I’ve always said that trees are a better proxy for rainfall than temperature. Just looking at how trees cluster around water sources can tell you this. From the Hockeyschtick:
New paper shows no increase in precipitation over past 105 years, counter to global warming theory
One of the central tenets of global warming theory is that warming of the atmosphere results in increased water vapor and thus precipitation, leading to alarmist predictions of increased flooding. A paper published online [Wednesday] in the Journal of Geophysical Research counters this notion, showing that winter precipitation of the central Pacific coast has not increased over the past 105 years. Rather, a cyclical pattern of unknown etiology is found, which clearly shows no correlation to CO2 levels whatsoever.
 |
| Red horizontal line added to show zero anomaly level |
Is energetic decadal variability a stable feature of the central Pacific Coast’s winter climate?
The central Pacific Coast of the United States is one of the few regions in North America where precipitation exhibited a high proportion of variance at decadal time scales (10 to 20 years) during the last century. We use a network of tree ring-width records to estimate the behavior of the observed decadal pattern in regional winter precipitation during the last three and a half centuries. The pattern was most vigorous during the mid and late 20th century. Between A.D. 1650 and 1930, proxy estimates show a limited number of events separated by longer intervals of relatively low variance. The multicentennial perspective offered by tree rings indicates the energetic decadal pattern in winter precipitation is a relatively recent feature. Until a physical mechanism can be identified that explains the presence of this decadal rhythm, as well as its inconsistency during the period of record, we cannot rule out the possibility that this behavior may cease as abruptly as it began.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Um… Hugh? I live in Western Canada, on the prairies. There is nothing unusual going on here.
What are you talking about?
Couple of observations:
1. We have seen 11 year variations of water volume in large South American rivers, synchonous with solar cycles (remember them?). the last 50 years or so in the graph look like they could be correlated — perhaps with some lag — with solar cycles, they seem to be about 11 years.
2. Regarding this statement: “Between A.D. 1650 and 1930, proxy estimates show a limited number of events separated by longer intervals of relatively low variance.” — studies show that last century was actully the wettest in CA in the last millenium, not just from 1650. Suppose that increasing warmth actually is responsible, in CA, for more average annual rainfall. Considering what a real drought does to CA, isn’t more precipitation a good thing for CA?
Just saying….
The alkali lakebeds of eastern Oregon fill and go dry on a decadal time scale, so this is probably not an artifact of using trees as proxies. I cannot afford to penetrate a paywall every time I see something interesting, but I wonder if the data from the lakebeds can be reconciled with the trees.
Hugh Pepper said:
“This natural situation is now being exacerbated by climate change which is being drastically affected by both winter and summer weather on the Prairies.”
Please refer to my post above with the statements of AMS President-elect Dr. Louis Uccellini. I believe what he holds is that the “sample size” is too small to make that kind of assertion.
Hmmm. Are they telling me that there is no historical rain gauge data from the Central Pacific Coast to compare with the tree ring data? If there is, how do the two compare?
I sense an opportunity here to apply cutting edge climate science a. Get the rain gauge data, throw away the corresponding tree ring data. (Maybe we’ll have to invent a new term since there doesn’t seem to be any decline to hide. [why not BTW?]). Add in the rain gauge data (the Nature trick). Apply Principle Component Analysis. With any luck at all, we’ll get the much sought prize — a hockey stick. Or maybe an inverted hockey stick. If the Nature trick doesn’t work, maybe we can try appending a different data set … until we get the answer we want. And we know that’s science because climate experts say it is.
Tree-thinking citizens needn’t feast eyes o’ hockey sticks, all the way down.
http://oi55.tinypic.com/2ir23a9.jpg
Nothing in this regional study refutes “global warming theory.”
Nothing in this regional study refutes “global warming theory.”
Nothing supports it either. I suppose you could call it almost-global or we-think-it-might-be-global warming.
Improved version of hell:
http://oi52.tinypic.com/28hnd5e.jpg
Hugh Pepper
I live in Alberta and am wondering what in the heck are you talking about as well? You sure you read this article? And understood its concepts?
Moderate Republican says:
June 17, 2011 at 10:28 am
_____________________________
Do you have a science background? Are you trying to develop a strategy for a political campaign? Depending on what you say, it might be worthwhile to figure out how to connect offline. Can you give me at least the state you are from?
