This may be the only entry ever made by Bob Tisdale that doesn’t contain a graph. I thank him for the unsolicited notice he gives to WUWT – Anthony
Date: May 11, 2012
Subject: New York Times Op-Ed Titled “Game Over for the Climate”
From: Bob Tisdale
To: James Hansen – NASA GISS
Dear James:
I just finished reading your opinion that appeared in yesterday’s New York Times. I enjoyed the title “Game Over for the Climate” so much that I’m considering changing the title of my book to something similar, like “Game Over for the Manmade Global Warming Scare.” Yes. That’s got a nice ring to it. Thanks for the idea. I’ll have so see how difficult it would be to change the title of the Kindle edition. Yet, while I enjoyed the title, the content of your opinion shows that you’re still hoping to appeal to those who are gullible enough to believe your claim that carbon dioxide is responsible for the recent bout of global warming. I hope you understand that many, many persons have weighed your opinions and found them wanting.
The internet has become the primary medium for discussions of anthropogenic global warming, as I’m sure you’re aware. You have your own blog. Your associate at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Gavin Schmidt is one of the founders of the once-formidable blog RealClimate. What you may not be aware of is that one of the other contributors to RealClimate Rasmus Benestad in a recent post expressed his feelings that all of their work there might have been for naught [my boldface].
However, if the notion that information makes little impact is correct, one may wonder what the point would be in having a debate about climate change, and why certain organisations would put so much efforts into denial, as described in books such as Heat is on, Climate Cover-up, Republican war on science, Merchants of doubt, and The Hockeystick and Climate Wars. Why then, would there be such things as ‘the Heartland Institute’, ‘NIPCC’, climateaudit, WUWT, climatedepot, and FoS, if they had no effect? And indeed, the IPCC reports and the reports from the National Academy of Sciences? One could even ask whether the effort that we have put into RealClimate has been in vain.
I can understand Rasmus Benestad’s doubts when a website skeptical of manmade global warming, WattsUpWithThat, has gained visitors since 2008 while RealClimate is floundering. The web information company Alexa shows that WattUpWithThat’s daily reach began to surpass RealClimate’s in May 2008. And for the last 6 months, Alexa could no longer rank RealClimatebecause its percentage dropped too low. On the other hand, the daily reach of WattsUpWthThat increased greatly and WattsUpWthThat has become the world’s most-viewed website on global warming and climate change.
Over the past 30 years or longer, James, you’ve created a global surface temperature record called the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index. It shows global surface temperatures have warmed since 1880. While there are some problems with that dataset we need to discuss, it is something you can be proud of. But in those 3 decades, you’ve also developed and programmed climate models with the sole intent of showing that manmade greenhouse gases were responsible for that warming. Those models are included, along with dozens of others, in the archives used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for their reports. Unfortunately, your efforts with climate models, and the efforts of the other modeling groups, have not been successful. Far from it. And since your opinions are based on the results of your climate models, one has to conclude that your opinions are as flawed as the models.
I’m one of the independent researchers who study the instrument-based surface temperature record and the output data of the climate models used by the IPCC to simulate those temperatures. Other researchers and I understand two simple and basic facts, which have been presented numerous times on blogs such as WattsUpWithThat. Keep in mind WattUpWithThat reaches a massive audience daily, so anyone who’s interested in global warming and climate change and who takes the time to read those posts also understands those two simple facts.
Fact one: the instrument-based global surface temperature record since 1901 and the IPCC’s climate model simulations of it do not confirm the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming; they contradict it.
The climate models used in the IPCC’s (2007) 4th Assessment Report show surface temperatures should have warmed about 2.9 times faster during the late warming period (1976-2000) than they did during the early warming period (1917-1944). The IPCC acknowledges the existence of those two separate warming periods. The climate model simulations are being driven by climate forcings, including manmade carbon dioxide, which logically show a higher rate during the later warming period. Yet the observed, instrument-based warming rates for the two warming periods are basically the same.
If the supposition you peddle was sound, James, manmade carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases should have warmed the surface of our planet at a much faster rate in recent decades, but they have not. In other words, there’s little evidence that the carbon dioxide you demonize in your op-ed has had any measurable effect on how fast global surface temperatures have warmed. We independent climate researchers have known this for years. It’s a topic that surfaces often, so often that it’s joked about around the blogosphere.
Some independent researchers have taken the time to present how poorly climate models simulate the rates at which global surface temperatures have warmed and cooled since the start of the 20th Century. We do this so that people without technical backgrounds can better understand that very fundament flaw with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. I resurrected it again in a two-part post back in December 2011 (see here and here), both of which were cross posted at WattsUpWithThat. I’ve published numerous posts about this since December using different datasets: sea surface temperature, land surface temperature and the combination of the two. I’ve published so many posts that show how poorly the IPCC’s climate models simulate past surface temperatures that it’s not practical to link them all. The posts also include the new and improved climate models that were prepared for the IPCC’s upcoming 5thAssessment Report. Sorry to say, they show no improvement.
Fact two: natural processes are responsible for most if not all if the warming over the past 30 years, a warming that you continue to cite as proof of the effects of greenhouse gases.
In your opinion piece, you mentioned the predictions you made in the journal Science back in 1981. Coincidentally, that’s the year when satellites began to measure the surface temperatures of the global oceans. Those satellites provide much better coverage for the measurement of global sea surface temperatures, from pole to pole. You use a satellite-based dataset as one of the sea surface temperature sources for your GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data. That NOAA sea surface temperature dataset is known as Reynolds OI.v2. It is the same dataset I have used to illustrate that natural processes, not greenhouse gases, are responsible for surface temperature warming of the global oceans since 1981. Since land surface temperatures are simply along for the ride, mimicking and exaggerating the changes in sea surface temperatures, the hypothesis you promote has a significant problem. Climate models are once again contradicted by observation-based data.
I’m one of very few independent global warming researchers who study sea surface temperature data and the processes associated with the natural mode of climate variability called El Niño-Southern Oscillation or ENSO. ENSO is a process that is misrepresented by many climate scientists when they use linear regression analysis in attempts to remove an ENSO signal from the global surface temperature record. Those misrepresentations ensure misleading results in some climate science papers.
ENSO is a natural process that you and your associates at GISS exclude in many of the climate model-based studies you publish, because, as you note, your “coarse-resolution ocean model is unable to simulate climate variations associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation processes.” In fact, there are no climate models used by the IPCC that are capable of recreating the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño and La Niña events. And I know of no scientific studies that show any one climate model is capable of correctly simulating all of the fundamental coupled ocean-atmosphere processes associated with ENSO.
If climate models are not able to simulate ENSO, then they do not include a very basic process Mother Nature has devised to increase and slow the distribution of heat from the tropics to the poles. As a result, the climate models exclude the variations in the rates at which the tropical Pacific Ocean releases naturally created heat to the atmosphere and redistributes it within the oceans, and those climate models also exclude the varying rate at which ENSO is responsible through teleconnections for the warming in areas remote to the tropical Pacific.
Climate scientists have to stop treating ENSO as noise, James. The process of ENSO serves as a source of naturally created and stored thermal energy that is discharged, redistributed and recharged periodically. Because these three functions (discharge, redistribution and recharge) all fluctuate (see Note 1), impacts of ENSO on global climate vary on annual, multiyear and multidecadal timescales. Common sense dictates that global surface temperatures will warm over multidecadal periods when the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño events outweigh those of La Niña events, causing more heat than normal to be released from the tropical Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere and to be redistributed within the oceans. And the opposite will occur, global surface will cool, when La Niña events dominate ENSO over a multidecadal period. It is no coincidence that that is precisely what has happened since 1917.
Note 1: El Niño events (the discharge mode) are not always followed by La Niña events (the recharge mode). Both El Niño and La Niña events can appear in a series of similar phase events like the El Niño events of 2002/03, 2004/05 and 2006/07 and the La Niña events of 2010/11 and 2011/12. El Niño and La Niña events can also last for more than one year, spanning multiple ENSO seasons, like the 1986/87/88 El Niño and the 1998/99/00/01 La Niña. When a strong El Niño is followed by a La Niña like the El Niño events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 it is very obvious that two portions of ENSO are acting together and redistributing warm water that’s left over from the El Niño. The results of the combined effects are actually difficult to miss in the sea surface temperature records.
The satellite-era sea surface temperature data reveals that ENSO, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for the warming of global ocean surfaces for the past 30 years, as noted earlier. It illustrates the effects of La Niña events are not the opposite of El Niño events. In fact, the satellite-based sea surface temperature data indicates that, when major El Niño events are followed by La Niña events, they can and do act together to cause upward shifts in the sea surface temperature anomalies of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans. And since the Eastern Pacific Ocean has not warmed in 30 years, those ENSO-induced upward shifts in the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific data are responsible for practically all of the global sea surface temperature warming for the last 3 decades.
I have been presenting and illustrating those ENSO-caused upward shifts for more than 3 years. I have plotted the data, discussed and animated the process of ENSO using numerous datasets: sea surface temperature, sea level, ocean currents, ocean heat content, depth-averaged temperature, warm water volume, sea level pressure, cloud amount, precipitation, the strength and direction of the trade winds, etc. And since cloud amount for the tropical Pacific impacts downward shortwave radiation (visible light) there, I’ve presented and discussed that relationship as well. The data associated with those variables all confirm how the processes of ENSO work for my readers. They also show and discuss how those upward shifts are caused by processes of ENSO. I’ve written so many posts on ENSO that it is impractical for me to link them here. A very good overview is provided in this post, or you may prefer to read the additional comments on the cross post at WattsUpWithThat.
James, you are more than welcome to use the search function at my website to research the process of ENSO. With all modesty, I have to say there’s a wealth of information there. I’ve assembled that same information in my book If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop their deceptive Ads? You might prefer the book since then you’d have a single source of more detailed discussions on the topics presented in this memo. It also illustrates and discusses how the climate models used by the IPCC in their 4th Assessment Report show no skill at being able to reproduce the global surface temperature record since 1901. Using those IPCC climate models in another group of comparisons, it shows that there are no similarities, none whatsoever, between how the sea surface temperatures of the individual ocean basins have actually warmed over the past 30 years and how the climate models show sea surface temperatures should have warmed if carbon dioxide was the cause. An overview of my book is provided in the above-linked post. Amazon also provides a Kindle preview that runs from the introduction through a good portion of Section 2. That’s about the first 15% of the book. Refer also to the introduction, table of contents, and closing in pdf form here. My book is written for those without technical backgrounds so someone like you with a deep understanding of climate science will easily be able to grasp what’s presented.
In closing, I was sort of surprised to see your May 10, 2012 opinion in the New York Times. I had discussed in the second part of my August 21, 2011 memo to you and Makiko Sato that ENSO, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for the recent 30-year rise in global sea surface temperatures. You must not have read that memo. Hopefully, you’ll read this one.
Sincerely,
Bob Tisdale
Very nice letter, too bad Dr Hansen will not read it.
There are more people than you know. My browsing has been invisible to Alexa for years.
BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAA…………………….
claps widely for Bob…
That has got to sting, even though it was done with grace and control…. Excellent Post Bob!
Check out the fact that you can’t heat water from above. Thats the key to killing this monster. Emissions are irrelevant because you can heat them as much as you like, the heat will not pass through the SURFACE TENSION. Water ignores the second law of thermodynamics. Thats the killer. Try heating water with a scource of heat, its not as straight forward as you think.
David says:
May 12, 2012 at 8:44 am
Very nice letter, too bad Dr Hansen will not read it.
——————————————————————————————-
I will bet he receives MULTIPLE COPIES… just saying…
Well, why does Bob Tisdale not send the memo to Dr James Hansen. Surely it should be possible to get a hold of his e-mail address. He could also try and get Gavin Schmidt to pass it on. What’s the point of writing it if no attempt is made to pass it on? Bob Tisdale could also try and get an abbreviated version published in The New York Times.
Hey Bob,
You’re wasting your time trying to talk sense with Jim.
Regards,
Luther
Mr. Hansen, it’s OK if your views…..evolve.
robert barclay says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:01 am
Have you ever sen sea roll?
Its a condition where the surface tensions are changed. Salinity and sub flows in the oceans are the primary cause.. Some are caused by the expansion of gases as the water warms at lower levels, causing a rolling flow. we know that certain forms of radiation penetrate the surface of the ocean and just how are those 30 meter depths warmed? those types of radiation are commonly greater in times of low solar output.
there are lots of ways to warm the ocean. and direct sunlight does warm it.. just take temps of the ocean floor in Caribbean sands of a clear ocean.. or green matter in the first 3-9 feet of other areas… tenths of a degree matter.. especially in a pool of that size..
Robert Barclay said:
I think the science on this is not settled.
http://www.flasolar.com/heat_loss.htm
Bob,
Don’t tell us, tell them. Well ok, tell us as we’re interested, but we’re not the ones who ned to be educated. Have you sent a letter of protest to the NYT’s? I hope so. They likely won’t publish it, but you never know until you try.
Send this to the NYT op-ed Dept. or better chances with WSJ or NY Post.
Does anyone remember the person who created the Piltdown man hoax?
Bob,
Doesn’t your response, even though unsent, liken to a death threat to all AGW scientists on the public dole?
John Peter says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:03 am
Well, why does Bob Tisdale not send the memo to Dr James Hansen. Surely it should be possible to get a hold of his e-mail address.
Don’t fret, John. I guarantee you, Jimbo will see it…
“….You must not have read that memo. Hopefully, you’ll read this one.”
Well since it is an “unsent” memo I guess he won’t !
Well written, good information. Still, I agree with the notion that “hope” is not a plan. I do suspect that should James H. read this letter he will not accept most of it nor will he follow the links and connect the dots. He’s a busy activist – bless his heart.
Perhaps a plan can be fashioned by those of us that agree with you (you have educated us about the topic) by sending a note to our local representative (so called here in the USA). That’s 435 folks but as their e-mails are likely intercepted first by an aide (or maybe more than one), and we might assume they will send it to a few others, the number might grow exponentially. I also will send it to some non-politicians and ask them to send it on. So that’s my plan. Embrace the plan.
——————-
Another plan is to use the phrase “connect the dots” in numerous and unrelated (to climate) places. I’ve read that is the new phrase replacing “the science is settled” and “97% of all climate scientists agree” — these cute sayings are conjured from thin air and can be obscured easily with a little stirring. So – embrace the plan and connect the dots.
Scientifically and philosophically speaking, that’s a helluva takedown, Bob.
Nice work Bob Tisdale.
John Peter says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:03 am
What’s the point of writing it if no attempt is made to pass it on?
John – it is now on the most popular science blog on the internet. How much more exposure do you think it needs to be considered “passed on?”
Preacher Hansen will not heed your advice. Globaloney Warming is upon us and he has to protect non existent generations from sins of the living today.
It would be great if Schmidt & Hansen spread their wings and protested further afield at China’s coal mines in Inner Mongolia or the huge coal mines coming online in Xinjiang Uygur, considered the largest in Asia. Maybe he could save their grandchildrens children from climate armageddon.
I’ve got one problem with ascribing temperature to ENSO – is it the cause or the effect?
Does ENSO drive the temperature or does the temperature drive ENSO?
BTW, I count myself as sceptical of AGW, but this is not an argument until you find a driver.
What are the number of estimated under water volcanoes and what are their effects on oceans and atmosphere?
pokerguy says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:21 am
Bob,
Don’t tell us, tell them. Well ok, tell us as we’re interested, but we’re not the ones who ned to be educated. Have you sent a letter of protest to the NYT’s? I hope so. They likely won’t publish it, but you never know until you try.
———————————————————————————-
WUWT has better circulation and reader ship world wide…
Word from Old School Mets at MIT the same time as Student Hansen, is that he is very good at programming model output to match his beliefs.
Jack says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:24 am
Does anyone remember the person who created the Piltdown man hoax?
Not personally, but — “Suspects: The identity of who perpetuated the hoax is unknown but there are several suspects: Charles Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward, the initial finders of the first two skull fragments; Lewis Abbot, owner of the Hastings jewelry shop; Hargreaves the laborer, who did most of the digging at the site; Martin Hinton, curator of the British Museum at the time of the fraud; and recently Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.”
http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/piltdown.html
Bob, What causes the change in frequency of El Nino/La Nina events in different time periods? Do we have any information about that?
Very fine article.
Who is it that could fire Hansen ?
Why is this not on their desk ?
How does this man persist in his mendacious untruthfullness year after year ?
When was the last time he did anything of value ?
Bill H says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:16 am
there are lots of ways to warm the ocean. and direct sunlight does warm it
=========
There may not be as many ways as you think. For example, take plastic jug of water and place it in the shade in the desert. It will warm to match the air temperature. Now pour the same water into a canvas bag and place it in the shade. It will cool to less than air temperature. If the wind is blowing, it will cool even further.
What is largely ignored when people talk about warming and mixing in the oceans is that wave action is driven by the wind, and the wind does not warm the ocean. Quite the opposite.
Vincent:
At May 12, 2012 at 9:57 am you say;
“I’ve got one problem with ascribing temperature to ENSO – is it the cause or the effect?
Does ENSO drive the temperature or does the temperature drive ENSO?”
I do not know if ENSO explains the recent global temperature rise but – if you accept Tisdale’s argument – then it is a ‘driver’ of global temperature. Please read the section of his ‘open letter’ that says;
“The process of ENSO serves as a source of naturally created and stored thermal energy that is discharged, redistributed and recharged periodically. Because these three functions (discharge, redistribution and recharge) all fluctuate (see Note 1), impacts of ENSO on global climate vary on annual, multiyear and multidecadal timescales. Common sense dictates that global surface temperatures will warm over multidecadal periods when the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño events outweigh those of La Niña events, causing more heat than normal to be released from the tropical Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere and to be redistributed within the oceans. And the opposite will occur, global surface will cool, when La Niña events dominate ENSO over a multidecadal period. It is no coincidence that that is precisely what has happened since 1917.”
Clearly, Tisdale is saying that ENSO is the mechanism which is responsible for warming and cooling periods because the “the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño events” vary such that sometimes “El Niño events outweigh those of La Niña events” and at other time periods the opposite occurs.
There may be a “driver” for these variations, but no such “driver” is needed because pure chance would tend to provide some variation. However, if Tisdale’s argument is right then it does explain why slight solar changes seem to result in relatively large changes in global temperature (as Veizer observes): the slight changes in energy input could be expected to alter the rates of “discharge and recharge”.
Richard
Nice work.
Can we now try to explain why there have been at least two (probably more) successive periods since the LIA when upward slopes were much the same resulting in overall warming of the troposphere ?
Unless we can go back further it is still open to AGW proponents to argue that the human influence goes back to at least the start of the industrial revolution, even though the IPCC has already said that the warming period of the early 20th century was most likely solar induced because the human contribution didn’t take off sufficiently until after WW2.
It is likely, also, that similar successive downward slopes occurred from MWP to LIA and I’m sure that the cause was solar variability changing global cloudiness and albedo to alter energy input to the oceans and skew the balance between El Nino and La Nina.
“I’m one of the independent researchers who study the instrument-based surface temperature record and the output data of the climate models used by the IPCC to simulate those temperatures.”
The outputs of climate models are not DATA. They might be estimates, or projections, or prognostications, or perhaps even prestidigitations or hallucinations, but they are not data.
As I see it, one of the main problems of trying to replicate the heating of water in a lab. (or any form of test equipment) is that it has to be contained in a vessel of some sort and therefore heating of the walls of the vessel would be passed through to the water… which doesn’t happen in the oceans.
AGW or no AGW, I just wish it would warm up over here where I am in the British Isles. (It’s now the middle of May, for Christ’s sake!)
Incidentally, we experienced something similar last year – through August, no less. (And it is noticeably cooler now than it was several years ago.)
But on the subject of Bob’s memo, it IS a brilliant take-down. Well done Bob (and Anthony, but that goes without saying!). One wonders how much longer this whole hoax has left to run before the backlash gains so much momentum it becomes swamped.
off topic, another note on one of my favorite subjects: developing salt-tolerant varieties.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/japan-uses-nuclear-accelerator-to.html
rice, mangrove trees, soy beans, asparagus, tomatoes, miscanthus. Green horizons everywhere? Roses to make the desert blossom?
I did a google search shortly after this post was made (there were 9 comments). ‘an unsent memo to james hansen’ produced 880 results. It has since jumped to 940. Guessing by tonight Eastern time, it will show some thousands, if not tens of thousands.
(Bing, btw, shows a LOT more (over 400,000)- but seems to be picking up other things along with)
surfskiwxman says:
May 12, 2012 at 10:03 am
Word from Old School Mets at MIT the same time as Student Hansen, is that he is very good at programming model output to match his beliefs.
=============
At one time we believed that linear programming models could predict the future, after all they were very useful at predicting optimum yields in many industrial applications. Great investments were made in model building, and we were all convinced that we would make out large on the stock market.
We programmed all the economic indicators into the models. All the economic forcings and feedbacks and low and behold, the models performed spectacularly. They matched the past performance of the market. When we checked their predictions against our human “expert” predictions for the market, the models did a very good job of matching what the “experts” said was going to happen in the market in the future. Except the experts were wrong.
Climate science is walking down the same dead end that economics went down 40 years ago. Computer models don’t predict the future. Computers are very good at predicting what the experts will predict. Which is why the experts like them. It makes the experts appear to be right. It allows them to charge higher prices for their predictions. In that respect, computer models are very high priced “yes men”.
Bob Tisdale, that is a good letter. Send it to NYT and see whether they publish it.
Just a modest suggestion.
Hansen is as mad as the “cat lady” in the Simpson’s cartoon, jibbering nonsense. That’s all that needs be said. Measured words such as Bob has taken the time to write, are a complete waste of time.
Thanks for all your hard work, Bob.
