From Penn State: Slowdown of global warming fleeting
By A’ndrea Elyse Messer
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — The recent slowdown in the warming rate of the Northern Hemisphere may be a result of internal variability of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation — a natural phenomenon related to sea surface temperatures, according to Penn State researchers.
“Some researchers have in the past attributed a portion of Northern Hemispheric warming to a warm phase of the AMO,” said Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology. “The true AMO signal, instead, appears likely to have been in a cooling phase in recent decades, offsetting some of the anthropogenic warming temporarily.”
According to Mann, the problem with the earlier estimates stems from having defined the AMO as the low frequency component that is left after statistically accounting for the long-term temperature trends, referred to as detrending.
“Initial investigations into the multidecadal climate oscillation in the North Atlantic were hampered by the short length of the instrumental climate record which was only about a century long,” said Mann. “And some of the calculations were contaminated by long-term climate trends driven or forced by human factors such as greenhouse gases as well as pollutants known as sulfate aerosols. These trends masqueraded as an apparent oscillation.”
Mann and his colleagues took a different approach in defining the AMO, which they report online in a special “Frontier” paper in Geophysical Research Letters. They compared observed temperature variation with a variety of historic model simulations to create a model for internal variability of the AMO that minimizes the influence of external forcing — including greenhouse gases and aerosols. They call this the differenced-AMO because the internal variability comes from the difference between observations and the models’ estimates of the forced component of North Atlantic temperature change. They found that their results for the most recent decade fall within expected multidecadal variability.
They also constructed plausible synthetic Northern Hemispheric mean temperature histories against which to test the differenced-AMO approaches. Because the researchers know the true AMO signal for their synthetic data from the beginning, they could demonstrate that the differenced-AMO approach yielded the correct signal. They also tested the detrended-AMO approach and found that it did not come up with the known internal variability.
The detrended approach produced an AMO signal with increased amplitude — both high and low peaks were larger than in the differenced-AMO signal and in the synthetic data. They also found that the peaks and troughs of the oscillation were skewed using the detrending approach, causing the maximums and minimums to occur at different times than in the differenced-AMO results. While the detrended-AMO approach produces a spurious temperature increase in recent decades, the differenced approach instead shows a warm peak in the 1990s and a steady cooling since.
Past researchers have consequently attributed too much of the recent North Atlantic warming to the AMO and too little to the forced hemispheric warming, according to the researchers.
Mann and his team also looked at supposed “stadium waves” suggested by some researchers to explain recent climate trends. The putative climate stadium wave is likened to the waves that go through a sports stadium with whole sections of fans rising and sitting together, propagating a wave around the oval. Random motion of individuals suddenly becomes unified action.
The climate stadium wave supposedly occurs when the AMO and other related climate indicators synchronize, peaking and waning together. Mann and his team show that this apparent synchronicity is likely a statistical artifact of using the problematic detrended-AMO approach.
“We conclude that the AMO played at least a modest role in the apparent slowing of warming during the past decade,” said Mann. “As the AMO is an oscillation, this cooling effect is likely fleeting, and when it reverses, the rate of warming increases.”
Others working on this project were Byron A. Steinman, postdoctoral fellow in meteorology, and Sonya K. Miller, programmer/analyst, meteorology, Penn State
The National Science Foundation supported this work.
=========================================================
The paper:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL059233/abstract
WUWT post on the stadium wave: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/30/climate-stadium-waves-and-traffic-waves/
Seems to be lacking or “fleeting” knowledge in “high” circles 🙂
Translation: We really had to mess with a lot of models in order to really torture the data to create yet another hypothesis, which we present as fact, in order to prop up our CAGW hypothesis.
Can some explain the above to me, it is ‘double dutch’. However, Penny Wong once Environmental Minister spoke on the night of the 2010 General election, when asked if axing the ETS (?) resulted in their poor showing in the polls. She replied, ‘The general consensus is now that the planet is cooling..’ That was the time Julia Gillard announced ‘There will be no carbon tax in a government I lead.” but held on for another few years until she was again displaced as leader by Kevin Rudd. (who she replaced)
“They also constructed plausible synthetic Northern Hemispheric mean temperature histories against which to test the differenced-AMO approaches.”
I can only think the English translation of this means: “we constructed a model which showed that our theories were correct, as the actual observational numbers did not support those theories.”
So, classic ‘climate science’.
‘They also constructed plausible synthetic Northern Hemispheric mean temperature histories against which to test the differenced-AMO approaches.’
Because the old ones had been tortured too much. If this doesn’t work- will they have plausible deniability?
Well, this dispute should be resolved within three years.
(Unless we get a middling response from the climate system.)
