From the UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES (via Eurekalert) and the “Where’s Waldo?” department comes this hilarious claim. Why hilarious? Because the headline says “global warming”, yet the research says that warming appeared in different decades in different parts of the world. So much for the “global” part. But, it gets better, the money quote says the USA isn’t conforming to the expected warming signal, but, “…according to the models but it is expected they will appear in the next decade.”
And then there’s this:
Nevertheless, according to model evidence, both hot and cold extremes have already emerged across many areas.
I have to wonder, do these people even read their own press releases and apply a sanity check? Given that UNSW is the source of the Dr. Chris Turney “ship of fools” fiasco, probably not.
Researchers reveal when global warming first appeared
When global warming became clearly evident in the temperature record
The indications of climate change are all around us today but now researchers have revealed for the first time when and where the first clear signs of global warming appeared in the temperature record and where those signals are likely to be clearly seen in extreme rainfall events in the near future.
The new research published in Environmental Research Letters gives an insight into the global impacts that have already been felt, even at this very early stage, and where those impacts are likely to intensify in the coming years.
“We examined average and extreme temperatures because they were always projected to be the measure that is most sensitive to global warming,” said lead author from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, Dr Andrew King.
“Remarkably our research shows that you could already see clear signs of global warming in the tropics by the 1960s but in parts of Australia, South East Asia and Africa it was visible as early as the 1940s.”
The reason the first changes in average temperature and temperature extremes appeared in the tropics was because those regions generally experienced a much narrower range of temperatures. This meant smaller shifts in the temperature record due to global warming were more easily seen.
The first signal to appear in the tropics was the change in average temperatures. Later extreme temperature events showed a global warming signal.
Closer to the poles the emergence of climate change in the temperature record appeared later but by the period 1980-2000 the temperature record in most regions of the world were showing clear global warming signals.
One of the few exceptions to this clear global warming signal was found in large parts of the continental United States, particularly on the Eastern coast and up through the central states. These regions have yet to manifest obvious warming signals according to the models but it is expected they will appear in the next decade.
While temperature records generally showed pronounced indications of global warming, heavy rainfall events have yet to make their mark. The models showed a general increase in extreme rainfall but the global warming signal was not strong enough yet to rise above the expected natural variation.
“We expect the first heavy precipitation events with a clear global warming signal will appear during winters in Russia, Canada and northern Europe over the next 10-30 years,” said co-author Dr Ed Hawkins from the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading, UK.
“This is likely to bring pronounced precipitation events on top of the already existing trend towards increasingly wet winters in these regions.”
Importantly, the findings closely correspond to observational datasets used by the IPCC (Chapter 10 – Detection and Attribution of Climate Change) in its most recent report, which showed increasing temperatures caused by global warming.
###
Here is the abstract, yes that’s right, the title says the entire thing is a simulation, something not quite so clear from their press release where they say things like:
“…now researchers have revealed for the first time when and where the first clear signs of global warming appeared in the temperature record…”
Uh, no. Model output is not the actual temperature record.
The timing of anthropogenic emergence in simulated climate extremes
Andrew D King, Markus G Donat, Erich M Fischer, Ed Hawkins, Lisa V Alexander, David J Karoly,Andrea J Dittus, Sophie C Lewis, and Sarah E Perkins
Abstract
Determining the time of emergence of climates altered from their natural state by anthropogenic influences can help inform the development of adaptation and mitigation strategies to climate change. Previous studies have examined the time of emergence of climate averages. However, at the global scale, the emergence of changes in extreme events, which have the greatest societal impacts, has not been investigated before. Based on state-of-the-art climate models, we show that temperature extremes generally emerge slightly later from their quasi-natural climate state than seasonal means,
due to greater variability in extremes. Nevertheless, according to model evidence, both hot and cold extremes have already emerged across many areas. Remarkably, even precipitation extremes that have very large variability are projected to emerge in the coming decades in Northern Hemisphere winters associated with a wettening trend. Based on our findings we expect local temperature and precipitation extremes to already differ significantly from their previous quasi-natural state at many locations or to
do so in the near future. Our findings have implications for climate impacts and detection and attribution studies assessing observed changes in regional climate extremes by showing whether they will likely find a fingerprint of anthropogenic climate change.
Source: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094015/meta
The paper is open source, should you want to bother reading it. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094015/pdf
Note: this story was edited shortly after publication to remove a duplicated word, “the”.
It’s not science. It’s Australian filler material.
It sounds more like a weather report — they are expecting (extreme) rain to fulfill their prophesy. Who among their flock do not believe that at some point in the future we will be afflicted by rain.
Unreal!
the 1930s in the US must have been climate paradise.
Well California was, and more so than just climate.
Now the Golden State is more like a garbage dump; and yes for all kinds of garbage.
g
Global warming began in 1910! :-p
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/j/l/warmingtrend.gif
Has a more stupid paper ever been published?
Well, probably, but even so – what total excrement.
Yes, the Dust Bowl Years were not so hot, right? These people are insane.
See how advanced they are? They’ve got to have a time machine since they show the signal in the arctic in the 2030’s!
“according to model evidence”
There is no such thing.
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
~ Prof. Chris Folland ~ (Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research)
“military intelligence” has now firmly been shoved aside as THE exemplar of an oxymoron by “model evidence”.
What this childish paper reveals is just how much damage has been done to young minds by video games because that clearly seems to be the inspiration for this leap of faith and the subsequent departure from reference to reality as constituting ‘evidence’.
AS a UNSW alumni I am just as embarrassed as one can be by Turney and now these idiots.
Cue Mosher claim that models are reality.
The authors state “Nevertheless, according to model evidence,”
Does a model provide any evidence? A model can, at best, provide a prediction, it is actually a formal statement of the researcher’s hypothesis, which must be tested against the evidence, (data). Sort of like a so-called expert witness saying “your honor, according to my model the defendant is highly likely of being guilty.” I don’t think that would constitute “evidence.”
