins. Regardless if you stink at the game. I should know. No one cares if my students are showing progress (and they are, significantly). What matters is governmental red tape, aka the filling out of useless forms that have no bearing on outcome.

    These “researchers” just keep generating pages and pages of blather on my dime and yet they still get to play the game.

  18. If you want to get rid of CO2, you do it the same way that mother nature does it… you feed it to plants. You pump the CO2 into large greenhouses then harvest the food and then you sell the food to humans. Green phycosis causes people to see CO2 as a problem while sceptics see it as an asset.

  19. In reply to Werner’s comment concerning Norman Page’s comment:

    Werner Brozek says:
    March 31, 2012 at 3:26 pm
    Norman Page says:
    March 31, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    What does the SST data show? The 5 year moving SST temperature average shows that the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows an nine year global SST cooling trend since then .The data shows warming from 1900 – 1940 ,cooling from 1940 to about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period .There has been no net warming since 1997 – 15 years with CO2 up 7.9% and no net warming.

    Well said! They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I believe I have plotted what you say above. Feel free to tweak as desired and to use this next time

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1900/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1900/to:1940/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1940/to:1975/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1975/to:2003/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1957/normalise

    The observational evidence does not support the assertion that the 20th century warming was caused by CO2. The cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record correlate with the cosmogenic isotope changes. The cosmogenic isotope changes are caused by solar magnetic cycle changes. Svensmark estimated that roughly 75% of the entire 20th century warming was caused by solar changes.

    Curiously (curious as it accepted as a fact in the paleoclimatic community that there are cycles of warming and cooling sometimes followed by abrupt cooling in the paleoclimatic record yet everyone is keeping quiet about that fact). The cycles of warming followed by cooling are referred to as Dansgard/Oescheger cycles which are then followed occasionally by Heinrich events, both cycles are named after the researchers who discovered the phenomena.

    How ironic would it be if the extreme AGW crowds were 100% incorrect? The 20th century warming was caused by the solar cycle changes not CO2. Everything points to that conclusion. The icing on the cake would be significant unexplained cooling.

    Check out the Greenland ice sheet temperature changes over the last 12000 years in this link (figure 3).

    It is interesting that the Dansgaard/Oescheger events have characteristic period of 1470 years have continued throughout the Holocene interglacial period.

    As there are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with all of the Dansgaard/Oescheger events (also referred to a Bond events named after Gerald Bond who tracked 23 of the cycles) and the Heinrich events seems likely a specific solar cycle change is causing what is observed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500-year_climate_cycle

    List of Bond events

    Most Bond events do not have a clear climate signal; some correspond to periods of cooling, others are coincident with aridification in some regions.
    • ≈1,400 BP (Bond event 1) — roughly correlates with the Migration Period pessimum(450–900 AD)
    • ≈2,800 BP (Bond event 2) — roughly correlates with the Iron Age Cold Epoch (900–300 BC)[8]
    • ≈4,200 BP (Bond event 3) — correlates with the 4.2 kiloyear event
    • ≈5,900 BP (Bond event 4) — correlates with the 5.9 kiloyear event
    • ≈8,100 BP (Bond event 5) — correlates with the 8.2 kiloyear event
    • ≈9,400 BP (Bond event 6) — correlates with the Erdalen event of glacier activity in Norway,[9] as well as with a cold event in China.[10]
    • ≈10,300 BP (Bond event 7) — unnamed event
    • ≈11,100 BP (Bond event 8) — coincides with the transition from the Younger Dryas to the boreal

    http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/8200yrevent.html

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

    According to the marine records, the Eemian interglacial ended with a rapid cooling event about 110,000 years ago (e.g., Imbrie et al., 1984; Martinson et al., 1987), which also shows up in ice cores and pollen records from across Eurasia. From a relatively high resolution core in the North Atlantic. Adkins et al. (1997) suggested that the final cooling event took less than 400 years, and it might have been much more rapid.

    The event at 8200 ka is the most striking sudden cooling event during the Holocene, giving widespread cool, dry conditions lasting perhaps 200 years before a rapid return to climates warmer and generally moister than the present. This event is clearly detectable in the Greenland ice cores, where the cooling seems to have been about half-way as severe as the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene difference (Alley et al., 1997; Mayewski et al., 1997). No detailed assessment of the speed of change involved seems to have been made within the literature (though it should be possible to make such assessments from the ice core record), but the short duration of these events at least suggests changes that took only a few decades or less to occur.