“…this cooling effect is likely fleeting…”
—
Is that the best they can do, use a weasel word like “fleeting”? Depending on the context, fleeting can be anything from partial seconds to millions of years. Since they claim to be dealing with “settled science,” why can’t they give us an actual time frame for when warming will resume? That way we could either validate their claims or falsify them. Are they afraid we’ll discover just how little they really know about the climate? The IPCC gave us a list of scary things that would begin to happen by the end of this century. That’s a long time frame, but at least it’s measurable. A meaningless word like “fleeting” can be used, after the fact, to represent whatever time passes before some warming, natural or otherwise, occurs. In fact, that’s probably why they used it.
rogerknights: “Well, this dispute should be resolved within three years.”
How? The AMO has a period of about 70 years. We’re currently in a peak phase, but it might take a couple of decades to determine when exactly the peak was in the standard 30y climatic window.
Unless I’m mistaken, Prof. Mann has offered a falsifiable hypothesis. His theory predicts that “this cooling effect is likely fleeting, and when it reverses, the rate of warming increases.” How soon will this happen, Prof. Mann? I’m happy to wait and see if you’re right or wrong. I think everyone else should wait, too. We could take up crocheting in the meantime.
It is hard to know exactly what controls our weather and climate, but one reliable indicator is a paper or pronouncement by “Dr.” M. Mann. He is always wrong. He is most often way wrong all the way to absurdity. And today he has shown us yet more idiotic fallacy. We should collect some of his best absurdities for the museum of irreproducible results.
Bushbunny, What is the source of Penny Wong’s quote? I can’t find it.
constructed plausible synthetic Northern Hemispheric mean temperature histories
What the eff is that. “We played around with a meaningless bunch of data to see if we could convince ourselves that the cooling isn’t real and voilà we made this graph which says it is but won’t last any longer than 30 years.
Dr Burns, you won’t find it, it was broadcasted on the ABC Tally Room on the night of the election results. I was watching it at the time, and there was a brief comment in the press the next day, and that disappeared too. She also said once as finance minister, we need the carbon tax to put the budget back in black. (like the mining tax?) Some things are shoved under the carpet and better unsaid! Get my gist?
@Luis April 9, 2014 at 12:39 am
“The IPCC gave us a list of scary things that would begin to happen by the end of this century. ”
—————————–
They will not give more near term predictions, because it does not take as long to falsify them. As the list of 100 failed predictions on this site proved:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/
@Douglas Levene April 9, 2014 at 12:52 am “Unless I’m mistaken, Prof. Mann has offered a falsifiable hypothesis. His theory predicts that “this cooling effect is likely fleeting, and when it reverses, the rate of warming increases.” How soon will this happen, Prof. Mann? I’m happy to wait and see if you’re right or wrong. I think everyone else should wait, too. We could take up crocheting in the meantime.”
—————————————
The currently building El Nino will be all the alarmists require to confidently state that the runaway warming has resumed, whereas us realists will have to wait until 2020, to determine if the current decade is wamer or cooler than the previous one.
Climate science really is the reverse of normal science. In normal science it takes one falsification to kill a hypothesis. In Climate science it only takes one remaining validation to refute all falsification and keep a hypothesis alive.
17 years is fleeting 🙂
Mann: “I cannot admit that anyone else could possibly be right, so I’m going to make up some more stuff to prove I’m right and they’re wrong.”. In other words, my guess is better than your guess. Nah Nah Na Hah Han..
This isn’t science, it’s just messing about with models.
All it shows is how little we understand about what is going on, and how rudimentary our models are.
Definition of ‘different’ as , that which is designed to give us the result we need regardless of facts or reality , which we can they make great claims based on which are in fact total BS.
So when temps go up it’s caused by our emissions, and when it goes down it’s caused by natural cycles. Sounds like science to me.
I’m just surprised that this galoot has the hide to continue to do such dubious science when he has faulted so often in the past. At what stage do the journals tell Mann he is no longer credible?
If Global temperatures dip to -0.2C on average below current levels by mid/late 2015, then I suspect that this conclusion will need to be re-written.
Everyone can explain away the so -called pause in hindsight. Where were the predictions of the pause before it hsppened? If these climologists really understood their “science” they would have predicted the pause. But they didn’t which simply means they don’t really understand what’s going on, and all this hand waiving right now is guessing.
Since they couldn’t predict the so-called pause I don’t trust they can predict anything. It’s that simple.
“The recent slowdown…..”
Hah!! And I’m also sure your “recently purchased” car is ready for the junkyard.
Mann said the pause is fleeting, according to his SWAG. If it’s still around in 3 years, or has cooled, we’ll have our answer.
“The true AMO signal, instead, appears likely to have been in a cooling phase in recent decades, offsetting some of the anthropogenic warming temporarily.”
Please correct me if i’m wrong….But I thought the AMO was in a possitive phase now. I thought it wasn’t going nebeative until around 2020.