Mark, You’re right. We presently have such models for human behavior … they’re called stereotypes and using them is called profiling …
Here is the Lancet commenting on the failure of 80% of HIV models even though the field is ‘data rich’.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(15)00080-7/abstract
Be sure to see the Comment further up the chain: “Can we know in advance whether models will get it right?”
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(15)00160-6/fulltext
model evidence = synthetic evidence
In a court of law this would be inadmissible evidence.
“those signals are likely to be clearly seen in extreme rainfall events in the near future”
California is waiting.
Hmmmm. When the noise is larger than the signal, is there really a signal? How does that work? I’d like to know in order to get better AM and SW reception.
You need the same kind of detection circuit they use … it can take pure noise and turn into a signal with 90% confidence.
Should be 97% confidence, Senator Iselin 🙂
The “corrections” to the data are larger than the signal.
It’s called the Mannomatic.
The claim for extremes is predicated on ignorance. It assumes that things will get hotter on the hot end and remain the same temperature on the cold end, increasing the delta T. Global warming isn’t like that, is it? If it is global then there is no increase in delta T. If there is an increase, then by definition it is not global.
Alarmism at its finest.
A major El Nino is forecast for the immediate future. An El Nino typically brings rain to California. Maybe this paper is a cynical attempt to capitalise on it – “see, we told you so”. But maybe they won’t get away with not being able to simulate the dustbowl in their models. Well, not if the media are doing their job.
Once at a conference two guys from the University of Montana were presenting a paper and the slide showed the logarithm of the logarithm of the logarithm of y against the logarithm of the logarithm of the logarithm of x. I asked them why they took so many logarithms and they said “We found that the more logarithms we took the straighter the line got”. A lot of scientific research is like that. But they get published anyway. Here is another such story from Thayer Watkins of San Jose State University.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/movingaveraging.htm
Sincerely
Jamal Munshi
SSU
Let y = x^2
for x from 1000 to 10000
Plot log(log(log(x))) against log(log(log(y)))
Darn that’s straight.
(I know it seems obvious at first glance but I was curious.)
Help me to understand; if we plug increasing temperatures into a model it will indicate that temperatures are rising. Is that right?
Let’s see, how about a little bit of math. Spz:
. Hence the whole point of log-log plots — they reduce any simple power law to a straight line with a slope of the power.
and suppose that it has a power series expansion around some point and suppose further that for sufficiently small $x$ this sum converges rapidly, getting its strongest contribution from some leading order term, say the mth term
(the leading order term) and write it as:
so that:
. The expansion is now:
for 
, one can repeat exactly the same argument, and show that 
should be dominated by a constant plus 
. Even if this condition is not satisfied (and it won't be — there will be significant corrections for large enough 
for many functions) one will get something that is linear plus a much smaller polynomial correction than the original function had. The log function basically compresses the range, 
nearly everywhere. So taking the log of the log of the log of any function will shift it towards linear at each step, at the expense of any useful estimate of the information obtained in the final fit, the utter corruption of error estimation in e.g. a linear least squares fit of the log(log(log)) of whatever.
This is any term in a power series, but we’re going to look at them one at a time. Then:
The first term is a constant, the second is a linear function of
Now suppose that we take a general function
Let’s factor out
Let’s call
where we wish to expand in the regime where
or
If one examines this, it is a constant, a linear term (dominant) and a second term that is a log of the presumed "small" remainder of the power series expansion of the function.
The interesting thing is that this is recursive. As long as
That is to say, it is pretty pointless.
rgb
Much more of this and I will be sawing logs…
*zzzzzzz*
🙂
RGB: log(1+eps) := eps
Let Fourier transform ft, then ft x ft x ft…..
I agree. I can’t think of any engineering use for such a plot. Actually it was dumb of me to plot using y = x^2. y = x^x^x is more interesting (but it will cause an overflow if you use x > 7 or so). (I’ve never seen a process take >80% CPU without crashing the computer before. The number produced by 6^6^6 filled up the whole terminal window several times. I’ve never seen that before either.)
On the other hand, it was interesting to plot against random numbers (ie. noise). The noise was clearly evident. If there’s no correlation between x and y, doing log(log(log())) won’t disguise the fact.
If one takes too many logs of logs, things go negative and then imaginary – Oh, I get it now!
They found the earliest signals in those places with the worst temperature records. The places with the best temperature records aren’t conforming for some reason.
Now that they have satellites, USCRN, and ARGO, suddenly temperatures have stopped climbing.
Wasn’t man-made ‘global warming’ going to be felt most as you headed away from the equator and towards the poles?
Didn’t ‘global warming’ start after the end of the last glacial maximum?
Then we have this.
Well, it’ll fill a few pages of click bait in the Guardian.
The Environment pages are convinced that computer simulations are more real than observations.
I think they thought The Matrix was a documentary.
😎
Don’t give them any ideas!
(In The Matrix the machines ran on 100% “bio-fuel”.)
MCourtney — I think they thought The Matrix was a documentary. — Oh, very very good! — Eugene WR Gallun
And they all took the blue pill!
This may be the difference between warmistas and skeptics…who chose to live in reality, who chose permanent delusion.
“According to model evidence….” Model evidence????? That says it all. DEQ.
Coin toss: heads – stupidity; tails – insanity. I can think of no other options to describe this paper.
Australia is exposing itself to be highly incompetent in Science someone needs to let them know this for the sake of any future they may have down there.
Australia is highly incompetent at many things, they survived for the last century by exporting natural resources and importing tourists. Have you ever seen high tech, pharma, avionics, or anything else that takes a modicum of brains and skill, come out of Australia? … From today’s Sydney Morning Herald “Chief economist Ivan Colhoun said a recent visit to clients in Britain, continental Europe and the Middle East revealed a uniformly negative view on Australia’s prospects”.
Atomic absorption spectroscopy in its modern form , an essential tool in analytical chemistry, was developed at Australia’s CSIRO.