    The Younger Dryas cold event at about 12,900-11,500 years ago seems to have had the general features of a Heinrich Event, and may in fact be regarded as the most recent of these (Severinghaus et al. 1998). The sudden onset and ending of the Younger Dryas has been studied in particular detail in the ice core and sediment records on land and in the sea (e.g., Bjoerck et al., 1996), and it might be representative of other Heinrich events.

    Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
    Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.

    Persistence Solar Influence on Climate in Holocene, By Bond et al.

    http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf

    “A solar forcing mechanism therefore may underlie at least the Holocene segment of the North Atlantic 1500-year cycle. The surface hydrographic changes may have affected production of North Atlantic Deep Water, potentially providing an additional mechanism for amplifying the solar signals and transmitting them globally.”

    “A prominent feature of the North Atlantic’s Holocene climate is a series of shifts in ocean surface hydrography during which drift ice and cooler surface waters in the Nordic and Labrador Seas were repeatedly advected southward and eastward, each time penetrating deep into the warmer strands of the subpolar circulation . The persistence of
    those rather dramatic events within a stable interglacial has been difficult to explain.”

    For example the paper: “The role of solar forcing upon climate change” Published 1999.

    http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.gg.rhbnc.ac.uk/elias/teaching/VanGeel.pdf

    “A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases… most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) … the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations.”

    “… we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change.”

    Last 40 kyrs
    Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)… “conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records”

    Recent Solar Event
    “Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) “…coincides with one of the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age… (van Geel et al 1998b)

    Periodicity
    “Mayewski et al (1997) showed a 1450 yr periodicity in C14 … from tree rings and …from glaciochemicial series (NaCl & Dust) from the GISP2 ice core … believed to reflect changes in polar atmospheric circulation..”

  20. The Blogpost says:

    “Schmidt swings:
    “You need a greater than a decade non-trend that is significantly different from projections. [0.2 – 0.3 deg/decade]”

    And it’s a miss! A decade +1 of essentially no trend (slight cooling):

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001/plot/wti/from:2001/trend

    Strike 1.”

    It is not really a miss, only close to a miss. The 95% confidence interval as 0.20, so a zero trend is not significantly different from projections.

  21. As for a decade or 15 years of no warming: I think it is important to
    consider a period of a decade or somewhat more with minimal magnitude
    of linear trends of ENSO and AMO.

    Perhaps, the 13 year period from the beginning of 1999 to the beginning
    of 2012. The linear trend in HadCRUT3 over that decade is .044 degree/decade.
    I used the woodfortrees tool for that.

    This *may be* close to the actual warming rate from anthropogenic increase
    of CO2. I figure that would mean climate sensitivity to CO2 change being .67
    degree C per factor-of-2 change of CO2 (logarhythmic response at this rate
    when CO2 is 120-900 PPMV).

    Other analyses of mine support climate sensitivity to CO2 being .8-1.5
    degrees C per factor-of-2 change of CO2, mostly .82-1.3 degrees C per
    2x CO2.

  22. Schmidt swings again:
    ”that the stratosphere is not cooling as expected (this is a cleaner test than the surface temperatures because there are less extraneous factors)”

    One problem with this statement is that the stratospheric temperature has a lot of extraneous factors that affect it – Ozone, which is affected by volcanic eruptions and CFC’s, and overturning in the Brewer Dobson circulation, as well as the variation in upwelling long wave radiation.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2482.1

  23. Eric Adler says:
    “It is not really a miss, only close to a miss. The 95% confidence interval as 0.20, so a zero trend is not significantly different from projections.”

    So, then, the corollary would be that the projected global warming that we’re going to change the entire power infrastructure of the world and create a global governing elite among other niceties to avoid is not significantly different from no warming at all.

  24. John West said:

    >Schmidt swings again:
    >”that the stratosphere is not cooling as expected (this is a cleaner test than
    >the surface temperatures because there are less extraneous factors)”

    I had a look at “lower stratosphere” temperature trend, by RSS/REMSS:

    Found within: http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tls

    What I see: Strong downward trend, noted as -.303 degree/decade.

    One thing else I see: Some of that linear trend is due to volcanic peaks in
    the 1st half of the time period covered. I estimate the trend exluding these
    was about -.25 to -.26 degree/decade.
    Something else I know: About 20-25% of anthropogenic GHG effect growth
    from 1978 to the mid 1990’s was from anthropogenic GHGs other than CO2,
    and whose increase was largely stalled in the mid 1990’s. So, this could
    account for about ~12-13% of anthropogenic GHG growth from the beginning
    of 1979 to now, meaning that lower stratosphere temperature trend due to
    factors other than growth of non-CO2 GHGs could be more like -.22 to -.23
    degree/decade.