^negative
It seems to me that every time the temp goes up it is CAGW.
When it stops, levels out, or dips, it is from “natural” causes
I thought it was a “faux pause”, but now it’s a “fleeting pause”. Maybe it’s a fleeting faux pause or a faux fleeting pause.
Steinar Midtskogen says:
The AMO has a period of about 70 years.
I’m not sure we know enough about the AMO to conclude that it’s really cyclic and not just a random walk. That the AMO peaked in the 90s, however, completely defies common sense.
Has anyone found any non-paywalled information on how Mann defines his “true AMO” index?
I cannot believe anybody is giving this guy ANY attention after the Hockey Stick Fraud…He has been soundly debunked totally by Steve Mcyintyre
“Initial investigations into the multidecadal climate oscillation in the North Atlantic were hampered by the short length of the instrumental climate record which was only about a century long,” said Mann.
But he believes anthropogenic warming since 1950 is solid?
“They also constructed plausible synthetic Northern Hemispheric mean temperature histories against which to test the differenced-AMO approaches.”
I am not sure the author of this piece has a clue what science is given the first quote and the second statement I clipped out, offered in the same article…. and we the taxpayers paid for it?
Our winter might have been too much for MM.
Mann is right — “The Pause” is fleeting — much like his so called “warming” — a warming of little consequence.
We should always acknowledge the truth — no matter who utters it.
The earth has been here several Billion years. It will survive Dr Mann, his Mann-made warming, his fellow-travelers and much else besides.
No matter how many times Mann saws off the limb on which he perches, you look up and he’s still sitting in the tree. This tree is either magical or imaginary.
No pause in warming. Slow down in warming. The pause in warming is likely fleeting.
He is walking very slowly toward the truth.
Interesting how he calls a 17 1/2 year halt a “10-year slowdown”, which is “temporary”, partly due to the AMO. Funny how he “forgets” PDO as well. Both AMO and PDO are now in the cooling phase, and that means we’ll be cooling for at least another 20 years. You can smell the desperation and fear in these prison-bound climate shysters.
Quote:
“They call this the differenced-AMO because the internal variability comes from the difference between observations and the models’ estimates of the forced component of North Atlantic temperature change.”
There is no internal variability, the “forced” phase of the AMO is its cold phase, e.g. from 1965 to 1995 where the heat content of the northern north Atlantic Ocean was declining:
http://i35.tinypic.com/28vsnzq.png
The warm phase from 1995 is simply declines in solar plasma forcing, causing an increase in negative AO/NAO episode frequency and intensity, a more southerly jet stream track, and increased poleward warm sea water transport. The whole thing is a negative feedback with a large overshoot, and is responsible for a significant proportion of the rise in global mean surface temperature since 1995.
Quote:
“We conclude that the AMO played at least a modest role in the apparent slowing of warming during the past decade,” said Mann. “As the AMO is an oscillation, this cooling effect is likely fleeting, and when it reverses, the rate of warming increases.”
Apparently it caused the warmest decade on record, and it is behaving as it should do. That is to give a sharp step up in global mean temp as poleward sea water transport is increased, followed by a leveling off in temp, because the external solar forcing is reduced. With increased solar forcing, the AMO will return to its cold phase, which is very unlikely while solar activity is at such low values (as in the 1880/90’s).
The use of the word “pause” is symptomatic of how the AGW lobby torture the language, and of their circular logic.* They should call it a “cessation” or a “stop”. If the world resumes a warming trend later on then, and only then, can it be called a pause.
“Fleeting” is another interesting word. If 17 years is “fleeting”, what would we call the period from 1980 to 1997 when the globe really did warm?
* For those that don’t know, circular logic means assuming what you set out to prove.
“They compared observed temperature variation with a variety of historic model simulations to create a model for internal variability of the AMO that minimizes the influence of external forcing — including greenhouse gases and aerosols. They call this the differenced-AMO because the internal variability comes from the difference between observations and the models’ estimates of the forced component of North Atlantic temperature change.”
Apparently, Mann wants to be recognized as the greatest practitioner of the Alarmist Method. That method is to combine some statistical manipulation of some data with some scenarios created on computer models until there is a result that supports Alarmist Dogma. The final touch is that all this creativity is presented as science.
How long must we be abused by such nonsense. Results of model runs are not data. Models are not data. Therefore, comparisons between model runs and data are worthless.
As I understand it, the ‘warming’ period was 22 years and it stopped 17.5 years ago. That means that the ‘pause’ is currently running at 79.5% of warming for longevity. Of course, it all depends where the pause is taken from, some people say it’s been 20 years…
I would like to know what the Penn State students think of this. Because if they are buying into this absolutely abysmal excuse for science, then Penn State will be graduating absolutely worthless scientists.