I will let you all into a secret,
Dr. J. Hansen suffers from ignomania, this means that he can write, but not read, talk, but not listen, and from this arrives the word ignorant.
John Peter says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:03 am
What’s the point of writing it if no attempt is made to pass it on? Bob Tisdale could also try and get an abbreviated version published in The New York Times.
—
Or… he could publish in an award winning high volume climate web forum… but where to find one 🙂
Bob, you’re being to kind in your opinion of Hansen’s recent statements. “Game Over for the Manmade Global Warming Scare” is an understatement. Let the criminal charges commence.
Found this on HuffPost this morning. It shows Hansen’s statement, “Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history”, to be incorrect.
Canada’s Tar Sands Battle With Europe
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/canada-tar-sands-battle-europe_n_1505658.html?ref=green
BRUSSELS/OTTAWA, May 10 (Reuters) – There’s a science to using science.
On May 9, the government of Alberta released a study into the extra carbon emitted by crude produced using oil sands instead of more conventional sources. The study, by a unit of California-based Jacobs Engineering Group, found that emissions from oil-sand crude are just 12 percent higher than from regular crude.
Jack says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:24 am
Does anyone remember the person who created the Piltdown man hoax?
====================================================================
I can’t answer that but I think we all know who created the Meltdown Mann hoax.
@ Gunga Din. 11.50 am. It’s 2030 where I am. Red wine does not make a suitable medium for the cleaning of keyboards.
@Robert barclay
‘Emissions are irrelevant because you can heat them as much as you like, the heat will not pass through the SURFACE TENSION’
Umm…why then does it get darker as you dive down through the ocean? At the top near the sea level it is quite light…but go down a few tens of feet and it is noticeably darker. If radiation cannot pass through surface tension, then would it not be inkyblack immediately you go underwater? Seems to me that some at last passes through and is then progressively absorbed as you get deeper. Absorbtion of radiation usually ends up as heat…which sort of explains why surface seawater can be warm even in the deep deep ocean.
Richard says
“I do not know if ENSO explains the recent global temperature rise but – if you accept Tisdale’s argument – then it is a ‘driver’ of global temperature. Please read the section of his ‘open letter’ that says;…”
Richard I get Bob’s point. My question is really what came first – chicken or egg.
Is ENSO a symptom of additional heat input (from the sun) or the cause of temperature rise? I’m inclined to think that ENSO is a response mechanism to redistribute energy, and not a source of energy in it’s self.
Somehow the concept of conservation of energy tells me that the earth’s temperature is a pure and simple function of the source of energy (the sun) – so ENSO is a response, not a cause.
Vincent says: I’ve got one problem with ascribing temperature to ENSO – is it the cause or the effect? Does ENSO drive the temperature or does the temperature drive ENSO?”
Global surface temperatures respond to ENSO. There’s a 3- to 6-month lag between an El Nino event and the response of global surface temperatures to the event. Also, in looking at the sea surface temperature of the eastern equatorial Pacific, in an area called the NINO3.4 region (an ENSO index), there has been no warming there since 1900 based on the linear trend:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2ed4oc5.jpg
Warm water created by an increase in downward shortwave radiation (visible sunlight) during an earlier or the preceding La Nina event (La Nina -> higher trade winds -> less cloud cover -> more downward shortwave radiation to warm the tropical Pacific) is collected in the West Pacific Warm Pool and released by an El Nino.
John Game says: “Bob, What causes the change in frequency of El Nino/La Nina events in different time periods? Do we have any information about that?”
Thanks. That gives me the opportunity to present one of my favorite graphs, NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies smoothed with a 121-month filter.
http://i43.tinypic.com/33agh3c.jpg
I was researching that for a book about ENSO, and I found nothing definitive.
Stephen Wilde says: “Unless we can go back further it is still open to AGW proponents to argue that the human influence goes back…”
For the past 3 years, my posts on this subject have shown that there is little to no anthropogenic signal in global sea surface temperatures over the past 3 decades. If AGW does not make its presence known for 70% of the surface of the planet for the last 3 decades, the period when anthropogenic forcings have been at there highest, why would you be concerned about an earlier period?
Ed Reid says: “The outputs of climate models are not DATA. They might be estimates, or projections, or prognostications, or perhaps even prestidigitations or hallucinations, but they are not data.”
Definition of data from dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/data
noun
1.
a plural of datum.
2.
( used with a plural verb ) individual facts, statistics, or items of information: These data represent the results of our analyses. Data are entered by terminal for immediate processing by the computer.
3.
( used with a singular verb ) a body of facts; information: Additional data is available from the president of the firm.
Bob Tisdale
Thank you.
Do what I do….send a fax directly to Dr. Hansen! His fax is (212) 678-5622 (found from
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansencv_201201.pdf)
He may just glance at it & throw it away, but you know he’ll get it on his desk. It’s a rather remarkable way to reach people, really, forgotten in this age of email and text.
Mr. Tisdale: How would you explain the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago with the ENSO phenomenon?
And please tell me where did all that (discharged) heat come from (in an already very warm climate)causing (20.000 years to peak) a global 5-6 degrees Celsius rise while the sun was somewhat colder than our current sun?
I hope you do accept that it is the sun which causes all the heat input into the ocean.
And where are your peer-reviewed papers about your theory described in your so called ‘unsent’ letter? I would be very interested to read them.
So if surface temperatures are governed by sea temperatures , and if sea temperatures are governed by solar activity, we’ve ‘got ourselves a convoy’. I’ve noticed that Pacific SSTs seem to follow sunspot activity with a 152-year time lag. (Let’s not forget the Atlantic: it seems to follow sunspot cycles with a shorter – 99 year – delay.) Here’s some evidence in support of such a conjecture: http://endisnighnot.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/lets-get-sorted.html
I’m not sure what audience Tisdale was targeting with the letter, but I found it too long with too much information. There’s a lot of stuff there, and if one is curious, buying the book (which I will do) would be the best way to explore his assertions.
Since Hansen already knows everything there is to know about everything, he doesn’t read other peoples letters, and certainly not their books. After all, he has to get his message out to save the planet, and to get another million dollars from liberal foundations so his grandkids won’t have to go to public schools.
I am the most likely target for the letter. I had no interest in the book before I read the letter, but I guess he got me, because I will now buy the Kindle edition. Since I own two Kindles, and a smart phone with the Kindle application, that’s the way I read, now.
So, I think Tisdale knew he would be preaching to the choir at WUWT, but that’s OK. That’s how you get your message out. Maybe he can save the planet at the same time.
Call me a sceptic, but this seems to be more about promoting a book than a genuine attempt to contact anyone.
True, but such outputs BECOME data, if what you are discussing is the behaviour, nature, and veracity of said models. Exhibits in the Court of Reality, evidence of dissembling and confusion!
😀
I love coming here. I come in first thing every morning, looking for my “Good News” fix for the day.
Beautiful piece of writing, Bob, and yes this is exactly the place for it to be. May your words spread far and wide. BTW, I’m sure James Hansen will read it just to know what you are saying about/to him. He won’t necessarily agree, and he dare not think about it too deeply as too much has been invested for him to be wrong (it must give him nightmares, though, or at least make his brain hurt).
Meanwhile, Bob, thank you for my “fix” for the day. I’m smiling. 🙂
Vincent:
Thankyou for your reply to me that you provide at May 12, 2012 at 1:06 pm.
We do have a disagreement but I think it is so small that it is of no importance. I explain this as follows.
You say;
“My question is really what came first – chicken or egg.
Is ENSO a symptom of additional heat input (from the sun) or the cause of temperature rise? I’m inclined to think that ENSO is a response mechanism to redistribute energy, and not a source of energy in it’s self.
Somehow the concept of conservation of energy tells me that the earth’s temperature is a pure and simple function of the source of energy (the sun) – so ENSO is a response, not a cause.”
Please note that I do not disagree with what you say. However,
(a) I await more information before I accept or reject Tisdale’s argument
and
(b) I want more information before I accept or reject the solar hypothesis.
As I said;
“There may be a “driver” for these variations, but no such “driver” is needed because pure chance would tend to provide some variation. However, if Tisdale’s argument is right then it does explain why slight solar changes seem to result in relatively large changes in global temperature (as Veizer observes): the slight changes in energy input could be expected to alter the rates of “discharge and recharge”.”
My bottom-line is that there is little difference between our views except that my natural scepticism causes me to not accept or reject either point at this time. But I recognise that you may think the difference is worthy of further exploration. If you do, then I regret that I shall be making one of my frequent ‘disappearances’ in a few hours so others will need to debate it with you unless you are willing to wait a week. Sorry.
Richard
Let me see:
This http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html vs Mr. Tisdale’s blogs!
REPLY: Your comment history shows that you do nothing but harangue people here for their work. If you don’t like it, that’s fine, nobody is forcing you to read it. But, since all you do is complain and add nothing to the conversation except snark, condescension, and bullying, (for example, “childish” “grow up” “Sorry! But I think we are done here. I won’t (I refuse to) listen to preachers who are not able to backup their claims with scientific sources. Goodbye!”), I’m putting you in the troll bin for extra moderation attention. You can still comment, but your comments will undergo an extra level of scrutiny to determine if they meet site policy. Be as upset as you wish. – Anthony Watts
Bob said:
“For the past 3 years, my posts on this subject have shown that there is little to no anthropogenic signal in global sea surface temperatures over the past 3 decades”
Agreed and accepted.
and:
“why would you be concerned about an earlier period?”
Because the bigger question concerns natural climate change and having excluded anthropogenic signals are you not interested as to how ENSO fits into that ?
Or how natural climate change affects ENSO ?
Robbie:
re. your post at May 12, 2012 at 1:21 pm
That is – even by your low standards – a very poor effort at trolling. You must do better or you risk your pay-masters replacing you with another troll.
Richard
And please don’t come up with crap like you people can’t publish in the peer-reviewed literature.
A good ENSO example is this one with good peer-reviewed work:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N19/C1.php and look how many papers are written about El Niño effects.
Robbie asked:
“Mr. Tisdale: How would you explain the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago with the ENSO phenomenon?”
Perhaps I could suggest an answer.
Milankovitch cycles causing higher solar input to the oceans and higher atmospheric pressure causing the ocean temperature to equilibriate at a higher energy content than today.
Those factors more than offsetting the slightly cooler sun at the time.The sun was not a lot cooler 55 million years ago but it was about 30% cooler several billion years ago.
ENSO would have behaved similarly to now but likely modulated by a different landmass distribution at the time.
It is possible that a very different landmass distribution would have meant no ENSO if, as I suspect, ENSO is a consequence of differential solar heating either side of the equator caused by unequal hemispheric sea / ocean proportions.
Stephen Wilde: Haven’t we been through this a gajillion times? I analyse and present primarily sea surface temperature data. Sea surface temperature data prior to the satellite era is questionable because it’s so sparse and requires so much infilling. That’s 30 years.
Bob, I know of and respect your position but as other commenters here are showing there is an interest in the broader picture from others apart from me and I feel a need to engage the issue with those others.
Robbie says: “Mr. Tisdale: How would you explain the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago with the ENSO phenomenon?”
I wouldn’t. My areas of interest are ENSO, satellite-era sea surface temperature data, and how poorly climate models simulate the surface temperature record since 1900. Hansen’s opnion wasn’t about the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Likewise, my post was not about it. Why are you introducing paleoclimatology on this thread?
“Robbie says:
May 12, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Mr. Tisdale: How would you explain the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago with the ENSO phenomenon?”
Most scientists know it it only takes one counter-example to prove a theory wrong. If the temperature record for the past thirty years does not confirm the AGW hypothesis, then it is WRONG. No need to go back 55 million years where there are no actual temperature measurements to try to produce your own counter-example. There may be other alternatives to explain the temperatures Mr. Tisdale works with, but the AGW “predicted” by climate models ain’t one of them.
robert barclay says: “…Emissions are irrelevant because you can heat them as much as you like, the heat will not pass through the SURFACE TENSION.”
Utter nonsense, and I’m tired of reading this unsubstantiated assertion on every thread. Using established physical principles, please show us with relevant equations how surface tension has any effect whatsoever on radiative heat transfer through a static surface.
Robbie says: “And where are your peer-reviewed papers about your theory described in your so called ‘unsent’ letter? I would be very interested to read them.”
I don’t present theories. I present data.
And you’re still raising the not-peer-reviewed argument? I replied to your nonsense on a thread a couple of weeks ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/29/tisdale-on-the-17-year-itch-yes-there-is-a-santer-clause/#comment-971735
There I wrote:
Robbie, you miss the blatantly obvious. This is a blog. This is not a scientific journal. I’m a blogger. I’m not a climate scientist. I have no funding source that requires me to publish or perish. If you want to start throwing a couple of hundred grand at me for funding every year that requires me to publish the results of my research, then I’ll start publishing papers.
But I am one of very few bloggers in the world who graphs and presents sea surface temperature data. I am well known globally for my posts about the process of El Niño-Southern Oscillation. I present data, discuss it, and animate maps of it because it’s dynamic. People around the world learn from my presentations of data.
The reason your argument is old: It adds nothing to the discussion….
HHHHH
Robbie: Here’s my paypal link where you can provide your couple hundred grand funding every year that requires me to publish in a peer reviewed journal:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_donations&business=C6Y5VHZNFB9QL&lc=US&item_name=Bob%20Tisdale¤cy_code=USD&bn=PP%2dDonationsBF%3abtn_donateCC_LG%2egif%3aNonHosted
blackswhitewash.com says:
May 12, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Call me a sceptic, but this seems to be more about promoting a book than a genuine attempt to contact anyone.
===========
Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but do it in private and wash your hands afterwards.
Robert A. Heinlein
As Hansen plays his role as an alarmist maniac so well, we must remind ourselves that he’s earning NASA a cool 1.2 bn USD of taxpayer money a year. (And himself a million outside his regular income)
http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/12/nasa-abdalatis-response-to-50-esteemed-professionals-is-managerial-negligence-an-embarrassment/#comment-92515
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-climate-fs.pdf
Neither Hansen nor NASA have any interest in stopping what worked so well for them.
To Bob Tisdale,
Has there been any comment on your work, positive or negative, from recognised climate scientists. eg Pielke Sr, Spencer, Curry,,,,?
“Who ya gonna believe… your stupid ENSO measured data or my computer model?” – Hansen et al
Bob Tisdale @ 2:22
“Why are you introducing paleoclimatology on this thread?”
Let me expand on Bob’s point. Rant alert // This post was a letter Bob wrote making reference to many other posts that were presentations he has made earlier. The comments and questions seen today about the information in those presentations is 99.44% repetitions of comments made when first posted by Bob on his site or here on WUWT. The other 0.66% seems to be bubbles floated by folks unfamiliar with the many previous presentations and with Bob’s interests and methods. This gets to be somewhat like having a questions about multiplication and division in a calculus class. Can’t anyone stay on topic. // Rant over
blackswhitewash.com says: “Call me a sceptic, but this seems to be more about promoting a book than a genuine attempt to contact anyone.”
There never was or will be any attempt on my part to contact Hansen. This was simply a different format for a post. I’ve used it once before. See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/21/another-giss-miss-tisdale-calls-out-hansen-and-sato-on-failed-predictions/
The cross post here at WUWT for the last one was the top WordPress post for a while.
http://i45.tinypic.com/2eztsuo.jpg
I wanted to see if it would work again this time, but it didn’t.
Regarding promoting a book, every post that I’ve written since publishing my book has a reference to it.
Look this might be offtopic for this very thread; nevertheless I’ve been over at Topix taking some scalps this morning, snorting and insulting warmer crazies, and here’s the way this whole thing shakes out as far as ‘deceptive practices’ –
You’ve got some men who told everybody they calculated doomsday
to within a few tenths of a degree
using ‘speshul mayuth that aint like other mayuth’, it’s – wait for it – Climate Math
This ‘speshul mayuth’ gives up hockey sticks from calibration data, but the smartest men in the world furiously taught it to each other for YEARS as they insisted we all had to suspend civilization on their word,
based on scrawls they thought were math,
and HERE’S the KICKER:
Said “Kal-kyuH-Lay-ShUns” were DONE
on INFORMATION RETURNED from MAGICAL T.R.E.E.M.O.M.E.T.E.R.S that, unknown to EVERYONE ELSE on EARTH,
comprise TREES: with TIME MACHINES built in, FUNCTIONING as THERMAL SENSORS accurate to WITHIN TENTHS of a DEGREE.
Now: these TREEMOMETERS which are TENTHS-ACCURATE heat sensors
are unaffected UTTERLY by that
“LIGHT-canopy, HEAT-canopy, HEAT roots, WATER-canopy, WATER-roots, WATER QUALITY-roots (dissolved oxygen),POLLUTANTS-canopy, POLLUTANTS-roots, SOIL-quantity, SOIL-texture, ***SIXTEEN NUTRIENT ELEMENTS IN P.R.O.P.O.R.T.I.O.N.***
thing.
Now the same people who CLAIM they ‘believe’ in this obviously criminal-level TRIPE passed as science,
ALSO WANT TO TELL YOU THEY HAVE NEVER REALLY BEEN ABLE TO GET THE EXACT AMOUNT of ATMOSPHERIC INFRARED GROWTH down pat,
EVEN though there is a FULLY DEVELOPED and FUNCTIONAL INFRARED ASTRONOMY FIELD that can – and we all know HAS checked for RISING ATMOSPHERIC INFRARED in the applied spectrums: nah, IT’S UN-KNOWABLE.
Bull$#!+.
Period.
It’s fraud,
it’s crime,
and it’s time to indict.
hillrj says: “Has there been any comment on your work, positive or negative, from recognised climate scientists. eg Pielke Sr, Spencer, Curry,,,,?”
Roger Pielke Sr. has cross posted or recommended or referred to my posts about 20 times:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/?s=tisdale
As you will note, Roger also recommended my book.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/roger-pielke-sr-and-bishop-hill-discuss-if-the-ipcc-was-selling-manmade-global-warming-as-a-product/
To Robbie and all those who natter on about pal-reviewed publishing: Setting aside that this post is a response to an opinion piece and not a scientific dissertation, I would suggest that ethical blogs – such as WUWT – have more eyes on them that the current “scientific” publications. Anyone who is brave enough to post scientific data/findings here is automatically be reviewed by experts from a lot of fields and probably more thoroughly than any normal review. Even as the print media is tanking (partially due to their attempt to ‘gate keep’ what is presented to their publications) I would suspect that the specialty printing from scientific journals will also fail – for much the same reason.
Here’s my two cents.
I don’t believe ENSO can explain much of the warming. Besides the inter annual ups and downs, ENSO describes very little of the warming trend. However, the idea that ENSO has something very important to do with climate over the long term is a very good idea indeed, since the recent warming can only be described in my opinion as ‘not important’ -at least as far as the planet is concerned, so why does it need any cause?
I do applaud Bob for giving it a go (i.e. doing some science), unlike the efforts of the so called experts that think ….because ENSO can’t describe the warming trend, it isn’t important, which even if trivially true, absence of prove is not prove of absence, etc…
If you zoomed in to the ENSO time series and found yourself in a frame describing only a few hours, would it be possible to know what will happen next? We can see the whole darn series and we still don’t know.
PS. Bob, are you sure there has been no warming in the eastern pacific?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_change.shtml
😛
Hansen has Venus on the brain. Hansen is the former astronomer / Venus researcher and physicist turned Earth climate scientist. This maybe why we are in so much of a palaver.
Any bets when Hansen will finally raise his hand and say I got it wrong? (See his scenarios – we are on Co2 business as usual).
Bill H says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:16 am
robert barclay says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:01 am
Have you ever sen sea roll?
Its a condition where the surface tensions are changed. Salinity and sub flows in the oceans are the primary cause.. Some are caused by the expansion of gases as the water warms at lower levels, causing a rolling flow. we know that certain forms of radiation penetrate the surface of the ocean and just how are those 30 meter depths warmed? those types of radiation are commonly greater in times of low solar output.
there are lots of ways to warm the ocean. and direct sunlight does warm it.. just take temps of the ocean floor in Caribbean sands of a clear ocean.. or green matter in the first 3-9 feet of other areas… tenths of a degree matter.. especially in a pool of that size..
And
dp says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:16 am
Robert Barclay said:
Try heating water with a scource of heat, its not as straight forward as you think.
I think the science on this is not settled.
http://www.flasolar.com/heat_loss.htm
And others – infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few microns into the water surface. Any warming it does create merely results in surface water molecules evaporating and taking the latent heat of evaporation with them. However, the higher frequencies in sunlight, visible light and ultraviolet, do penetrate deeper into the ocean and heat it. But after a few hundred meters even that light is greatly attenuated.
The result is that water will heat during the day in the sunlight while the angle of incidence is relatively obtuse after that the sunlight will be reflected/refracted and far less heat will enter the ocean. Any infrared will have no effect on water temperature. During the night the surface water will cool due mainly to the loss of latent heat of evaporation as surface water evaporates.
Robbie, look at where you are standing.
Can you please write a letter off to the IPCC and ask them nicely to STOP USING NON-PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE when compiling it so called reports.
Furthermore, can you ask Pachauri to retract his brazen lie about the IPCC only using peer reviewed literature when compiling its reports.
References
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/21/grey-literature-ipcc-insiders-speak-candidly/
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/03/gray-literature-in-ipcc-tar-guest-post.html
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php
Bob – a typically excellent post as usual. I know that the ocean instumental record is spotty and suspect for the period prior to 1960, however, I believe much stock can be placed in anecdotal records such as cod fishing histories. For example, the Vikings during the MWP, according to legend, “discovered” America by following/harvesting the cod fish. The fishing industry has known for decades that warmer waters in the North Altlantic will see much more cod fish travel into the higher latitudes, colder waters the opposite.
Reposted on Weatherzone here http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/1103959#Post1103959
Thankyou for your well written and thoughtful post.
