Cites Natural Causes
Tom Spears, Canwest News Service
It’s wrong to blame our warming climate on human pollution alone, says a major analysis by U. S. climate scientists who say North America’s warming and drying trend also has important natural causes.
Natural shifts in ocean currents have caused much of the warming in recent decades, and almost all of the droughts, says the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Most climate researchers today deal exclusively with man-made “greenhouse” gases, and often dismiss suggestions of naturally caused warming as unscientific.
Yet NOAA says Western Canada has warmed by two degrees and Eastern Canada hasn’t warmed at all because flows of air from naturally shifting Pacific currents have affected the West most.
The lengthy re-analysis of climate data doesn’t dispute that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels cause a warmer climate. But it raises questions about the details: How much warming? How many causes? And why isn’t it the same every-where?
It also stresses that we don’t understand climate as well as we like to think, because scientists only have good data from about 1948 onward.
“Most of the warming [worldwide] is the consequence of human influences,” said Martin Hoerling, a NOAA climate scientist. But he said the question remains, “What does that mean for my backyard?”
Policy-makers need to know whether natural changes or pollution is causing local conditions such as the current drought from California across to Texas, the report notes.
“All regions are not participating [in warming] at the same rate as the global temperature is changing,” Mr. Hoerling said. Some in the West are warming rapidly, and some not at all (the southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada).
Oceans carry vast amounts of heat, releasing heat and moisture into air, which then travels inland. The re-analysis focused on this fact.
Some of the changes in North America’s warming trend of the past half-century have been due to shifting ocean currents, the NOAA team found. It estimates the “natural” change is substantial and could be close to half of all warming in North America (though it is still less than the amount caused by greenhouse gases.)
The study found:
– The 56-year trend of annual surface temperature showed a rise of 0.9C, plus or minus one-tenth of a degree.
– The greatest warming — up two degrees — has taken place across Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon and Alaska. Quebec and Atlantic Canada stayed cool.
That East-West difference “is not what we would expect from the effect of greenhouse gases alone,” Mr. Hoerling said. Greenhouses gases should have influenced both. However, NOAA believes Western Canada is receiving more warm air due to shifting patterns of the Pacific Ocean currents.
– Variations within North America “are very likely influenced by variations in global sea surface temperatures through the effects of the latter on atmospheric circulation, especially during winter.” The term “very likely” is defined as a chance of 90% or more.
– It’s “unlikely” that patterns of drought have changed due to global warming caused by human pollution. Rather, natural shifts in ocean currents are probably to blame. For instance, the current drought in Texas and the southwest are due to La Nina, a Pacific Ocean current that starts and stops periodically (such as El Nino), and cuts off the movement of moist air inland. Warmer temperatures from greenhouse gases, however, would worsen the basic drought.
– Seven of the warmest 10 years since 1951 occurred in the decade from 1997 to 2006. The data in the study cover only to the end of 2007.
The study, Reanalysis of Historical Climate Data for Key Atmospheric Features, was completed in December but hasn’t been widely publicized.
(Read the report here, PDF 8 MB)
Meanwhile, a study published in the research journal Science last week raises further questions about our under-standing of global warming. It disputes the theory that global warming is causing more major hurricanes.
NOAA and the University of Wisconsin at Madison blame, instead, a reduction in the number of volcanic eruptions and dust storms near the equator. When there’s less airborne dust and ash, more sunshine reaches the planet’s surface, which warms the tropical oceans and spawns strong hurricanes.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
‘Most climate researchers today deal exclusively with man-made “greenhouse” gases, and often dismiss suggestions of naturally caused warming as unscientific.’
Can anyone point to any climate scientist who deals exlcusively with man-made greenhouse gases, and dismisses suggestions of natural caused warming?
I am only familiar with climate scientists who show natural influences vs climate, with no match, human influences vs climate with no match, and then a combined human and natural influence vs climate – which matches.
I see the obligatory tip of the hat to global warming. So, in another 20-30 years, I wonder how they’ll be responding to conditions as the current negative phase of the PDO comes to its end.
As for human influences, how many are real and how many are a result of UHI, bad siting (as shown at surfacestation.org), massive loss of rural stations, and the ever present computer ‘adjustments’?