Claude Harvey says:
April 9, 2014 at 5:15 am
It’s magical, Claude. It’s the same one he got the tree ring cores from.
I thought Dr. Mann was a tree guy?
Does he think he may have lost his hockey stick somewhere in the Atlantic?
cn
hmmmm
Differenced-AMO. What next? Upsided downeded detrendeded homogenizeded spliceded tree rings-ed? Sounds like they massaged-ed that data till it sang “the tune”.
Oh wait…Mann already did the treed one.
“… Mann and his team show that this apparent synchronicity is likely a statistical artifact of…”
Well he is a specialist in these artifacts so he could be right. He took a good course from Steve M about such artifacts.
Re: Harry Passfield says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:22 am
“It’s magical, Claude. It’s the same one he got the tree ring cores from.”
Of course! I’d forgotten his ability to sort through thousands of trees and find that handful of “magical hockey-stick trees”. Hockey-stick tree limbs are immune to the effects of gravity! I wonder if “pause trees” are so endowed?
“Synthetic data” in my world is called pencil whipping.
It’s good to see Mr. Mann producing solid science again! Oh, wait….
“Mann and his colleagues took a different approach”…
So does my father-in-law when it comes to navigating. He’ll tell you the absolute best route to take, based on the fact that the drove there 20 years ago, and you haven’t.
Yes, he is now invariably late for things…
Apparently the “scientific method” consists of
1) Determining the proper answer
2) Torturing the data until it agrees
said Mann. “As the AMO is an oscillation, this cooling effect is likely fleeting, and when it reverses, the rate of warming increases.”
===========
there we have it. Mann states that when the AMO oscillation reverses, “the rate of warming increases.”
But then Mann goes on to contradict himself:
“Some researchers have in the past attributed a portion of Northern Hemispheric warming to a warm phase of the AMO,” said Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology. “The true AMO signal, instead, appears likely to have been in a cooling phase in recent decades, offsetting some of the anthropogenic warming temporarily.”
I was taught that when someone contradicts themselves, what they are saying cannot be true.
He forgot to mention that the warm part of the natural phase would have also caused them to overestimate the attribution of observed warming to CO2, thus underestimat how much of that warming was natural, and thus overestimated the effect/sensitivity of the climate system to that CO2, and underestimated the impacts of natural variations. This results in models whose temperature projections are too sensitive to CO2. The fact that the real world data has left the model envelope in such a short time is why he had to come up with this excuse in the first place. What he then does is fudge the aerosol data (which is an acknowledged HUGE UNKNOWN IN ITSELF) so that he can dismiss the warming impact in the earlier phase, even though Hansen is at the same time using fudged aerosol data in the EXACT OPPOSITE MANNER to claim that is a significant cause of the pause itself. This is not settled science, my friends. The only thing I can see clearly from these folks is that they are willing to fudge data to fit their preconceived notions (not science at all).
Douglas Levene says:
April 9, 2014 at 12:52 am
——-
It only appears to be a falsifiable hypothesis. Without a time frame, Mann is free to say that “fleeting” has not yet expired. If warming ever does restart, then he’s proven right, but as long as it doesn’t, he hasn’t been proven wrong.
The AMO has been in it’s negative phase for decades?????
Now he’s just making stuff up.
So Mann is saying that warming up until the mid 90s was from the AMO, not GHG feedbacks.
Proving a hypothesis with another hypothesis? Even the old Greeks were against that.
If the cooling effect was “fleeting,” then another way of looking at the warming period from 1980-1995 was that it too was “fleeting.” I think Mr. Mann has discovered, totally by accident of course, the concept of minor warming and cooling climate cycles. “Fleeting” could be defined as “minor.”
First, redefine AMO. How Mannian. Then use your new definition to explain the pause. Yup, this must be out of PSU.
I have been communicating with Dr Wyatt via an introduction from Dr. Curry, who occasionally hosts a guest post from me deconstructing some paper or other facet of CAGW. Marcia tells me she has just finished a reply to Mann. I gather it is not something the Mann is going to be very happy about. Marcia has a whole set of previous Mann dodges including his Rutgers and AGU temperature shambles compared to Hansen (not updated, land only, claiming the pause was not real) plus Steve McIntrye’s deconstruction of his April 2014 Sci Am temperature graph to consider using, as they are in essays for my next book that she has been kindly critiquing. Her reply to Mann will undoubtedly be worthy of note at WUWT when it gets published.
Ken Hall says:
April 9, 2014 at 1:25 am
@Luis April 9, 2014 at 12:39 am
“The IPCC gave us a list of scary things that would begin to happen by the end of this century. ”
—————————–
They will not give more near term predictions, because it does not take as long to falsify them. As the list of 100 failed predictions on this site proved:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/
I’d like access to your time-machine! Apparently according to you events predicted for 2020, 2050, 2085, etc. have already failed!
