Two days ago I highlighted a news story from the Washington Post Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt dated from November 2nd 1922. That brought a flood of interest and some other interesting finds along with it as other readers contributed what they found on the story.
One of the most interesting finds was a study published in the Monthly Weather Review in September 1933 Titled: IS OUR CLIMATE CHANGING? A STUDY OF LONG-TIME TEMPERATURE TRENDS.
The first page of the original article is below:
Click this link for the full PDF of the article.
What is most interesting about this article is that it stems from a realization that the regular weather patterns they used to know were now acting differently. For example this form the article:
The phase of weather, or climate, that is attracting attention at the present time is not these short-period changes from warm to cool, and vice versa, for they are always present, but rather an apparent longer-time change to cool periods that seem to be less frequent and of shorter duration, and warm periods that are more pronounced and persistent.
And when you look at some of the city temperature graphs presented in the article, such as the one below, the parallels between them and some graphs presented in the present day are striking:
There is even the familiar argument and rebuttal about the Urban Heat Island effect:
It has been suggested that these tendencies to abnormally high-temperature records in recent years may be more apparent than real, in that data cited are nearly always from large cities where the thermometers may have been unduly affected by artificial influences that do not obtain in the open country. We have examined this phase of the matter and find that the suggestion is not well taken.
In the concluding remarks, the is the recognition of climate change to a warmer regime:
All of these confirm the general statement that we are in the midst of a period of abnormal warmth, which has come on more less gradually for many years.
Of course we all know what happened next, 1934 became the hottest year on record, the dust bowl and great depression occurred, followed by World War II. The climate changes again, a return to a colder phase lasting all the way until about 1978 when the “new ice age” was being discussed. Then the great PDO shift occurred and warming has been the norm since then.
There wasn’t any push then to accept blame for the change or to take action to change the climate. Many people look to the graph below though and see something other than natural variations.
The difference today is that during this warming phase, much like what led up to 1934, had a significant El Nino year of 1998, and it set off alarm bells. Because unlike in the 30’s, when this paper was written, somebody was ready to step in with a cause that they believed could be modified by action- man made CO2.
Yet as this graph recently published on ICECAP by Joe D’Aleo shows, it appears that the Pacfic Decadal Oscillation (PDO), combined with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is a good fit to the instrumental surface temperature record of the last 100 years:
We could all learn a little bit from our weather history. We could all step back a bit and look at what previously happened in our climate changes before we make a rush to judgement to try to “fix” a problem that is very likely just another natural variance on the upswing, soon to be followed by a downturn.
There are quite a number of articles on “climate change” in the past, for further reading, try looking at some of these article links submitted by readers of this forum from the New York Times newspaper archives. Just click on the date. Thanks to Tim Blair for compiling the list below from our reader submitted links as well as his own research.
• 1923:
Glaciers have disappeared and land once covered with field ice is bare.
• 1924:
Glaciers are moving from their age-old beds, pouring greater quantities of ice into the sea than recorded history has known. Broad areas of land are sinking to new levels. A number of islands have disappeared.
• 1930:
The Alpine glaciers are in full retreat. Out of 102 glaciers observed by Professor P.L. Mercanton of the University of Lausanne and his associates more than twothirds have been found to be shrinking.
• 1935:
The great glaciers of the West, last remnants of the Ice Age on continental United States, have been retreating from their strongholds in the mountains at double time since last year.
• 1947:
A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist, said today.
There are also many reports of the climate turning colder:
• 1895:
The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions.
• 1961:
Winters Since ‘40 Found Colder In Studies by Weather Bureau; Data Indicate, a Reversal of a Warming Trend That Began in 1881
• 1961:
After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.
• 1975:
Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable
• 1978:
An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Thus nature, and the NYT, balances itself. The paper really should return to the Grandfather Index of climate judgment:
• 1934:
America is believed by Weather Bureau scientists to be on the verge of a change of climate, with a return to increasing rains and deeper snows and the colder Winters of grandfather’s day.
