Cause of 'the pause' in global warming

Guest essay by Don J. Easterbrook, Dept of Geology, Western Washington University

clip_image002
Figure 1. Correlation of glacier fluctuations on Mt. Baker with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and global climate. (Easterbrook, 2001, 2011)

The absence of global warming for the past 17 years has been well documented. It has become known as “the pause.” and has been characterized as the “biggest mystery in climate science,” but, in fact, it really isn’t a mystery at all, it was predicted in 1999 on the basis of consistent, recurring patterns of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and global climate.

Perhaps the easiest way to understand the causal relationship between global warming/cooling and the PDO and AMO is to recount how these correlations were discovered. In 1999, while studying recent glacial fluctuations on Mt. Baker in the North Cascade Range, a pattern of recurring advances and retreats became apparent. In the wee hours one night, I came across a 1997 paper by Mantua, et al., “A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production,” an early recognition of the PDO. The PDO is an index, not a measured value, based on about a dozen or so parameters that are related to cyclical variations in sea surface temperatures in the NE Pacific. The term “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” (PDO) was coined by Steven Hare (1996). It has two modes, warm and cool, and flips back and forth between them every 25 to 30 years.

The Mantua et al. curve looked so similar to my glacial curve that I superimposed the two and was surprised to see that they corresponded almost exactly. I then compared them to global temperature and all three showed a remarkable correlation (Fig. 1).

The significance of this correlation is that it clearly showed that the PDO was the driver of climate and glacial fluctuations on Mt. Baker. Each time the PDO mode flipped from one mode to another, global climate and glacier extent also changed. This discovery was significant in itself but was to lead to a lot more. At this point, it was clear that PDO drove global climate (Figs. 2,3), but what drove the PDO was not apparent.

clip_image004

Figure 2. 1945-1977 PDO cold mode and 1977-1998 warm mode. (Easterbrook 2011 modified from D’Aleo)

clip_image006

Figure 3. PDO fluctuations from 1900 to August 2012. Each time the PDO was warm, global climate warmed; each time the PDO was cool, global climate cooled. (modified from http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/)

In 2000, I presented a paper, “Cyclical oscillations of Mt. Baker glaciers in response to climatic changes and their correlation with periodic oceanographic changes in the Northeast Pacific Ocean” at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA). The following year at the GSA meeting, I presented another paper “The next 25 years: global warming or global cooling? Geologic and oceanographic evidence for cyclical climatic oscillations.

Since this recurring pattern of PDO fluctuation and global climate held true for the past century, what might the future hold? If the pattern continued, then might we project the same pattern into the future to see where we are headed, i.e., the past is the key to the future. If we want to know where we are heading, we need to know where we’ve been. Each of the two PDO warm periods (1915-1945 and 1978-1998) and the three cool periods (1880-1915, 1945-1977, 1999-2014) lasted 25-30 years. If the flip of the PDO into its cool mode in 1999 persists, the global climate should cool for the next several decades. Using the past durations of PDO phases, I spliced a cool PDO (similar to the 1945-1977 cool period) onto the end of the curve and presented the data in a paper at the 2001 Geological

Society of America meeting in Boston. In this paper, I proposed that, based on the past recurring pattern of PDO and global climate changes, we could expect 25-30 years of global cooling ahead (Fig. 4). With memories of the 1998 second warmest year of the century, the audience was stunned at such a prediction, especially since it directly contradicted the IPCC predictions of global warming catastrophe.

clip_image008

clip_image010

Figure 4. (Top) PDO fluctuations and projections to 2040 based on past PDO history.

(Bottom) Projected global cooling in coming decades based on extrapolation of past PDO recurring patterns.

My first projection of future global cooling was based on continuation of past recurring PDO fluctuations for the past century. But what about earlier climate changes? Because climate changes recorded in the oxygen isotope measurements from the GISP2 Greenland ice core had such an accurate chronology from annual layering in the ice, it seemed a perfect opportunity to see if similar changes had occurred in previous centuries, so I plotted the oxygen isotope accelerator measurements made by Stuiver and Grootes (1997) for the past 450 years. Oxygen isotope ratios are a function of temperature, so plotting them gives a paleo-temperature curve. This was a real eye-opener because the curve (Fig. 4) showed about 40, regularly-spaced, warm/cool periods with average cycles of 27 years, very similar to the PDO cycle. There was no way to determine what the PDO looked like that far back, but the GISP2 warm/cool cycles were so consistent that correlation with PDO 25-30 year cycles seemed like a good possibility. Historically known warm/cool periods showed up in the GISP2 curve, i.e., the 1945-1977 cool period, the 1915-1945 warm period, the 1880-1915 cool period, the Little Ice Age, Dalton Minimum cooling, the Maunder Minimum cooling, and many others, lending credence to the validity of the GISP2 measurements.

clip_image012

Figure 5. Warm and cool periods to 1480 AD from oxygen isotope measurements from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. The average length of a warm or cool cycle is 27 years.