With all the equivocations in that piece, it sounds like they’re starting to painfully straddle the fence.
Ladies and gentlemen
For your entertainment, Recent Uni ad…This is how low the standards at Australian Universities is reaching …
Purpose of Position
The Postdoctoral Research Fellow will assist in a project funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC) to address key issues in the evaluation of the environmental health risk of heatwaves associated with global warming. The appointee should have a background in statistics, epidemiology, public health or social sciences.
– It’s “unlikely” that patterns of drought have changed due to global warming caused by human pollution. Rather, natural shifts in ocean currents are probably to blame. For instance, the current drought in Texas and the southwest are due to La Nina, a Pacific Ocean current that starts and stops periodically (such as El Nino), and cuts off the movement of moist air inland. Warmer temperatures from greenhouse gases, however, would worsen the basic drought.
Here is a nice chart of Lake Mead water levels:
http://www.arachnoid.com/NaturalResources/index.html
And here is a scare story to go with it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23130256/
1. ‘Warming in the West’ – PDO having been in positive phase?
2. ‘No warming in the East’ – was there a little rise/fall, then a little fall/rise due to AMO?
3. ‘The greenhouse gases’ they refer to: is that water vapour or seeohtwo?
Seems to me that the tectonic plates are starting to shift……..
High time too…….
“we don’t understand climate as well as we like to think”. And yet governments are proposing to spend trillions based on poorly understood science. Incredible!
April 3rd 2009 and the temperature outside right now is 3C (39f).
For this time of year it should be 8C or better. Forcast is frost on
Saturday and all my fruit trees are in blossom. aahhghgh….
To Michael Hauber. What matches would these be? Computer model predictions? Pull the other one.
Alright, I just downloaded this 156 page “Reanalysis” and will predict that almost no one will read more than a few pages.
The key findings are reported beginning on (pdf) page 19. But my download skips pages 14 to 22 which is where, I think, it explains what they have done.
This seems to be a typically dreadful (gov.) read. However, I need some sleep before trying again. I hope by the time I get back someone will have managed to look at this document and tell what it is about!
Michael Hauber-If you’re referring to the “attribution studies” like this:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/Forcing-Diagram.gif
I have to be perfectly honest. They are model based crap. Here’s my rant on them:
“”Natural” forcing is solar irradiance and volcanoes. Before about 1980 there are no measurements of TSI and even after that no continuous, verifiable record. Before Pinatubo, volcanic forcing is adjustable, too. Anthropogenic forcings include aerosols and GHG’s-and while the time history and forcing ability of GHG’s is fairly certain, aerosols are not. Not to mention other anthropogenic forcings, like soot, land use, etc. Solar forcing does not contain the effects of UV/Ozone interactions or the more controversial effects of cosmic rays on low altitude cloud cover. Finally, the effects of natural, internal variability are not-cannot-be considered-but are dismissed because models don’t produce such internal variability (even though it is known that this is actually a failure on their part!).”
So, in sum, while it is true that studies claim that you need anthropogenic forcings and some weak aspects of nature (mostly cooling) that are poorly defined and not measured, to get models to agree with the GMST. Not to impressive really.
Not difficult to spot “editorial additions” designed to conform with “the company line”, is it?
““Most of the warming [worldwide] is the consequence of human influences,” said Martin Hoerling, a NOAA climate scientist.”
“It estimates the “natural” change is substantial and could be close to half of all warming in North America (though it is still less than the amount caused by greenhouse gases.)”
so its close to half but still have to reinforce that its not quite half. I suppose in real terms it does not make much difference if it is say .49 or .51 but in newspaper headlines it changes from almost half to majority.
almost on topic
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warming-discovered.html
Slowly back away from the mad man.
Is this the second of some important back peddling efforts we can expect to see in the next few years as the planet cools?
First Hadley admitting UHI effects and now NOAA admitting ocean currents and other natural climate impacts are imprtant. Interesting, no?
on the one hand, western proximity to the largest ocean combined with gg emissions caused the warming in the west. on the other, non-proximity to the largest ocean combined with gg emissions caused no temperature change in other regions?
hmmmm.