• 1936:
The recent severely cold weather, following, in the main, many mild Winters, has caused people throughout the country to ask: “Does this portend a return to the reputed cold Winters of ‘granddad’s day’ years ago?”
Yep; all over the US, that’s exactly what people were asking. But listen to folks from the actual Granddad’s Day era and they’ll tell you the real cold was earlier still:
• 1890:
Is our climate changing? … The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young …
Also, there are fewer mastodons. Last word to the ominously-named, but perfectly sensible, Mr Scarr:
• 1924:
Some People Always Think the Climate Is Changing, But Mr. Scarr Says There Is Nothing in His Records to Justify the Notion
So, Anthony, where does this lead? We know the pattern of 20C temperatures. Globally, 40 years rise, 30 years pause/dip, then the rise resumes. In the US similar, but with more of a dip. The reasons have been much discussed. You have collected a list of contemporary remarks which are broadly consistent with this. Is the point that there were some inaccuracies? They didn’t have satellites and computers. Or that they didn’t have reasons for the change? Well, science advances.
REPLY: I don’t see any inaccuracies in this article, except perhaps the brushoff on UHI. I think it’s imply the didn’t ascribe reasons (or blame) to the change. They just chose to go with the flow.
Truth is (indeed) stranger than fiction…
Top stuff, Anthony. Fascinating.
That is one of the most interesting blogs I’ve ever read.
So evidence is accumulating that people complain more about the heat than the cold. 🙂
Nice piece of research Tim Blair.
Folks might be interested in this article on CNN’s website:
Scientists forecast a storm from climate change
in particular the quote: Dr Trenberth believes that the increasing intensity of hurricanes will conversely result in less storms per year — a hurricane cools the sea so that there is less likelihood of further storms forming in its wake — but that the storms that do form will be much more devastating and much more likely to cost human lives.
So now global warming will reduce the frequency of hurricanes!
I recently found a 2006 article that I’ll reference in a new web page with:
Fire and Ice
This article looks at media reports on the imminent Ice Age (1895), the
benefits of ongoing CO2-related warming (1938), how the cooling since 1940
… will not soon be reversed (1975), “Our ability to live is what is at
stake” (2006). One of its recommendations is “Don’t stifle debate.”
——
The article itself is a little disjointed and makes a couple passes through the subject, but it’s a good source of additional references to past predictions that either didn’t pan out or have become fashionable again.
Anthony,
I posted a little nugget on another thread concerning the overlapping growth of arctic and antarctic ice. From these graphs at cryosphere today:
NH: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
SH: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
You can see that starting in mid-Feb, Antarctic ice turned the corner and started building again. SH ice is ~1million km^2 ahead of where it was last year, and last year was a record year. NH ice is STILL GROWING, even as late as mid-March. As you can see from the graph, it has not hit it’s peak. Last year at this time, it was already melting. Both hemispheres are accumulating ice, and have been for ~a month so far.
I got someone at Realclimate to state that the overlap was “normal” and the “normal” length of time that both hemispheres build ice together is 1-2 weeks. But what if it’s a month (4 weeks)? Month and a half (6 weeks)? Does that mean anything? Is this a new metric that can be tracked?
Anthony,
You and your allies are state treasures !
Thank you all so much for the efforts you all put forth to shine the light of fact into the darkness that the “debate is over” crowd would have us live in.
Anthony,
What a wonderful post. It makes me wonder why the word unprecedented is used in our alarmist warmer language so much. It appears that the warming we are feeling now and the cooling we are starting to feel aren’t any thing out of the ordinary. That they are part of nature’s normal variability. It would seem to me that if we are experiencing a PDO and AMO along with the sun’s inactivity have very possibly put us in a cooling period. I wonder what would happen if we were to have a major volcanic eruption now. I can only imagine what the flap would be in the circles of the “TEAM”.
Great post it appears that history does repeat itself.
Thank you Mr. Watts.