Example: “20. “Warm in the winter, dry in the summer … Long, hard winters in Germany remain rare: By 2085 large areas of the Alps and Central German Mountains will be almost free of snow. Because air temperatures in winter will rise more quickly than in summer, there will be more precipitation. ‘However, much of it will fall as rain,’ says Daniela Jacob of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.”
FOCUS, 24 May 2006″
Mann was citing the Rocky Horror Picture Show?
Lets do the time warp again.
So the short warming period is significant, a now near identical non warming period is fleeting, as the 1940’s to 1970s was insignificant/irrelevant.
And now the Mann states that the data from the past is actually too sparse and too short to draw conclusions from?
I kind of wish this mann had had the intelligence to understand this in the first place.
But then no one would know his name.
By the time this madness is over, i expect Mann will wish no-one knew his name.
Should change title to “Mann Dismisses Significant Global Warming Feedbacks: Nature Variability Responsible for Significant Warming before Late 90s”.
Phil. says:
Yes, the art of climate prognostication is tricky. It needs to be kept fairly vague, and far enough in the future, to enable them to say, “it still will/could/might/should happen, just you wait and see (if you’re still alive then)”.
So, in some cases, perhaps “failed” was the wrong word. Just plain dumb would have served fine.
MarkW says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:53 am
Apparently the “scientific method” consists of
1) Determining the proper answer
2) Torturing the data until it agrees
——————————————–
You hit the nail on the head. Mann isn’t the only scientist I’ve met that has set their career on proving what they already believe. There are many in science that operate on this principle. I believe it stems originally from Aristotle who felt that you could simply think about the thing for awhile and through shear mental ability come up with the law. My physics professor hated Aristotle because he created the basis of Western scientific knowledge that took over 2000 years to correct. For example, Aristotle believed things fell with a rate proportional to their mass and so did the rest of civilization for thousands of years even though the experiment is so easy to do , as demonstrated by Galileo on the tower of Pisa.
In recent times there’s idol worship of people like Einstein who actually could think up the correct theory, and then 20 years later be proven correct by an experiment. Examples of people who can do this are very far and few inbetween but it seems to be the goal of many scientists to be that person so smart they can think up the law by shear mental ability. The rest of us scientists have to accept we are empiricists
What most of history shows is that science operates along a path of observation (empiricism) followed by hypthesis, followed by experimentation to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
So back in the summer of 1990 after our first year of graduate study, Mike Mann attended a talk on climate change and immediately “saw the light” and switched his PhD program from Theoretical Nuclear Phyics to Climate Change. It was on that single presentation that he accepted Climate Change as real and set out to prove it. A week later he was showing me all the evidence of how he knew it was real. He has never been open minded about it and never attacked the issue from the standpoint of wanting to understand what nature is telling us, but rather looking for the evidence to confirm his belief. Not surprising though. Theoretical Nuclear Physics does not groom you for empiricism but rather coming up with the theories from pure mental ability.
Mann listening to that talk was like a friend of mine who “got religion” late in life and then saw an image of Jesus everywhere: in the bark of a tree, in a piece of toast, and sets out to convert everyone around him.
The is circular logic pure and simple. He defines a mythical AMO based on models and the global data. Since models show warming the mythical AMO must have been in its cooling phase. You then remove the mythical AMO cooling effect and you have warming again. Simple. You start with models and just assume some mythical sine wave and eventually you get the model output back.
Did this idiotic nonsense pass peer review? You’d have to be completely brain dead to sign off on this obvious BS.
I work for a large meteorological company and we cater to public utilities, DOT’s, Emergency management depts etc…and our [chief] science officer had to endure a webinar yesterday in which the city of Baltimore was meeting about potential climate impacts by 2030….they are worried about a 5-7ft sea level rise by then, and they were serious. It’s truly sick out there in the ‘real world’ folks….truly sick.
Woah I just read that a little deeper. They used climate models which did not incorporate the AMO trend or the physics which drive the AMO, to determine the AMO trend, discounting the observations apparently entirely. If you look at Bob Tisdale’s charts on how the world’s oceans have changed compared to how the models thought they would, you would see that this is utter BS. They then used sulphate aerosols as the fudge factor between why their modeled AMO does not match the observed detrended AMO. Sulphate aerosols are one of the big unknowns (among the big unknowns they actually acknowlege).
Bottom line: the climate models didn’t model (and obviously didn’t predict) either the observed pause or the observed AMO evolution, but we are supposed to believe they can be used to back out a modeled AMO which is better than what we derive from observation. Oh and out of the other side of their mouths they claim the models are based on observation and physics with no fudge. Yet the only justification given for this strange set of assumptions is an aersol fudge who’s amount and effects is possibly an even bigger unknown in its own right than either of the two contested model outputs under discussion. This is climate science today.