Victims of gastric ulcers may be grateful to 2 Australian medics for identifying a bacterium H. pylori as a treatable cause in many instances , to the surprise of medical establishments elsewhere.
According to the UN Australia is a 68% service economy – yes that surprised me too.
Mike: Alan Walsh, from CSIRO, was born near Liverpool and educated in Manchester, so I’ll give OZ partial credit for having not impeded his work, as for the medics and H. pylori, everyone can have their outliers.
It was an Australia who figured out that ulcers are not caused by stress.
In the early 1950’s they were treating ulcer patients with antibiotics…successfully.
So it may be more correct to say he re-discovered it.
How the knowledge was lost is a big mystery to me.
I cite the ulcer example as a prime case of how every expert in the world can be and has been completely wrong, even in the very recent past.
Being highly paid as an expert in a particular field does not tend to make people correct, but it does tend to make them believe they can never be wrong.
Mark: see http://www.whitehat.com.au/australia/inventions/InventionsA.html
You may be surprised at the list.
Black box flight recorder, inflatable escape slide, permaculture, the differential in your car, degaussing, latex gloves, 2 stroke lawn mowers, the notepad, roller doors, salt water chlorination, poymer banknotes, blast glass, refrigeration, wine cask, zip heater, the secret ballot, National Integrity System, the pacemaker, penicillin, bionic ear, Begg orthodontics, the humidicrib, Relenza flu vaccine, spray-on skin for burns victims, cervical cancer vaccine, self constructing crane, thrust bearings, Uniloc software protection, internet WiFi, Google Maps, Synroc, gene shears………
Yes, as evidenced by the list above Australia is actually one of the most innovative countries in the world per capita. Or used to be….
What we have always been crap at though, is backing ourselves with hard cash and commercialising many of these inventions. Normally the new inventions get touted around Oz for several years with no joy before some cluey investor from the US/Japan/Europe sees it and backs it with hard cash – with production in their own country of course.
The result has been an effective drain on Australia of scientific minds as far too many of those brightest scientists and engineers who ‘do’, head overseas to do it!
>>the differential in your car…
Sorry, but the car differential was patented by Pecqueur, a Frenchman, back in the early 19th century. Most Australians were still wearing striped long-johns when the differential was patented. 😉
R
kenskingdom,
Yes I was surprised by the list of Australian ‘inventions’ mainly because the first ‘invention’ I checked out was not ‘invented’ by an Australian.
Penicillin was discovered by a Scottish scientist, Alexander Fleming in 1928. In 1930, an English pathologist used it to cure several people of eye infections. The Australian pharmacologist, Howard Florey, involved in the development of penicillin was leader of a team at Oxford University and spent almost all of his working life in England. Fleming, Florey and Ernst Chain (a German in Florey’s research team) shared a Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work on penicillin.
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to claim penicillin as an Australian ‘invention’.
Don’t have time to look into the rest …
This has been my thoughts on the quality of Ozzie science for some time. I noted before that when you have to name yourself the ARC ‘Centre of Excellence’ for Climate Science Systems, you are revealing that there is considerable doubt about the quality of science goes goes on there – for sure in the minds of the creators of the centre. Good examples of the ‘protesteth too much’ distortion are “The New ‘Democratic’ Party” for a Canadian socialist party (just in case you might not think they are democratic), The ‘Democratic’ Republic of the Congo (they know and everybody else knows they ‘aren’t), or for perhaps the most famous distortion:”Deutsche Demokratische Republik”, possibly a more despotic government than the USSR. I-don’t-beat-my-wife bumper stickers are in the same category.
Only nimrods in the ‘Centre of Excellence’ would be unaware of the effect and their poster boy, Dr. Chris Turney of the “ship of fools” fiasco, (noted above by Anthony Watts) is a revealing product of the ‘Centre’. Didn’t they give Turney an award or consolation prize of some kind for his buffoonery. This paper on patchy global warming doing a tick-tack-toe global tour by country illustrates that the antonym of excellence is rife throughout the institution. They also don’t realize, the name of the joint would keep talented researchers away!
Guess that’s what you get when a country ships all of it’s criminals, morons and others of the like to a continent and let them evolve… ; ) I love the Aussies.
Some more “Climate Bollocks” not fit to be toilet paper.
“ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science”
In the words of Inigo Montoya, regarding the use of the word “Excellence”: “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means”.
BTW, this certainly proves my adage: stop reading when you get to “model”, unless they mean a Kate Upton-type model.
That, and the disproportionate drop in certainty between the headline, the story, the press release and the actual paper is usually pretty steep.
“I have to wonder, do these people even read their own press releases and apply a sanity check?”
Of course not. To apply a sanity check they would first have to go out and try to hire someone sane.
“they would first have to go out and try to hire someone sane.”
🙂
+1000
A tall order, if one only has the ranks of warmistas to pick from.
I’ve run a WW2 simulation many times. According to many of those simulation runs, this paper should have been written in Japanese.
(An old Windows 95 program called “Pacific General”.)
Funny.
This is the same journal that published John Cook, et. al., source of the 97% myth. Pretty much anything having to do with climate science published in this journal is going to be hilarious, don’t you think?
Basil
NEIN! my simulations with Panzer General show the it must be written in Deutsche!
michael
A couple of the simulation runs (with add an on) did turn out that way.
I guess the science isn’t settled after all?
TYPO!
“(with add an on)”
Should be”
“(with an add on)”
(Then again, it DID show up on a computer. Maybe it was correct after all?)
State-of-the-art computer models… well then, should I be impressed? And what is the “state” of their “art” when it comes to computer models? From all accounts they’ve moved in to “impressionist” and away from a more classical “realist” style.
I recall from the late nineties when it was all about drought, melting, drying up, hot and hotter still, snow “what’s that?”, etc. But although the melody is similar the lyrics are now drifting towards wet, a lot wetter, temperature extremes that don’t rule out colder brrrr… wow, be glad when the Paris COP21 dog and pony act is over so we can get a break from this dreck, especially at the weather network – the enquirer of weather reporting.