    This still sounds high in magnitude to me. Perhaps PDO and/or AMO and/or
    change in solar activity or something else non-anthropogenic explains part
    of this change. Possibly poor measurement in the first few years?

    Possibly slight reversal of ozone depletion after the mid 1990’s? Ozone
    warms the stratosphere by absorbing UVC and a fair amount of UVB.

    Something else I see: Bouncy behavior in response to major tropical
    volcanoes. The pattern appears to me to be spike, then plunge, and then
    spend several years resisting the longer-term downward trend. I expect
    the downward trend to soon resume, but at a rate with lower magnitude than
    that of -.22 or -.23 degree/decade. Maybe TLS will hardly resume its decline
    if stratospheric ozone achieves a major recovery.

  25. Looking back at the link, Gavin’s actual reply to Hendrickson emphasized the spectrum of outgoing radiation, and was not exclusively about stratospheric cooling, as the excerpt indicated:

    “[Response: The evidence that CO2 specifically is having an impact on climate comes from radiation measurements and in particular temperature trends in the stratosphere (which are cooling in contradiction of almost all other drivers). Combine that with expected changes predicted decades ago that have actually happened, you end up with a strong case that CO2 (along with the other GHGs and aerosols) are having an impact, and that will increase in decades to come. If you want to falsify this, you’d have to show that spectral data on CO2 absorption is wrong, that the stratosphere is not cooling as expected (this is a cleaner test than the surface temperatures because there are less extraneous factors), or improve the satellite measurements by an order of magnitude and have the fluxes not look like what is expected. Tall order, but conceivable. – gavin]”

    Clearly the spectral changes outgoing radiation have been occurring:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

  26. Taking autocorrelation into account, the 95 per cent confidence for the *yearly* trend in that data ranges from -0.204 to +0.166. (assuming that my calculations are correct). Given that the prediction is for between .02 to .03 per year, that woodforthetrees plot does not falsify the prediction. The data is way too noisy.

  27. Eric Adler says:
    “Gavin’s actual reply to Hendrickson emphasized the spectrum of outgoing radiation, and was not exclusively about stratospheric cooling, as the excerpt indicated”

    In English “or” means “either”. The excerpt indicated that Gavin expressed that a lack of stratospheric cooling would be a condition that if not met would raise doubts. The link was provided for full context which as anyone who understands English can see he gives three separate conditions; one of which is lack of stratospheric cooling.

    In industry we have the “80:20 rule” or what’s commonly called low hanging fruit, in economics it’s the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns; these concepts describe the nature of a logarithmic relationship like the one CO2 has to warming. If you consider how much warming you get from an amount of CO2, the amount of CO2 must be increased exponentially in order get the same increment of warming. All indications including stratospheric cooling hiatus, global warming pause, and ocean heat content leveling suggest that CO2 has warmed the system about has much as it is going to without adding a whole lot more; in other words we’ve reached (and possibly even been past for awhile) the point of diminishing marginal returns such that our inputs of CO2 has very little warming effect.

  28. Eric Adler gave a link to SkS (Skeptical Science), the ‘advanced’ section about radiation:

    It’s well worth looking at it. Here’s one statement:

    “However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations. ”

    Well, yes, I’m sure they have. Care to put confidence intervals on those empirical observations? Care to quantify the known unknowns? Apart from that I’m convinced. Who could doubt that climate scientists are totally reliable when they use fundamental equations to calculate what’s going on?

    The graphs are interesting:

    “Figure 2: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).”

    That one makes me want to see one with the H2O effect added in.

    “Figure 4: Global average radiative forcing in 2005 (best estimates and 5 to 95% uncertainty ranges) with respect to 1750 (IPCC AR4).”

    An oldie but a goody… The uncertainty associated with aerosols stands out as a major obstacle to definitive statements about overall forcing. So we can look forward to a major science push on these, new satellites, deployment of aircraft with sensors, a network of monitoring sites? After all, this is a major threat to civilisations, to life itself, so we’re working like mad to reduce uncertainties like that. Aren’t we? I’m sure that AR5 will make it all clear.

    “Figure 3: Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change. The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range.”