X Anomaly says: “I don’t believe ENSO can explain much of the warming.”
Then you don’t understand ENSO.
X Anomaly says: “Besides the inter annual ups and downs, ENSO describes very little of the warming trend.”
And for three years, I’ve illustrated, plotting numerous supporting datasets, described, and animated data that shows that it does.
Mike Busby: Thanks for the repost.
@ferd berple:
Isn’t it odd that water evaporation cools the water by moving faster/high temperature molecules of H2O to air AND ALSO cools the air because the freed water molecules are moving at a slower/lower temperature than the air molecules. And just the opposite happens during H2O condensation by heating BOTH the water and the air. Just doesn’t seem right somehow.
Would appear though that the overall temperature of the SYSTEM combination would depend on the energy input (solar) and loss (radiation) balance.
Bob, great post. Really increased my understanding of ENSO/La Nina/El Nino.
No graphs or illustrations but the picture is very clear–Hansen’s article has been refuted nicely.
Thanks for the informative post, Bob. It would be interesting to see how many hits this single post got and the average time spent per viewer. Can that be tracked in WP?
Revised mainstream solar-terrestrial narrative coming your way soon?…
NASA’s hindsight’s 20/20?…
Dickey, J.O.; & Keppenne, C.L. (1997). Interannual length-of-day variations and the ENSO phenomenon: insights via singular spectral analysis.
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/22759/1/97-1286.pdf
See figure 3a & 3b (pdf p.24 & p.25).
Updated (with more recent data) & anomalized by day of year:
Solar-Terrestrial-Climate Weave
http://i49.tinypic.com/219q848.png
This pattern can be isolated upwards of 2 dozen ways.
I’m currently adding to that total.
Those who understand this information and know how to measure variable thread lead [ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Lead_and_pitch.png ] can model both interannual and multidecadal oscillations using sunspot numbers and earth rotation data.
The trick is to realize that, as with the differential on a car, there are TWO power inputs. It’s not just the crank (sun). Don’t forget about steering (seasons). This adds a constraint on how global AAM is partitioned (conservation of angular momentum) across hemispheres (analogous to outside vs. inside -track turning radius).
It’s good fun exploring nature to figure out how the authorities are either hopelessly blind or rudely deceptive.
Maybe the ugliness (quantitative blindness &/or social deception) will be water under the bridge moving forward?…
Depends as follows:
Administrators:
One option is to make a sensible peace offer without further delay.
Excellent post Bob Tisdale!
Two problems: one possible and one definite.
The definite problem is that James will never understand that complex lengthy post. We appreciate it and thank you for posting it. Unfortunately there are some old dogs who cease to learn new things as they age. The James Hansen dog stopped learning back in the eighties. So, he’ll insist he knows better as he reads your post, all the while James no longer knows very much at all.
The possible problem is; in spite of James refusing to accept your well laid out climate science post, he’ll get very upset and excited as he reads it (if he ever does). James may not have sufficient quantities of nitroglycerin tablets on hand when he starts reading your post. I hope he does as I very much want James to live long enough for his eventual prosecution and federal funded living quarters (and daily exercise and access to the penal library). Maybe he’ll get a cell next to Gleick?
In “Game Over for the Climate by James Hansen, published in The New York Times, he says, “If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.” That statement leaves me dumbfounded, has he forgotten that Canada is a sovereign country? What does he think we should be doing, and who is the “we” he’s speaking to? After being called a “Denier” for 15 years, reading the climategate Emails and watching the Gleick meltdown, statements like that are just plain scary. It almost sounds like code-speak for declaring war on Canada, because we know if the US doesn’t buy the tar-sand oil, it’ll just go to China.
“Does ENSO drive the temperature or does the temperature drive ENSO?”
ENSO drives temperature. We have not yet determined what drives ENSO, but I bet a cheeseburger the sun is involved…
X Anomaly says: “PS. Bob, are you sure there has been no warming in the eastern pacific?”
Based on the satellite-based Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature data, the trend of the volcano-adjusted sea surface temperature anomalies of the East Pacific Ocean (90S-90N, 180-80W) is negative:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/3-east-pacific.png
Without the volcano-adjustment, the linear trend is basically flat at 0.006 deg C per decade:
http://oi46.tinypic.com/34t3czs.jpg
If you doubt my ability to plot data, here’s a link to one of the sources of the Reynolds OI.v2. Simply scroll down to it. It’s identified as “1982-now: 1° Reynolds OI v2 SST”:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
With respect to your link to the recent ONI adjustments, NOAA first destroyed their ERSST.v3 data when they removed the satellite-based corrections after a couple of months for political reasons and then called it ERSST.v3b. ONI data is based on the ERSST.v3b. I have no idea why they would now fool around with their ONI index, unless they’re trying to make another political statement. It’s no longer an SST anomaly dataset. La Nina events dominated the period from 1950 (the start of ONI) to 1976. Then from 1976 to about 2006 El Nino events dominated. Of course there would be a trend in the NINO3.4 SST anomaly data from 1950 to 2012.
RockyRoad says: “No graphs or illustrations but the picture is very clear…”
They’re there. I provided links instead of showing them.
X Anomaly says:
May 12, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Here’s my two cents.
I don’t believe ENSO can explain much of the warming. Besides the inter annual ups and downs, ENSO describes very little of the warming trend.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maybe you should be aware that one explanation for the recent hiatus in temperature is that ENSO is not co-operating. Or the reason that model data and obs are diverging is the proponderance of recent La Ninas. Your first sentance should really read “i don’t believe ENSO can explain much of the warming OR RECENT LACK OF IT” if you’re going to be completely invested in that idea.
With respect Bob, little you have shown can explain the warming. It doesn’t need a cause.
……It doesn’t need a specific cause, no more than an eddy in a ‘bubbling brook’ (Lindzen).
There was a recent paper which showed the RWP (recent warming period) could be attributed to negative SOI values, as could the MWP (medieval warming period), and LIA (little ice age) with la nina, there by providing a clear physical mechanism in a thousand or so year context……
In my opinion (someone who doesn’t understand ENSO) I would suggest that one thousand years would be the minimum time period for ENSO attribution, with discussions of MWP and mannian mathturbation the least of concern as far as the physics goes. I’ll go a step further than ‘the godfather’ and say even these ‘historical episodes’ are simply insignificant noise.
Here it is:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/yan2011/yan2011soipr.txt
worth a look.
“Robbie says:
May 12, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Mr. Tisdale: How would you explain the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago with the ENSO phenomenon?
And please tell me where did all that (discharged) heat come from (in an already very warm climate)causing (20.000 years to peak) a global 5-6 degrees Celsius rise while the sun was somewhat colder than our current sun?”
Before the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum and rising global temperature of 6 C in 20,000 years, global temperature were much warmer than present global temperature.
Before this large increase in temperature, the Antarctic continent lacked glaciers, nor had the Indian subcontinent colliding with the Asia continent which resulted in the formation of the Himalayas occurred. Himalayas formed about 10 million years ago.
Since we currently have Antarctic with glacier Ice deep miles deep and have the Himalayas- a very large mountain range covered with various glaciers [which are going to melt before 2300 AD], we are obviously in a different world than the world before the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.
This different world had huge dinosaurs roaming the Oceans and land region. About 65 million year ago a very rock from space slammed into Yucatán Peninsula:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
The crater it made was more than 180 km (110 mi) in diameter. As for the rock:
“The impactor had an estimated diameter of 10 km (6.2 mi) and delivered an estimated energy equivalent of 96 teratons of TNT (4×1023 J).By contrast, the most powerful man-made explosive device ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba, had a yield of only 50 megatons of TNT (2.1×1017 J), making the Chicxulub impact 2 million times more powerful.”
The US nuclear arsenal had total of 70,000 nuclear war heads which were ever created- most of them being 1/50th of Tsar Bomba. The current US nuclear arsenal is around 10,000. As guess
the power of all them is roughly equal to less than 250 Tsar Bomba. And entire world has less than 1000 Tsar bomba. So this rock had 2000 times the power of all nuclear weapons held by all nations in this world. It should noted that some scientist were worried that one rather tiny nuclear explosion might destroy the world. And before Tsar Bomba was exploded by the soviets, some scientist were probably still somewhat worried about the consequences. I would imagine if any country were to make a nuclear weapon 1000 times more powerful than the Tsar Bomba, most scientist [rightly in my option] would very concerned about the possible global consequence of such a weapon being tested. And of course if such was 2 million times more powerful only a fool would assume and such explosion anywhere on earth would not have serious global consequences. Though only idiots like Hans Blix would say: “I don’t think that anyone seriously fears that the world can be blown to pieces all together.”
http://www.mtv.com/bands/i/iraq/news_feature_031203/index5.jhtml
[Regarding Saddam’s possible nuclear weapons].
Anyhow, one should not ignore an explosion which 2 million times more powerful then largest nuclear weapon ever detonated. But obviously it didn’t heat the planet [in terms of directly increasing global temperatures- in terms of decade/century affect/climatic effect] nor blow the entire planet in pieces, but it could have numerous consequences- certain more consequence than CO2 emission from driving a lot cars. Some the obvious and unavoidable results would be massive earthquakes [globally]. Creating a tsunami or many tsunami, though if you have a wave over km high racing speed fast than jetliner, you might tend to ignore some waves less than 100 meter high. Of course anything in the blast radius is dead. everything on planet which can detect sound, would hear it, boulders rain down over half the planet. Etc.
The fact this has occurred is not in doubt. Though some argue it didn’t cause the extinction dinosaurs.
10 million year later we are in the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum period and question is
how would ENSO phenomenon cause the warming. Was there ENSO phenomenon 40-70 million year ago? It seems unlikely that without mountain of glacier ice, one have much polar sea ice. Or seems would could no Antarctic or Polar sea ice, and still have mountains of glacial ice on Greenland and Antarctic. Iceland has lots of glaciers, it’s not surrounded by sea ice- at any time: “The glaciers and ice caps of Iceland cover 11.1% of the land area of the country”-wiki
And iceland is hothouse compared to Greenland:
“Winter
The Icelandic winter is relatively mild for its latitude. The southerly lowlands of the island average around 0 °C (32 °F) in winter, while the highlands tend to average around −10 °C (14 °F). The lowest temperatures in the northern part of the island range from around -25 to -30 °C (-13 to -22 °F). The lowest temperature on record is −39.7 °C (−39.5 °F). ”
When are glaciers in iceland disappear? Surely the icelanders are in a panic about this?
Let’s ask google:
“Icelandic glaciologist Helgi Bjornsson believes all Iceland’s melting glaciers will be gone within 150 to 200 years. This includes Europe’s largest glacier, Vatnajokull.”
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/12/01/melting-glaciers-in-iceland-to-disappear-in-150-200-years/
And:
“Many researchers believe that glaciers disappeared from Iceland during the relatively mild climatic optimum c. 5000–8000 years ago. Will it be long before the glaciers in Iceland disappear again?”
To review, Iceland is a highly volcanic region, in the warm gulf stream, in which many researchers believe it’s present glaciers formed 5000–8000 years ago, some think it’s possible
that this ice could melt within 150 years.
Summary recent iceland glacier:
“Icelandic glaciers are presently retreating – Glaciers on Iceland had their maximum Little Ice Age extension by 1890-1920. Glacier variations in Iceland since 1930 show a clear response to variations in climate during this period: Most non-surging glaciers retreated strongly during the early half of the monitoring period, following the warm climate between 1930 and 1940. A cooling climate after 1940 led to a slowing of the retreat and many glaciers started to advance around 1970.Warming climate since 1985 led to an increased number of retreating glaciers, and all Icelandic outlet glaciers are retreating presently…”
https://notendur.hi.is/oi/icelandic_glaciers.htm
It interesting that Vatnajökull the largest glacier [covering large area and gets 1000 meter thick] is on a volcanic hotspot, so unless there is some major unexpected volcanic eruption, no thinks it’s going disappear within a century [or earliest stated is 150 years, though smaller one could disappear “if warming continues” in few decades].
One thing, what ocean temperature 55 million years ago:
“Here we identify the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum in a marine sedimentary sequence obtained during the Arctic Coring Expedition. We show that sea surface temperatures near the North Pole increased from18.8˚C to over 23.8˚C during this event. Such warm values imply the absence of ice and thus exclude the influence of ice-albedo feedbacks on this Arctic warming.”
http://climate.yale.edu/publications/subtropical-arctic-ocean-temperatures-during-palaeoceneeocene-thermal-maximum
And:
Around 55 million years ago took place one of the most rapid and extreme global warming events recorded in geologic history. Sea surface temperatures rose between 5 and 8 degrees C over a period of a few thousand years.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Global-warming-55-million-years-ago-shifted-ocean-currents-15862.shtml
Oh, here:
“Kennett’s and Stott’s analysis of 55 million-year-old forams from Antarctic waters showed that, just before the Paleocene closed, the bottom waters were at 50 degrees, considerably warmer than today’s near-freezing temperatures but still quite chilly. Then something forced the temperature of those waters to rise nearly 20 degrees, possibly in less than 10,000 years. Meanwhile, surface waters also warmed, although somewhat less, from 57 to 70 degrees.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/horizon/sept98/sea.htm
So the deep ocean water was warmer than it currently, prior to strong warming period of Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum. Therefore one wasn’t getting cold water from poles and therefore probably would not have ENSO phenomenon. Therefore if all polar ice were to melt and possible have polar region so warm that ice doesn’t form at all during the winter, and you have million of years of this, you get some like the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.
Though the most obvious thing about PETM is it proves the a venus type greenhouse effect is not possible to occur {and impossible in human timescale [10,000 years]} and that it does not have a runaway affect- it’s much cooler now than back then, if one has runaway with CO2 as dominating global temperature, one gets ever increases global temperature, or it could not be cooler now.
May 12, 2012 at 4:18 pm | imbo says: Hansen has Venus on the brain.
———————
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x360gk_shocking-blue-venus-l-original_news
Fred Berple:
“Computers are very good at predicting what the experts will predict. ”
Encapsulates it all beautifully – thanks.
Why is this an unsent memo? Hansen’s contact details are public.
Bob This is all a waste of time you will not need this because temperatures will not rise or fall within 0.5C for the next 100 years when we will all be six meters under the ground. This has occurred before about 100000 times.
Jimbo says:
Since the topic here is material that make up the IPCC Working Group I report (“The Scientific Basis”), the issue of whether there was some use of non-peer-reviewed work for the subjects covered by Working Group II and III on impacts, mitigation, etc. isn’t really relevant.
I think things like Bob Tisdale’s letter here make nice exhibits as to why the “AGW skeptic” community is not going to be taken seriously by the scientific community. If you are seriously interested in influencing scientific opinion, you would not be doing such things. Are you guys really unable to recognize this?!?
Can’t Tisdale’s letter to Hansen can be sort of a proxy test for any alarmist?
Just change the “Dear James” to Dear Gavin, Dead Ray, Dear Phil, Dear Ben, Dear David or any other alarmist and challenge them any of them to repsond.
Wait that’s what posting it on WUWT does.
OK so let’s hear your responses. We all know you are all reading this.
Bring it.
Bob great letter.
Hanson and gang will never surrender but 5 things will slow them down to a trickle.
1: The Climate it’s cooling and time isn’t on Hanson’s side.
2: An army of skeptics presenting believable and provable facts and data.
3: A growing skepticism amongst the voting population that are twisting the brought and paid for politicians inside out.
4: The western world is on the biggest financial down slide since the great depression, there ain’t no money and global warming Ponzi schemes is a luxury that only health/wealthy economy’s can afford.
5: The biggest fear mongers in the world of global warming repression against the average citizen, are going down one by one. I predict Obama will be a one hit wonder. Juliar Gillard of Australia is burnt toast next year she’s gone. The UK Conservatives( in name only) have screwed themselves royally, bankrupting the UK with insane energy policy’s, talk about shooting yourself in the foot. The EU has got a very short shelf life and will slowly melt into a broken bankrupt backwater.
There lots more but that’s enough to put this Gang of climate huckster’s out to pasture for a long time. In the meantime keep up the good work Bob and fellow seekers of truth!
A proud skeptic.
Dave.
James Hansen read something about Venus and its atmosphere when he was too young to accept it emotionally. He has been fighting the resulting hobgoblins and hoos for the rest of his life.
In an earlier era he would have been institutionalized. No long-sleeved shirts necessary because he isn’t violent, at least not in that way. I think it’s charming to imagine him walking round the grounds of the asylum muttering about carbon dioxide and the Venusian atmosphere, carefully avoiding all the Napoleon delusionals. The rest of us would be better off, for sure.
Bob One more reason The Global warming hoax is on it’s last leg’s irrespective of the climate hot or cold. The once great economic power house and engine /banker of Europe is committing Hari-Kari (Economic suicide)
The German Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency) issued a press release warning that the national power grid is in serious trouble and that something needs to be done urgently. Germany’s once impeccably stable world-class power grid has been transformed and is today just one step away from being a developing-world laughing stock. This has all been accomplished in just a few short years – thanks to the country’s reckless and uncontrolled rush to renewable energies, wind and sun, all spurred on by a blind environmental movement and hysteria with respect to nuclear power. –P Gosslin, NoTricksZone, 11 May 2012
http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/11/germanys-federal-network-agency-power-grid-on-the-brink-thanks-to-renewable-energies/
Nick says:
May 12, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Let the CAGW riff-raff come to the kings of science; about time we got this pecking order right.
Wow, Mr. Tisdale
Succinct and to the point.
Most importantly, done with class, vigor, and honesty.
I truly enjoy coming to this site when possible. Learning is fundamental and required for life in general. No matter who or what you are, no?
Now, Mr. Watts, I have attempted to assist in enhancing this sites appeal and reach with investment twice. Not sure if using the “contact us” part is the problem.
I envision, just with this particular post, having a video from the messenger stating the same.
The impact of multimedia can enhance messages. We must take the liberty do so!
It is a necessary step in communication now in today’s world … _ _ _ …
It works
A video example from our past that can be applied to the current conditions of our world.
As a follow up, it is all about energy in the end 🙂
Peer-review. So 20th century. Consider, at a minimum, the ousted editors……the re-defined peer-review process.
By posting this here, Bob has merely acknowledged the many facts of this new century. We are now the peers. More or less. And these are the fora in this instance, the NYT and WUWT. And you have a voice.
Isn’t it fascinating that the AGW meme was born more than half a decade before the major oceanic oscillations (AMDO/PDO) were recognized (in 1996)? Well, at least by some. And isn’t it interesting that the AGW meme coincides with the latest AMDO/PDO positive cycle? And isn’t it interesting that public opinion of the AGW meme is decaying as both go negative with the sun gone all quiet on us?
I, for one, would be very interested in reading Bob’s musings on the phasing of El Nino/La Nina and the AMDO/PDO. Apologies if he has already done so and I have not evolved there yet.
Bob thanks for all your hard work. I have learned a lot about the oceans’ interactions from you. Thanks again.
How about, “Game Over for the Hockey Team”?
ENSO does not add heat to Earth’s radiative budget. JP
An excellent article, but it would carry more weight if someone other than the author had proof read it for silly mistakes before sending to WUWT.
I’m afraid that man’s ego seldom allows him to stop digging his hole before events overcome him and he is shown for the fool he is to keep digging.
There have been so very many examples – Hitler, Ghaddafi, Hansen.
The AGW followers must be living in terror that the holes they are digging will soon be filled in by saner minds.
The truth will ALWAYS come out in the end. That is its nature.
Is a debate between “policy based science” and “science based policy” possible?
Nick says:
May 12, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Why is this an unsent memo? Hansen’s contact details are public.
Because Mr. Tisdale chose to use the epistolary style for his post.
Have you written to C.S. Lewis asking why he never mailed all those letters to poor Wormwood?
atarsinc says: “ENSO does not add heat to Earth’s radiative budget. JP”
I believe you would find the data contradicts your statement, but please expand on your statement. Why doesn’t ENSO add heat to the Earth’s radiative budget?
Excellent Sir.
My advice would be to send it to him?
Regards
S
Mike says: “An excellent article, but it would carry more weight if someone other than the author had proof read [sic] it for silly mistakes before sending to WUWT.”
What “silly mistakes” did MS Word and my proofreading miss? BTW, the verb proofread is a compound word.
blackswhitewash.com says: @ May 12, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Call me a sceptic, but this seems to be more about promoting a book than a genuine attempt to contact anyone.
_____________________________________
SO?? BFD!
Where the heck else is Bob T. going to advertise? More important where else are those of us who might be interested in reading his book going to find out the book is available?
Advertising a product or service is darn hard these days and expensive, ask any small business person. If Anthony wants to bring a certain book to our attention by having it mentioned in his blog, fine by me. Heck he even “Advertised” Mann’s new book!
Rhoda R says:
May 12, 2012 at 4:15 pm
To Robbie and all those who natter on about pal-reviewed publishing: …..Anyone who is brave enough to post scientific data/findings here is automatically be reviewed by experts from a lot of fields and probably more thoroughly than any normal review. Even as the print media is tanking (partially due to their attempt to ‘gate keep’ what is presented to their publications) I would suspect that the specialty printing from scientific journals will also fail – for much the same reason.
___________________________________
Well said and my thoughts exactly. More than one person has posted a paper here for vetting before it has gone on to be “Pal-reviewed” .
I will have to say I really liked Bob T.’s rebuttal to pal-reviewed publishing, I had to clean my morning tea off my screen again.
Most of us who have been here at WUWT for a while and looked at some of the pal-reviewed papers – Dinosaur Farts comes quickly to mind – have long ago quit blindly accepting pal-reviewed publishing as some sort of gold standard. Hard to consider something a gold standard when it has Dinosaur Farts mixed in. paleotootology
William McClenney says: “I, for one, would be very interested in reading Bob’s musings on the phasing of El Nino/La Nina and the AMDO/PDO. Apologies if he has already done so and I have not evolved there yet.”