“Until a physical mechanism can be identified that explains the presence of this decadal rhythm, as well as its inconsistency during the period of record, we cannot rule out the possibility that this behavior may cease as abruptly as it began.”
Oh My God, genuine physical scientists. Note the intelligent humility. I hope they send their work to Briffa. This is what he should have done before the Crew ever got to the matter of “hiding the decline.”
Moderate Republican says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:44 am
“Quick question – since the paper says ” showing that winter precipitation of the central Pacific coast has not increased over the past 105 years.” but climate is global is this really much evidence of anything pro/con?”
May I declare this Troll a free-fire zone?
hardly surprising there is no warming signal in these tree rings, since there is no warming in the east pacific basin either!
Moderate Republican says:
June 17, 2011 at 10:28 am
The abstract has this as part of the summary – “The observed decadal pattern should not be used to predict regional climate”.
“Anyone here help me understand that caveat?”
In the part that Anthony quoted, the authors say:
“Until a physical mechanism can be identified that explains the presence of this decadal rhythm, as well as its inconsistency during the period of record, we cannot rule out the possibility that this behavior may cease as abruptly as it began.”
No physical mechanism means no physical hypotheses means no prediction. Just search WUWT on my name and you will find an encyclopedia on this matter. What they exhibit here is the natural humility of the genuine scientist. Briffa and the Crew should have made the same qualifications in huge print at the beginning of each of their articles. This event might very well mark the beginning of genuine paleoclimatology. Good. I am sick of propagandoclimatology.
Running the numbers for a specific locale in that paper prior to 1880 gives an entirly different look to the tea leaves.
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/WeavervillePrecip.GIF
Precipitation records prior to 1880 are found in the companies that ran the hydraulic mines.
In some places you can get back to the late 1850’s, but the information that used to be freely available in the CA state library system is now locked up at ‘centers of higher learning’.
Some folks don’t want that data to be seen anymore.
Well obviously some areas have had “extreme” drought and some areas have had “extreme” wet weather…it just cancels out overall, but everybody knows “it’s worse than we thought.”
AGW models predict a global increase in precipitation. There is no particular expectation of increases or decreases at specific locations/regions, on which models vary widely. Additionally, the reason for a global increase in precipitation is because the amount of evaporation increases in said models, not because of more water vapor. Evaporation must equal precipitation globally for reasons independent of AGW. But it is worth noting that, if anything, models severely underestimate the change in precipitation with warming:
http://www.remss.com/papers/wentz_science_2007_paper+som.pdf
Henry says: June 17, 2011 at 9:40 am
“Red horizontal line added to show zero anomaly level” – well, if you “added a horizontal line” what did you expect the slope to be? What is the calculated trend?”
The line is not the slope of the trend! You eyeball the ups and down and see that the trend is zero!
pat says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:28 am
“After Briffa gets through with his analysis of the data, that graph will look like the proverbial hockey stick.”
Unfortunately true.
A real scientists say “we don’t know what causes ……., so let’s try and find out”
A climate scientist says “we don’t know what causes…….. so it must be CO2”
A real scientist ACCEPTS he doesn’t know everything…
A religion INVENTS something to fill in the gaps.
Andy G55 says @ur momisugly June 17, 2011 at 8:20 pm “A climate scientist says “we don’t know what causes…….. so it must be CO2″
Wow – that sure sounds pretty bad and I am thinking that it would be powerful to provide the citations where CO2 acting along is being called out as the sole cause of the climate change that is being identified. I’d have to think that citations that show that CO2 is the only forcer acting by itself would be a huge issue for climate science, no?
I wonder how much of amoving average was used to create the graph? S;utsky-Yule maybe?
The paper’s abstract says nothing about CO2, and the pattern it studies is regional rather than global. This study appears to have little to do with global warming, and it seems disingenuous to claim that it does.
Re, Nota says June 17, 2011 at 10:21 pm
Nota, are you not familiar with the proxy studies which purport to eliminate the MWP? This paper has to do with the proxy used in those studies, but you must know this???
BTW, some of these studies were far more regional then this one, “One tree to rule them all, and in the darknesss bind them”