Bill
Anthony,
Take a look at this:
http://i31.tinypic.com/fbwa5h.jpg
It’s the latest HadCRUT3 global anomaly graph. I don’t know how they are smoothing (anybody?), but from eyeballing the smoothed series, I estimate a warming trend in the run up to the peak ~1940 of ~0.177C/decade, and in the run up to the peak ~2005 of ~0.194C/decade.
Now if we assume that the increase through the ’20’s and ’30’s was “normal” (normal climate forcings, no AGW), and that the higher rate of change through ’80’s and ’90’s is entirely attributable to the influence of AGW (something I’m not convinced is true), that’s only 0.014C per decade. Extrapolating, AGW would add 0.14C of global warming over the next century.
I’ll find the quote later, but IPCC represents the historical data to say that in the second half of the last hundred years (1906-2005) that the rate of change in global temperatures substantially accelerated. That’s not what we see in the HadCRUT3 chart. The rate of change during the ’20s and ’30’s was almost as great as the rate of change in the ’80s and ’90’s, with the latter only incrementally greater.
Just treat my eyeballing, for now, as a first approximation. I’ll get the raw data and see what I can come up with more precisely in the next day or two.
By the way, everyone clucking their tongue at the downturn shown in the HP smoothing in Part II of my “To Tell The Truth,” series, take a look at what HadCRUT3 is showing after 2005. What’s up with that?
Basil
Correction: I meant “Part III.”
I don’t suppose they have a list of those “disappeared” islands. I know that if it were truly that bad, the island I live on (Whidbey) would have been split into three or more separate islands. I don’t remember seeing any dramatic rise of 2-3 feet in sea level in the early 20th century. Sounds like they had alarmists back then too.
Anthony, this does not have anything to do with the Deja Vu blog but I thought the work Valery Hronusov from the Russian Academy of Sciences might be of some interest. He is doing some really creative things with Google Earth and this link shows NASA Annual Day Land Temperatures of the Earth (MODIS) loadable into GE.
http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2006/01/nasa_annual_day.html
It originates from this link about oil and gas
http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2006/04/oil_and_geology.html
Some of the readers might be interested in this.
14 newspaper articles over 100 year period is significant? Get a grip.
Looking at the past and present trending, well I think we can definitively conclude: The climate has changed when we have entered the next ice age.
Apparently, NPR thinks Global Warming is a mystery too. Since 2003 the ocean has cooled, sea level has risen, and we don’t know how to interpret the data…
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
[realclimate reality]
AGW starteted much sooner than originally thought. This gives us even less time to act!!! Such as 10 minutes…
[realclimate reality/]
Another article today claiming that 2008 will be in the top 10 warmest.
Phil Jones says And an underlying warming trend, blamed by the U.N. Climate Panel on human use of fossil fuels, is likely to reassert itself after the end of a La Nina cooling of the Pacific in the coming months. There were similar conditions in 1998 and 2005, the hottest so far, Jones said
Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t 1998 and 2005 strong El Nino years and that’s why they where much warmer. Jones statement doesn’t make sense because we’re in a La Nina year.
According to an article at Ice Cap it doesn’t look like 1998 and 2005 were preceded by La Nina.
Is this Jones guy just screwed up in the head? or is the reporter? or am I missing something?
So how does this guy predict it? Another wonderful model for Jones and gang?
Dear Winnebago
14 news paper articles found, I am sure that there are many more.
The major point is this.
The alarmists principal claims are as follows :
“both the current temperature and the rate of increase in temperature are unprecedented”
“The reduction in NH Sea Ice extent over the last few years is due to AGW”
“there is no other explanation that fits the facts”
“the science is settled and the debate is over”
errr……………….. Sorry………….. all of the above are untrue.
And with respect to the last one the debate is far from over, not by a long shot.
Re: John Goetz’s comment on Dr. Trenberth
Trenberth is well restrained in the CNN article that you mentioned. For the sake of people who haven’t already seen this, take a look at Trenberth’s “future hurricane.”