The PDO represents the spatial pattern (warm in east/cool in west and central, and vice versa.) of the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N. The PDO doesn’t represent the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific and is actually inversely related to it. It’s also an aftereffect of ENSO, with sea level pressure explaining the difference, so I don’t really pay attention to the PDO. See:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/an-introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-3/
and:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/an-inverse-relationship-between-the-pdo-and-north-pacific-sst-anomaly-residuals/
and:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/yet-even-more-discussions-about-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-pdo/
I also wrote a post about multidecadal changes in sea surface temperature anomalies here. The longer title of the post was, Do Multidecadal Changes In The Strength And Frequency Of El Niño and La Niña Events Cause Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies To Rise And Fall Over Multidecadal Periods?:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/multidecadal-changes-in-sea-surface-temperature/
>>>IAmDigitap says: May 12, 2012 at 4:06 pm
>>> TREEMOMETERS
You missed out the pests, disease and herbivores, in your assessment of Hansen’s treemometers.
And as a word of advice, I think people would read and absorb your posts more readily if you used less caps and wrote more coherently. Your present version looks like it was originally drafted with crayons.
.
Ian W says: @ May 12, 2012 at 4:23 pm
…..And others – infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few microns into the water surface. Any warming it does create merely results in surface water molecules evaporating and taking the latent heat of evaporation with them. However, the higher frequencies in sunlight, visible light and ultraviolet, do penetrate deeper into the ocean and heat it. But after a few hundred meters even that light is greatly attenuated…..
________________________
Here are the graphs that go with your information.
Broad view of entire spectrum showing top of atmosphere, at surface and 10m below the ocean from Colorado.edu: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instruments/sim/fig01.gif
Close up of just the ocean broken down by wavelength ranges: http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif
NASA on where the changes occur in the solar spectrum and the percent. (Sun is a variable star)
NASA (2/5/2010) “Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”…At solar maximum, the sun is about 0.1% brighter than it is at solar minimum….A 0.1% change in 1361 W/m2 equals 1.4 Watts/m2. Averaging this number over the spherical Earth and correcting for Earth’s reflectivity yields 0.24 Watts for every square meter of our planet. and another article by NASA (
09/22/2009) says Solar minimum is a quiet time when we can establish a baseline for evaluating long-term trends,” he explains. “All stars are variable at some level, and the sun is no exception. We want to compare the sun’s brightness now to its brightness during previous minima and ask: is the sun getting brighter or dimmer?” The answer seems to be dimmer. Measurements by a variety of spacecraft indicate a 12-year lessening of the sun’s “irradiance” by about 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at EUV wavelengths…
From that we can infer that the greatest variability in the wavelengths of solar energy that reach the earth’s surface (not euv) are the wavelengths that penetrate the ocean the most. Therefore it is not the 0.1% variation in total solar insolation over a solar cycle that Dr. Svalgaard tries to drum into our heads that is effecting the world’s oceans but a higher variability in the more energetic wavelengths between the 0.02% variation at visible wavelengths and 6% variation at EUV wavelengths.
The ocean then acts as a giant capacitor storing this energy during La Niña and discharging it during El Niño.
Paper: http://ilws.gsfc.nasa.gov/ilwsgoa_woods.pdf
Bob Tisdale @May 12, 2012 at 1:11 pm,
Definition of DATA (Merriam Webster)
1:factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation
2: information output by a sensing device or organ that includes both useful and irrelevant or redundant information and must be processed to be meaningful
3: information in numerical form that can be digitally transmitted or processed
The outputs of climate models are not data because they are not FACTUAL. (Multiple models produce multiple results, all of which cannot, by definition, be factual.)The model outputs are the results of REASONING, DISCUSSION or CALCULATION. They are not INFORMATION OUTPUT BY A SENSING DEVICE.
Model outputs present the results of analyzing and processing DATA.
The “wonder” of climate models is that they weave a mixture of good data, bad data and missing data into multiple “compelling”, if inconsistent, CAGW scenarios. Surely even Rumplestiltskin must be impressed
Bob, this was an excellent article which I will recommend to friends and enemies alike.
However, I think I must clarify what Rasmus Benestad actually meant in the blogpost you refer to.
I have read Benestad in Norwegian previous to this, so I know this is what he means, and it goes like this:
– There is a difference between scientists and ordinary people. Scientists are convinced by science, ordinary people by emotions.
– Therefore, the scientists must find emotional ways to reach ordinary people so that they, too, can be convinced that the world is on its way to catastrophe.
That’s what Benestad means when he asks whether the Realclimate articles have been of any use. In previous articles in Norwegian, he has complained that the climate scientists haven’t communicated well enough. That is to say, for Benestad and his camp, there is no question of whether they are right. They just have to find the right way to convince the ordinary people who will not listen to science. Appeal to the emotions, tell scary stories. And it rather be huge stories, because all the smaller articles wears people down. Rather a 911 story or a Katrina story – go see for yourself.
Benestad therefore asks for some event just as in Crichton’s book State of Fear. And reading the comments to his post, that is just the scary position that his like-minded readers take.
If one uses available data, it does not cost much to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. The cost of scientific research generally stems from the equipment and time needed to gather all those ice cores, soils samples, etc. It may be difficult to get into a journal such as Geophysical Research Letters, but for good reason since journals such as those are conservative in what data/assertions they let through.
I am skeptical of this open letter. I take it as nothing more than musings on a blog, since the ideas have not been vetted or cited by others to build further research into a more comprehensive theory. I have not heard of any scientific academy/group that endorses these ideas. The National Academy of Science holds more weight and has scrutinized the evidence far more than any blog.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Budgenator says:
May 12, 2012 at 5:45 pm
In “Game Over for the Climate by James Hansen, published in The New York Times, he says, “If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.” That statement leaves me dumbfounded, has he forgotten that Canada is a sovereign country? What does he think we should be doing, and who is the “we” he’s speaking to? ….
_____________________
Who is the we? That is a key question because it answers the question of what is driving Hansen and why he is still working for the US government. Maybe The Director-General of the World Trade Organization, Pascal Lamy, can give you a hint.
Like many others involved with “climate change” the IPCC, Agenda 21 and globalization, Hansen does not consider himself a citizen of the USA but rather a citizen of earth and therefore he does not even acknowledge national boundaries as actually existing. He is way ahead of us along with Pascal Lamy and Maurice Strong. To them a global government is a done deal and it is only a matter of telling nations that they are no longer sovereign.
Pascal Lamy:
From WTO.org
Looks like the vote is in to form a world government and all that is left is working out the details, at least in the minds of Hansen, Strong, Lamy and their friends. Given that Hansen works for the US government this tidbit from the US intelligence community is rather instructive.
“The National Intelligence Council (NIC) is the Intelligence Community’s (IC’s) center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking.” The U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) is a coalition of 17 agencies and organizations within the executive branch that work both independently and collaboratively to gather the intelligence necessary to conduct foreign relations and national security activities. Our primary mission is to collect and convey the essential information the President and members of the policymaking, law enforcement, and military communities require to execute their appointed duties.
Looks like Hansen is just following orders from higher up.
Vincent says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:57 am
I’ve got one problem with ascribing temperature to ENSO – is it the cause or the effect?
Does ENSO drive the temperature or does the temperature drive ENSO?
BTW, I count myself as sceptical of AGW, but this is not an argument until you find a driver.
==
Thanks for posting that, I was reluctant to bring in something puzzling me after watching a documentary on the theory that a particularly terrible drought destroyed the Maya who then numbered in millions, I’ve posted the following elsewhere with no luck.
—————————————
I watched a documentary a couple of days ago on the reason the Maya civilisation collapsed – Dick Gill spent 20 years exploring it and shows it was drought. The Mayan area has no natural lakes, rivers or underground water, relies completely on water collected during the summer rainy season, around 800 AD this failed. During the telling of it he said that normally the rains come because of a particular high pressure system which more or less stays put, somewhere in the Atlantic I think, but that this moved considerably further south than it normally does which altered the climate by making it colder in the north, which in turn didn’t bring the rains up into the area. All this to ask, is this the mechanism which triggers the El Nins? If so, what moves the high pressure system?
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/ancient-apocalypse-maya-collapse/
The graphic and that explanation are towards the end of the docu, sorry can’t say exactly but around forty minutes in.
—————————————
I’ve just looked at the documentary again to find exactly what was said, it begins around 20 minutes in. It’s really quite fascinating and there are some very interesting choices of words used in this, shown on BBC4 a few days ago. My comments in [ ] and best I could to get the transcript accurate.
V.O. “Could freezing weather in Europe be linked to drought in Central America? The experts were extremely sceptical.”
Gill “The first thing that I did was to get in contract with distinguished and respectable meteorologists to ask them what kind of a tie can there be here? No one had really looked at this before. I seem to have been the first to have stumbled across this.”
[Gill got this hunch by looking at recorded temps from dendrochronolgy of Swedish records and finding an unusual freezing period at the same time as the collapse of the Maya which he hypothesised was caused by drought. Onwards. He then found out that there is one weather system which links Europe and Central America – the North Atlantic High Pressure System. He then spent two years> looking at thousands of numbers on hard copy for the highest pressure in the 20th century. ]
V.O.: ” Areas of high pressure are associated with calm settled weather. There are high pressure systems in the North Atlantic. One in particular normally stays near Europe and that’s where it was for most of the time, but Dick discovered that just once during the 20th Century this system moved towards Central America – that was the time of severe drought in the Maya Lowlands and it was a period where the coldest Arctic temperatures were recorded for the 20th Century.
“Weather systems half a world apart could be linked. Only one man who could tell – climate modeller Tony Broccoli of NOAA”
[Only one man? From NOAA? And clearly a green… 🙂 ]
Tony: “I can say make the Sun stronger or brighter and see what happens to the rains in tropical Africa or drought in the mid-western United States.”
V.O.: “In his virtual world Tony has a unique overview of the Earth’s climate.” [Unique??]
Tony: “This map shows us the distribution of rain throughout the whole world for a particular time of year – in this case it is January and one of the interesting features is this rain belt that extends throughout the tropical regions. As we go through the seasons – January, February, March, we can see that that tropical rainbelt slowly shifts north, we see the rains come to Central America June, July, August, September.”
V.O. “Tony looked at what might shift these tropical rains away from Central America creating drought.
Here he starts with a tropical rain belt bang on the top of the equator, but when he makes the far north colder the effect is dramatic – the rain belt is forced south and doesn’t reach Central America, the result is drought.”
Tony: “It would only take a relatively small shift in the average position of that tropical rain belt to make the difference between abundant summer rains in Central America and drought conditions in Central America.”
V.O.: “Dick was now more convinced than ever that it was drought that had destroyed the Maya and support for his theory came from a most surprising place – the frozen North.”
[He got confirmation from Greenland ice cores, Prof Paul Mayewski Univ of Main]
V.O. “Paul has constructed a uniquely accurate history of global weather from his ice cores.” [that word again, uniquely, and now added accurate..] When he heard about Dick’s drought theory he decided to check his cores for the 9th Century.” [Looking for ammonium signature, lots of ammonium lots of vegetation warm and wet, little ammonium, not.] He found a “tremendous drop in ammonium in 1200 – not experienced such a drop going back 2-3 thousand years”.
V.O.: “But the final proof Dick was desperately seeking was just around the corner – out of the blue came a discovery made by three geologists, without any particular interest in the history of the Maya, a team from the University of Florida happened to be researching climate history at their favourite location – the Yucatan in Mexico.”
Prof Dave Hodell on sediment cores from a lake, unnamed.: “To understand how the climate has changed through the last several thousand years. We’re interested in how rainfall may have varied over that time period.”
[They found evidence of drought in a gypsum layer, when the lake fell very low. Looking for heavy and light oxygen – plenty of rain, light oxygen dominates, more of the heavy oxygen means it was dry. They examined snails.]
V.O. “Astonished – they found a surge of heavy oxygen – it was the worst drought in the last Seven thousand years.”
“Found one seed in the middle of this layer which they sent for dating – eureka experience – coincided with collapse of Maya civilisation, 9th AD.”
—————-
So there you have the gist of it, and my question above. If this is the missing driver, that particular high pressure system moving from the North Atlantic south west towards Central America, what drives the driver?
Brilliant response, Bob.
Of course I have a nitpick. I would change this sentence, “…[climate models] do not include a very basic process Mother Nature has devised to …” to “…[climate models] do not include a very basic natural process which …”
I realize this is probably just a rhetorical flourish and I know what you mean. But of course Mother Nature didn’t ‘devise’ ENSO nor is ENSO the result of intelligence, nor does ENSO exist to serve a specific purpose. Using such phraseology caves to symantical propaganda of the Eco-nuts who personify and even Deify natural systems, and to the extent such beliefs are humored, it makes it harder to influence those religious believers with cold hard facts (pun somewhat intended) and objective observation.
joeldshore says: @ May 12, 2012 at 7:32 pm
…I think things like Bob Tisdale’s letter here make nice exhibits as to why the “AGW skeptic” community is not going to be taken seriously by the scientific community. If you are seriously interested in influencing scientific opinion, you would not be doing such things. Are you guys really unable to recognize this?!?
____________________________
The scientific community is close minded and climate scientist are working to make sure it stays that way. Heck I am pretty darn sure the science community is very well aware climate scientist are lying through their teeth. Either that or they are purposefully deaf, dumb and blind since they do not want to jeprodize their paychecks. The people who matter, the Joe Sixpacks, does not read science journals but he does read blogs like WUWT and some even ask questions.
Just a few links:
The damaging impact of Roy Spencer’s science “… Kevin Trenberth received a personal note of apology from both the editor-in-chief and the publisher of Remote Sensing. Wagner took this unusual and admirable step after becoming aware of the paper’s serious flaws. By resigning publicly in an editorial posted online, Wagner hopes that at least some of this damage can be undone….”
Climate Science Money Trail Calls into Question Motive of Editor’s Resignation
WUWT: BREAKING: Editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing resigns over Spencer & Braswell paper
Caspar and the Jesus paper
Benny Peiser: Editorial Bias And The Crisis Of Science Communication
And that is not even getting into the very revealing Climategate e-mails that substantiate “Pal review” and the gatekeeping using the climate scientists own communication.
Given all this do you really think anyone is interested in peer reviewed any more? Especially when the corruption in science is so rampant?
Since you like peer-reviewed papers so much, here is one especially for you.
As a scientist and a lab manager for over thirty years, I am thoroughly disgusted with what I have seen happened to science over the last forty years. The very low quality of recent science graduates emphasizes the problem. They are no longer even worth wasting time interviewing for a job.
blackswhitewash.com, yesterday I replied: The cross post here at WUWT for the last one [unsent memo to Hansen] was the top WordPress post for a while.
http://i45.tinypic.com/2eztsuo.jpg
I wanted to see if it would work again this time, but it didn’t.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
And here’s the update, showing that this post at WUWT has captured the top post at WordPress today:
http://i50.tinypic.com/2d9bamr.jpg
Thanks, Anthony.
There is some idea that AGW falling short of predictions means it does not
exist at all.
I consider that false. What the truth is: Fossil fuel burning is increasing
atmospheric CO2, and CO2 increase has an effect on global temperature.
The question is, how much? This does not have to be decided as either
100% of the degree advocated by louder proponents of existence of AGW,
or zero. What I see in the instrumental records is that the world warms in
response to CO2 increase, at about 40% of the degree proposed by the
loud advocates of existence of AGW.
Myrrh says:
May 13, 2012 at 6:48 am
Thank you, Myrrh, for setting out some evidence for the varied regional effects of shifting the global air circulation patterns around as per my proposition that all observed climate changes are a consequence of the latitudinal shifting of the permanent climate zones beyond normal seasonal variability.
The sun does the driving by altering the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere and the oceans modulate the solar effect.
The slope of the tropospheric heights between equator and poles varies thus allowing the tropospheric air circulation pattern to slide latitudinally to and fro beneath the tropopause thereby regulating the speed of energy transfer from surface to space so as to maintain system stability despite external or internal forcing events.
The heating effect of more CO2 is zero but the price to pay is a miniscule shift in the climate zones.
Steve Oregon says:
May 12, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Can’t Tisdale’s letter to Hansen can be sort of a proxy test for any alarmist?
Just change the “Dear James” to Dear Gavin, Dead Ray, Dear Phil, Dear Ben, Dear David or any other alarmist and challenge them any of them to repsond.
Wait that’s what posting it on WUWT does.
OK so let’s hear your responses. We all know you are all reading this.
Bring it.
___________________
They hide behind their foot troops like Joel Shore. Do you not understand? A CONSENSUS was reached and the DEBATE IS OVER, the only question left is how are we going to destroy western civilization, that CO2 belching monstrosity, and how fast.
Bussiness Insider International: The Inside Story Of Germany’s Incredible Green Power Revolution (Worth a read for the pro-green side of the story)
Journal of Energy Security: Post Mortem on Germany’s Nuclear Melt-Down
WUWT: Newsbytes: Germany Faces Green Energy Crisis
OOPs the link for Business Insider International: The Inside Story Of Germany’s Incredible Green Power Revolution: http://www.businessinsider.com/german-nuclear-wind-energy-2012-1?op=1
I’ll have to echo the concern that ENSO may be nothing more than an effect. Bob has done an outstanding job of showing the correlation between temperature increases and ENSO. However, correlation is not enough and we probably don’t have enough data at this time (need another 30 years at least).
For example, take my somewhat imaginary conjecture that Arctic warming could be the cause of recent increases in temperature. This would slow the flow of heat from the equator to the Arctic. The slowdown could lead to reduced cooling during La Niña and cause the next El Niño to produce a step change upwards. Seems to fit the data that Bob has provided, but is based on a different cause.
Just saying, we need to be skeptical of all ideas.
Oh sugar.. Mods if poss would you correct the close italics after “two years>/i>” in this paragraph 9?
[Gill got this hunch by looking at recorded temps from dendrochronolgy of Swedish records and finding an unusual freezing period at the same time as the collapse of the Maya which he hypothesised was caused by drought. Onwards. He then found out that there is one weather system which links Europe and Central America – the North Atlantic High Pressure System. He then spent two years>/i> looking at thousands of numbers on hard copy for the highest pressure in the 20th century. ]
atarsinc says:
May 12, 2012 at 11:35 pm
ENSO does not add heat to Earth’s radiative budget. JP
_______________________________
ENSO is a modifier or as I said above a sort of capacitor. The oceans STORE HEAT and RELEASE HEAT later.
Here is an example from my state.
The raw 1856 to current Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
Piedmont Cities ~ 100 miles from the coast.
Raleigh NC
Fayetteville NC
Lumberton NC
There are plenty of other examples of the oceans’ influence on temperature. You can go looking at the individual station data here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ (click on map for general location and a list of stations will pop up)
Donald L. Klipstein says:
May 13, 2012 at 7:23 am
….What the truth is: Fossil fuel burning is increasing
atmospheric CO2, and CO2 increase has an effect on global temperature.
The question is, how much? This does not have to be decided as either
100% of the degree advocated by louder proponents of existence of AGW,
or zero. What I see in the instrumental records is that the world warms in
response to CO2 increase, at about 40% of the degree proposed by the
loud advocates of existence of AGW.
___________________________________
Chemistry shows when water warms it gives off more CO2 and when water cools it absorbs more CO2. Also mankind’s contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere is very small, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. With the oceans covering 70% of the earth’s surface, changes in the temperature of the oceans are going to have an effect on CO2 and also on the air temperature.
CO2 LAGS temperature and is the result not the driver.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
Hey, wait a minute. I thought we were supposed to be clinging to clouds.
What drives the ENSO?
The incoming energy that causes the dynamics of El Niño and La Niña is radiation.
Gail Combs says:
May 13, 2012 at 5:22 am
The ocean then acts as a giant capacitor storing this energy during La Niña and discharging it during El Niño.
The problem is as I understand it, the radiation flux is more or less constant with minimum variation, whereas the dynamics of El Niño and La Niña are pretty huge in comparison. How come?
Do we need small changes in the radiation to be somehow magnified on Earth by an unknown mechanism? I don’t think so. There are many examples in nature with a pretty constant flow of energy along or through a surface, between say two media, like air and water, or water and sand, resulting in a wave pattern.
Can you say ENSO basically is a temperature wave pattern you may expect from fluid dynamics, just on a bigger scale? A giant capacitor producing giant waves?
If so, I would expect variation in radiation to affect mainly the amplitude of ENSO, and less the frequency. Just some intuition.
Myrrh says: May 13, 2012 at 6:48 am
Thank you for that fascinating information. I would like to add the Anasazi Droughts: http://www.learner.org/interactives/collapse/chacocanyon.html
Another article: http://www.cliffdwellingsmuseum.com/anasazi/digging-deeper-into-the-anasazi/major-anasazi-region-and-sites
There was also the devastating drought in the USA called the “Dust Bowl” and that was not they only one. See: North American Drought: A Paleo Perspective for the more recent droughts.
EEB says:
May 13, 2012 at 8:59 am
Hey, wait a minute. I thought we were supposed to be clinging to clouds.
_______________________________
Climate is a complicated system with a lot of factors such as the sun, clouds albedo, oceans… That is why CO2 as the “Control Knob” is so laughable. We barely have touched on SOME, not all of the influences. The “Debate is settled”? – not even close. We are still at the stage of trying to identify all the possible factors. Until that is done you can not get anywhere close to an all inclusive theory on how climate works.
Why is this watermelon wringing his hands over “having a debate about climate change”. I thought his position was that no debate is needed and the science is settled?
I’ve been hooked on negative feedbacks for the last couple of years. I read the Hansen piece where he sees the sea rising 50 feet if we exploit the tarsands and oil shales. This would flood half the customers for this ‘dirty energy’, likely many powerplants, all the maritime shipping infrastructure. Now there’s a negative feedback!