    There are two figure 3s, the one that caught my eye was the one which calculates simulated vs observed warming. A brilliant graph, and brilliant graphmanship. Observe how the warming from 1910 to 1945 somehow doesn’t look as big as the warming from 1975 onwards. How can this be? The choice of colours, the hockey-stick sweep at the end, the cut-off before the 21st century warming hiatus, they all contribute to this impression. But look at the graph carefully and ponder what it tells: from 1910 to 1945 there was a rise very similar to the one from 1975 to 2000. But the graph shows that with no anthropogenic warming, with no natural warming, the warming still happened in the earlier period. The graph need another forcing added. Call it early 20th century unknown warming (Fudge et al 2012). I expect climate scientists can work it out using fundamental physics. Let us remember the root of the word ‘fundamental’.

    Yes, indeed, the graphs are interesting. Also interesting is to remember Feynman’s strictures about absolute honesty in science. I bet Feynman never fudged a graph in his life.

    JF

  29. Eric Adler says:

    March 31, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    That makes it a miss. Foul shot. Off the edge of the racket into the cowd behind. ;)

    I played baseball with some american mormons some 50 yrs ago.

  30. John West says:
    March 31, 2012 at 10:32 pm
    “In industry we have the “80:20 rule” or what’s commonly called low hanging fruit, in economics it’s the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns; these concepts describe the nature of a logarithmic relationship like the one CO2 has to warming. If you consider how much warming you get from an amount of CO2, the amount of CO2 must be increased exponentially in order get the same increment of warming. All indications including stratospheric cooling hiatus, global warming pause, and ocean heat content leveling suggest that CO2 has warmed the system about has much as it is going to without adding a whole lot more; in other words we’ve reached (and possibly even been past for awhile) the point of diminishing marginal returns such that our inputs of CO2 has very little warming effect.”

    People in industry should be cautious about declaring the beginning or end of a trend when the data is noisy, fragmentary, and many different driving forces are affecting the data. Warming slowed and increased during the decade between 1990 and 2000 as well. After a strong volcanic eruption and a strong El Nino, 2000 ended up slightly lower than 1990 according to the GISS temperature graph. We have had a strong La Nina in 2011, and a weak solar cycle which are both cooling factors.

  31. @Donald L. Klipstein

    I confess, I actually went “phishing” at RC for information on this: (Note: I used my ID.)

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/two-year-old-turkey/comment-page-7/#comments

    Ray Ladbury gave me an opportunity to slip in:

    Actually, stratospheric cooling stopped around ’93. Somehow, ~-0.1 W/m2 forcing is counteracting it (since 2000 ~-0.2 prior). Aerosol climatic cooling has the opposite fingerprint as GHG climatic warming, btw.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6044/866.abstract

    Here’s the problem: CO2 in 2000=~365 and 2010=~390, so, 5.35 x ln(390/365) = ~0.35 W/m2. How does ~-0.1 counter ~0.35?

    Hint: 1) ozone depletion is estimated to be negative though there’s both + and – factors(another net ~-0.15 W/m2), 2) I use “~” for approximately so the values aren’t exacts, 3) there’s a myriad of other forcings both + and -, 4) lags in the system (thermal inertia), and 5) internal variability. (There might be more reasons, I’m not a climatologist.)

    I listed every excuse I could think of as to why the stratosphere is not cooling (and everything else is not warming) other than the one that those @ RC are not likely to consider; that CO2 has done about all it can (peak AGW). Gavin responded; note he didn’t counter my math or elaborate much on any other of those “myriad” of forcings to explain how the +0.35 CO2 forcing was countered between 2000 and 2010. Perhaps he felt my explanation was sufficient; I don’t, they’re just excuses IMO.)

    “[Response: MSU-4 (TLS) is dominated by trends in ozone, not CO2. CO2 effects are much more clearly seen higher up (in the stratospheric sounding unit (SSU) or radiosonde data). See papers by Bill Randall on this topic. With stabilisation of strat ozone levels, MSU4 should be expect to flatten out and with ozone recovery, will start to rise again. There are also volcanic and solar effects of course. – gavin]”

    And that is why I added the link showing the upper stratosphere:

    http://www.acd.ucar.edu/Research/Highlight/stratosphere.shtml

    So, yes, there has been stratospheric cooling but it stopped around 1995 while CO2 continued to climb. Correlation does not prove causation, but de-correlation disproves causation.

  32. @Eric Adler

    “People in industry should be cautious about declaring the beginning or end of a trend when the data is noisy, fragmentary, and many different driving forces are affecting the data.”

    People in academia should be cautious about declaring attribution to the cause of a trend when the data is noisy, fragmentary, and many different driving forces are affecting the data.