State of the art=it runs streams of 1’s and 0’s really, really fast
+1000
What the surface record shows is the oceans move heat around, then all of the water that get evaporated follow the prevailing winds over land based stations (where it’s recorded as warming) as it cools to space the whole way.
In NE Ohio “Global Warming” was the Jet Stream moved north, allowing more tropical air, with the 10-20F swing in temps due to the water vapor carried out of the Gulf into the area. These last two summers have had a lot more Canadian dry air. The changes in Ocean SST’s are changing the path of the polar jet streams, changing US temps.
Over 10,000 years ago we first had ‘global warming’ during the present, still very short Interglacial. These guys have no idea about how short Interglacials are and why they end so abruptly and for so long. We have gone way, way backwards in climate science this last 30 years.
Has global warming appeared in England yet, because if so, I haven’t felt it? Will somebody let me know when global warming reaches England?
Me neither. Looks like the UK, too, “isn’t conforming to the expected warming signal”.
Sorry mate, all you Brits are scheduled (pronounce sheshualed) for is some “climate change”.
>>Has global warming appeared in England yet,
>>because if so, I haven’t felt it?
The Papal encyclical obviously did not reach your parish. You are to attend the Warmist mass at 06:00 each day for the next year, and recite one thousand times:
2014 was the warmest year on record in England.
2014 was the warmest year on record in England.
2014 was the warmest year on record in England.
2014 was the warmest year on record in England.
2014 was the warmest year on record in England.
Any dissent or poor attendance will result in a slow roasting over hot coals. This is a religion of peace and goodwill, after all.
(2014 warmest CET year on record.)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2015/Record-UK-temps-2014
There’s no global warming this year in the UK, because the EU have prevented further global warming by restricting the maximum power of all vacuum cleaners manufactured or imported to 1600watt.
And, if you think that this is an impressive result, then just wait until they further limit it to 700watts.
We’ll be freezing our nuts off in mid-July.
Those crafty eurocrats have saved the day, once again.
As for me, I’m sorted, I’m currently warming my backside on the thermal output of a 2300watt Hoover bought before the ban came into effect.
(some sarc. intended.)
appliance running is the new crime in Europe….. sad but true, at least the extra dust layers will keep them warmer.
Reminiscent of the old video game “Sim City”, now the new and improved “Sim Climate” version. Make up whatever you want and publish it as climate fact without disclosure. Where is the BS button?
“Where is the BS button?”
Right next to the biggest climate knob. I’ll leave it up to you to determine who that is.
But this is not science! Who were the peer-reviewers?? This sort of scientific paper you would expect to be sunk within 10 minutes’ critical reading by any competent peer-reviewer. But they all know each other, of course – and they are simply unable to recognise pseudo-science when it emanates from a university.
“any competent peer-reviewer” that’s a tall order, too, in this field.
Just what is a “quasi natural state”?
Whatever you want it to be.
Quasimoto?
I think they just give the college kids some crayons and let them color in where they imagine the AGW is happening. Probably more accurate than computer models.
Now we know why they believe sometimes 1 + 1 = 3
It’s turtles all the way down.
Bishop Ussher, please call your office.
These guys have never heard of the Texas Sharpshooter’s Fallacy, I’m guessing.
From Section 2 of the paper:
“Project CMIP5; Taylor et al 2012 combining historical (1860–2005) and RCP8.5 scenario(2006–2099) simulations from six climate models (table S1) were used in
this analysis.”
So they made up scenarios out to the year 2099 and used them. ROTFLMAO!
And to what standard was the temperature coverage 1860-1920? For instance,
At Burke, in western NSW, BoM deleted the first 40 years of data because temperatures before 1908 were apparently not recorded in a Stevenson screen, the agreed modern method.
Marohasy says this could have been easily accounted for with an accepted algorithm, which would not have changed the fact that it was obviously much hotter in the early 20th century than for any period since. Instead, the early record is deleted, and the post-1910 data homogenised.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/heat-is-on-over-weather-bureau-homogenising-temperature-records/story-e6frgd0x-1227033714144?sv=d69749cc8954cf3877501fca2818acd
The only place on the planet not to demonstrate the signal is the area containing the largest concentration of idiots that believe in Global Warming. The area also contains the highest concentration of pseudo-scientists that participate in the Bribe Science of Climatology. With the highest per-capita earnings of Government grants and 6 digit employment opportunities attempting to prove their Bribe Science, this area benefits more from the Hoax of Global Warming than any area on the planet earth. The area in question also serves as the origin of all exotic trips to distant points on the planet where the Bribe Scientists swill their fine wines and consume culinary delicacies as they prepare for their forays into the outer reaches of the planet to PROVE that the temperatures have increased. Far be it from them to use the largest accumulated detailed temperature record in human existence in their own region of the planet to prove their Hoax. Better left to the far reaches.
This definition of global warming was invented post facto:
“The first signal to appear in the tropics was the change in average temperatures. Later extreme temperature events showed a global warming signal.”
They have tuned the definition to the data they have and are then calling it evidence meeting that definition.
It would be interesting to see what the ‘evidence’ looked like if GISS had not adjusted the temperatures down so much mid-century. It would enhance the tropical ‘evidence’.
Why not have it all ways? Use the raw data to claim evidence of global warming and use the adjusted data to claim it is continuing, Then use the homogenized sea temperature data to claim there is no hiatus. Presto: proof.
+1!
That’s exactly what they did.
If one applied the exact same technique to all the data we have available. they would “discover” the exact same signs of AGW only starting a few thousand years ago at the end of the last ice age. So their deception is two fold. They tuned their definition to the data, and cut the data off before 1930 to hide the fact that what hey found has been happening for thousands of years.
It is a fine example of what we should expect from colleagues of Chris Turney, a professor of climate change at the University of New South Wales, and a gifted Antarctic explorer.