Richard M says:
May 13, 2012 at 8:14 am
I’ll have to echo the concern that ENSO may be nothing more than an effect. Bob has done an outstanding job of showing the correlation between temperature increases and ENSO. However, correlation is not enough and we probably don’t have enough data at this time (need another 30 years at least).
For example, take my somewhat imaginary conjecture that Arctic warming could be the cause of recent increases in temperature. This would slow the flow of heat from the equator to the Arctic. The slowdown could lead to reduced cooling during La Niña and cause the next El Niño to produce a step change upwards. Seems to fit the data that Bob has provided, but is based on a different cause.
Just saying, we need to be skeptical of all ideas.
Of course ENSO is an effect – the effects of solar radiation modulated by clouds, winds modulated by solar radiation and air temperature and possibly changes in angular momentum (length of day changes) all drive ENSO. Then ENSO by releasing warm moist air into the lower atmosphere (El Nino) modulates the clouds and the winds that modulate ENSO. Its a ‘strange loop’.
But that is what a chaotic system of chaotic systems with multiple positive and negative feedback loops looks like. You cannot point at ONE aspect and claim that it is ‘the controlling aspect’. With one exception, the Sun, which is external to the chaotic system of chaotic systems that is the climate. However, the Sun itself is chaotic and has cyclic changes that may be caused by all sorts of other external inputs. Also although it is very slow to change – the Earth’s orbit around the Sun is also chaotic influenced by the other planets. These two mechanisms (and others) modulate the solar radiation in ways that are just being understood.
What we can say is that the Earth ocean and atmosphere has been considerably different in make up with larger amounts of carbon dioxide and methane and oxygen and various forms of life – yet the ‘climate’ has stayed within the ‘Goldilocks’ zone of just right; often on the cooler side sometimes warmer. This means that the chaotic system of chaotic systems is homeostatic – or in chaos terms – the strange attractors in the chaotic systems of which the climate is comprised, tend to keep Earth’s climate in that Goldilocks zone. Or we would not be here.
It is good to be skeptical – but it is better to be informed and skeptical
joeldshore says:
May 12, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Jimbo says:
Can you please write a letter off to the IPCC and ask them nicely to STOP USING NON-PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE when compiling it so called reports.
Since the topic here is material that make up the IPCC Working Group I report (“The Scientific Basis”), the issue of whether there was some use of non-peer-reviewed work for the subjects covered by Working Group II and III on impacts, mitigation, etc. isn’t really relevant.
I think things like Bob Tisdale’s letter here make nice exhibits as to why the “AGW skeptic” community is not going to be taken seriously by the scientific community. If you are seriously interested in influencing scientific opinion, you would not be doing such things. Are you guys really unable to recognize this?!?
============================================================
Soooo …. scientific input from scientist doesn’t influence the IPCC. OK. I got it!
Bob, re changing the title, it would be a good idea- it is too long and it is clearly aimed at the converted. Try: “Getting a Handle on AGW Theory” or “AGW, what the models are telling us” or “AGW- The Facts” Note Mann’s title: Hockey Stick……The Climate Wars. An interesting title at least.
Gail Combs says:
May 13, 2012 at 7:47 am
They hide behind their foot troops like Joel Shore. Do you not understand? A CONSENSUS was reached and the DEBATE IS OVER, the only question left is how are we going to destroy western civilization, that CO2 belching monstrosity, and how fast.
Bussiness Insider International: The Inside Story Of Germany’s Incredible Green Power Revolution (Worth a read for the pro-green side of the story)
=========================================================
Some have been trying to destroy or revamp western civilization for decades. Since Rachael Carson the lever used more and more is “The Environment”. They keep throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. (Whatever happened to the ozone hole?) A lot of us “Joe Sixpacks” may be ignorant of the details but we’re not dumb. (Gail, my name’s not “Joe”. 😎
joeldshore says:
“I think things like Bob Tisdale’s letter here make nice exhibits as to why the “AGW skeptic” community is not going to be taken seriously by the scientific community.”
Oh, but we are, as your comment proves. The Climategate emails are full of comments referring to scientific skeptics. Your boys are on the run, and if it were not for the immense piles of money supporting the climate scare, you would have collapsed by now.
Gail Combs says:
May 13, 2012 at 5:22 am
Ian W says: @ May 12, 2012 at 4:23 pm
…..And others – infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few microns into the water surface. Any warming it does create merely results in surface water molecules evaporating and taking the latent heat of evaporation with them. However, the higher frequencies in sunlight, visible light and ultraviolet, do penetrate deeper into the ocean and heat it. But after a few hundred meters even that light is greatly attenuated…..
________________________
Here are the graphs that go with your information.
=========
The problem is that water is transparent to visible light.., it is not absorbed but gets transmitted through. The shortwaves this AGW energy budget claims heat the oceans, is physical nonsense.
The direct heat from the Sun, longwave infrared aka thermal infrared, is the heat direct from the Sun we feel heating us up, which it does because it penetrates into us several inches and heats the water in us.. And this can’t get through the surface tension of the ocean..?
This comic cartoon energy budget says that this, the direct heat from the Sun which is the thermal, meaning heat, energy of the Sun on the move to us, does not reach the surface and plays no part in heating Earth’s land and oceans… Until this is understood, just how utterly ludicrous this is, any ‘analyses’ made are going to be gibberish.
NASA used to teach this, that the heat we feel direct from the Sun is longwave infrared, (it’s invisible), but now it teaches the AGWScience Fiction meme that this doesn’t reach the surface.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/spencer-and-braswell-on-slashdot/#comment-711614
Near infrared isn’t hot – we can’t feel it, it does not warm us up, neither is visible nor uv hot – these are not thermal energies, they are light, not heat.
I’m not going to get into more arguments about light…, but, until it is recognised how ludicrous it is that the direct great actual thermal energy of the Sun has been taken out of this budget then those saying shortwave in longwave out have also to prove that visible and the shortwaves either side can do what they claim…
Thermal infrared direct from the Sun, which is physically capable of heating land and oceans and which does actually heat land and oceans, is missing..
I’ve been struck by how little this has bothered those sceptics using the AGW greenhouse cartoon…
Gail Combs says:
May 13, 2012 at 9:19 am
EEB says:
May 13, 2012 at 8:59 am
Hey, wait a minute. I thought we were supposed to be clinging to clouds.
_______________________________
Climate is a complicated system with a lot of factors such as the sun, clouds albedo, oceans… That is why CO2 as the “Control Knob” is so laughable. We barely have touched on SOME, not all of the influences. The “Debate is settled”? – not even close. We are still at the stage of trying to identify all the possible factors. Until that is done you can not get anywhere close to an all inclusive theory on how climate works.
===========================================================
One of my “Now, wait a minute!” moments when I first heard the AGW line is along the lines of waht Gail is talking about. (My first one enters “snippable” teritory.) Local weather forecasters have problems going more than 10 days out because there are so many real and measurable factors that influence the weather. How will they all interact 20 days out? No one can say for sure. Yet these guys are making a “weather forcast” going out to 100 years?! Nonsense. Throw Al “There’s no controlling legal authority” Gore into the mix and it’s obvious there’s something more going on.
Gail Combs says:
May 13, 2012 at 9:14 am
Myrrh says: May 13, 2012 at 6:48 am
Thank you for that fascinating information. I would like to add the Anasazi Droughts: http://www.learner.org/interactives/collapse/chacocanyon.html
..Why would the Anasazi leave — potentially for good — pueblos it had taken them decades to construct? Scientists have found one possible answer by looking at tree rings (a study called dendrochronology) in the Sand Canyon area. In the period between A.D. 1125 and 1180, very little rain fell in the region. After 1180, rainfall briefly returned to normal. From 1270 to 1274 there was another long drought, followed by another period of normal rainfall. In 1275, yet another drought began. This one lasted 14 years….
====
Glad you enjoyed it – I was really impressed too by Gill’s dogged determination to work this out, a blast from the past watching him go through thousands of numbers in over a thousand pages of hard copy..
There’s a Greenland graph on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland which does show two distinct cooling dips during the first period, I think it could match by dates, but not sure. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Grtemp.png
The second period beginning in 1270 looks like part of the downward dip into colder which bottomed out in the mid 14th.
Most of this discussion is way above my pay grade.., but it looks like that high pressure system moving from cold in northern Europe could be the link for all these?
Gail Combs says:
May 13, 2012 at 8:19 am
“ENSO is a modifier or as I said above a sort of capacitor. The oceans STORE HEAT and RELEASE HEAT later.”
AGW is concerned with what “charges” the capacitor.
“There are plenty of other examples of the oceans’ influence on temperature.”
Influence on the temperature of what? You may be correct that AMO can influence the temperature of your state on certain time scales. However, AGW is concerned with influences on global mean temperature, not North Carolina. JP
Myrrh wrote: The problem is that water is transparent to visible light.., it is not absorbed but gets transmitted through. The shortwaves this AGW energy budget claims heat the oceans, is physical nonsense.
That’s why it’s so bright at the bottom of the ocean. But seriously, let’s just say that when any EM radiation is absorbed by a molecule and is not re-emitted by fluorescence or phosphorescence, then the energy of the photon will be redistributed at lower and lower wavelengths. It doesn’t take long (actually it’s quick) before those wavelengths are on the order of molecular vibrations.
Gunga Din says:
Read and learn: http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/weather-prediction-climate-prediction-what%E2%80%99s-diff
Smokey says:
I don’t see any concerns expressed in the Climategate emails that the AGW “skeptics” are going to win the argument in the scientific community. The concerns are the effect that they are having regarding the communication of the science to the larger public. That is very different.
It is, by the way, the very same kind of concern that one sees biologists having in regards to the evolution / intelligent design discussions.
atarsinc says: “AGW is concerned with what ‘charges’ the capacitor.”
AGW is NOT concerned about what charges the capacitor. If it was, climate models would be able to simulate ENSO, but they cannot.
The “capacitor” is charged by downward shortwave radiation (visible sunlight), not downward longwave radiation from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. This can be seen best in the tropical Pacific Ocean Heat Content data:
http://i46.tinypic.com/5ey39x.jpg
The significant rises in Tropical Pacific Ocean Heat Content occur during and are caused by the La Niña events of 1973/74/75/76, 1995/96, and 1998/99/00/01. Why? Stronger than normal trade winds are associated with La Niña events; the stronger trade winds reduce cloud cover, which allows more visible sunlight to warm the tropical Pacific to depth. Notice that between the upward surge in the mid-to-late 1970s, tropical Pacific Ocean Heat content declined steadily, and it wasn’t until the 1995/96 La Niña that it rose again. It’s now declining again.
Gail Combs says: @ May 13, 2012 at 8:19 am
“There are plenty of other examples of the oceans’ influence on temperature.”
————–
atarsinc says: @ May 13, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Influence on the temperature of what? You may be correct that AMO can influence the temperature of your state on certain time scales. However, AGW is concerned with influences on global mean temperature, not North Carolina. JP
____________________________________
The oceans are 70% of the surface of the earth. They influence the temperature of the coast at the very minimum. That bring the oceans’ influence up to somewhere around 75% of the global mean temperature at least.
GOTTCHA!
joeldshore: This post was not written for the scientific community. It was written for the visitors to my blog and to WUWT (assuming that Anthony would cross post it here). The vast majority of the readers here and there do not have technical backgrounds.
Juice says:
May 13, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Myrrh wrote: The problem is that water is transparent to visible light.., it is not absorbed but gets transmitted through. The shortwaves this AGW energy budget claims heat the oceans, is physical nonsense.
That’s why it’s so bright at the bottom of the ocean. But seriously, let’s just say that when any EM radiation is absorbed by a molecule and is not re-emitted by fluorescence or phosphorescence, then the energy of the photon will be redistributed at lower and lower wavelengths. It doesn’t take long (actually it’s quick) before those wavelengths are on the order of molecular vibrations.
================
Water, is a transparent medium for visible light. Transparent means that it is not absorbed. It is not absorbed but transmitted through. Transmitted through because it is not absorbed.
Transmitted through – which is what AGW energy budget cartoon says visible light is in the atmosphere – but – the atmosphere is not transparent to visible light in the real world, the electrons of the molecules of oxygen and nitrogen absorb visible light, and bounce it back out – blue being more energetic gets bounced around more, hence our blue sky.
Visible light works on the electronic transition scale, not molecular vibrational.
Visible light is tiny. The electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen bounce it around and so it isn’t powerful enough to bounce around the molecules., and it’s pretty much useless even when captured in photovoltaic cells to make electricity…
But, water is really transparent to visible light, the electrons of the molecules of water do not absorb visible light, but transmit it through without being absorbed. Transmitted is a technical term in optics. And, visible light does not have the power – as from the Sun – don’t confuse yourself with lasers here, the Sun isn’t a laser, visible light does not have the power to move the whole molecule of water into vibration which is what it takes to heat it up. So, it doesn’t heat the oceans.
But – where is the missing heat in the energy budget? Why have you taken out the real heat direct from the Sun?
Thermal infrared does have the power to heat water, it moves the molecules into vibrational states. Just as when you rub your hands together the mechanical energy you are using moves the molecules in your skin into vibrational states, and heats the skin up. visible light from the Sun can’t do this – it doesn’t heat matter, heat direct from the Sun can and does.
The pavement gets hot because the invisible heat, thermal infrared, direct from the Sun heats it up. Why isn’t it in your energy budget? Because you’ve called it ‘backradiation’?
The heat we feel direct from the Sun is the actual Sun’s heat that is radiating out to us, the invisible thermal infrared. Just as the heat you feel from a fire or from a hot pavement is actual heat radiating out to us.
That’s not visible light or uv or near infrared radiating out from a hot pavement, but thermal infrared, longwave. Why isn’t this direct heat from the Sun in the energy budget?
I find it astonishing that you don’t use this in your arguments with Hansen and Mann and Trenberth…
Myrrh says:
May 13, 2012 at 11:27 am
Gail Combs says:
May 13, 2012 at 5:22 am
Ian W says: @ May 12, 2012 at 4:23 pm
…..And others – infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few microns into the water surface. Any warming it does create merely results in surface water molecules evaporating and taking the latent heat of evaporation with them. However, the higher frequencies in sunlight, visible light and ultraviolet, do penetrate deeper into the ocean and heat it. But after a few hundred meters even that light is greatly attenuated…..
________________________
Here are the graphs that go with your information.
=========
The problem is that water is transparent to visible light.., it is not absorbed but gets transmitted through. The shortwaves this AGW energy budget claims heat the oceans, is physical nonsense.
If water is “transparent to visible light” have you never wondered why it is so very dark at depths in the ocean? After all if you are correct it should literally be as bright as day. .
The short wave light that penetrates the ocean slowly attenuates and impinges on all sorts of matter in the ocean some live some not – sea water is not distilled water. Energy cannot ‘disappear’ so as with most energy the light energy becomes heat.
Juice says:
May 13, 2012 at 1:23 pm
That’s why it’s so bright at the bottom of the ocean.
http://www.pasco.com/earth/experiments/online/turbidity-trouble.cfm
“Imagine being in a boat on a sunny day, heading out onto a lake. The clearer the water, the more sunlight can penetrate the surface, and the deeper you can see. If the water is cloudy because of solid particles floating in it, less light can pass through it, and an object submerged beneath the surface will soon be invisible from the boat. Turbidity is a measure of this cloudiness. It is measured in units called NTU’s (nephelometric turbidity units), based on how light is scattered by the particles suspended in the water.”
Ian W says:
May 13, 2012 at 4:03 pm
If water is “transparent to visible light” have you never wondered why it is so very dark at depths in the ocean? After all if you are correct it should literally be as bright as day. .
I’ve just posted on turbidy. But please, think about this. It is actual real world physics that water is a transparent medium for visible light. Molecules of water do not absorb visible light on the electronic transition level because the electrons of the molecules of water do not absorb it, and, visible light is not POWERFUL enough to move the atoms and molecules into vibrational states – which is how something is heated up. Heat heats things up. Something a little over absolute zero is not hot! The electronic transition level is the level on which the tiny visible light operates, not on the molecular/atomic vibrational level.*
Why do y’all have such a problem with this? You know what heat is, you can feel it! It is the invisible thermal infrared that you are feeling! It is heating you up. Visible light can’t do this.
You’re, all generic, just repeating meaningless memes which tell us nothing about heat or the process of heat transfer.
Take an ordinary incandescent light bulb. 95% of the energy given off is invisible heat, only 5% visible light. The invisible heat given off is thermal infrared. You can feel that as heat because it is heating you up.
http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynamics/f/heattransfer.htm
“Forms of Heat Transfer
Under the kinetic theory, the internal energy of a substance is generated from the motion of individual atoms or molecules. Heat energy is the form of energy which transfers this energy from one body or system to another. This heat transfer can take place in a number of ways:
•Conduction is when heat flows through a heated solid.
•Convection is when heated particles transfer heat to another substance, such as cooking something in boiling water.
•Radiation is when heat is transferred through electromagnetic waves, such as from the sun. Radiation can transfer heat through empty space, while the other two methods require some form of matter-on-matter contact for the transfer.”
There is one very important fact you also have to know about water, it has a very high heat capacity, this means that it can absorb vastly greater amounts of heat direct from the Sun without showing a change in temperature. It takes longer to heat up and so, longer to cool down.
But anyway, it’s heated by its molecules being put into the vibrational state, visible light direct from the Sun cannot do this. Can not do this.
You cannot feel visible light, it is not hot, it is not heating you up. You cannot feel near infrared, it is not hot, it is not heating you up.
NASA:
This is what NASA used to teach kids, real physics for real children. AGWScience Fiction is imaginary fisics for virtual reality children. This is simply bog standard physics knowledge, as still understood by real scientists and used in countless applications in the real world.
If you take the thermal infrared heat energy out of an incandescent lightbulb, you can use the visible energy, light, to enable the chemical energy conversion in photosynthesis as used in countless greenhouses around the world; chemical conversion to sugars, not conversion to heat. Those now taught this AGWScience Fiction fisics would cook their plants..
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_and_translucency for a closer look at the difference
between heat and light on electron and atomic/molecular levels.
http://thermalenergy.org/
“What is thermal energy ?
Thermal Energy: A specialized term that refers to the part of the internal energy of a system which is the total present kinetic energy resulting from the random movements of atoms and molecules.
The ultimate source of thermal energy available to mankind is the sun, the huge thermo-nuclear furnace that supplies the earth with the heat and light that are essential to life. The nuclear fusion in the sun increases the sun’s thermal energy. Once the thermal energy leaves the sun (in the form of radiation) it is called heat. Heat is thermal energy in transfer. Thermal energy is part of the overall internal energy of a system.
At a more basic level, thermal energy comes from the movement of atoms and molecules in matter. It is a form of kinetic energy produced from the random movements of those molecules.”
http://thermalenergy.org/heattransfer.php
“Thermal energy and heat are often confused. Rightly so because they are physically the same thing. Heat is always the thermal energy of some system. Using the word heat helps physicists to make a distinction relative to the system they are talking about.”
It’s all heat. When it stops being heat it stops being thermal infrared…
There is a huge amount of heat direct from the Sun reaching us on the surface of the EArth and heating us up…
It’s missing…, what have you done with it?
joeldshore says:
“I don’t see any concerns expressed in the Climategate emails that the AGW ‘skeptics’ are going to win the argument in the scientific community.”
Then your reading comprehension sucks. There are numerous emails strategizing about how to deny skeptics [or anyone else who disagrees with the clique] a voice. Their shenanigans are found thoughout the two email dumps. Sad to say, Mann and his ilk have been largely successful in corrupting many of the journals, which are now his tame pets. But the general public is becoming aware of the fact that every wild-eyed prediction of doom from Hansen and his gang that the avergge Joe is becoming jaded.
As for your hogwash trying to compare intelligent design folks with skeptics, that is, well, hogwash. Creationists believe in something. CO2=CAGW believers like yourself believe in something. But there is no evidence supporting either belief. Both are faith-based. On the other hand, scientific skeptics/climate realists are simply saying: Prove it! Or at least provide convincing, empirical, testable evidence per the scientific method showing that human CO2 emissions have unequivacally raised global temperatures, and show the specific fraction of the otherwise natural temperature rise that is due to human activity. Be prepared to back your assertions with convincing scientific evidence.
Your problem is that there is no such evidence. If there were, the question of the climate’s sensitivity to 2xCO2 would be known and agreed upon. But it is not known any closer than a SWAG, which ranges from the IPCC’s preposterous 3+ºC, down to Lindzen’s ≈ ±1ºC, down to Spencer’s ≤ 0.5ºC, down to the Idsos” < 0.5ºC, and finally, down to Miskolczi's 0.0ºC. And they all know more about it than you and the IPCC combined.
Smokey says:
Ah, yes, the journals have been corrupted? Where have we heard those sorts of excuses before. Oh, here’s an example: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1163
What those e-mails express is a concern that crappy papers will get into the journals and then these crappy papers will be trumpeted by the ideological echo chamber as evidence that there is serious scientific debate in the literature. There is no evidence whatsoever that they are concerned that the scientific community will be swayed by these poor papers; the concern is how these papers will be used to hoodwink the public. There is even discussion in the e-mails about how the system is being gamed in this way.
That is why the Climategate e-mails have for the most part provoked a collective yawn in the scientific community. But, again, this is clearly not the audience that the AGW “skeptic” crowd is making any serious attempt to win over, which is more evidence of how weak their scientific arguments are that they spend nearly all their time peddling nonsense to the public and almost no time trying to make serious arguments to the scientific community.
joeldshore says:
May 13, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Gunga Din says:
Local weather forecasters have problems going more than 10 days out because there are so many real and measurable factors that influence the weather. How will they all interact 20 days out? No one can say for sure. Yet these guys are making a “weather forcast” going out to 100 years?! Nonsense.