I believe Ken Hall nailed it. The upcoming El Nino will be used by the mannomatic as proof of the end of the “fleeting” pause.
Mann: Really, really, we’re not lying through our teeth, we’re ‘constructing plausible synthetic histories’.
I think this is a good sign. Mann who was the ‘goto paleo’ guy on wooden thermometers, has decided that: “(when they) compared observed temperature variation with a variety of historic model simulations to create a model ” they abandoned attempting to find a proxy to extend the instrumental record, or the existing Atlantic proxies did not do what he wanted. SO he used several models to create a model to ascribe understanding the the observed data.
It would be neat if the Atlantic proxies could be shown to support the Wyatt Curry paper and then what’s good for Mann, must be good for the Curry.
Just an overall observation for contemplation. Since the end (?) of the 2013/14 fall/winter/early spring season that has been exceptionally cold for the a large part of North America (east of the Rocky Mountains specifically – where a large portion of the US population has chosen to reside) there has been an ever-increasing and ever more shrill “call for climate action(s)” from the MSM and “climatologists/scientists/economists/EPA” et. al. Losing the “hearts & minds” battle to what has been cemented into the collective minds of those most affected by the recent harsh winter in this area must irk the living dog out of those whose livelihood depends on the continuation of the “climate battles” and the subsequent bequeathing of public funds for “research”, “mitigation”, and the like. Therefore, an ever more concentrated “call to action” that we (at least, I) see in the NA MSM in the last few weeks. And, the EPA has asked the US Congress for millions more $$$US and wants to add more “FTE’s (full time employees)” in the next FY (fiscal year) for “climate mitigation”. An excerpt from the Testimony of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy before Congress, discussing the EPA’s 2015 FY budget proposal (from the EPA Press Release of today, 9 April 2014):
“Building on existing efforts and base budget resources, the Agency has added $10 million and dedicates 24 FTE’s in FY 2015 to support the President’s climate action plan. $2 million is designated for technical assistance for adaptation planning for water utilities at greatest risk from storm surges. Research and development efforts will focus on support tools for at-risk communities and tribes in preparing for the impacts of climate change.”
Please do not misinterpret what I am trying to convey. Adaptation of basic public systems for REAL future conditions is prudent and what public supply systems (and the management planners trusted to run them) are required to do. Just do it for that which is probable, not that which may lie at the extremes of probability. The old “precautionary principle (PP)” at work…heck with the PP we might as well all just hide under the frickin’ covers in our beds for the rest of our lives (and with EPA’s, Agenda 21’s, and the UN-as-a-wholes’ plan very short, cold, and deprived of basic modern comforts such as affordable energy sources lives they will be).
Do not be lulled into thinking this whole thing is nearing the end. I know most that frequent this (and other skeptic/lukewarmer sites) sites know the battle is still ongoing. And I see indications every day that there is a strong push to overwhelm the MSM with “studies” “conclusions” and other “conclusive, incontrovertible what-if, could-be, might-be, we-are-so-good-at-predicting-the-future-you-must-do-as-we-say studies” from researchers and scientists and climatologists targeting our collective hearts & minds. I wish I could tune it all out, but the assault seems never to end..At least mitigation is being bandied about instead of pure energy poverty….but I rant..
.
I seem to remember there were proxies using diatoms in the NA going back 3k to 6k years ago and that their were other sediment studies in that general time. Not sure if there are proxies form 3k ago to present but it seems a proxy paper with splicing the thermal record right on as Mann did would be a fun paper to put in his face.
“The true AMO signal, instead, appears likely to have been in a cooling phase in recent decades, offsetting some of the anthropogenic warming temporarily.”
In fact the true external forcing has been in a cooling phase, which is why the AMO has been warmer since 1995. Increased forcing from GHG’s or solar gives lower Arctic pressure and more positive AO/NAO conditions (which is directly associated with a colder AMO):
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
So it would appear in reality that the anthropogenic forcing has done little to mitigate the decline in solar forcing that has produced the warm AMO phase since 1995.
So according to Mann the cooling effect which has slowed down the warming lasted a decade and is fleeting. So at least 10 years is fleeting. Would 15 years be fleeting? What about 20 years? What if the fleeting matches the warming since 1975? Just how long is fleeting?
Various web definitions.
Fleeting = passing swiftly; vanishing quickly; transient; transitory, ‘continuing for only a very short time’
But but but Co2 IS the control knob! Right? This is just more tripe in a seemingly now endless stream ! Just a few months/years ago if you EVEN mentioned a relationship between the AMO or PDO and temp increases the “crusher crews” were on you like stink on………These folks are acting like a defeated and retreating army.
Well, to discuss Mann’s “fleeting” monets and trends, we need to decide when the “fleeting” trends started and stopped.