When I presented this data and my climate projections at the 2006 GSA meeting in Philadelphia, Bill Broad of the NY Times was in the audience. He wrote a feature article in the NY Times about my data and predictions and the news media went bonkers. All of the major news networks called for interviews, then curiously all except CNN, MSNBC, and Fox abruptly canceled, apparently because my data posed a threat to IPCC predictions of catastrophic warming.

Nine additional papers expanding the geologic evidence for global cooling were presented from 2007 to 2009 and several longer papers were published from 2011-2014, including

Multidecadal tendencies in Enso and global temperatures related to multidecadal oscillations,” Energy & Environment, vol. 21, p. 436-460. (D’Aleo, J. and Easterbrook, D.J., 2010).

Geologic Evidence of Recurring Climate Cycles and Their Implications for the Cause of Global Climate Changes: The Past is the Key to the Future,” in the Elsevier volume “Evidence-Based Climate Science; p. 3-51. (2011)

Relationship of Multidecadal Global Temperatures to Multidecadal Oceanic Oscillations,” in the Elsevier volume “Evidence-Based Climate Science; p. 161-180. (D’Aleo, J. and Easterbrook, D.J., 2011)

Observations: The Cryosphere,” in Climate Change Reconsidered II, Physical Science (Easterbrook, D.J., Ollier, C.D., and Carter, R.M., 2013), p. 645-728.

Reprints of any of these publications may be obtained from http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/ or by emailing dbunny14 “at”yahoo.com.

During these years, important contributions were made by Joe D’Aleo, who showed that during warm periods, warm El Nino phases occurred more frequently and with greater intensity than cooler La Nina phases and vice versa. He also documented the role of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is similar to the PDO. The AMO has multi-decadal warm and cool modes with periods of about 30 years, much like the PDO.

So the question now becomes how could my predictions be validated? Certainly not by any computer climate models, which had proven to be essentially worthless. The obvious answer is to check my predictions against what the climate does over several decades. We’ve been within my predicted cooling cycle for more than a decade, so what has happened? We’ve now experienced 17 years with no global warming (in fact, slight cooling) despite the IPCC prediction that we should now be ~1° F warmer (Figs. 6, 7, 8). So far my 1999 prediction seems to be on track and should last for another 20-25 years.

Conclusions

The ‘mysterious pause’ in global warming is really not mysterious at all. It is simply the continuation of climatic cycles that have been going on for hundreds of years. It was predicted in 1999, based on repeated patterns of cyclical warm and cool PDO phases so it is neither mysterious nor surprising. The lack of global warming for the past 17 years is just as predicted. Continued cooling for the next few decades will totally vindicate this prediction. Time and nature will be the final judge of these predictions.

What drives these oceanic/climatic cycles remains equivocal. Correlations with various solar parameters appear to be quite good, but the causal mechanism remains unclear. More on that later.

clip_image014

Figure 6. Temperature trend (°C/century) since 1996. Red = warming, blue = cooling.

clip_image016

Figure 7. Global cooling since 2000 (Earth Observatory)

clip_image018

Figure 8. Winter temperatures in the U.S. 1998-2013. 46 of the 48 states were significantly colder.

==========================================================

UPDATE 1/24/14, Dr. Easterbrook writes in with this update:

Here is an updated version of my 2000 prediction. My qualitative prediction was that extrapolation of past temperature and PDO patterns indicate global cooling for several decades. Quantifying that prediction has a lot of uncertainty. One approach is to look at the most recent periods of cooling and project those as possibilities (1) the 1945-1975cooling, (2) the 1880-1915 cooling, (3) the Dalton cooling (1790-1820), (4) the Maunder cooling (1650-1700). I appended the temperature record for the 1945-1975 cooling to the temperature curve beginning in 2000 to see what this might look like (see below). If the cooling turns out to be deeper, reconstructions of past temperatures suggest 0.3°C cooler for the 1880-1915 cooling, about 0.7°C for the Dalton cooling (square), and about 1.2°C for the Maunder cooling (circle). We won’t know until we get there which is most likely.

clip_image002

This updated plot really doesn’t change anything significantly from the first one that I did in 2000.