You made me laugh, Curious George. I love humour treading the fine line between being understated and sarcastic.
Mention of Chris Turney reminded me that I was intending to check whether any papers had come out of the aborted expedition to the Antarctic last year .
I primed Google scholar with his name and a fairly wide date range . Nothing obvious from 2014 – 2015 relating to that expedition , but it threw up some past papers which reveal an interesting side to the character . Principally he actually does fieldwork and lab analysis , not just sitting at a supercomputer (although he may do that as well ).eg a recent paper was on the counting of skua colonies in Commonwealth bay and Antarctica and comparing results to those of 1911-13 expeditions . He actually reports long term stability , no “OMG they are dying out and its our fault”.
Another recent paper was on the analysis of carbon residues in Falkland Isles blown over by South Hemisphere westerlies .
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris_Turney/publication/278242099_Climates_of_the_Past/links/557d787508aeea18b777baeb.pdf
He suggests the possibility of solar forcing as a weather or climate factor , which should please some here , and proposes the possibility of a 250yr periodicity
“Spectral analysis identifies a robust 250 yr periodicity, with
evidence of stronger westerly airflow between 2000 and 1000 calendar yrs. Along with
5other records, this periodicity strongly suggests solar forcing plays a significant role
in modulating the strength of the Southern Hemisphere westerlies, something hitherto
not recognised, and will form the focus of future research”
Finally he has written a book on archaeology , so by definition he cannot be a bad guy -( hopefully this conclusion will not get me banned, although probably derided.)
Why would it get you banned? This isn’t realclimate!
[Reply: Exactly right. Science-based discussion is never censored here, much less causing a commenter to be banned. Even if a comment is obviously, preposterously, provably wrong, we leave it to the readers to decide on its merits. ~mod.]
“Remarkably our research shows that you could already see clear signs of global warming in the tropics by the 1960s but in parts of Australia, South East Asia and Africa it was visible as early as the 1940s.”
how odd, the last world drought was back in 1934-
amazing , all this before the real visible signs-
1933: Rare Hurricane Slams Into South Africa
1933: Bitter Winter Weather In Russia & Europe: Snow Causes Wolves To Attack Train
1933: West Australian Heat Wave – “Severest In History”
1933: Heat Waves, Floods, Droughts, Famines Plague China
1933: Spain’s Heat Wave: 130 Degrees In Shade
1933: Heat Wave Causes New Jersey Road To “Explode”
1933: Hottest June In U.S. History – Heat Wave & Drought
1933: 21 Perish During Texas, Louisiana Tornado & Hail Storms
1933: Drought In South Africa – “Worst Outlook For 50 Years”
1933: Flooding In China Kills 50,000
1933: India’s Ganges River Bursts Its Banks – Widespread Flood Damage & Fatalities
1934: 80% of U.S. Suffers From Drought Conditions
1934: “Heat Wave In China Kills One In Every Thousand”
1934: Antarctic Has Incredible Heat Wave – 25 Degrees Over Zero
1934: February Tornado Strikes Several U.S. States
1934: World Wide Drought & Heat Causes Vast Majority of Alps’ Glaciers To Melt
1934: Iowa Heat Wave In May – Pushes Temps Over 110 Degrees
1934: All 48 U.S. States Over 100 Degrees During June
1934: 14 Days of Above 100°F Temps Kill Over 600 Americans
1934: South African Drought Severely Hits Farmers
1934: Nebraska Temperatures Soar To 117 Degrees
1934: Drought, Heat, Floods, Cyclones, & Forest Fires Hit Europe
1934: British Drought Stunts Hay Growth
1934: Worst Drought In England For 100 Years
1934: 7 Days of Incessant, Torrential Rains Cause Massive Flooding In Eastern Bengal
1934: Global Warming Causes 81% Of Swiss Glaciers To Retreat
1934: Canadian Crops Blasted By Intense Heat Wave
1934: “South African Floods Are Unprecedented”
1934: Typhoon Hits Japan Followed By A Massive Tsunami
1934: Record Heat And Drought Across The Midwest
1934: China’s Fall Crops Burning Up During Drought & Heat
1934: Five Million Americans Face Starvation From Drought
1934: Adelaide, Australia Has Record Dry Spell
1934: Gigantic Hailstorm Blankets South African Drought Region
1934: Drought And Sweltering Heat In England
1934: Record Heat Bakes Wisconsin – 104°F
1934: 20 Nebraskans Succumb To Unprecedented 117 Degree Heat
1934: Poland Swamped By Floods – Hundreds Perish
1934: 115 Degrees In Iowa Breaks Record
1934: 115 Degrees Reached In China In The Shade – Heat Wave Ruining Crops
1934: Majority of Continental U.S. Suffers From Drought Conditions
1934: Severe Northern Hemisphere Drought Causes Wheat Prices To “Skyrocket”
1934: Extreme U.S. Winter Weather Leaves 60 Dead In Its Path
1935: Severe Wind Storm Lashes Western States With 60 MPH Gusts
1935: Florida Burns Its Dead After The Most Powerful Hurricane In US History
1935: “The Worst Dust Storm In History” – Kansas City
1935: Worst Drought Since 1902 Has Queensland, Australia In Its Grip
1935: “50 Dust Storms In 104″ Days
1935: France Cooked By Heat Wave
1935: Tropical Windstorm Strikes Texas With 85 MPH Gusts
1935: ‘Black Dusters’ Strike Again In The Texas Dust Bowl
1935: India Hit With Extreme Heat Wave – 124 Degrees
1935: Heat Wave, Drought & Torrential Rains Cause Misery In Europe
1936: “Niagara Falls Freezes Into One Giant Icicle”
1936: February Was Coldest In U.S. History
1936: Italian Alps Glacier Shrinks: WWI Army Bodies Uncovered By Melting
1936: Ice Bridge In Iceland Collapses From Heat Wave & Glacier Melt
1936: Violent Tornadoes Pummel The South – 300 Dead
1936: Dust, Snow & Wind Storm Hit Kansas Region In Same Day
1936: Unprecedented Heat Wave In Moscow
1936: Ukraine Wheat Harvest Threatened By Heat Wave
1936: 780 Canadians Die From Heat Wave
1936: Iowa Heat Wave Has 12 Days of Temperatures Over 100 Degrees
1936: Heat Wave Deaths In Just One Small U.S. City: 50 Die In Springfield, IL
1936: Missouri Heat Wave: 118 Degrees & 311 Deaths
1936: Ontario, Canada Suffers 106 Degree Temps During Heat Wave
1936: Alaska’s 10-Day Heat Wave Tops Out At 108 Degrees
1936 : Record Heat Wave Bakes Midwest; “Condition of Crops Critical”
1936: Midwest Climate So Bad That Climate Scientist Recommends Evacuation of Central U.S.