You should be interested in the cosmic ray count from 1964 to 2008, very interesting progression of lows and highs. Right now we are at the highest level of neutron counts since record keeping began. http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/Request.dll?Y1=1964&M1=Jan&D1=01&h1=00&m1=00&Y2=2008&M2=Mar&D2=31&h2=00&m2=00&YR=01&MR=00&DR=00&hR=00&mR=00&PD=1
If you have to run it again, choose a 1 year resolution to reproduce the results.
I seem to remember snow cover was much higher when I was a kid… But then, of course I was much smaller myself back then.
Seriously now… I am having a hard time staying away from this blog. Just can’t stop tracking it daily and checking the responses. Made me even pull my stats study books from a forgotten bookcase, thinking I should have been paying more attention in those classes…
Kudos for this blog. Very interesting.
PGosselin Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
And I thought they knew everything there is to know.
http://www.npr.org/ templates/ story/ story.php?storyId=88520025
The science is settled? Oh really?
Not so fast. Look at the vocabulary and language used in this report:
“…a puzzling message…”
“That could mean…”
“…scientists aren’t quite understanding…”
“This is puzzling because…”
“…has been a very slight cooling…”
“…may be… (used more than once)
“…something more mysterious is going on.”
“…there’s a little bit of a mystery.”
“One possibility is…”
“We can’t account for all of the sea level increase…”
“…scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data…”
“…that raises a new question:…”
“…probably going back out into space…”
“That can’t be directly measured…”
“…we don’t have adequate tracking of…”
“It’s also possible that…”
“Or it’s possible that…”
“…they don’t know about. ”
“…all this new data about…”
“…send people back to the drawing board.”
“…still things to learn…”
And I love the part about the earth having natural thermostats. Now wasn’t Richard Lindzen recently ridiculed for having floated out that idea? Hmmmm
Believe me. This is a very long way from being understood.
I have some questions regarding the plot that shows the USHCN temperature varying with PDO+AMO.
Where did he obtain a single temperature time series product for the USHCN? There are ways to calculate this using the USHCN product, but do they actually produce a time series for US temperatures? If he did calculate it, how was it done?
What exactly is the blue curve? It is not simply the addition of PDO and AMO as the title of the graph says. I assume it’s a linear combination of PDO and AMO, but what are the weightings? Were the weightings chosen to maximize the correlation with the USHCN temperature?
REPLY: See this paper http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf
Anyone know what’s up at WCR? Nothing’s been posted there in 2 weeks, and I’m getting mighty antsy.
I looked at ICECAP for that graph and couldn’t find it – does anyone have the link to that article? Thanks.
REPLY: See his paper: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf
And then, of course, we have hysterically funny (as well as just plain hysterical) contemporary articles like this.
Perhaps 50 or 100 years from now someone on a blog will reference this article as evidence of some of the nitwittery of the late 20th and early 21st century.
Dave, thank you for pointing out the quote from Phil Jones. He is presumably sticking to the Hadley Centre prediction that the average global anomaly this year will be 0.37 That would be in the top ten, but would also be cooler than any of the last 7 years.
However the average error in the Met Office predictions over the last 9 years is 0.07, so that means we can expect either 0.44 or 0.30 if this is an averagely “accurate” prediction. With such a wide margin of error I wonder why the Met bother with these annual predictions. What possible use are they? All they do is show everyone how bad the climate modellers are at predicting global temperatures even one year ahead.
Is it just a coincidence that 8 of the 9 Phil Jones predictions of the next year’s global average temperature anomaly have been over-estimates? And that if one takes the sign of the error into account the Met is on its way to predicting 6 degrees too much warming during the coming century.
Wow, a whole 8 hours! And since WAY back in 1982! Run for your lives!!
Stan,
The largest omission in the document you cited IMO is the following:
“…by the Nobel Piece Prize-winning…”
Anthony, you are giving people the wrong link. This is the one you want to give people:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf
REPLY: Thanks for pointing that out, I made the link copy/paste in haste, and didn’t check it.