===============================================================

REFERENCES

D’Aleo, J. and Easterbrook, D.J., 2010, Multidecadal tendencies in Enso and global temperatures related to multidecadal oscillations: Energy & Environment, vol. 21, p. 436-460.

Easterbrook, D.J. and Kovanen, D.J., 2000, Cyclical oscillations of Mt. Baker glaciers in response to climatic changes and their correlation with periodic oceanographic changes in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 32, p.17.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2001, The next 25 years: global warming or global cooling? Geologic and oceanographic evidence for cyclical climatic oscillations: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, vol. 33, p. 253.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, Causes and effects of abrupt, global, climate changes and global warming: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, vol. 37, p. 41.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2006a, Causes of abrupt global climate changes and global warming predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, vol. 38, p. 77.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2006b, The cause of global warming and predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, vol. 38, p.235-236.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2007a, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global warming and climate changes in the coming century: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p. 507.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2007b, Late Pleistocene and Holocene glacial fluctuations: Implications for the cause of abrupt global climate changes: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 39, p. 594.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2007c, Historic Mt. Baker glacier fluctuations—geologic evidence of the cause of global warming: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 39, p.13.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2008a, Solar influence on recurring global, decadal, climate cycles recorded by glacial fluctuations, ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic measurements over the past millennium: Abstracts of American Geophysical Union annual meeting, San Francisco.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2008b, Implications of glacial fluctuations, PDO, NAO, and sun spot cycles for global climate in the coming decades: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 40, p.428.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2008c, Global warming’ is over: Geologic, oceanographic, and solar evidence for global cooling in the coming decades: 3rd International Conference on Climate Change, Heartland Institute, New York.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2008d, Correlation of climatic and solar variations over the past 500 years and predicting global climate changes from recurring climate cycles: Abstracts of 33rd International Geological Congress, Oslo, Norway.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2009a, The role of the oceans and the sun in late Pleistocene and historic glacial and climatic fluctuations: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 41, p. 33.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2009b, The looming threat of global cooling – Geological evidence for prolonged cooling ahead and its impacts: 4th International Conference on Climate Change, Heartland Institute, Chicago, IL.

Easterbrook, D.J., ed., 2011a, Evidence-based climate science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming: Elsevier Inc., 416 p.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2011b, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global climate changes: The Past is the Key to the Future: in Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p.3-51.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2011c, Climatic implications of the impending grand solar minimum and cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation: the past is the key to the future–what we can learn from recurring past climate cycles recorded by glacial fluctuations, ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic measurements: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs

Easterbrook, D.J., 2010, A walk through geologic time from Mt. Baker to Bellingham Bay: Chuckanut Editions, 330 p.

Easterbrook, D.J., 2012, Are forecasts of a 20-year cooling period credible? 7th International Conference on Climate Change, Heartland Institute, Chicago, IL.

Easterbrook, D.J., Ollier, C.D., and Carter, R.M., 2013, Observations: The Cryosphere: in Idso,C.D., Carter R. M., Singer, F.S. eds, Climate Change Reconsidered II, Physical Science, The Heartland Institute, p. 645-728.

Grootes, P.M., and Stuiver, M., 1997, Oxygen 18/16 variability in Greenland snow and ice with 10-3– to 105-year time resolution. Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 102, p. 26455-26470.

Hare, S.R. and R.C. Francis. 1995. Climate Change and Salmon Production in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: in: R.J. Beamish, ed., Ocean climate and northern fish populations. Can. special Publicaton Fish. Aquatic Science, vol. 121, p. 357-372.

Harper, J. T., 1993, Glacier fluctuations on Mount Baker, Washington, U.S.A., 1940-1990, and climatic variations: Arctic and Alpine Research, vol. 4, p. 332‑339.