Worthwhile in any case, let us consider the entire recent record as temperatures rise slowly and naturally, not just the last 17 years of a “flat earth society” temperature attacked by the CAGW Lack-of-Inquisition Squad.
So, 1885? Peak?
1915-1920 Dip? (But floods in California, TX, AZ; high waters on the Colorado River certainly are typical of a long El Nino or hotter times.)
1940-1945 – local peak. Or is 1935-1945 more accurate?
When was the most recent dip? 1945-1970 was cooling, but when was the low point: 1970, 1973, 1975?
Was the Modern Warming Period peaking in 1998 during the El Nino, or during the whole 1998 – 2015 period?
Looking backwards: Certainly 1996 -> 2015 is flat-lining the CAGW religion, but does that imply the MWP peak was in the middle at 2005-2006?
This “pause” has been going on for at least 15 years. How “fleeting” is that?
“Synthetic data”……Hmmmmm….could it be that what we’ve been experiencing over the last 25 years or so is synthetic warming?
Speaking on Stadium Waves, “Mann and his team show that this apparent synchronicity is likely a statistical artifact of using the problematic detrended-AMO approach.”
What a minute… Hockey Stick Mann is now the official “statistical artifact” referee?
Is Mann native to the English language? First the claim of the pause being “recent,” now the
characterization of the pause as “fleeting,” which, among those proficient in the English language,
can never be used to describe a 17 year time span
When I saw the use of the word “Distinguished” to describe Mann, I almost barfed. This is the bloke, one who’s main claims to fame is Tiljander, correct me if I am wrong. Please delete that word “Distinguished”.
Then I came across ” As the AMO is an oscillation, this cooling effect is likely fleeting, and when it reverses, the rate of warming increases.”. No chance. If the cooling already built in to the low solar cycle we are in comes to pass in ~10 years time and the expectations of an even lower solar cycle for the next one materialises, then Mann will be shown to have got that beautifully wrong.
The thing that always impresses me about Mann is that he seems to be such a nice bloke. (For those of you that don’t understand the British sense of humour, think /sarc tag).
Right and La la Land really exists.
Oh I can see another Nobel Prize heading his way!!!!!
The trouble is he will get a lot of positive publicity for this because Genius Michael has found the solution to the pause. It really is so frustrating how this stuff is so easily believed and the warmist’s pat themselves on the back and the whole sorry SAGA carries on.
National Science Foundation grant from the Stimulous funds
Michael Mann: $541,184 grant “Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to
Anthropogenic Forcing,” to contribute “to the understanding of abrupt climate change.”
Michael Mann $1.9 million to investigate the role of “environmental temperature on the transmission of vector-borne diseases.” Mr. Mann is listed as a “co-principal investigator” on that project. Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Advanced Regional And Decadal Predictions Of Coastal Inundation for the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, NOAA-Improving NOAA’s Climate Services for the Coastal Zone (Special Competition) [Principal Investigators: carious and M.E. Mann: PSU $120,463
“Robust decision-making for South Florida water resources by ecosystem service valuation, hydro-economic optimization, and conflict resolution modeling, NSF-Water Sustainability & Climate Program” [Multi-institution award M.E. Mann] PSU award (J.D. Fuentes/M.E. Mann): $300,514
The Ridiculous list goes on.
Well Mr. Mann, the pause has been “fleeting” for seventeen years…
What a maroon! A look at the hemispheric ocean temperature datasets suggests that Mikey is out to lunch but what else is new? It is a cooling southern hemisphere ocean driving the cooling behind the pause, not the AMO!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2nh/from:1998/plot/hadsst2nh/from:1998/trend/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1998/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1998/trend
Mann’s lawyer just resigned from the defamation case.
https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/454000427739385856
So is this now the 11th explanation of the pause?
Oh wow. That is what I would call either breathtaking hypocrisy or complete brain failure.
I would draw Dr Mann’s attention to his own paper, Knight et al 2005 (GRL), where in Figure 1 he graphs the AMO, showing a sharp rise of 0.2 C in the last 5 or 6 years of the 20th Century.
And if you fit a periodic regression curve to the AMO index you see this. Dr Mann’s paper shows the oscillation has been persistent over scale of at least 1,400 years.
Has he forgotten his own work…?
What the AMO shows is that CO2 is not the central control knob.
…ooops.. hit post too fast:
The AMO overwhelms with a modest and typical sort of change and overwhelms what is supposed to be the run away train of CO2.
And it is not fleeting, it is over 17 years.
This is just another bit of post hoc distractive arm waving by the fanatics.
How could the AMO be in a cooling phase if the heat is hiding in the deep, as Trenberth’s excuse asserts?
These guys are now making it up as they go- anything other than admit they need to revisit climate sensitivity.
I understand now. It all makes sense.
this is this is this is noise
signal signal
———————–
/
/
/
—————– /
Well that didn’t work. Please delete my prior.