Anthony,
You could go back even further. In the 1400’s the French poet Francois Villon was already complaining “Mais où sont les neiges d’antan” (But where are the snows of yester years). I guess he was living during the MWP?
Also, it may be good to remember that in 1933, people still believed that continents were fixed. Seventy years from now, will people look back at us and laugh at our ignorance?
This must be one of Anthony’s best posts. I am giving him a standing ovation.
What caught my eye was how they used yearly temperature summations in their charts. That avoids all of the issues involved with averages and I have not seen that used before.
I hate averages, because they hide the real data. Often, the diviations from the averages end up being the most important information.
I know how busy you are. Hate to even mention something that would add to your work load. Maybe a reader has access and time to give a look at the back issues of NatGeo. They are currently one of the leading scaremongering tub thumpers. The current issue features a story where they draw a line across the Sahara desert asserting that this is where the desert recieved 6 inches of rainfall during the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s, then they draw another line to show how much further south the 6 inch rainfall line was during the 70’s,80’s, and 90’s – (as if that mattered in 2008!).
National Geographic as a magazine stretches back into the 1880’s – I would be very surprised, if in the stories from the early 20th century, it isn’t chocked full of climate change scare mongering.
And I would dearly love to see their current climate change apple cart take a tumble.
Well even GISS shows the warm period alluded to in these articles. The only question in my mind is, were the warm 1930s limited to NOAM, or global (or something in between)?
My mother has talked about the great heat wave in 1936. She lived in Detroit at the time and said it was quite a memorable experience.
Detroit’s killer heat wave of 1936
http://info.detnews.com/redesign/history/story/historytemplate.cfm?id=134&CFID=10427031&CFTOKEN=84350957
People really have been dumbed down to believe we live in “unprecedented” times.
My grand dad was born in 1884 and talked about the cold durning WWI and how many men died in the trenches due to disease (flu and such) due to the cold. My dad was born in 1918 and talked about how hot it was in the mid 30’s and how everything dried up and made the depression even worse. but that he remembered the year without a summer and how terrible it was when all the crops failed. It must have been terrible times. The face is that it tells us that we are not in the midst of unusual climate change.
I believe that we would be better served to prepare to adapt to what ever the climate serves up rather than to try to change the climate. We are due historically for a change and I believe it is happening now. I do hope it dosen’t get to cold that would be much worse than some warmer. what ever we must adapt.
Bill
Here is a link to the Illinois State Climatologist’s web site:
http://www.sws.uiuc.edu/atmos/statecli/Climate_change/iltrends.htm
Check out the temp graph. And, comment from the state climatologist “For temperature, the 1800s were considerably cooler with a remarkable warming trend through about 1940, followed by a cooling trend through the early 1980s. While temperatures have warmed in recent years, they were not as warm as the 1930s.”
Again from the Illinois State Climatologist:
http://www.sws.uiuc.edu/atmos/statecli/Climate_change/toptenlist.htm
“Here are the 10 warmest years in Illinois based on the 1895-2006 record. Normal is defined as the 1971-2000 average. The state-wide normal temperature for Illinois is 51.7 degrees F.
Unlike global and U.S. temperature records, the warmest year on record in Illinois was 1921. Three of the 10 warmest years came from the 1930s decade. The two most recent entries were 1998 and 2006.”
That’s very interesting. I think the whole global warming issue is kind of alarmist. Sigh.
REPLY and FYI: Your email address used landed this post in the spam filter, I only caught it by opening up the holder to look for something else. The words that makeup the email address are the reason, you may want to think about a different email address.
On the thread of climate worries — do we remember the 2007 Georgia drought and what it was blamed on? Almost four months ago, forecasters said the drought would worsen because of La Nina. Since then, the rainfall has been noticeably above normal. (I do not intend to start a religious discussion, but I think it can bring a light-hearted smile when one observes that the change came after Governor Perdue took a lot of grief for publicly praying for rain — who would have thought?!)