—————————————————————————————————
Read and learn: http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/weather-prediction-climate-prediction-what%E2%80%99s-diff
=============================================================
Perhaps I should have said, “Yet these guys are making a GLOBAL “weather forecast” going out to 100 years?! Nonsense.”
Plug in “climate prediction” for “weather forecast” if you like. There are more variables affecting climate than any computer on Earth can process to produce a 100 year prediction worth betting a few trillion dollars on … whether the data has been mannipulated or not.
Here’s Joel Shore again with his ‘ideology’ comment, which shows us where he’s coming from. It’s all ‘ideology’ to Joel Shore, because he has zero evidence supporting his CO2=CAGW conjecture. Notice how he completely sidesteps the issue of scientific skepticism, versus his personal version of Creationism? Not one word about the scientists I cited, who all contradict Joel Shore’s anti-science belief system. To Joel, it’s all ‘ideology’.
Earth to Joel: skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is completely on Joel’s climate alarmist crowd to show us convincingly that human emitted CO2 is causing runaway global warming. But Joel Shore and his gang have failed miserably. There is no evidence to support his fantasy beliefs. So Joel hides behind his ‘ideology’.
As I’ve pointed out many times before, if it were not for psychological projection folks like Joel Shore would not have much to say. And the simple fact that Joel Shore, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and all the rest of the purveyors of CO2 globaloney run away from any public, moderated debate, tells us all we need to know about their pseudo-scientific horse manure. If they believed what they’re shoveling, they wouldn’t be so afraid to defend it in public. They would be in our faces, showing us the evidence that CO2 causes runaway global warming [when the truth is that rising CO2 is largely the result of global warming]. Instead they hide out, all of them, scientific charlatans that they are, petrified of defending their ideas in a public debate. Cowardly money-grubbers all.
joeldshore says:
May 13, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Gleick! Set! Match!
Gunga Din: The point is that there is a very specific reason involving the type of mathematical problem it is as to why weather forecasts diverge from reality. And, the same does not apply to predicting the future climate in response to changes in forcings. It does not mean such predictions are easy or not without significant uncertainties, but the uncertainties are of a different and less severe type than you face in the weather case.
As for me, I would rather hedge my bets on the idea that most of the scientists are right than make a bet that most of the scientists are wrong and a very few scientists plus lots of the ideologues at Heartland and other think-tanks are right…But, then, that is because I trust the scientific process more than I trust right-wing ideological extremism to provide the best scientific information.
Myrrh,
Even if the ocean were 100% pure water, the bottom of the ocean would still be dark. Water is not 100% transparent to visible light. Check out the graph on this page:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/watabs.html
It shows a window of transparency around the visible range, but it doesn’t go to zero. Yes, absorption of visible light causes electronic transitions, but the energy has to go somewhere. If it isn’t emitted by fluorescence or phosphorescence (or isomerization or fragmentation), the energy is redistributed into vibrational modes (heat).
BTW, when it says there is no physical mechanism that produces transitions in that region, that’s not entirely true. Why doesn’t it go to zero in the spectrum there? Because they are “forbidden” transitions and “forbidden” are only nominally forbidden. They just happen much more rarely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_mechanism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/lectures/node124.html
I see that Joel Shore is now up to two ‘ideologue’ comments in his latest post. In Joel’s mind that takes the place of science. I recommend Scientology as the perfect faith for Joel: part politics and part pseudo-science. Perfect fit.☺
joeldshore says:
May 13, 2012 at 6:10 pm
The point is that there is a very specific reason involving the type of mathematical problem it is as to why weather forecasts diverge from reality. And, the same does not apply to predicting the future climate in response to changes in forcings. It does not mean such predictions are easy or not without significant uncertainties, but the uncertainties are of a different and less severe type than you face in the weather case.
What a joke. The truth is we understand weather far better than climate. We get to see it operate every day. It doesn’t take 30-60 years for a small change to become apparent. When you can test ideas on a daily basis it really does help with understanding. The fact you appear to be oblivious to something so obvious certainly is very telling.
It’s very likely we don’t even know many of the factors affecting climate and yet you want us all to believe it’s easier. You really should consider a job as a stand-up comedian.
Bob Tisdale, on May 13, 2012 at 2:56 pm, said; “…the stronger trade winds reduce cloud cover….”
Are you suggesting that net global cloud cover is reduced by increased trade winds in the Tropical Pacific? If so, upon what research do you base that claim? Do El Nino events similarly increase cloud cover?
You say, “AGW is NOT concerned about what charges the capacitor. If it was, climate models would be able to simulate ENSO, but they cannot.”
Why? ENSO is a regional oscillation. AGW is concerned with the radiative budget of the global system. AGW is not a hypothesis intended to describe ocean oscillations in the tropical Pacific. Because the linkage(s) between the two phenomena (if indeed there are any); may not, as of yet, be clear; that is no reason to assume that none exist. Nor is it a reason to throw out a Global Theory that has in no way been shown to be dependent on a regional mechanism.
Kudos for recognizing that, for ENSO to effect global mean temperature, there must be a concomitant radiative forcing mechanism; such as the reduction in low clouds that you suggested. If you have multiple lines of strong evidence for that process, and you can quantify it’s impact on Earth’s energy budget; you will be onto something important. Do you? JP
At 8:19 AM, Gail Combs said, “GOTTCHA”.
I didn’t know we were playing “GOTTCHA”. See my reply to Bob a few minutes ago. At least he understands what we’re talking about. JP
Hey, Joel I can predict the future climate too, and I do not even need a mega-buck computer. The general trend in temperature will be gradually down until there is a sudden switch to the next glaciation phase. http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/GerardWeb/Publications_files/Roe_Milankovitch_GRL06.pdf
atarsinc says:
May 13, 2012 at 9:04 pm
Bob Tisdale, on May 13, 2012 at 2:56 pm, said; “…the stronger trade winds reduce cloud cover….”
There is some data on clouds
Earthshine: http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
Clouds Dominate CO2 as a Climate Driver Since 2000: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/clouds-dominate-co2-as-a-climate-driver-since-2000/
A Primer on Our Claim that Clouds Cause Temperature Change: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/a-primer-on-our-claim-that-clouds-cause-temperature-change/
Spencer’s posited 1-2% cloud cover variation found: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/04/spencers-posited-1-2-cloud-cover-variation-found/
Table of Contents for Category Clouds in Watts Up With That: http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cat_clouds.html
joeldshore says:
May 13, 2012 at 5:31 pm
……Ah, yes, the journals have been corrupted? ……
_______________________________________
Sorry Joel but I would take the word of a reputable scientist over yours.
Gail, Spencer and Choi. That’s your multiple lines of strong evidence for a net Global reduction in low clouds due to ENSO? Call me skeptical. JP
Bob said:
“the stronger trade winds reduce cloud cover, which allows more visible sunlight to warm the tropical Pacific to depth”
What causes the stronger Trade Winds ?
The Trade Winds are intimately connected to the entire global air circulation system.
I suggest that they become stronger when the subtropical high pressure cells intensify, expand and push poleward.
It is the intensifying subtropical high pressure cells expanding which results in dissipating clouds and greater sunlight into the oceans beneath them.
Those high pressure cells are regions of descending air which warms adiabatically as it descends. That adiabatic warming over larger regions is what dissipates the clouds and not the stronger Trade Winds in themselves although the process is accompanied by stronger Trade Winds.
The expansion and contraction of the subtropical high pressure cells is affected by the rate of uplift / descent (and surface extent) of air within the polar air masses and that appears to be affected by solar activity.
When the sun is active the air over the poles rises more rapidly or descends more slowly (in the troposphere) but contracts horizontally with the air circulation patterns shifting poleward and the equatorial air masses expanding. The increased uplift / decreased descent of air over the poles increases the intensity of the downward air flows in the subtropics to feed the expanding high pressure cells.
The opposite when the sun is less active.
Which why we see a more zonal global air circulation when the sun is active and a more meridional circulation when the sun is less active.
ENSO and all the other ocean cycles serve to erratically modulate the solar effect to some extent over distance and time by itself affecting the size of the equatorial air masses from below but over multidecadal timescales upward the solar effect becomes dominant.
Juice says:
May 13, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Myrrh,
Even if the ocean were 100% pure water, the bottom of the ocean would still be dark. Water is not 100% transparent to visible light. Check out the graph on this page:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/watabs.html
It shows a window of transparency around the visible range, but it doesn’t go to zero. Yes, absorption of visible light causes electronic transitions, but the energy has to go somewhere. If it isn’t emitted by fluorescence or phosphorescence (or isomerization or fragmentation), the energy is redistributed into vibrational modes (heat). etc.
Oh puleese.. You are claiming that the actual main and only energy direct from the Sun physically heating all land and ocean is shortwave! You are claiming that the actual real heat direct from the Sun has nothing to do with heating the Earth!
Shortwave can’t do this. Can’t.
Physically can’t.
It’s just, well, totally stupid.
In the real world.
The question still is: Why have you excluded the real heat direct from the Sun?
What is it with you, generic, that you can’t even get your heads around the fact that you’re using an energy budget which is missing the Sun’s direct thermal energy which does actually heat things up?
atarsinc says: “Are you suggesting that net global cloud cover is reduced by increased trade winds in the Tropical Pacific? If so, upon what research do you base that claim? Do El Nino events similarly increase cloud cover?”
Why are you asking questions about global cloud cover? My comment about tropical Pacific Ocean Heat Content pertained to your “capacitor” comment, not the globe. The “capacitor” is represented by the ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific. I was discussing the cloud cover of the tropical Pacific.
The paper you’re looking for is Pavlakis et al (2008) ENSO Surface Shortwave Radiation Forcing over the Tropical Pacific. There may be others as well.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/6697/2008/acpd-8-6697-2008-print.pdf
A summary of it: El Niño events increase tropical Pacific cloud cover, but the tropical Pacific is releasing heat through evaporation at that time and causing the increase in cloud cover there. During the recharge mode, the La Niña phase, trade winds increase in strength and decrease cloud cover. The reduction in cloud cover allows more downward shortwave radiation to warm the tropical Pacific to depth, recharging the ocean heat content for the next El Niño. These are well-studied, well-know processes. ENSO basics. Climate models, upon which rests the AGW hypothesis, are not able to simulate the rates at which the tropical Pacific releases heat, redistributes it, recharges it and creates it in areas remote to the tropical Pacific. They, therefore, do not include a natural process that is capable of changing global surface temperatures over multidecadal periods.
atarsinc says: “Why? ENSO is a regional oscillation.”
ENSO is a mode of natural variability, the origin of which is the tropical Pacific. But keep in mind the tropical Pacific stretches almost halfway around the globe. ENSO impacts global surface temperature and precipitation and ocean heat content through teleconnections on annual and multidecadal timescales.
atarsinc says: “AGW is concerned with the radiative budget of the global system.”
If that was true, it would not be called anthropogenic global warming, with the operative word being warming. If your statement was correct, then your beloved AGW hypothesis would be called AGRB for Anthropogenic Global Radiative Budget. The AGW hypothesis simply assumes that radiative imbalance is responsible for the rise in global surface temperatures. Bad assumption.
atarsinc says: “AGW is not a hypothesis intended to describe ocean oscillations in the tropical Pacific.”
Do you realize that your comment is a rewording of a paragraph in my post but with a different connotation? Here’s my paragraph again:
If climate models are not able to simulate ENSO, then they do not include a very basic process Mother Nature has devised to increase and slow the distribution of heat from the tropics to the poles. As a result, the climate models exclude the variations in the rates at which the tropical Pacific Ocean releases naturally created heat to the atmosphere and redistributes it within the oceans, and those climate models also exclude the varying rate at which ENSO is responsible through teleconnections for the warming in areas remote to the tropical Pacific.
atarsinc says: “Because the linkage(s) between the two phenomena (if indeed there are any); may not, as of yet, be clear; that is no reason to assume that none exist.”
I’ve already presented to you data that confirms there is no apparent impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on the recharge and discharge of tropical Pacific Ocean Heat Content. And in the post, I linked illustrations that showed the obvious impacts of ENSO on global sea surface temperatures, which most persons would consider as evidence that ENSO is in fact responsible for most, if not all, of the warming for the past 30 years. The fact that you fail to acknowledge them is telling. Sounds to me like you’re arguing for the sake of arguing.
atarsinc says: “Nor is it a reason to throw out a Global Theory that has in no way been shown to be dependent on a regional mechanism.”
AGW is a hypothesis, not a theory. The lack of skill the climate models show at being able to simulate the global surface temperatures of the 20th Century and the sea surface temperatures of the past 30 years are more than enough to throw out the hypothesis of AGW.
atarsinc says: “Kudos for recognizing that, for ENSO to effect global mean temperature, there must be a concomitant radiative forcing mechanism; such as the reduction in low clouds that you suggested. If you have multiple lines of strong evidence for that process, and you can quantify it’s impact on Earth’s energy budget; you will be onto something important. Do you?”
As noted in the post, I have presented the processes of ENSO using numerous datasets: sea surface temperature, sea level, ocean currents, ocean heat content, depth-averaged temperature, warm water volume, sea level pressure, cloud amount, precipitation, the strength and direction of the trade winds, etc. And since cloud amount for the tropical Pacific impacts downward shortwave radiation (visible light) there, I’ve presented and discussed that relationship as well. The data associated with those variables all confirm how the processes of ENSO work for my readers.
And I have presented the impacts of ENSO on the metric most used to describe global warming, which is global surface temperature. There are also a few posts that show the impact of ENSO on Lower Troposphere Temperature. If and when there are other measured global datasets of value available through the KNMI Climate Explorer, I will add them to my presentations.
Atarsinc, we’ve been presenting and discussing this topic for three years. Your unwarranted complaints are nothing new. We’ve answered them. You may not like the answers, but the computer model-based assumption that the rise in global surface temperatures can only be caused by greenhouse gases is fatally flawed.
BTW, JP, is atarsinc a new name for you or is this your first time commenting here at WattsUpWithThat?
Jack says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:24 am
Does anyone remember the person who created the Piltdown man hoax?
It was geologist Charles Dawson together with Jesuit Priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wot dunnit.
Stephen Wilde says: “What causes the stronger Trade Winds ?”
The greater pressure difference between the east and west tropical Pacific and the greater temperature difference between east and west. There’s lots of research on this, Stephen. Lots. Try Google Scholar. You may want to include Bjerknes feedback in your searches.
Bob said:
” El Niño events increase tropical Pacific cloud cover, but the tropical Pacific is releasing heat through evaporation at that time and causing the increase in cloud cover there. During the recharge mode, the La Niña phase, trade winds increase in strength and decrease cloud cover. The reduction in cloud cover allows more downward shortwave radiation to warm the tropical Pacific to depth, recharging the ocean heat content for the next El Niño.”
I think that so far as the Trade Winds are concerned that is only half the story.
The strength of the Trade Winds is also influenced by the rest of the global air circulation to the polewardin both hemispheres, not just by the current state of ENSO.
So, envisaging a La Nina event which strengthens the Trade Winds and decreases regional cloud cover to allow the recharge process to begin, what if the rest of the air circulation is interacting with the equatorial regions to further strengthen those winds ?
Such as a period of quiet sun.
The quiet sun pushes the air circulation pattern equatorward compressing the areas affected by the Trade Winds thus strengthening those winds. In the process, the equatorial air masses contract in width so that despite the reduction in cloudiness in the tropical regions there is more cloudiness elsewhere around the globe due to more meridional jets.
Also, the reduced width allows less energy into the oceans which partially offsets the gain in recharge effectiveness from the decreased regional cloudiness.
So there we have a mechanism whereby a quiet sun could reduce the effectiveness of the recharge process as against a time when there is an active sun.
That would skew the ENSO energy balance towards stronger El Ninos when the sun is active (more effective recharge from wider equatorial air masses) and towards weaker El Ninos when the sun is less active (reduced recharge from narrower equatorial air masses).
Thus giving upward tropospheric temperature stepping on each successive positive phase of the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation from LIA to date and likely downward stepping from MWP to LIA on each successive negative phase of the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation in line with millennial solar cycling as observed.
atarsinc says:
May 13, 2012 at 11:40 pm
Gail, Spencer and Choi. That’s your multiple lines of strong evidence for a net Global reduction in low clouds due to ENSO? Call me skeptical. JP
__________________________
Fine You can go do your own search. You can start by looking for the paper mentioned here…. I do not book mark every single article or paper I read.
However since your mind is already made up I expect you will, instead just try to convert people to your religion.
Bob said, in relation to the cause of the Trade Wind variations:
“The greater pressure difference between the east and west tropical Pacific and the greater temperature difference between east and west”
Not good enough. The pressure differences are not simply a result of sea surface temperatures. In fact the temperature differences could in part be a consequence of the pressure differences.
One has to consider the entire global air circulation system.
For more detail see my post at:
Stephen Wilde says:
May 14, 2012 at 4:41 am
I don’t want to sound critical
– most least of all towards Bob, who I think has done a very great job –
but I think you are all missing an important point.
I found that global warming was brought on by increased maxima
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
and I find that now that maxima are dropping we will experience some cooling.
http://letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
I also notice that global %RH is dropping, as reported by me and others.
That makes sense (to me): cooler air can hold less water vapor.
Although the water vapor dropping our of the atmosphere initially may give some heat, less water vapor in the atmosphere eventually will cause accelerated cooling.
So all the ideas of more cloud formation or more clouds and stuff causing “cooling”, I have to put aside at the moment. More cloudiness would put more %RH into the air and that is not happening, apparently.
My results are simply saying that the sun is giving off less warmth or some radiation is bending off a bit, for whatever reason. Personally I think the climate is more or less on this curve:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
Study this curve carefully and you will see that after 1994 temps went down (negative/decline) as correctly predicted by me whereas the green line from the IPCC still wants us to believe that it goes the other way (positive/incline). If the Orssengo curve is correct we will drop a total of about 0.3 or 0.4 degrees C before things turn up again beyond 2030.
Forget about UAH,GISS,HADCRUT, etc. Clearly: maxima is the variable to look at if you want to get early warming or cooling signs.
However, I think I am the only one plotting them…….
Stephen Wilde says:
May 13, 2012 at 11:56 pm
Bob said:
“the stronger trade winds reduce cloud cover, which allows more visible sunlight to warm the tropical Pacific to depth”
What causes the stronger Trade Winds ?
The Trade Winds are intimately connected to the entire global air circulation system.
I suggest that they become stronger when the subtropical high pressure cells intensify, expand and push poleward……
_____________________
Stephen, would that be connected to this from NASA and others? The first one sounds a bit like Willis’ Thermostat Hypothesis Paper & Further Evidence. SInce the following article even contains a computer model it should make atarsinc and Joel happy. (If it ain’t from a computer model it ain’t scientific data.)
HMMMMmmmm maybe Pesnell is correct and cycle 24 has peaked or is peaking and then we get a very long drawn out slide into the minimum as we did with cycle 23 only much longer.
And speaking of not understanding something.
Peer reviewed paper by Gérard Thuillier The PICARD mission
The New Scientist article goes on to say:
So Stephen, it looks like Lockwood agrees with you.
HenryP says: May 14, 2012 at 5:46 am
[..]
I also notice that global %RH is dropping, as reported by me and others.
That makes sense (to me): cooler air can hold less water vapor.
Although the water vapor dropping our of the atmosphere initially may give some heat, less water vapor in the atmosphere eventually will cause accelerated cooling.
So all the ideas of more cloud formation or more clouds and stuff causing “cooling”, I have to put aside at the moment. More cloudiness would put more %RH into the air and that is not happening, apparently.
Henry, I have the inkling that there is a balance between temperature, RH%, and cloud formation. Couldn’t a cooler atmosphere both condense and precipitate more quickly? Clouds would stay lower in the atmosphere, slowing heat transport out to space?
Myrrh says: @ May 14, 2012 at 12:14 am
….Shortwave can’t do this. Can’t…..
______________________
Myrrh, that puzzled me a bit too since my physics courses were more than forty year ago, so I asked my physicist husband and did a bit of looking on the internet.
The concept you are missing is that “Conservation of Energy” does not rule out the Transformation of Energy. For example when we burn wood by combining oxygen with hydrocarbons we get H2O +C + CO + CO2 + CO3 … and Heat and Light. We transformed the energy in a chemical bond into Heat and Light energy.
Same thing happens with short wavelengths of light. A photon can get absorbed and “broken-up” with some of it transformed into heat. Note how the shorter and more energetic the wavelength the deeper it can penetrate. BTW link
The only thing that physics says is that the incoming energy has to equal the out going energy plus any energy left with the atom/molecule after a collision.
Here is an article on the issue.
Hope that helps.
Thanks Gail.
I think I have successfully integrated a wide range of phenomena into a plausible scenario, Including ENSO and all the other ocean cycles the subject of this thread.
ENSO primarily governs tropospheric temperatures up to a decadal timescale but going multidecadal and centennial ENSO simply modulates the solar influence.
Steve Keohane says:
May 14, 2012 at 6:29 am
HenryP says: May 14, 2012 at 5:46 am
[..]
Henry, I have the inkling that there is a balance between temperature, RH%, and cloud formation. Couldn’t a cooler atmosphere both condense and precipitate more quickly? Clouds would stay lower in the atmosphere, slowing heat transport out to space?
_________________________
Steve, Henry, you might want to check out Willis Eschenbach’s paper:
The thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis: How clouds and thunderstorms control the Earth’s temperature.
published in E&E: http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/nm45w65nvnj3/?p=593f3e397da34c23b3806982df0b915e&pi=0
At WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/24/willis-publishes-his-thermostat-hypothesis-paper/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/07/further-evidence-for-my-thunderstorm-thermostat-hypothesis/
Stephen Wilde says:
May 14, 2012 at 6:41 am
Thanks Gail.