1936: 12,000 Perish In U.S. Heat Wave – Murderous Week
1936: Single Day Death Toll From Heat Wave – 1,000 Die
1936: Iceland Hurricane Sinks Polar Research Ship Filled With Scientists
1936: Severe Drought & Disastrous Floods In Southern Texas
1936: 20,000 Homeless In Flame Ravaged Forests of Oregon
1936: Northern California Seared By Forest Fires Over 400-Mile Front
1936: Tremendous Gale & Mountainous Waves Pound S. California – 7 Persons Missing
1936: Glacier Park Hotel Guests Flee As Forest Fire Advances – Worst Fire In Years
1936: Iowa Christmas Season Heat Wave Sets Temperature Records – 58 Degrees
>>In Just One Small U.S. City: 50 Die In Springfield, IL
I must have missed that episode. Did Homer save them?
R
But everything is worse now, dontcha know, lol – 😉
The authors state “One of the few exceptions to this clear global warming signal was found in large parts of the continental United States, particularly on the Eastern coast and up through the central states. These regions have yet to manifest obvious warming signals according to the models but it is expected they will appear in the next decade.”
Seems to me a couple of years of the circumpolar vortex WEATHER messes up their long term climate model projections. Hmm, what does that tell us about their models and analyses?
Does it mean they are dominated by weather and thus climate trends change annually or biannually with weather events?
My path of the jet stream over the Midwest has a big influence over the weather in NE Ohio, a 10-20F swing in daily max temps, I presume the jet stream’s path qualifies as chaotic. Though I believe the ocean surface temps help locate parts of the jet stream, these are tied to the decadal oscillations in ocean temps.
The cooling has been in more areas than just the east coast and central states of US
Regional trend of US Annual temperature anomalies since 1998
8 out of 9 climate regions show a cooling trend
• OHIO VALLEY -0.9 F/decade
• UPPER MIDWEST -1.5 F/decade
• NORTH EAST -0.1F/decade
• NORTHWEST -0.1 F/decade
• SOUTH -0.5 F/decade
• SOUTHEAST -0.4 F/decade
• SOUTHWEST -0.1 F/decade
• WEST +0.7 F/decade
• NORTHERN ROCKIES & PLAINS -1.0 F/decade
Models are not “evidence”. One can easily manipulate the outcome by understanding the influences. One can also get a surprising but palatable result by not understanding the influences.
Model /= data.
Global warming is always going to be difficult to pick when it happened using surface weather stations that barely cover 0.1% of the globe. With only 0.1% there is so much room to change coverage of them and find that extra warming when needed. The surface data should have warnings on them that is only covers 0.1% of the planet. We don’t know what the 99.9% is doing on the surface, but satellites are putting us in the right direction and keeping the surface more honest. Although the latter is being challenged over last couple of years especially.
But we can look at what those stations record for that 1% can’t we?
Day to Day Temperature Difference
Surface data from NCDC’s Global Summary of Days data, this is ~72 million daily readings,
from all of the stations with >360 daily samples per year.
Data source:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/gsod/
Code:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gsod-rpts/
This is a chart of the annual average of day to day surface station change in min temp.
(Tmin day-1)-(Tmin d-0)=Daily Min Temp Anomaly= MnDiff = Difference
For charts with MxDiff it is equal = (Tmax day-1)-(Tmax d-0)=Daily Max Temp Anomaly= MxDiff
MnDiff is also the same as
(Tmax day-1) – (Tmin day-1) = Rising
(Tmax day-1) – (Tmin day-0) = Falling
It cools more at night for stations with at least 360 sample/year, than it warmed the day before.
Global Warming/ Climate Change is truly the Silly Putty of scientific theorizing, because it can be formed into any shape needed to match the available “evidence”.
And then reshaped when new evidence emerges.
Truly, there is nothing that could ever falsify this whole idea, when the sort of sophistry, as demonstrated by the logic of these posers, is used.
And what the heck is “model evidence” anyway? I am pretty sure there is no such thing, except in warmista delusions.
Exactly. I think it’s why they switched from climate change being some amorphous future event to “it’s real; it’s happening now” –
“…we were predicting things that might happen but it’s taken so long to take action, those predictions are already here…” – Gina McCarthy
http://bigthink.com/videos/communicating-climate-change
And since we will always have more droughts, floods, tornadoes, wildfires, hurricanes, etc., they will never run out of events to “prove” CAGW.
What happened to “Polar Amplification” where all this warming was supposed to be concentrated around the poles, not the equator?
That was last week. This week it’s Giant ‘Skeeters.
“Remarkably our research shows that you could already see clear signs of global warming in the tropics by the 1960s but in parts of Australia, South East Asia and Africa it was visible as early as the 1940s.””
The authors only looked at minor pockets of local warming in the Southern Hemisphere and falsely claim this to be evidence of global warming when the planet was cooling from 1940-1980. Here is what really was happening all over Northern Hemisphere..