    People in academia should be cautious about extrapolating a trend and declaring it a high confidence projection when the data is noisy, fragmentary, and many different driving forces are affecting the data.

    “We have had a strong La Nina in 2011, and a weak solar cycle which are both cooling factors.”

    What? The sun has an effect on climate?

    Ok, so that explains 2011, what about 2000 through 2010?

  33. “AGW is based on the radiative impact of CO2 and other atmospheric constituents – none of those things depend on sea level rise.”

    That’s interesting. So if sea levels rise, it’s evidence of AGW, but if they don’t, it’s not evidence against. Cool trick, huh?

  34. Gavin Schmidt is bad at sums

    The IPCC asserts that all the warming since 1850, (about +0.7°C) is wholly due to Man-made CO2 emissions. However there are other published and peer-reviewed opinions that differs on the actual level of the impact of Man-made additions of CO2 to the atmosphere.
    A well-accepted view is provided by CDIAC, the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) , (this reference has since been deleted).
    The CDIAC figures can be transposed into parts of the 33°C total Greenhouse Effect are as follows:
    Water Vapour ~95% of effect ~31.35°C
    Greenhouse Gases ~5% ~1.65°C
    Carbon Dioxide at 390 ppmv ~75% non H2O GHGs ~1.24°C
    Natural CO2 ~86% (assuming 50% emissions since 1850 Man-made) ~1.07°C
    Man-made CO2 2010
    (50% of the 110 ppmv increase from 280 ppmv of 390 ppmv ) ~14% ~0.17°C
    Other non H2O GHGs gases ~25% ~0.41°C

    The CDIAC figure of ~0.17°C for Man-made influence since 1850 is roughly a quarter of the measured temperature rise of ~0.7°C since then. That level accords well with the notion that the temperature increase can be allocated roughly 50/50% solar influence and 50/50% natural / Man-made CO2 emissions.
    A value in the region of ~0.17°C for the effect of worldwide emissions to date has been accepted in correspondence with Professor David MacKay, the chief scientific advisor of the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change.

    On the other hand, Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS, one of the topmost scientists involved in the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming cause, published in his 2010 peer reviewed paper clearly lays out the following calculation:
    Water Vapour ~75% of effect ~24.75°C
    Greenhouse Gases ~25% ~8.25°C
    Carbon Dioxide at 390 ppmv of non H2O GHGs ~7.84°C
    Natural CO2 ~86% (assuming 100% emissions since 1850 are Man-made) ~5.63°C
    Man-made CO2 2010
    (100% of the 110 ppmv increase from 280 ppmv of 390 ppmv ) ~14 ~2.21°C
    Other non H2O GHGs gases as above ~0.41°C

    As the reported and well reported temperature increase since 1850 is only ~0.7°C in total, Gavin Schmidt’s assertion has to be in error.

    So this premier scientist supporting the concept of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming markedly exaggerates the Man-made effect by more than threefold than the actual rise since 1850.

    Gavin Schmidt obviously did not carry out these trivial check sums before his publication and peer review. They would have shown that his figures grossly exaggerate Man-made influence on temperature.

    His peer reviewing colleagues also did not do this simple check sum.

    Nonetheless the alarmist Cause expects the Western world to revolutionise its economies based on this type of casual and sloppy calculation.

    This is the type of trivial due diligence that seems never to be undertaken when radical and vastly expensive policies are formulated to address Global Warming.

    Instead inaccurate assertions are regularly made and widely accepted by governments and the public

    The NASA GISS the group, headed by Jim Hansen, is also one of the official repositories of global Temperature record. His organisation has been continually rewriting history, (1984 style), over the last 30 years.
    Such retrospective and un-auditable revisions of the historic records have occurred particularly in the USA where the records of temperature earlier in the 20th century have been consistently lowered to emphasise warming. This has been a continuing process.

    NASA GISS have also altered records outside the USA.

    One the most egregious recent instances being the past records in Reykjavik Iceland which has seen past values amended in spite of protest from the Icelandic Meteorological Office.

    These are the records and the experts that the World via the UN IPCC depends upon and on which the Western world is basing its costly policy decisions.

  35. Julian Flood says:
    April 1, 2012 at 1:37 am

    “But look at the graph carefully and ponder what it tells: from 1910 to 1945 there was a rise very similar to the one from 1975 to 2000.”

    Yep, though I usually compare 1910-1940 to 1970-2000. That pretty much nails it: this is a recurring cycle. The global average temperature metric is set to decline modestly until roughly 2030, then rise again for another 30 years. All perfectly naturally. This, of course, is why the CG1 emails showed them trying so hard to get rid of the mid-century warming peak.