I think I have successfully integrated a wide range of phenomena into a plausible scenario…
_______________________
No problem. I think you and Bob and Willis and Dr. Spencer … are doing a great job of coming up with ideas and information backing them and then tossing your babies to the wolves to be torn to shreds. A fascinating study into how science works with “Crowd Sourced Peer review”
Well, from truly earth-wide (UAH satellite) month-to-month data, we see that worldwide temperatures actually do randomly and irregularly vary more than +0.2 deg to -0.2 degrees around [what everybody assumes] is a steady mean temperature. That is, knowing March’s worldwide average temperature to 0.01 degree, means that you can guarantee everybody what April’s worldwide average mean temperature will be …. within 0.2 degrees. Unless it changes by more than 0.4 degrees that particular month. 8<)
Or more accurately, there is a random variation of more than 0.2 degrees about what is apparently a mean earth temperature that itself cycles at either a 60 year 0.3 degree cycle on top of a longer 800-900 year [?????] peak-to-peak cycle with a 1.5 – 2.5 degree [?????]. Maybe.
Is it not a very, very telling sign of the corruption of the world’s temperature record and the dominance of today’s CAGW propaganda about CO2 that I cannot immediately and specifically tell you exactly WHEN the LIA and MWP and Roman Warm Period occurred, but that I cannot immediately tell you what their peak values were and how those peak temperatures are different from today’s Modern Warm Period? Have they been so thoroughly removed from the record, expunged from the climate textbooks and papers by Mann-made global warming that they do not exist in anything but the abstract?
So. Are we not looking for uniform cycles of uniform amounts in a real-world where actual temperature records vary monthly by more than the cycles’ peak-to-peak values?
How has the observed monthly variation in temperatures affected worldwide assumptions for ANY (and every ?) “proxy” used in re-creating the long-term temperature record, drought record, ice record, glacier extents record, CO2-glacier record?
Steve Keohane says
Couldn’t a cooler atmosphere both condense and precipitate more quickly? Clouds would stay lower in the atmosphere, slowing heat transport out to space?
Henry says
I still have to confirm this but I suspect that we are already 0.75 %RH lower on average, globally, since global cooling started in 1994. So there is less water vapor available to make clouds. The atmosphere cannot contain more water. That is the problem. Remember that although I doubt whether CO2 is a GHG we know for sure that water (clouds) and water vapor do trap heat. If there is less water vapor to make clouds and less water vapor as well then less heat gets trapped, of course. That is why I say: global cooling as exhibited in dropping maxima will accelerate a bit once it gets going – which is now.
My results seem to suggest that we could already be cooling by as much 0.1 degree K per annum. If true that could be horrendous. I think that the Orssengo curve is more or less correct but that it must be corrected a bit. I am thinking the maximum drop might not be in 2030 but quite a bit earlier/
I hope.
Gail Combs says:May 14, 2012 at 7:13 am
Steve Keohane says:May 14, 2012 at 6:29 am
Steve, Henry, you might want to check out Willis Eschenbach’s paper:
I suspect my thinking is influenced by Willis’ Thermostat Hypothesis, although I would not claim to be able to reiterate it precisely. It seems to be a large piece of the climate puzzle that is intuitively obvious if one can get past the fallacies of the CO2 propaganda. It’s hard to believe it was almost three years ago Willis posted that here.
Willis’s Thermostat Hypothesis is a worthy starting point but he limits it to the equatorial regions and doesn’t follow through globally.
Nor does it include any top down solar effect on the air circulation patterns.
Henry P,
The thing about clouds is that they can slow the exit of heat a bit but that is as nothing compared to their ability to increase albedo and thereby deny energy to the system in the first place.
Energy denied to the system is lost forever and no longer available to be slowed down in its exit so higher albedo will always lead to a decline in system energy content which can never be offset by a bit more cloud insulation.
Bob writes:
“In fact, there are no climate models used by the IPCC that are capable of recreating the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño and La Niña events.”
And the IPCC wants me to believe they can predict [where] it’s going to rain and where it’s not 100 years from now.
Stephen Wilde says: “I think that so far as the Trade Winds are concerned that is only half the story.
“The strength of the Trade Winds is also influenced by the rest of the global air circulation to the polewardin both hemispheres, not just by the current state of ENSO…”
As I suggested to you earlier, Stephen, for more detailed discussions, try using Google Scholar. There are a multitude of papers regarding ENSO and trade winds, about the influences of, and on, Hadley and Walker circulation, atmosphere and oceanic Kelvin and Rossby waves, Bjerknes feedback, wind stress curl, surface and subsurface ocean currents, etc. There may be a paper that confirms your thoughts and visions, and others that contradict it. Remember, Stephen, it’s all about the data that YOU can provide to support your conjecture. When you do that, I will be happy to confirm your results.
Gail Combs says:
May 14, 2012 at 6:37 am
Myrrh says: @ May 14, 2012 at 12:14 am
….Shortwave can’t do this. Can’t…..
______________________
Myrrh, that puzzled me a bit too since my physics courses were more than forty year ago, so I asked my physicist husband and did a bit of looking on the internet.
The concept you are missing is that “Conservation of Energy” does not rule out the Transformation of Energy.
====
Gail, I can assure you I’m not the one missing something here… 🙂
The problem with trying to explain a con is that there has to be knowledge of all the parts, then you can how the Piltdown Man was put together.
There are numerous tweaks to real physics to get the AGWScienceFiction version, the Water Cycle missed out completely, the atmosphere empty space and not the heavy fluid gas ocean above us because they have called the molecules of nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide ideal gas, therefore they have no volume, weight or attraction but like the imaginary construct ideal gas are hard dots that zoom around empty space bouncing off each other in elastic collisions, don’t mention gravity to some who post here, they don’t know what it is and think it’s some new fangled idea unknown to ‘real’ physics..
So, what they have done is to take out the direct heat from the Sun completely, as they’ve done the Water Cycle, and instead they have given the properties of the Sun’s thermal energy to visible light and the shortwaves either side – they claim this is what converts land and ocean directly to heat which then heated up radiates out thermal infrared, heat. The Shortwave in Longwave out mnemonic. They say that the direct thermal infrared from the Sun doesn’t even reach the Earth’s surface! The Sun’s great heat which we feel as heat because it does physically warm us up, has been completely excised. The confusion is because this isn’t understood. The confusion is deliberate, they have given this heat to visible light which isn’t hot, which isn’t thermal energy.
Discussing what light does is a distraction here, so I’ll mention just one, it is used in photosynthesis to convert to chemical energy, sugars, this is not the conversion to heat which is claimed by AGWSF in giving the actual properties of thermal infrared to visible in shortwave in longwave out.
The con is simple.., it’s putting together two things that don’t belong together, visible light from the Sun is not capable of physically heating land and ocean, in the real world it’s still the direct thermal infrared from the Sun doing this. This is the real missing heat from the comic cartoon energy budget.
As I said earlier, the last straw for me was finding that they were deliberately dumbing down the basic science education for children – I hope I’ve explained it well enough now.
NASA: “Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared.
Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”
This is what they used to teach, now NASA teaches that thermal infrared doesn’t get through the atmosphere..
When I first began looking at it here and was told by a PhD that it was the visible light we feel as heat as we do from an incandescent lightbulb, I had no more doubt that I had wondered into a very strange world.. I had previously been told by a PhD physicist who taught the subject that carbon dioxide would spontaneously diffuse into the atmosphere without any work being done. Sigh.
Anyway. Just like taking out the Water Cycle is the sleight of hand to give the impression that there is a temperature rise from -18°C to 15°C, the Greenhouse Effect, so this taking out of the real heat from the Sun which is the actual physical means of heating land and ocean is also a sleight of hand. Now they can concentrate of this ‘backradiation’ from the upwelling thermal infrared of a heated Earth because the thermal infrared direct from the Sun isn’t there to confuse with the ‘backradiation of heat from the atmosphere’ they’re measuring… 🙂
And of course, since their atmosphere is the empty space of ideal gas in a container in a lab they don’t have to concern themselves with convection either, so all the arguments about radiation and all energy from the Sun ‘the same’, all creating heat, no difference is properties and processes and effects. And they don’t understand the joke when I say they can’t hear me, (no sound in their empty space) or that they have clouds which appear magically because they have no mechanism for their existence (no weight, volume, attraction of the real fluid gas atmosphere)..
They’ve got away with it because like all clever cons there’s just enough truth there to give the appearance of reality, no one notices the elisions and substitutions because the arguments take it for granted that these are real physics basics – they began introducing this into the education system a few decades ago. It’s actually very cleverly done, someone had to know real physics very well indeed to make the subtle tweaks in this AGW fisics.
So, not to distract further.. They’ve taken out the direct heat from the Sun. Their energy budget can’t be anything but nonsense, a real comic cartoon of impossible happenings.
Stephen Wilde says: “ENSO primarily governs tropospheric temperatures up to a decadal timescale but going multidecadal and centennial ENSO simply modulates the solar influence.”
Hmm. I have in numerous post illustrated how and why ENSO governs sea surface temperatures for the past 30 years, which sounds awfully like a multidecadal time period to me.
Smokey says:
The irony…It burns. Smokey continues to object to the analogy between “evolution skeptics” and “AGW skeptics” and yet he continues to borrow arguments that correspond directly to those that “evolution skeptics” use: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7rJmd3ECBk
Smokey, I think you’d do a better job at trying to convince people that the analogy is not apt if you actually didn’t provide such a living illustration of how apt the analogy is.
HenryP says: May 14, 2012 at 7:51 am
Henry, while a cooler atmosphere can hold less water, I assume it would take less water to condense into clouds, and they would form at a lower altitude. I’m just looking at what the difference between winter and summer seems to be from personal observation/experience. Perhaps I am not communicating it well, but I would also assume a balancing ratio of RH% and temperature, and as I’m thinking about it, pressure as well. I was not thinking of the clouds as ‘warming’ per se, more at a thermostatic balance to inhibit further cooling by transport. Just one of the natural cyclic balances that excludes the fantasy of tipping points of runaway climate change. It is an ironic amusement that the proponents of CAGW are complaining about living in a warm period that exists for 10% of the time on our planet, yet is the only reason they have a civilization to be born into and whine about.
Stephen Wilde says: May 14, 2012 at 8:04 am
Stephen, I agree about your point in albedo affecting energy into the system. I was thinking along the lines of a cooler atmosphere equals less convective cloud-building/vertical transport airflow, as I see very little of it below 50°F at the surface.
The only things burned around here are joel shore’s brain cells. Both of them, if he thinks that his True Belief in CAGW has any empirical evidence backing it up, when it does not. In fact, the belief in catastrophic AGW is based on zero real world evidence. It is only a belief, like the belief in a tooth fairy. Joel shore cannot produce any testable evidence measuring X amount of global warming per Y increase in CO2. Why not? Because there is no such evidence. Joel shore is trying to sell us a pig in a poke.
I do not “object to the analogy between ‘evolution skeptics’ and ‘AGW skeptics’,”. Rather, I am pointing out the plain fact that there is no difference between joel shore’s true belief in CAGW, and true belief in Creationism. None. Both are faith-based, and the analogy is apt. Both belief systems are ‘real’ to their believers. But without any testable, empirical evidence, they are no more than evidence-free conjectures. In the case of shore’s bent prism, non-believers in CAGW are motivated by ‘ideology’. But that is only in joel shore’s fantasy world. At WUWT we discuss science — something joel shore seems to always avoid.
Bob said:
” I have in numerous post illustrated how and why ENSO governs sea surface temperatures for the past 30 years, which sounds awfully like a multidecadal time period to me.”
The solar effect steadily takes over as the time period becomes longer.
I don’t think you have dealt with the reason for the upward stepping from one Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation to the next have you ?
We know ENSO causes it but where did ENSO get the extra energy from on a long enough timescale ?
That is what interests me and many others.
and:
“When you do that, I will be happy to confirm your results.”
No need. I’m not asking you to agree with me since different phenomena interest each of us and where your threads lead others to go beyond your basic data then I join in the discussion.
In any event, new data is adding to the scene and generally supporting my case without me needing to confuse the issue by digging into unreliable old data.
The new overview that I propose casts all the old stuff into a new light anyway.
Smokey says:
Both are faith-based, and the analogy is apt.
Henry says
Actually, I don’t like that analogy. In this case it is you who puts the horse behind the carriage although you might not see this (yet).
Namely, Christian scriptures teach that the only way to hear, see and experience God is by faith.
Just that: by faith. Look at
http://www.shroud.com
The picture is a 3d photographic negative.
Can you explain to me how somebody forged that in around 1200-1300 AD? With all the correct details of a crucufiction?
Now, had the Shroud of Turin been dated to 0 AD we would all have believed or started believing in the resurrection. But, ….obviously there is a reason why things are the way that they are….
God, as the Creator, in wisdom that yet cannot be determined, decided that the only way to get to the other side is:: by faith.
Anyway, I do agree with you that we must keep to science here at WUWT. (Actually, science and religion are two ways that both lead to the Truth)
I have shown you all that we (on earth) are busy cooling. Already. See
http://letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
Those here, including Joel, that still believe earth is warming must come to me with the figures;
and if you come to me with UAH, or whatever, you must be able to tell me the precision and accuracy of your equipment and how often is calibrated. Note that my tables are reasonably well balanced by latitude and 70/30 sea/inland (longitude does not matter as earth rotates every 24 hours). How was that done with the measurements that you bring to me that must prove to me that earth is still warming?
I will be waiting, right here, for anyone who “believes” that earth is still warming.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 14, 2012 at 8:04 am
Willis’s Thermostat Hypothesis is a worthy starting point but he limits it to the equatorial regions and doesn’t follow through globally…..
_____________________
Stephen from my quick little check on Willis’s Thermostat Hypothesis, I found it seems to regulate temperatures in the 90F – 100F range when you have a lot of moisture available. I took a quick and dirty look at the east coast of the USA using Wunderground monthly data. The check showed precipitation during the summer went from about 20 days per month in Florida down to 10 days per month in Fayetteville NC. After that it was very spotty. That is why it can not follow through globally. However it certainly helps regulate the upper temperature for hot moist areas such as the tropics.
Willis’s Hypothesis shows that there are a heck of a lot of different factors effecting climate and I think that is the biggest idea you learn from his hypothesis… Blind men and an elephant comes to mind.
Myrrh says:
May 14, 2012 at 8:35 am
…..So, what they have done is to take out the direct heat from the Sun completely, as they’ve done the Water Cycle, and instead they have given the properties of the Sun’s thermal energy to visible light….
___________________________
Believe me I am well aware we are dealing with Conmen.
However even William Connelley’s beloved WIKI has not disappeared the solar heat …YET. They just do not mention it much. It is like your crazy great aunt in the attic, she is there but never mentioned.
So what about the other large chunk of energy visible light? And this is where the mis-direction comes in. I have an all metal stock trailer part is painted white part is painted black. During the summer in North Carolina, when I stand inside if I put my hand on the part painted white on the outside it is warm. If I put my hand on the part painted black on the outside it will raise blisters it is so hot.
Here is an example of the misdirection from the DOE “ask a scientist” US government web site.
And there is the untruth. The color white will reflect most of the visible energy but the reason we see a color is because all the visible wavelenghs are absorbed except the specific colored light that is reflected. That is a red ball will absorbed the other colors and bounce the red light.
Back to the ocean.
Yes water is mostly transparent. It is the compounds dissolved in it and the particles suspended in it that do the absorbing of whatever light is transmitted just like that red ball. That is why very clean water has high visibility and other water has differing visibilities. (DON”T cave dive without a safety line)
Here is the absorption of water as ice, liquid and vapor: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html
It has a really nice graph (three quarters down) labeled The visible and UV spectra of liquid water, that shows the visible color bands and that water absorbs energy in much of the other areas. Note that blue is the color it absorbs the least (tip of the plunging of the line) which is why water looks blue.
HenryP,
I just knew I would be stepping on some toes by mentioning Creationists. My apologies, I wasn’t intending to be critical. Faith is essential to religion. I have no problem with that, and I think religion, despite it’s occasional excesses, has been a civilizing influence. Teaching morality is a good thing. However, I see no difference between Creationist faithful and CAGW faithful. Their beliefs are based on faith, not science [not that very religious folks don’t make the best scientists. In may cases they do, as history shows].
Smokey says:
May 14, 2012 at 12:43 pm
HenryP,
I just knew I would be stepping on some toes by mentioning Creationists. My apologies, ….
_______________________
And I have no doubt that Joel’s remark about the subject was done with that very intent in mind. Divert the thread and all.
By the way I do appreciate all you and HenryP bring to the conversation. Even if I might not agree with everything said it gets me thinking.
joeldshore says:
May 13, 2012 at 6:10 pm
Gunga Din: The point is that there is a very specific reason involving the type of mathematical problem it is as to why weather forecasts diverge from reality. And, the same does not apply to predicting the future climate in response to changes in forcings. It does not mean such predictions are easy or not without significant uncertainties, but the uncertainties are of a different and less severe type than you face in the weather case.
As for me, I would rather hedge my bets on the idea that most of the scientists are right than make a bet that most of the scientists are wrong and a very few scientists plus lots of the ideologues at Heartland and other think-tanks are right…But, then, that is because I trust the scientific process more than I trust right-wing ideological extremism to provide the best scientific information.
=========================================================
What will the price of tea in China be each year for the next 100 years? If Chinese farmers plant less tea, will the replacement crop use more or less CO2? What values would represent those variables? Does salt water sequester or release more or less CO2 than freshwater? If the icecaps melt and increase the volume of saltwater, what effect will that have year by year on CO2? If nations build more dams for drinking water and hydropower, how will that impact CO2? What about the loss of dry land? What values do you give to those variables? If a tree falls in the woods allowing more growth on the forest floor, do the ground plants have a greater or lesser impact on CO2? How many trees will fall in the next 100 years? Values, please. Will the UK continue to pour milk down the drain? How much milk do other countries pour down the drain? What if they pour it on the ground instead? Does it make a difference if we’re talking cow milk or goat milk? Does putting scraps of cheese down the garbage disposal have a greater or lesser impact than putting in the trash or composting it? Will Iran try to nuke Israel? Pakistan India? India Pakistan? North Korea South Korea? In the next 100 years what other nations might obtain nukes and launch? Your formula will need values. How many volcanoes will erupt? How large will those eruptions be? How many new ones will develop and erupt? Undersea vents? What effect will they all have year by year? We need numbers for all these things. Will the predicted “extreme weather” events kill many people? What impact will the erasure of those carbon footprints have year by year? Of course there’s this little thing called the Sun and its variability. Year by year numbers, please. If a butterfly flaps its wings in China, will forcings cause a tornado in Kansas? Of course, the formula all these numbers are plugged into will have to accurately reflect each ones impact on all of the other values and numbers mentioned so far plus lots, lots more. That amounts to lots and lots and lots of circular references. (And of course the single most important question, will Gilligan get off the island before the next Super Moon? Sorry. 😎
There have been many short range and long range climate predictions made over the years. Some of them are 10, 20 and 30 years down range now from when the trigger was pulled. How many have been on target? How many are way off target?
Bet your own money on them if want, not mine or my kids or their kids or their kids etc.
Stephen Wilde says: “The solar effect steadily takes over as the time period becomes longer.”
Support you position with data, Stephen.
Stephen Wilde says: “We know ENSO causes it but where did ENSO get the extra energy from on a long enough timescale ?”
The initial additional energy (Ocean Heat Content) for the 1982/83 and 1986/87/88 El Nino events came from the 1973/74/75/76 La Nina, with the 1983/84 & 1984/85 La Nina events replacing/recharging some of the heat discharged during the 1982/83 El Nino. There were a series of moderate to small El Nino events in the early 1990s. In fact some papers describe that period as one, long, moderate El Nino. Then the 1995/96 La Nina created the additional warm water needed for the 1997/98 El Nino. And the 1998/99/00/01 La Nina replaced it. And here’s the data to support it, with the NINO3.4 SST anomalies scaled and inverted to make the relationship easier to see:
http://i46.tinypic.com/5ey39x.jpg
Stephen Wilde says: “In any event, new data is adding to the scene and generally supporting my case without me needing to confuse the issue by digging into unreliable old data.”
And that’s why I don’t extend my analysis back before the satellite-era. No Reason to.
Regards
stacase says: “And the IPCC wants me to believe they can predict [where] it’s going to rain and where it’s not 100 years from now.”
It will be interesting to see how the IPCC presents their regional short-term projections since ENSO and sea level pressure have such strong impacts.
Smokey says:
May 14, 2012 at 12:43 pm
HenryP,
I just knew I would be stepping on some toes by mentioning Creationists. My apologies, I wasn’t intending to be critical. Faith is essential to religion. I have no problem with that, and I think religion, despite it’s occasional excesses, has been a civilizing influence. Teaching morality is a good thing. However, I see no difference between Creationist faithful and CAGW faithful. Their beliefs are based on faith, not science [not that very religious folks don’t make the best scientists. In may cases they do, as history shows].
=======================================================
I think it was Newton that said, “Science is thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”
I’m not a Creationist. I do believe (and study) the Bible. (The first “was” in Genesis 1:2 is the Hebrew frequently translated “It came to pass”.)
Whatever one chooses to believe about how we got here, we are here. We are surrounded by physical laws that govern the physical world we live in. That’s what this site deals with. Anthony ahs drawn a sometimes fuzzy line that I’m not willing to cross here. Meet me one the street, that’s another story. (I once got sucker punched by a Hare Krishna!)
Gunga Din says:
Fine…If you agree not to emit any CO2 into the atmosphere, which is not yours to do whatever you want with but is a common resource, then I won’t bet your money. The point is that we are betting other people’s money and livelihoods and health either way…So, we would be wise to make such bets on the basis of the best science available rather than the science that aligns with a certain group’s preconceptions of what they want the science to be based on their own belief systems and political ideology.
joeldshore says:
May 14, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Gunga Din says:
There have been many short range and long range climate predictions made over the years. Some of them are 10, 20 and 30 years down range now from when the trigger was pulled. How many have been on target? How many are way off target?