• Arctic temperatures peak in 1938 and 1943 and start to cool after 1944
• Cooler temperatures start in western North America after about 1935/1940
• PDO fluctuates near zero 1937-1939, but positive 1940-1941 due to an El Nino and finally goes mostly negative in 1944
• North Pacific stays warm1940-1960 while PDO is in a negative pattern ( or cool mode)
• Cooler temperatures in Eastern North America after 1945/ 1950
• Eastern Canada starts to cool after 1950 ( almost 10 years after western Canada)
• AO goes mostly negative 1950
• Europe and Russia starts to cool by 1950 (except a brief cold period 1939/1942)
• Mexico temperatures start to decline after 1950
• AMO goes negative 1965-1995
• Cold temperatures trough in the 1970,s
• No net warming( A PAUSE) between 1940’s and 1980’s
Am not so quick to write off this claim.
Because if its true, then does it not suggest the cause of the recent warming is natural and not man made.!
Because they make the claim that this warming started to show itself as early as the 1940’s. Now if that is true then surely that would suggest that the cause of this warming had already been set in place for a good number of years before the 1940’s. Because otherwise how could it had a effect as early as the 1940’s ?.
lf that is the case then is that not to early for man made increases in CO2 to be the cause of this warming?.
Warming was first shown since the 1850’s after the LIA using the oldest world data record the CET. (Central England Temperature) Global temperatures did warm between the 1920’s and 1940’s, but there are also earlier periods of warming observed by early weather stations in local regions.
The trend with global temperatures and CET is hardly different for later periods so no reason to suggest it would be any different back then. This is especially due to the North Atlantic Ocean region has the largest influence on world temperatures during the last 2 million years at least.
Yes by claiming the warming goes back to at least the 40’s.
Goes against their claim that the recent warming was ever man made in the first place.
Why is this stupidity on this web-site? What a bunch of nonsense.
” We expect the first heavy precipitation events with a clear global warming signal will appear during winters in Russia, Canada and northern Europe over the next 10-30 years,” said co-author Dr Ed Hawkins from the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading, UK.”
These guys can ” expect ” warming signals for Northern Hemisphere ” all they want but it is quite unlikely going to happen in the next 10-30 years . Global annual land temperatures are flat since 2005 . North America land ANNUAL temperature anomalies have declining trend since 1997 . Winter temperature anomalies are declining for land areas for the globe , the Northern Hemisphere, North America and ASIA , Spring and Fall temperature anomalies are declining in North America . Yes there can be isolated pockets of regional warming , There always is some but this is not continent wide nor global.
This is the same questionable type of forecasts that IPCC has been forecasting for 2 decades now and none of it has come to pass. Their predictions appear to be mostly exaggerations 2-3 times higher than the observable
One thing I’ve learned from WUWT: the people who design computer models aren’t quite as enamoured with their output as the people who USE the models are.
Just another entry in the very, very large “confirmation bias” pile.
Their claim that climate change first shows up on a regional level is not so wide of the mark.
As there is strong evidence that the last ice age started off as regional climate change in North America that lead to a chain of events which help to spread the ice sheets over much of the northern Atlantic area of the NH. The fact that this warming has yet to show up in North America may point out that this recent warming is not a long term trend.
“both hot and cold extremes have already emerged across many areas.”
Hasn’t the planet experienced hot and cold extremes across many areas since it came into existence? It’s called ‘weather’ and falls within the scope of natural, regional variability.
They keep telling us the science is settled, that CO2 causes the planet to warm. But that doesn’t explain what causes ‘cold extremes’. What is the mechanism whereby CO2 can cause that?
As I said elsewhere, Al Gore and Bill Nye reversed CO2’s polarity. They just forgot how they did it. Otherwise there would be no “pause”.
As at 0100UTC today, the recorded extremes of hot and cold are +46.5C in Kuwait and -80.5C in Antarctica – I guess that’s fairly extreme…
UAH shows Australia to be cooling, at the rate of -0.2ºC/decade since 2002
What does BOM show.. don’t know.. don’t care.. I know it will be a total fudge on data manipulated crap.
The insanity of the left is breathtaking. They throw everything except the kitchen sink against the wall in the hope that something sticks. So far that wall is coated in Teflon.
“Based on our findings we expect local temperature and precipitation extremes to already differ significantly from their previous quasi-natural state at many locations or to do so in the near future.”
Apparently, they are admitting that ‘extremes’ in many locations have yet to differ from their ‘quasi-natural’ states. But rest assured, they will do so in the near future. I hope they have identified what the quasi-natural state is for each location so we will be able to recognize unnatural extremes when they happen. I just don’t know how you do that. For example, when wet weather and mud slides return to California again, are they going to call it a ‘precipitation extreme’ that differs significantly from the previous ‘quasi-natural’ drought state and then blame it on AGW? I have a feeling they will. Never mind that such extremes have happened long before there was any CO2 induced climate change.
Here they are talking about some of the regions where a clear global warming signal has not yet been found:
“One of the few exceptions to this clear global warming signal was found in large parts of the continental United States, particularly on the Eastern coast and up through the central states. These regions have yet to manifest obvious warming signals according to the models but it is expected they will appear in the next decade.”
Of course, they expect this to change any day now. But could the reason it hasn’t happened is because there are more temperature data available in the U.S. (and more eyes watching) making it a bit harder to ‘adjust’ temperatures upward? Just a thought…
First sentence in the article:
The indications of climate change are all around us today…
…as always. Nothing has changed.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. What is observed today has happened repeatedly in the past, and to a much greater degree. But there’s no grant money available for those pointing that out.
Was wondering how a paper this stupid could get published. Is in ERL, one of the IOP stable—strictly pay to play (about $3500 per article, IIRC). ERL is where Phil Jones threatened to remove an editor in Climategate 1 emails, IIRC. Finally, ERL is where Cook paid to publish his 97% consensus drek.
Pal review pollution of the formerly semiserious scientific process. Now with probable Australian grant money you simply pay up to get obvious nonsense published.