  36. Norman Page says:
    March 31, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    William Astley Great Post – thanks . The Younger Dryas onset was more or less instantaneous and was certainly caused by an impact at about 12900 – wiped out the Meagfauna, http://www.pnas.org/content/109/13/E738.

    A really intiguing question is -what caused the sudden warming about 1400 years later ?

    Hi Norman,
    This is likely not the best thread or best time to discuss cyclic abrupt cooling. Let’s restart this discussion when there is a more appropriate thread.
    Best wishes

    William

    My point above is it is an accepted fact in the paleoclimatology circles (papers and textbooks) that there are cycles of warming and cooling. The past warming and cooling cycles were not caused by CO2 increases. Gavin Schmidt does not act like a climate scientist. A climate scientist is interested in explain what happened in the past and what happened in the past.

    Gavin Schmidt appears to only be interested in pushing a hypothesis which past and current observations and analysis does not support. The science does not support the extreme AGW hypothesis. The paleoclimatic data does not support the extreme AGW hypothesis. The extreme AGW crowd are pushing the wrong mechanism. (See the link to climate for 4 big picture.)

    What caused the past cycles of warming and cooling? The correct hypothesis must explain all of the observations. Cyclic climate (warming followed by cooling) change followed every 8000 to 10000 years by abrupt climate change (cooling type) requires a cyclic physical forcing function.

    There is a suit of data that supports the assertion that a significant portion (roughly 75%) of the 20th century warming has caused by solar magnetic cycle changes not CO2 changes. I do not understand how Gavin Schmidt can ignore the observational data and analysis that disproves the extreme AGW hypothesis.

    http://climate4you.com/

    P.S. I will start my own thread if there is significant cooling and/or evidence of an unexplained abrupt interruption to the solar magnetic cycle.

    Comments:
    A comet impact is not capable of causing what is observed during the Younger Dryas abrupt climate change period. There is a geomagnetic excursion at the same time as Younger Dryas. A geomagnetic excursion is capable of cooling the planet for 1000 years. There are cycles of Younger Dryas like cooling in the paleoclimatic record which are referred to as Heinrich events which also have geomagnetic excursions. It is appears cyclic solar changes caused the geomagnetic excursions. Let’s wait for another opportunity to discuss this subject. There needs to be either evidence of a solar magnetic cycle interruption or significant cooling, to make the geomagnetic excursion hypothesis interesting to a general audience.

    There are roughly 30 different locations in the Northern Hemisphere that have burn marks. There is no crater at locations of the burn marks. 70% of the Younger Dryas cooling occurs within a decade and the planet particularly in the North Hemisphere cools for a 1000 years.
    The ½ million Carolina Bay burn marks are dated at 100,000 to 60,000 years ago. There is evidence at the Carolina Bay of restrike which creates overlapping elliptical burn marks. As the earth turns during the strike all of the Carolina Bay burn marks are elliptical with the axis of the burn mark aligned in the North-west direction. Have look at the Carolina Bay burn marks in the attached. Think of a massive electrical discharge from the ionosphere to the planet’s surface.

    The authors of the paper you linked to interrupt nanodiamonds, microspherules as evidence of comet impact (there is not iridium which rules out a meteoroid impact. The Firestone paper’s finding of iridium was shown to be incorrect.). Nanodiamonds and microspherules are also created by electromagnetic pulses.

    “nanodiamonds, microspherules, and other unusual materials that date to the early Younger Dryas and are interpreted to result from an extraterrestrial impact.”

    Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas?

    This paper is a good review of the data concerning the Younger Dryas. It is interesting to look at the development of the different hypotheses and mechanisms from a scientific historical standpoint as well as pure science. The authors postulated TSI variance mechanism is not correct.

    http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/root/2000/QuatIntRenssen/

    The Thermal Haline Conveyor (THC) interruption theory postulated by Wally Broeker has been shown to be incorrect.