Bet your own money on them if want, not mine or my kids or their kids or their kids etc.
—————————————————————————–
Fine…If you agree not to emit any CO2 into the atmosphere, which is not yours to do whatever you want with but is a common resource, then I won’t bet your money. The point is that we are betting other people’s money and livelihoods and health either way…So, we would be wise to make such bets on the basis of the best science available rather than the science that aligns with a certain group’s preconceptions of what they want the science to be based on their own belief systems and political ideology.
=======================================================
I see no evidence that someone emitting CO2 is a problem. If you do, then you’re welcome to follow your beliefs.
Me, I’ll place my “bet” this November. It won’t be on the UN’s IPCC or “treemometers” or the polar ice disappearing before the election.
PS I never even heard of Heartland until the billboard thing came up. Why do you keep bringing politics into this? Do you think politics are involved in the promotion of CAGW?
Joel, no one can stop emitting CO2, that happens to be just one of the fallacies in your belief system.
Think about it. You can build windmills with steel. But you can’t make steel with windmills.
You are buying into a false economy on the basis of false science.
That other scientists trust the frauds will be to their shame and disgrace in time.
I can tell you that it is the side that you represent that operates more from ideology than science but I know you are not interested in the professional malthusian catastrophist history of some of the more well-known proponents of your belief system.
Nonetheless you are trusting the same people who have endorsed countless made-up catastrophes based, I suppose on their own neuroses, and shoved down the public throat
simply so such professional wolf-cryers and their minions could feel good about themselves.
Your histrionics really do sort of mark you as a brainwashed minion.
The best science says this has all happened before, nothing to see here , move along, but there is no feel-good component for you in that, and you don’t get to control anyone’s emissions with simple facts and history.
And you have not made any lurch toward quantifying all those nasty could-bes that Mr. Din brought up in his post about the incompleteness of your understanding of the future based on
incomplete modeling.
jimash1 says:
May 14, 2012 at 2:58 pm
…. You are buying into a false economy on the basis of false science.
That other scientists trust the frauds will be to their shame and disgrace in time…..
___________________________
Boy, I really would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when the puppet masters picked CO2 and global warming as the mechanism to grab control of the world.
It was actually bloody brilliant.
First start with pollution which really needed to be cleaned up.( First Earth Summit 1972) That set the hook with something everyone with a lick of sense could agree with. Then flex the muscle a bit about a generation later with the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987) and see if the hook is well set. Then go for the gold with CAGW. (IPCC established in 1988)
Gunga Din says:
Well, that’s kind of strange, isn’t it? You certainly probably have heard of Greenpeace and Sierra Club and have opinions about them but you have not heard about one of the political organizations feeding garbage science to the public debate that happens to align with what you want to believe.
I’m not the one bringing politics into it. I am just pointing out the politics that actually exists. And, yes, there is politics on both sides. However, only one side is claiming that the politics has corrupted basically all the respected scientific organizations on the planet and thus that instead of listening to those scientific organizations, we should be listening to the science promoted by Heartland and its minions and fellow travelers.
I’m not telling you to listen to science put out by Greenpeace and Sierra Club; I’m telling you to listen to the respected scientific organizations. (And, I am also in many threads, although it hasn’t been my focus of this one, patiently explaining the science as it is understood and fighting all of the deceptions and falsehoods that are put out by the anti-science crowd).
joeldshore says:
May 14, 2012 at 4:34 pm
………………………………………..
I wondered which lines you’d pick out of my comment.
Enjoy the warm weather and the Moon over Tuvalu!
Gail Combs says:
May 14, 2012 at 11:48 am
Myrrh says:
May 14, 2012 at 8:35 am
…..So, what they have done is to take out the direct heat from the Sun completely, as they’ve done the Water Cycle, and instead they have given the properties of the Sun’s thermal energy to visible light….
___________________________
Believe me I am well aware we are dealing with Conmen.
However even William Connelley’s beloved WIKI has not disappeared the solar heat …YET. They just do not mention it much. It is like your crazy great aunt in the attic, she is there but never mentioned.
Yes, he wasn’t able to take it out…, as he wasn’t able to take out, last time I looked, that without water Earth’s temps would be 67°C. But, the cartoon simply ignores them and by continually pushing the fictional fisics memes it distracts and anyone not familiar with the real world physics will just assume these are somehow included, and conversely, those who do know real world physics will just assume the givens mean what they think these mean. Like Miskolczi, when Wayne first told me about his work and gave some links, there was one article which in an aside said he was reading this as thermal infrared input, not the shortwave in of the AGWSF cartoon. Anything that adds to the confusion is the con’s aim..
So what about the other large chunk of energy visible light? And this is where the mis-direction comes in. I have an all metal stock trailer part is painted white part is painted black. During the summer in North Carolina, when I stand inside if I put my hand on the part painted white on the outside it is warm. If I put my hand on the part painted black on the outside it will raise blisters it is so hot.
Ah yes, the ol’ there is a black car and a white car.. and here they claim that the black is hotter because visible light is heating it because black absorbs all colour – it’s really too convoluted to explain easily when they have this idea that ‘all electromagentic energy is the same and all creates heat’ and ‘shortwave have higher energies therefore they are more powerful heaters than the lower energy thermal infrared’ and in this they lose sight completely of the different qualities and effects, and particularly capabilites… They just simply have no appreciation that the electromagnetic spectrum consists of differences, that an x-ray isn’t a radio wave, that these are distinctly different from each other, there’s a great difference in sizes, as the original NASA page points out re infrared, that near infrared which is not hot is microscopic in size compared with the pin head size of the longer wave thermal infrared, just from this they will impact matter differently. UV of course is proof that AGWSF shortwave heats matter… 😉
Here is an example of the misdirection from the DOE “ask a scientist” US government web site.
….
And there is the untruth. The color white will reflect most of the visible energy but the reason we see a color is because all the visible wavelenghs are absorbed except the specific colored light that is reflected. That is a red ball will absorbed the other colors and bounce the red light.
But for them “absorption” equals ‘creating heat’. They do this all the time, mix up properties and processes because they’re working to the meme that visible actually converts to heat when “absorbed” even in colours, (so what isn’t reflected is creating heat). But light is light and light is not hot and light does not have the necessary energy levels to move the atoms/molecules into vibration which is what heats stuff up. They just won’t let light be itself and so can’t tell the difference between heat and light.
The “absorbed” meme they’re fixated on is quite funny, because memed into their Greenhouse Effect scenario which says that the atmosphere is transparent to visible and so not absorbed therefore does not heat up the atmosphere, and there’s no reply yet when I point out that actually visible light is being absorbed by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen, which is what reflection/scattering is, so how much is visible heating the not transparent atmosphere because they’ve forgotten to include it in their budget..?
Back to the ocean.
Yes water is mostly transparent. It is the compounds dissolved in it and the particles suspended in it that do the absorbing of whatever light is transmitted just like that red ball. That is why very clean water has high visibility and other water has differing visibilities. (DON”T cave dive without a safety line)
Here is the absorption of water as ice, liquid and vapor: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html
The memes deliberately confuse the meanings of “absorbed” and “transparent” in the technical and general uses so they have a really hard time getting out of that trap because they think the ocean “absorbs” visible so water can’t be “transparent”, as well as giving the properties of one thing to another in that water is transparent and the atmosphere not.
But anyway, as interesting as it is diverting, the point is that that shortwave do not have the power to heat matter and they’ve taken out of their budget the real power of the Sun which can and does heat the Earth.
They do not include the direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, and that is, quite frankly, so ludicrous it’s an embarrassment. Like backradiation from a colder atmosphere heating up the hotter earth..
Gunga Din,
joelshore says: “I’m not the one bringing politics into it.” And down is up, evil is good, and gnorance is strength. If I had a nickel for every time joelshore used ‘ideology’ to attack honest scientific skeptics, I could have a night out on the town.
And as I’ve regularly pointed out, if it were not for his own psychological projection joelshore wouldn’t have much to say. Examples of projection from just one joelshore post above: “…garbage science…” [that is the perfect definition of evidence-free CAGW]; “…what you want to believe…” [Earth to joel, you are the true believer here]; “…Heartland and it’s minions and fellow travelers…” [fellow travelers means useful idiots, thus more joel projection] “…politics has corrupted basically all the respected scientific organizations…” [Prof Lindzen says the same thing], “…respected scientific organizations” [joel left out the prefix ‘formerly’]; “…patiently explaining the science as it is understood…” [understood? heh. Not by joel], “…all of the deceptions and falsehoods that are put out by the anti-science crowd…” [classic projection from one of the pseudo-scientific cheerleaders of the anti-science crowd].
All of that baseless opinion comes from the same guy who cannot provide any evidence of his globaloney scare. Cognitive dissonance always explains joelshore. He is as detached from reality as his hero Algore.
Smokey says:
May 14, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Gunga Din,
He is as detached from reality as his hero Algore.
=============================================
That Al Gore face would be the perfect one for the second billboard: “Since ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Al Gore’s bank account has increased by $200+ Million. The real Hockey Stick”
HenryP says:
May 14, 2012 at 10:40 am
I will be waiting, right here, for anyone who “believes” that earth is still warming.
Apparently many “believe” it, but it cannot be shown to be true, at least over the last 10 to 15 years. See the following.
With the UAH anomaly for April at 0.295, the average for the first third of the year is (-0.09 -0.112 + 0.108 + 0.295)/4 = 0.05025. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 12th. This compares with the anomaly of 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year.
With the RSS anomaly for April at 0.333, the average for the first third of the year is (-0.058 -0.12 + 0.074 + 0.333)/4 = 0.05725. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 21st. This compares with the anomaly of 2011 at 0.147 to rank it 12th for that year.
With the GISS anomaly for April at 0.56, the average for the first third of the year is (0.34 + 0.39 + 0.46 + 0.56)/4 = 0.4375. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 13th. This compares with the anomaly of 2011 at 0.514 to rank it 9th for that year.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for March at 0.305, the average for the first three months of the year is 0.239. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 18th. This compares with the anomaly of 2011 at 0.34 to rank it 12th for that year.
So on all four of the above data sets, for their latest anomaly, the 2012 average is colder than their 2011 average value.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 7 months to 15 years and 6 months. Following is the longest period of time (above10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (For any positive slope, the exponent is no larger than 10^-5, except UAH which was 0.00055083 per year so this one really cannot be considered to be flat.)
1. RSS: since November 1996 or 15 years, 6 months (includes April)
2. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3months
3. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 2 months (includes April)
4. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 7 months (includes April)
5. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months
6. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 5 months (includes April using GISS. See below.)
See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.16/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend
For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of Hadcrut3 from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of Hadcrut3 from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.0055 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0041 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 5 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with GISS gives the same conclusion, but includes April in addition.) See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000.9/trend
Werner Brozek says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/12/tisdale-an-unsent-memo-to-james-hansen/#comment-985514
Henry says
Thanks for that summary, it is great and it definitely tells a story.
what I would like to know from you
#) you are looking at absolute values? What is the precision and accuracy?
#) how often are instruments calibrated and how is it done?
#) you are looking at a variable that hides a lot of energy. Remember that a lot of energy is stored in the oceans, in the vegetation and simply in the weather and weather systems (hydrological cycles). It might take quite a few years before you see what is actually happening.
In my case, I also happened to look at your variable. If you look at my table for Means, I get
-0.2 degree K (cooling) of earth in total if taken globally since the beginning of the century.
I guess there might be an error of about [0.1] K in the various thermo couples, so take your pick:
either way it is not getting warmer on earth…..
What worries me is the development of a variable that gives me more information:
the maximum temperatures. We can say that this variable is more directly related to the heat from the sun coming through the atmosphere.
From looking at the maxima we can see a gradual decline in maximum temperatures from 0.036 degrees C per annum (over the last 37 years) to -0.016 (when taken over the last 12 years).
http://letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
If we plot the global measurements for the change in Maxima: 0.036, 0.028, 0.015, -0.016 against the relevant time periods, it can be shown that the best fit for the curve is given by
y= 0.0454 ln(x)-0.1278 (R2=0.994).
At 0 (zero) when there was no warming or cooling we find x=16.7 years. From my sample of weather stations I can therefore estimate with reasonable accuracy that the drop in maxima started somewhere during 1994 (2011-17=1994).
The observed cooling trend could still accelerate further. In fact, if the plot y= 0.0454 ln(x)-0.1278 (R2=0.994) holds true, and by taking it to the present time, it can be shown that we could already be cooling by as much as 0.1 degree C per annum.
(We are still talking about maxima now!)
The earth system may still have some stored energy to counter balance this, but eventually – if we don’t keep an eye on this and if we keep looking at the wrong figures – we might be in for a bit of a surprise once that stored energy runs out……
Periods of cooling in the past have usually been associated with crop failures and subsequent periods of poverty and starvation. I am just hoping that the current cooling trend will come to end sooner than the projected 2030 by Orssengo.
Smokey says:
May 14, 2012 at 6:47 pm
And as I’ve regularly pointed out, if it were not for his own psychological projection joelshore wouldn’t have much to say. Examples of projection from just one joelshore post above: “…garbage science…” [that is the perfect definition of evidence-free CAGW]; “…what you want to believe…” [Earth to joel, you are the true believer here]; “…Heartland and it’s minions and fellow travelers…” [fellow travelers means useful idiots, thus more joel projection] “…politics has corrupted basically all the respected scientific organizations…” [Prof Lindzen says the same thing], “…respected scientific organizations” [joel left out the prefix ‘formerly’]; “…patiently explaining the science as it is understood…” [understood? heh. Not by joel], “…all of the deceptions and falsehoods that are put out by the anti-science crowd…” [classic projection from one of the pseudo-scientific cheerleaders of the anti-science crowd].
All of that baseless opinion comes from the same guy who cannot provide any evidence of his globaloney scare. Cognitive dissonance always explains joelshore. He is as detached from reality as his hero Algore.
Propaganda/brainwashing and psychological techniques and defences – to accuse using the same phrases used in the arguments against them. Like ‘skeptics funded by big oil’ when it is they who are so funded. It means they avoid the actual, truthful, analyses of themselves and the concepts they’re pushing either because afraid to take the information on board which would very likely be an emotional train wreck as mind implodes from having a belief destroyed, because of the phenomenon of an emotional attachment to an idea self-defining the person (destroy the idea and you’re destroying the person, so an automatic subconscious defence strategy), or because they know very well that the concepts they’re pushing are junk science and are consciously playing the game of spreading the disinformation and bolstering those unconsciously brainwashed who pick up the new defence memes and repeat them mindlessly. Like moving the goal posts, straw men and so on, all avoidance strategies for whichever reason.
The “I think, therefore I am’ pit for the unwary defining themselves by their thoughts. We are, therefore we think is the antidote to this – I am therefore I think. We can hold contradictory thoughts without believing either of them, for example, which is an essential base of scientific thought.
HenryP says:
May 15, 2012 at 12:21 am
Thanks for that summary, it is great and it definitely tells a story.
You are welcome! As for the other questions you are asking, I am strictly going by WFT and do not know their precision and accuracy. However it only has 95% confidence levels for the BEST data. If it had 95% confidence levels for other data, I could do more things such as say that at the 95% level, so and so does not show warming for this many years. But until then, I will just indicate for how long the slopes are flat.
I am just hoping that the current cooling trend will come to end sooner than the projected 2030 by Orssengo.
Good point! On the other hand, I would hate to see what would happen if the cooling trend stopped tomorrow and the “scientists” decided we have to put much more effort into fighting global warming. According to our daily paper, see:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/20teeth/6610945/story.html
“If there is one thing on which all federal parties and all national political leaders are agree, it is that they “believe the science” on climate change. They believe that the Earth is warming, they believe its effects are on balance malign, and they believe it is caused by human activity. As such, they believe it can and should be mitigated by human action, namely by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
Werner Brozek says
if the cooling trend stopped tomorrow and the “scientists” decided we have to put much more effort into fighting global warming. According to our daily paper…..on climate change….
Henry says
Don’t worry. We have an old saying that goes like: although the lie is very fast, eventually the truth will overtake him. Global cooling is a bit worrying to me and should be to others as well, as it could cause widespread crop problems. Obviously there must be people that know, which is why the “global warming” threat has already been changed to “climate change’ . In that way even colder weather can be easily somehow explained. I think that the cooling trend would probably show the greatest in Antarctica but somebody is trying to hide the data. Don’t forget that people on both sides of the debate might have some financial benefit the longer the “debate” just carries on.
Like I said, if you are a farmer, better check the trend at your local weather station and base your decision on the trend you find there on whether to sow or not to sow. (just duplicate my method)
I think Orssengo’s oscilliation could be a little wide, meaning that I think that the worst might be over by 2020. I wonder what he would have to say about that.
HenryP says:
May 15, 2012 at 10:30 am
Obviously there must be people that know, which is why the “global warming” threat has already been changed to “climate change’.
I agree. But exactly how will ‘climate change’ be fought?
I am well aware of the reasoning behind ocean level rise due to warming. But it is a total mystery to me why CO2 alone should have any huge effect on changing the climate. In the absence of warming, how does CO2 alone cause frosts in Florida; how does CO2 alone cause ocean levels to rise; how does CO2 alone cause hurricanes to be more severe; etc?
Werner says
But it is a total mystery to me why CO2 alone should have any huge effect on changing the climate.
Henry says
it does not have any effect, except stimulate more greenery (growth),
which actually does trap some heat (look at Las Vegas, which used to be desert, especially in my Minima table)- a little bit –
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
however, with the weather we are all on a curve
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
…..better be prepared (to catch) when that (curved ball) is coming your way…
Regards.
Henry
Thanks, Anthony.
Henry says
we are all somewhere on this (weather) curve:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
Orssengo calculates the top (of warming) at around 2003
truth is that I calculated the top of the warming at around 1994/1995:
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
That means it could be that Orssengo’s curve must be shifted a bit to the left
meaning that global cooling could be over it bit earlier than 2030
(I hope)
joeldshore says:
May 14, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Gunga Din says:
PS I never even heard of Heartland until the billboard thing came up.
———————————————————-
Well, that’s kind of strange, isn’t it?….
I’d like to correct myself. I HAD heard of Heartland before. The first time I recall hearing of them was when Gleick and the phony memo thing came up. It had slipped my mind when I made the comment Joel is responding to. Sorry. I was not making any attempt to deceive.
Gunga Din says:
May 14, 2012 at 2:04 pm
I think it was Newton that said, “Science is thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”
I’m not a Creationist. I do believe (and study) the Bible. (The first “was” in Genesis 1:2 is the Hebrew frequently translated “It came to pass”.)
Whatever one chooses to believe about how we got here, we are here. We are surrounded by physical laws that govern the physical world we live in. That’s what this site deals with. Anthony has drawn a sometimes fuzzy line that I’m not willing to cross here. Meet me one the street, that’s another story. (I once got sucker punched by a Hare Krishna!)
=======================================================
I’d like to clarify something. If you went to an animal rights site and said you were a vegetarian because you only ate eggs and cheese, someone there would probably say you weren’t really a vegetarian because you ate animal products even though you didn’t meat.
I read a book called “Scientific Creationism” around 40 years ago. The author believed that Genesis 1:1 occurred 6000+ years ago and that, as created, “the Earth was without form and void”. (KJV wording).
The word “was” in that phrase would better be translated “became”. Because of that, the author would not say I was a “Creationist” even though I do believe “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
HenryP says: @ May 15, 2012 at 10:30 am
….Don’t worry. We have an old saying that goes like: although the lie is very fast, eventually the truth will overtake him. Global cooling is a bit worrying to me and should be to others as well, as it could cause widespread crop problems. Obviously there must be people that know, which is why the “global warming” threat has already been changed to “climate change’ …..
____________________________________
Henry, I have followed both CAGW and world farming regulation for years. I am convinced big players are well aware of the fact the earth is cooling. Heck cycles of warming and cooling have been known to exist for 200 yrs. 200 years ago astronomer William Herschel observed a correlation between wheat prices and sunspots. In 1853 Wolf discovered an 83 year cycle. Gleissberg also discovered the same 80 to 90 year cycle around 1938. Gleissberg published so many papers on the subject that the cycle is called the Wolf-Gleissberg cycle. see http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
On top of that is the there have been tons of papers written on the Milankovitch cycle. The critical ones were written in the 1970’s when Shackleton et al found data corresponding to the Milankovitch cycles in sea bed sediment cores. In defense of Milankovitch – Roe (2006) is a critical new paper that refines the theory by using the derivative ,that is the rate of change, to get a much closer fit. Newer papers listed here => http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/papers-on-the-milankovitch-cycles-and-climate/
If you switch the subject to farming you can see there has been a consolidation in the control of our food supply. The World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture (WTO AoA) written by the VP of Cargill (privately owned grain traders) being a major facilitator.
Here is one paper.
THE CORRUPTION OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE
And another from Purdue University 2002 (note WTO AoA was pasted in 1995)
Now we are seeing a new situation where corporations are doing a “farmland grab” NAFTA targeted Mexico with a resulting 75% reduction in farm family owned land. The USA is the next target with the Food Safety Modernization Act passed in 2010 and the most recent blow, (April 27th, 2012) USDA submitted it Animal Disease Traceability Rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for final review. More than 25% of world’s food exports comes from USA Farms. African countries must import 25% of their food.
For an example of how devistating these regs are to farmers.
Farmer Faces Possible 3-year Prison Term
USDA Shut Kids Rabbit Business: Family Facing $4 Million in Fines for Selling Bunnies
We are getting squeezed from several directions and I doubt that those funding the squeezing believe in CAGW. As usual follow the money. The Carbon Tax is just one of the money makers spun from CAGW.