I’m kinda tempted to take them at their word. The first signs of global warming having showed up in 1940, we’ve been experiencing AGW for 3/4 of a century. During which:
o human population sky rocketed
o crop production sky rocketed
o life span sky rocketed
o huge expanses of land were returned to natural habitat due to less need for growing fuel and food
Now one could point out that growth in our population, food production and life span has begun to tail off in the last two decades. To which I reply that this coincides with “the pause” and is further proof that warmer is better.
Spin, spin, spin….
In Climate Change™ research a “quasi-natural state” is the state of the climate before it is examined, homogenised, manipulated, doctored, fudged, generally cooked and corrupted by quasi-scientists practicing a quasi-science.
+1000
And after all that I still don’t if should bring an umbrella or not.
CH
I’ve been collecting my own data about everything I could at my home. Almost 3 years of it.
So far it is the only “real”, detailed data I can find (except for the satelite data).
And recently before I bought a “6 +” have had to deal with barometric pressure to the closest .01 inches of Hg. But with the 6&8 chip, and an ap “–Barograph–” my research has drastically changed. With the detail of the data (graphed is detailed), I can see what the diurnals really look like. My plots are now using three decimal places.
After the sun lost it’s energy, the signals I have been plotting have confirmed the actions of the sun’s affect upon our atmosphere. Our barometric pressure seems to have dropped off to a level close to the sea level pressure values and haven’t changed. No wonder there is no storms brewing, we are in a “stillness” state.
It seems very clear to me. We have simulations outputing ‘data’ that confirm that the models are correct. What could possibly be wrong with that?
There aren’t many fashion models that still look good 20-50 years later. (No knock on them intended. I looked better a few decades ago myself.) Age does that to people. How many climate models have improved with age?
Age, and the dreaded Furnature Disease….(when your chest falls into your drawers ) …
Re fashion models I think your statement is flawed, Christie Brinkley comes to mind. 🙂
Check out “About Face: Supermodels Then and Now” for some more examples.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2085741/?ref_=nm_ov_bio_lk3
Phil, I did say “there aren’t many”, I didn’t say “there aren’t any”.( Fashion models, that is.)
Climate models is something else. Have any of them improved with age? Which ones even looked good to begin with? Lots of “going under the knife” where their numbers are concerned.
Christie Brinkley?
I loved this.
I am ashamed to say that UNSW is my alma mater.
I’m ashamed to say the UNSW is even in the same country.
With appropriate data “adjustment” the real world will be made to conform to the model. This is already happening unfortunately. As a UNSW alumni I’m embarrassed by their so called climate scientists publications.
When global warming became clearly evident in the temperature record
Which temperature record? The original or the bastardised version after they got through altering it.
Just a note that UNSW in the 1970-80s was known as a bastion for radical socialists and Marxists. I had a Marxist lecturer who advocated equal salaries for all workers, regardless of field or ability.
You can make your own judgement about whether this tradition has anything to do with current research.
‘According to model evidence’. That’s a classic.
This article might as well be titled: “When you wish upon a star……”
It should be noted that this was written for the Walt Disney film – Pinnochio…..:-)
When you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires
Will come to you
If your heart is in your dream
No request is too extreme
When you wish upon a star
As dreamers do
Fate is kind
She brings to those to love
The sweet fulfillment of
Their secret longing
Like a bolt out of the blue
Fate steps in and sees you through
When you wish upon a star
Your dreams come true
Nice title and peer review for this article, isn’t it?
“I had a Marxist lecturer who advocated equal salaries for all workers, regardless of field or ability. ”
True enough for US armed forces; but they hide inequality in bonuses. Otherwise you end up with scarcity in high tech or less pleasant specialties.
Michael 2.
What are you talking about? Each rank has a higher pay scale and there is upward mobility if you’re not an idiot. Most jobs work that way.
“money quote says the USA isn’t conforming to the expected warming signal”
Substitute in the country you are publishing in… wouldn’t want the locals to ask why their own thermometers don’t show the warming, after all?
log(of(log(of(log(of…. gives a clear, robust trend – and zero information.
one should think that the world formula is inhearant logical: hierarchic cristallized like a diamonds structure.
but: a diamonds structurs information is exhausted in the ever repeated again/again/again/….
A better metaphor is a fe3c diagram: cristalline fe3c structures irregularly broken / mantled / separated by raw carbon.
no depictable logical ‘one cristal’, hierarchic ‘world formula’. Reality is ever demanding.
best regards – Hans
Do they bill their “science” per kg of paper?
I dare say one reason the US hasn’t shown “global warming” signs is that it has retained the Fahrenheit scale, unlike most western countries that switched to Celsius in the 60s and 70s – which is the more generally accepted era when AGW supposedly started happening.
F thermometers had different scaling and observer eyeball estimates of decimals at weather stations usually became more accurate with metrication. A tell-tale sign of the influence is the proportion of .0 readings during the temp record. For example, in Australia between a third and more likely close to half of all F temps recorded before 1972 metrication were .0 (http://www.waclimate.net/round/rounded-australia.html).
Some claim it makes no difference as the rounded temp readings were equally up and down. I say poppycock because it would be human nature for more rounding observers to consider 77.3F recorded as 78F to be a lie, but 77.7F recorded as 77F to be true – sorta. Australia changed thermometers and the BoM reports a 0.1C artificial temp variation at that time – go figure. Other instrument changes, primarily automatic weather stations since the 1990s, maintained the warming trend.
“one reason the US hasn’t shown “global warming” signs is that it has retained the Fahrenheit scale”
Yeah, that’s actually why we did it. So that the rest of you would get warmer while we don’t. Guess we’re busted. [eyeroll]
It’s as though these people are playing a computer game called “Global Warming Simulator” and the real world is supposed to act as though their gameplay is real. If things actually worked that way, let me tell you how many times I’ve single-handedly defeated the Nazis in WWII, starting with the original DOS version of Castle Wolfenstein