    Comment:
    Gavin Schmidt is a co-author of a paper that tries to explain the polar see-saw phenomena where which is the name for cyclic periods where the Antarctic cools when the Arctic warms and visa versa (i.e. exactly what we are currently observing) on ocean current changes. The ocean current hypothesis has however been shown to be incorrect as the ocean current takes roughly a 1000 years to change and direct measurement of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet temperature using temperature probes in the ice shows the cyclic polar see-saw is instantaneous. Other logic and analysis to disprove the ocean current hypothesis is recent measurement of ocean currents which has shown there is no ocean conveyor or Seager’s paper (see attached) which shows using a computer model (and a back of the envelope calculation) that a complete stoppage of the North Atlantic drift current is physically not capable of causing the Younger Dryas cooling (order of 10 times to small). In addition as Seager notes the melt water pulse which was alleged to cause an interruption to North Atlantic drift current occurred a 1000 years before the Younger Dryas cooling event.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130942.htm

    Cold Water Ocean Circulation Doesn’t Work As Expected
    The familiar model of Atlantic ocean currents that shows a discrete “conveyor belt” of deep, cold water flowing southward from the Labrador Sea is probably all wet.

    A 50-year-old model of ocean currents had shown this southbound subsurface flow of cold water forming a continuous loop with the familiar northbound flow of warm water on the surface, called the Gulf Stream. “Everybody always thought this deep flow operated like a conveyor belt, but what we are saying is that concept doesn’t hold anymore,” said Duke oceanographer Susan Lozier. “So it’s going to be more difficult to measure these climate change signals in the deep ocean.”

    http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.999,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx

    The binge purge ice sheet theory has been shown to be incorrect. The ice sheets have been shown to simultaneously rush into the ocean. The ice sheets are geographically separate. There is no mechanism to regulate the building up of the ice sheets from geographical separate ice sheets.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.short

    Research Sites. Ten Clovis and equivalent-age sites were selected because of their long-established archeological and paleontological significance, and, hence, most are well documented and dated by previous researchers (see SI Table 2). Two are type-sites where unique PaleoAmerican projectile point styles were first named: the Clovis-point style at Blackwater Draw, NM, and the Gainey-point style at Gainey, MI. Three of the sites are confirmed megafaunal kill sites, and six of 10 have a black mat overlying the YDB. At Blackwater Draw and Murray Springs, the YDB is found directly beneath the black mat and overlying Clovis artifacts with extinct megafaunal remains.

    The other sample sites were in and around 15 Carolina Bays, a group of approximately 500,000 elliptical lakes, wetlands, and depressions that are up to_10 km long and located on the Atlantic Coastal Plain (SI Fig. 7). We sampled these sites because Melton, Schriever (20), and Prouty (21) proposed linking them to an ET impact in northern North America. However, some Bay dates are reported to be _38 ka (22), older than the proposed date for the YD event. Each of the 10 Clovis-age sites displays a YDB layer (average thickness of 3 cm) that contains a diversity of markers (magnetic microspherules and grains, charcoal, soot, carbon spherules, glasslike carbon, nanodiamonds, and fullerenes with ET helium). The Ir levels are above background in both bulk sediment and magnetic fractions at up to 117 parts per billion (ppb), which is 25% of levels in CI (Ivuna type) chondritic meteorites (23). The YDB also exhibits uranium (U) and thorium (Th) in high concentrations that are up to 25_ crustal abundance. At the 15 Bay sites examined, basal sediments and rim sands contain peaks in the same ET assemblage found in the YDB at Clovis sites elsewhere.

  37. VJ asks:
    ”Did you just not notice the word “statistically”? Or did you not understand what it meant?”

    Could you point out between which two words the word “statistically” is used? Never mind, I’ll concede that when Gavin says significant he means statistically significant. Remember this statement was made in 2007. He states in the same response: ”All trends starting before 1996 are unambiguously positive and significant. But so is starting from 1999 or 2000 – 0.31+/-0.22 and 0.34+/-0.29 (95% confidence). Therefore the only significant trends you can find are spot on projections. Even the non-sig trends are still positive and with uncertainties that encompass the predictions.” So, do you really want to hang by a fingernail of “statistical” significance? In 2007 Gavin goes back to pre-1996 for “unambiguously positive and significant” trends and he describes the trends from 1999 and 2000 as “spot on projections”, now that it’s 2012 can we go back to 2001 and say the trend is “unambiguously positive and significant” and is the trend from 2004 and 2005 “spot on projections”? I think not. Can we say that even the “non-sig trends are still positive”? Nope.

    Again: If no warming at all is not significantly different from the projections then why are the projections inciting so much concern? Will the next scare be global temperature stagnation and the required policy action be to stop burning fossil fuels? (Note: 1970’s cooling was opined as being caused by burning fossil fuels, then global warming came along with the opposite effect but the same cure.)

    Suspecting that the rest of this post would be similarly nonsensical, I did not read on.

    Imagine my disappointment.