I’m a tad ambivalent towards global warming, and tend to get turned off when talking to doom and gloom environmentalists, but I do like that the alarms causes people to give a little more attention to “green energy”.
This of course is a whole other world of woes but seems like a tiny step in a direction beneficial towards the earth…That said I enjoyed your article. Thank you for putting it together.
It all goes to show that we ignore history. We seem to research more and more but learn less. We also make explanations more and more complicated when the obvious is staring us in the face. Global climate changes all the time. What history does prove is that we live on a dynamic planet whose climate cannot be controled by human intervention.
[…] specifically, I’m writing this in response to What’s up with that?’s post on climate trends being recognized in the early post-industrial era of the 1920’s and […]
The true cause of the 70-years cyclic climate changes is the modulation of the thermonuclear energy conversion process within the core of the Sun by the action of galactic vacuum density waves on this star (see below).
A Compilation of the Arguments that Irrefutably Prove that Climate Change is driven by Solar Activity and not by CO2 Emission
Dr. Gerhard Löbert, Otterweg 48, 85598 Baldham, Germany. March 6, 2008.
Physicist. Recipient of The Needle of Honor of German Aeronautics.
Program Manager “CCV, F 104G” (see Internet).
Program Manager “Lampyridae, MRMF” (see Internet)
Conveyor of a super-Einsteinian theory of gravitation that explains, among many other post-Einstein-effects, the Sun-Earth-Connection and the true cause of the global climate changes.
I. Climatological facts
As the glaciological and tree ring evidence shows, climate change is a natural phenomenon that has occurred many times in the past, both with the magnitude as well as with the time rate of temperature change that have occurred in the recent decades. The following facts prove that the recent global warming is not man-made but is a natural phenomenon.
1. In the temperature trace of the past 10 000 years based on glaciological evidence, the recent decades have not displayed any anomalous behaviour. In two-thirds of these 10 000 years, the mean temperature was even higher than today. Shortly before the last ice age the temperature in Greenland even increased by 15 degrees C in only 20 years. All of this without any man-made CO2 emission!
2. There is no direct connection between CO2 emission and climate warming. This is shown by the fact that these two physical quantities have displayed an entirely different temporal behaviour in the past 150 years. Whereas the mean global temperature varied in a quasi-periodic manner, with a mean period of 70 years, the CO2 concentration has been increasing exponentially since the 1950’s. The sea level has been rising and the glaciers have been shortening practically linearly from 1850 onwards. Neither time trace showed any reaction to the sudden increase of hydrocarbon burning from the 1950’s onwards.
3. The hypothesis that the global warming of the past decades is man-made is based on the results of calculations with climate models in which the main influence on climate is not included. The most important climate driver (besides solar luminosity) comes from the interplay of solar activity, interplanetary magnetic field strength, cosmic radiation intensity, and cloud cover of the Earth atmosphere. As is shown in Section II, this phenomenon is generated by the action of galactic vacuum density waves on the core of the Sun.
4. The extremely close correlation between the changes in the mean global temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of the Earth in the past 150 years (see Fig. 2.2 of http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm), which has been ignored by the mainstream climatologists, leaves little room for a human influence on climate. This close correlation results from the action of galactic vacuum density waves on the Sun and on the Earth (see Section II). Note that temperature lags rotation by 6 years.
5. From the steady decrease of the rotational velocity of the Earth that set in in Dec. 2003, it can reliably be concluded that the mean Earth temperature will decrease again in 2010 for the duration of three decades as it did from 1872 to 1913 and from 1942 to 1972.
6. The RSS AMSU satellite measurements show that the global temperature has not increased since 2001 despite the enormous worldwide CO2 emissions. Since 2006 it has been decreasing again.