“Fleeting” is a very imaginative and flattering term for a pause that has lasted 17 years 8 months. It is very close in length. then. to the “Fleeting” warming period 1979/1980 to 1997 when the globe was warming mildly?
How about “Disstinguished”?
Outside of climatology circles such as this, Mann is a nobody, i.e. undistinguished. Be thankful for that.
Man’s term upon the earth is fleeting, in the geological sense. See – we can extend this time before it changes.
New — Stadium Wave animation extended to sea level pressure (SLP) [background]:
http://s27.postimg.org/46is65usx/MD_Wave_SLP.gif
And where is the data that can be studied and replicated? Oh, wait a minute, the concepts and “data” are created to come up with a preconceived result. Much of the IPCC information falls into the same category. Much information can be interpreted in different ways and many scientists and researchers fall into the trap of looking at data with an objective in mind, and then say “EUREKA, we found what we were looking for!” This is not necessarily a result of any dishonesty but a function of the human condition.
Now, the fact that Mann refuses to release his data and methodology is telling.
But there are many scientists and researchers who do release their information and on studying the information, some people with agree, and others may see something totally different.
This crosses all lines of human endeavour.
For example in a recent article on PBS, it was found that up to 90% of new drugs are found NOT to work the way the researchers expected them to:
++++++++++++
“But when he actually sat down to review more than 50 studies that had come in over the transom, “I was frankly shocked to find that the number was more like 90 percent of papers that we were unable to reproduce.”
Because Amgen and other big pharmaceutical companies know that many animal studies are dubious, they always redo them before deciding whether to go ahead with human studies. So the company did not end up wasting hundreds of millions of dollars or years on a dead end.”
+++++++++++++++++++
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/04/08/298335701/how-mouse-studies-lead-medical-research-down-dead-ends
I believe that many climate studies fail for very reason that people are looking for information that confirms their bias.
I was taught that in engineering, management, and human resources training that what we see is often in the “eye of the beholder”. Mann and others probably believe that what they are doing is “correct” (not necessarily right) since they are confirming what they believe. In my engineering training it was considered necessary to have a second or third and sometimes a fourth set of eyes that were not involved in the project review it as when you are deeply involved you sometimes miss fundamental flaws or better ways to do a thing.
In management and HR we were given tests to show that what we thought we saw was sometimes not what was really there. The human brain will fill in gaps in information or will fit what we have seen to our experience. People can be conditioned to an expectation, then shown flash cards and asked what they saw. Then they are given the cards to look at closely, and discover what they said they saw and what was on the cards were entirely different. A very good lesson in design and understanding of experiments and people.
Many readers will have seen little tests of the human brain on the Internet where we are fooled by our expectations.
When people are involved in testing of new systems and concepts, there is a tendency to use the results that met expectations and throw the ones that did not meet expectations out under the assumption the testing was flawed. However, sometimes those poor results are the key to understanding the system as it may indicate and instability or incorrect assumption; or a flaw in the test procedure.
Having witnessed this over many years, I do believe that many climate scientists firmly believe in their work. However, if they well not produce their data and methodology I suspect they are concerned that others could come to a different conclusion, or as in the pharmaceutical case referenced, others might not even be able to reproduce the results.
Just looking at WUWT. we see many theories of “climate change”. None or all may have some merit.
Only by making the hypotheses, data, and methodology will we move forward with understanding.
++++++++++++++++++++++
PS- I listened to Flannery being interviewed on CBC (Canada) today. I can only conclude that some researchers are in it for “fame and fortune” but I would assume most are working to support their belief systems. It would be good if they got back in the science game and shared their information. If you want to listen to his interview it is at (warning – you may need an airsickness bag 😠) :
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/current_20140410_80734.mp3
From 6:55 to OK – 7 years to test his hypothesis. He raised 1 million dollars in 5 days fro crowd sourcing for his Climate Council. Must be a lot of “believers” in Australia.
++++++++++++++++++++++
http://phys.org/news/2011-04-eyes-brain.html
http://libraries.ucsd.edu/xdre/damsAccess?ds=solr/dams4&subject=bb88750746&file=1-2.pdf
“The mind of the observer is integral to determining the nature of reality.”
~ Alberto Villoldo, “Dance of the Four Winds”
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-blind-spot-does-our-brain-see-things-arent-263147.html
http://www.unlearning101.com/fuhgetaboutit_the_art_of_/2009/09/an-unlearning-strategy-training-your-mind-to-see-what-isnt-there.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/06/22/your-brain-sees-even-when-you-dont/
Mann has gotten no press… Except for:
Iran Daily
http://www.iran-daily.com/Newspaper/Page/4756/8
Hehehehehee
Surely by that definition if the pause is fleeting the warming was a mere hiccup.