  38. Semi-OT;
    But there are a few things about the Casey poem that didn’t ever track quite right for me. The big one is that Flynn, on first, couldn’t score on the long double by Blake. Rare and anomalous; maybe a great throw or relay home?
    There are others, like Casey’s “hate” awaiting the third pitch. Of whom? Because of what?

    Oh, well.
    ;)

  39. Anthony, I love your blog and your supporters. As a simple RN, I don’t understand much of the material at times but enjoy the laughs, writing and comments.

  40. @Norman Page;
    Good post, lots of meat. But …
    Don’t ever try to forge a document. Your punctuation and spacing style is idiosyncratically weird and chock-a-block with errors. You’d be outed in a nanosecond.
    ;p

  41. Brian H – you’re quite right – my brain runs ahead of my fingers and spell check is boring.However, unlike some people, I’m not in the forgery business – being idiosyncratically weird in style is not therefore a great problem.

  42. “Could you point out between which two words the word “statistically” is used?”

    I mistyped, and meant to say “significantly”.

    “Again: If no warming at all is not significantly different from the projections then why are the projections inciting so much concern?”

    The projections are very significantly different from no warming. Perhaps you meant “observations”. Perhaps you’re not even aware of the absurdity of your position, that you had to move the goalposts from 1998 to 2001 to find a trend statistically identical to the expected warming but that you prefer the meaningless slope of. In a few years time you will be spouting the same nonsense but shifted forward another few years. Eventually as global temperatures soar you will no doubt be saying “but there has been no warming since 2028!”. As a simple exercise, I would like you to calculate the global average temperature anomaly for 2001-2010, 1991-2000, 1981-1990 and 1971-1980. What do you find?

    “(Note: 1970’s cooling was opined as being caused by burning fossil fuels, then global warming came along with the opposite effect but the same cure.)”

    Opined by whom?

  43. VJ says:

    “The projections are very significantly different from no warming.”

    So, it is a miss since there’s been NO WARMING for greater than a decade.

    “you had to move the goalposts”

    I used the “goalpost” set by Gavin in his comment in 2007.

    “Eventually as global temperatures soar “

    If that happens it will be a lot cheaper to adapt then than to try to mitigate now and still have to adapt later. Climate change happens.

    “Opined by whom?”

    OMG! Start with this:

  44. VJ says:
    “As a simple exercise, I would like you to calculate the global average temperature anomaly for 2001-2010, 1991-2000, 1981-1990 and 1971-1980.

    I’ll put the kidding around aside for a moment. I’ve been researching this issue since 1994 as a professional responsibility. For the weight of evidence to favor acceptance of CAGW one has to ignore evidence from geology, archeology, history, satellites, etc. One basically has to ignore “when we live”, the end of an interglacial. Yes, I’m a skeptic, but what that really means is that I’m not saying they’re wrong, just that there’s insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude they’re right. Of course, they’re right about many things; and have a list of facts that support their position. So do the “Ban DHMO” folks. The CAGW paradigm is Zohnerism in my opinion. So, yes, those time periods you suggest looking at will show what you want, but how about looking at some truly significant time frames in relation to the Earth’s age. Look at the entire Holocene; see anything unusual in recent climate? I implore you, look at ALL the facts, not just the facts proponents of a position present, and then decide pro/con/inconclusive.

  45. 17 years of research and you haven’t even grasped the basic statistics yet? Shame on you. One ten year period is not sufficient to determine a climate trend. You might as well try to measure how fast a baby is growing by taking measurements twenty minutes apart.

    And then you tell me to look at the whole holocene! One moment ten years is all you need, the next it’s ten thousand. Make your mind up!

    I wonder why you couldn’t do those simple anomaly calculations. I’ll tell you the answer though. There is a regular rise of 0.2°C between each of those four decades.

  46. @VJ
    Obviously you missed the irony of the entire situation over the last +decade:

    Warmist in 2000: It’s warming and CO2 is climbing.
    Skeptic in 2000: True but that’s a short term correlation. Let’s look at something significant like the Holocene, and viola the temperature graph looks pretty normal.

    Skeptic in 2010: It’s not warming even as CO2 rises – de-correlation.
    Warmist in 2010: True but that’s a short term trend. Let’s look at the longer term trend.
    Skeptic reply in 2010: Sure let’s go back to the entire Holocene.
    Warmist reply in 2010: Oh no, not THAT long of a term! We have to look at just the portion where CO2 and temperature rise together, nothing else.
    Skeptic knows that spells Zohnerism.

Comments are closed.