II. Physical explanation for the strong correlation between fluctuations of the rotational velocity and changes of the mean surface temperature of the Earth
Despite its great successes, the gravitational theory of the great physicist Albert Einstein, General Relativity, (which is of a purely geometric nature and is totally incompatible with the highly successful quantum theory) must be discarded because this theory is completely irreconcilable with the extremely large energy density of the vacuum that has been accurately measured in the Casimir experiment.
Seaon Theory, a new theory of gravitation based on quantum mechanics that was developed eight decades after General Relativity, not only covers the well-known Einstein-effects but also shows up half a dozen post-Einstein effects that occur in nature. From a humanitarian standpoint, the most important super-Einsteinian physical phenomenon is the generation of small-amplitude longitudinal gravitational waves by the motion of the supermassive bodies located at the center of our galaxy, their transmission throughout the Galaxy, and the action of these waves on the Sun, the Earth and the other celestial bodies through which they pass. These vacuum density waves, which carry with them small changes in the electromagnetic properties of the vacuum, occur in an extremely large period range from minutes to millennia.
On the Sun, these vacuum waves modulate the intensity of the thermonuclear energy conversion process within the core, and this has its effect on all physical quantities of the Sun (this is called solar activity). This in turn has its influences on the Earth and the other planets. In particular, the solar wind and the solar magnetic field strength are modulated which results in large changes in the intensity of the cosmic radiation reaching the Earth. Cosmic rays produce condensation nuclei so that the cloud cover of the atmosphere and the Earth albedo also change.
On the Earth, the steady stream of vacuum density waves produces parts-per-billion changes in a large number of geophysical quantities. The most important quantities are the radius, circumference, rotational velocity, gravitational acceleration, VLBI baseline lengths, and axis orientation angles of the Earth, as well as the orbital elements of all low-earth-orbit satellites. All of these fluctuations have been measured.
Irrefutable evidence for the existence of this new, super-Einsteinian wave type is provided by the extremely close correlation between changes of the mean temperature and fluctuations of the mean rotational velocity of the Earth. (see the figure referred to in Section I.4). Einsteinian theory cannot explain this amazing correlation between two physical quantities that seem to be completely unrelated.
While the rotational velocity of the Earth and the thermonuclear energy conversion process on the Sun react simultaneously to the passage of a vacuum density wave, a time span of 6 years is needed for the energy to be transported from the core of the Sun to the Earth’s atmosphere and for the latter’s reaction time.
As can be seen, super-Einsteinian gravitation reveals the true cause of climate change.
Certainly we need to look at history — and I’m reluctant to say it’s the climate change side that is ignoring history. I’m not sure that these charts support a claim that current warming is incidental, as I’ve argued at
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/icebergs-in-florida-history-anecdotes-or-data/
Great clips, Rev. Most amusing.
If you are doing any analysis with the USHCN database, remember that the historical temperature record has been adjusted to increase the trend by 0.53F up to 1999 (we don’t how much they have adjusted the trend after 1999.)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
Ed Darrell, they’re not only ignoring history, they’re adjusting and rewriting it!
Anthony, great stuff!
In spite of one of the coolest summers I can ever recall [I haven’t been sailing for 4 months] the local MSM still preach AGW.
When’s the class action gonna start?
Doc G.,
What’s your take on the oceanic oscillations which correlate so well with the temperature ups and downs of the last century? Do you consider the PDO/AMO cycles to be solar-driven as well, or do you regard the correlation as coincidental?
Also, what do you think of the accuracy of the recent measurements and the reliability of the usually suspect proxies?
Question.
I realize that 20 years in the history of the earth is a incredibly
short time. Has there been any measured change in the sea level from 1989
to the present?
citizenwells:
“The second article also appears in Global and Planetary Change and was prepared by a team of French oceanographers. As their title suggests, Berge-Nguyen et al. collected thermosteric sea level data based on temperatures in the top 700 meters of the ocean, tide gauge, satellite altimetry, and ocean reanalysis data. They used a series of sophisticated multivariate statistical techniques and ultimately produced the graphic below (Figure 2). Like you, we look at this graphic and see a global increase in sea level of approximately 80 mm over the 54-year time period. The math is simple – the graph shows a rise of 1.48 mm yr−1.”