” Claude Harvey (22:18:00) :
Not difficult to spot “editorial additions” designed to conform with “the company line”, is it?
““Most of the warming [worldwide] is the consequence of human influences,” said Martin Hoerling, a NOAA climate scientist.” ”
I did have a little chuckle at that particular “reality disconnect”
Natural shifts in ocean currents have caused much of the warming in recent decades, and almost all of the droughts, says the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)………………………..
“Most of the warming [worldwide] is the consequence of human influences,” said Martin Hoerling, a NOAA climate scientist.
Incredible!
OT, but another chink of light appears … <a href=”http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7980441.stm””US to be pragmatic on climate change.” And this from the BBC, of all places. Of course, there isn’t a hint from anything in the article that AGW/CC is utter tosh, but it looks like some pre-positioning going on.
OT, but another chink of light appears … And this from the BBC, of all places. Of course, there isn’t a hint from anything in the article that AGW/CC is utter tosh, but it looks like some pre-positioning going on.
Sounds like a rivetting read. [yawn]
So, a gentle repositioning of the NOAA stance. Not well publicised now, but in a couple of years time they’ll ba able to point to it:
“Oh we’ve been saying that for ages”
At least they won’t be able to do so much arm waving with both hands covering their cheeks.
Just amazed anyone could attribute all climate changes to measly humans.
What is this crazy black line?
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg
NOAA are simply hedging their bets with this re-analysis of climate data.
They understand that skepticism over climate is on the increase and that it has finally entered mainstream thinking.
Under the certainty that the planet is cooling NOAA now fear the political consequences of putting all their faith in computer models.
Like Real Climate who declared that the Antarctic is both cooling (observed) and warming (statistical infilling) at the same time, NOAA are simply stating the modelled claims are real but that natural variations can over-power the data.
There can only be one winner in the clash between the real world of scientific obeservation and the virtual world of climate modelling. The planet will win every time.
Richard Heg @22:30:53)
That NS article is another “the MWP was local” argument and the hockey stick is true. I haven’t purchased a copy of the enviro-mental propagandist organ for years; I used to be an avid reader
Anthony ..any comment on the photo of the weather station featured at the head of chapter 1 on page 5 of this report.
There seems to be a problem with the shadows-the shadow of the pole of the MMTS sensor seems to be opposite of that of the guy with the red jacket taking the readings and the Stephenson Screen. I may be wrong.
Either way surely NOAA has a photo of a better weather station than this!
What is this crazy black line?
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg
Let’s be charitable and just say that it’s the result of grafting the thermometer record on to a spaghetti plot of proxy-based reconstructions. A case of comparing apples and bars of chocolate . To avoid giving a misleading impression, which I’m sure is unintentional, the plot should just show proxy reconstructions which have been updated to the present day.
@ur momisugly Richard Heg & Robert Wood,
I stopped buying New scientist several months ago for the obvious reason.
First, I note that they still use the term ‘climate change denier’. As a major sceptical argument is that climate is always changing, that’s completely bizarre as well as insulting (it’s obviously intended to sound like holocaust denial). In fact it’s the IPCC and their followers who are the climate change deniers. They deny that there was significant climate change over the preceding ten centuries. In fact the whole essence of the hockey stick is climate change denial.
This report certainly seems to concede that there was significant warming during the MWP. And one of the scientists who commented on this warming is Michael Mann. Can this be the same Michael Mann who created the Hockey Stick we all love? The sports implement that triumphantly whitewashed the MWP from history? Yes, it can. In fact, his 2008 hockey stick does show signs of the MWP, though naturally a lot smaller than the 20th century warming.
I think this is actually quite hopeful. It may be that science is slowly – painfully slowly – in the process of correcting itself, just as it has in the past. Clearly, science often gets things spectacularly wrong, for example the denial of continental drift in the early 20th century, but in the end the scientific truth usually triumphs. Unfortunately the climate scientists have huge vested interests in AGW (political influence, money, jobs, pensions) so it will be a very slow process of self-correction, probably taking decades. But, yes, there are signs that this is happening. I’m getting on in years. I just hope it will happen in my lifetime.
Chris