(http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/05/06/slower-sea-level-rise/#more-323)
[…] get the thriving polar bear listed as a protected species. Never mind the fact that the arctic has melted before in the last 100 years. See the news release from the Department of the Interior […]
[…] 1922, dit artikel alsmede een stuk dat dieper ingaat op het hoe en wat is te vinden op de site van: Anthony Watts iemand die zich al langer met deze kwestie bezig houdt en wat mij betreft een redelijk heldere blik […]
Perhaps of interest, the “Monthly Weather Review”:
“The Monthly weather review first began publication in July 1872. It was issued by the Office of the Chief Signal Officer from 1872 until 1891. In 1891 the duties of the Signal Office transferred to the new Weather Bureau where the Review was published until June 1966. From Aug. 1966-Oct. 1970, it was published by the United States Environmental Science Services Administration. When the Bureau became part of the newly-formed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Review was published by NOAA until the end of 1973. In 1974 publication was turned over to the American Meteorological Society which continues publishing it as a subscription. ”
[…]
“To search for articles from the Monthly weather review go to AMS Journals Online and click on the link to “Search the Journals” or the “Available Journals” link. The site provides access to issues of the Monthly weather review prior to 1974 for free; access to issues from 1974 onwards requires a subscription.”
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/data_rescue_monthly_weather_review.html
The author of the article seems to be
“William Jackson Humphreys”
“… an American physicist and atmospheric researcher.
Humphreys studied physics at Washington & Lee University in Virginia and at Johns Hopkins University, where he got his Ph.D. in 1897. He studied under H. A. Rowland, et al.
He worked in the fields of spectroscopy, atmospheric physics and meteorology. In the field of spectroscopy he found the shift of spectral lines under pressure. In atmospheric physics he found a very good model for the stratosphere in 1909. He wrote numerous books and had some teaching positions at universities. From 1905 to 1935 he worked for the U.S. Weather Bureau.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jackson_Humphreys
The link to the full text pdf of the “Monthly Weather Review” for September 1933 at the NOAA site seems to be dead tonight. The article is alternatively available here: http://web.archive.org/web/20050321064545/http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/061/mwr-061-09-0251.pdf
Thank you all for the great work.
It is reassuring to know the number of times that “the science has been settled’ and the variations in what was settled.
Thank you Thank you
Yeah… and Spencer will be proven right here shortly.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/sidebar-to-spencer-testimony-today-barbara-boxer-tosses-an-insult-implies-limbaugh-is-involved-in-spencers-testimony/
It’s amazing that they have no problem performing ad hominem on the people they disagree with!
I still worry that as the climate starts to cool:
1) They’ll continue to lie about the years being the warmest on record.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm
When we know this is not the case at all!
2) They’ll continue to make outrageous statements that are not backed up fact or science. Like the “arctic ice dissapearing during the summer during the next 5 years”
One need only compare current sea ice to sea ice levels from 20 years ago (during the summer!) to see how ridiculous this statement is!
3) They will take credit for the cooling and use it as evidence that we need to act more prudently in preventing CO2 from “polluting” the world!
It’s a shame that news reporters don’t challenge these alarmists.
1) CO2 is not a pollutant. More CO2, means greener and richer plant life.
2) The troposphere is NOT warming, which means the warming we experienced was _not_ enhanced greenhouse warming.
3) All of the warming from the last century, more closely follows patterns in the sun and oceans, and NOT CO2 levels. As CO2 levels continued to rise from the 40’s to 80’s, Temperature did not! As CO2 levels have continued to rise from 1998, temperature has not…
Keep up the good working debunking the alarmists!
[…] Arctic will soon be an open sea” or this one from the 1933 Monthly Weather Review “IS OUR CLIMATE CHANGING? A STUDY OF LONG-TIME TEMPERATURE TRENDS.”, or this one from 1922 “Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and […]