Mantua, N.J. and S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace, and R.C. Francis 1997: A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 78, p. 1069-1079.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

213 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
January 18, 2014 1:43 pm

Don J. Easterbrook says: “Bob Tisdale’s tirade against my posting distorts and misrepresents my work.”
No tirade on my part, Don. Please post a link to the source of the global surface temperature data you presented in your Figure 4. That way we can confirm if your “predictions” were based on a real dataset, not some fictional one.
Don J. Easterbrook says: “His demagoguery and personal insults do nothing to advance science. Nothing he has said disproves my predictions, which so far seem to be right on track.”
Demagoguery? I presented my opinions about your Figures 4 and 6. There’s nothing emotional about it, Don. My speaking frankly does not indicate emotion on my part. And my presenting real data in place of your mystery data indicates that I was being rational. I can see why you might have been insulted by my calling your Figure 4 bogus and your Figure 6 misleading. Until you provide a source of the data you presented in your Figure 4, I will continue to describe it as bogus. And until you correct the color coding of your Figure 6, it will be misleading.
As I noted in a recent reply above, my argument is not about your “prediction”. You presented a correlation between the PDO and global surface temperature. This suggests that the PDO drives global surface temperatures. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism through which the PDO (as defined by JISAO) can drive global surface temperatures, so the premise is flawed. That’s my argument in a nutshell.
It is unfortunate that you didn’t bother yourself to answer all of the questions presented to you on this thread by others…before you hopped on a plane. They are sure to be disappointed with your continued absence here.
I’m looking forward to your link to the dataset you illustrated in your Figure 4.
Have a nice holiday or business trip.

January 18, 2014 2:07 pm

So, In 12 or 13 years, when the “pause” is over, we have to again listen to the Warmistas crow about how the Earth is going to burn up and kill us all?

David W. Norcross
January 18, 2014 4:30 pm

Congratulations, Don, on this wonderful synthesis of your long a lonely battle! Now is the time for anyone with “scientist” in their bio to begin pressing their professional organizations (mine is the American Physics Society) shamefacedly to withdraw any and all official policy statements (the APS one is quite “hysterical”) claiming AGW is a world-class, immediate, life-threatening must-send-money-quick crisis. The credibility of the entire scientific enterprise is at risk from a continuation of this orgiastic rent-seeking.

Editor
January 18, 2014 4:38 pm

DocWat says: “So, In 12 or 13 years, when the “pause” is over, we have to again listen to the Warmistas crow about how the Earth is going to burn up and kill us all?”
It looks like you’re assuming a 30-year halt starting in 1999. To me it appears that La Ninas became dominant around 2007 at the end of the 2006/07 El Niño. Recall that there were 3 El Niños every other year in the early to mid-2000s. And those El Ninos appear to be secondary events of the 1997/98 El Nino.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
2007 was the start of the “double-dip La Niñas”. We had one before the 2009/10 El Niño and one after it. If the breakpoint is in fact 2007, and assuming the halt lasts for 30 years from then, then we’ve got more than 2 decades to watch global warming enthusiasts make excuses and pint fingers.

David W. Norcross
January 18, 2014 4:45 pm

Please edit my post to correct typos “…long and lonely…American Physical Society…” Apologies.

January 18, 2014 5:17 pm

Bob Tisdale says:
January 18, 2014 at 1:43 pm
I’m looking forward to your link to the dataset you illustrated in your Figure 4.

Me too – as it seems to suggest that temperatures in the 2000s were consistently below those in the 1990s.

January 18, 2014 5:22 pm

Me too – as it seems to suggest that temperatures in the 2000s were consistently below those in the 1990s.

……or is the post-2000 bit part of the Easterbrook projection? Can anyone clarify?

jorgekafkazar
January 18, 2014 5:35 pm

Bob Tisdale says: “….But the PDO does not represent the sea surface temperature of the North Pacific and it is anti-correlated with land surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere…”
Gail Combs says: “That needs to be repeated since it seems to be part of the confusion. Thanks for the clarification Bob.”
Bob has repeated that statement many, many times in previous threads here and elsewhere.

January 18, 2014 6:06 pm

William McClenney says:
January 18, 2014 at 3:41 am
Thanks to William from an engineer. I don’t want to cause a scene, but any empirical formula that produces successful results, even if flawed or wrong – will be used until something better comes along and that isn’t GIGO. Back in the 60’s I was told a computer is “nothing but a fast idiot”. Very often a slide rule, nomograph and graph paper produced better results until we got the computer parameters sorted out. I can put in all the parameters for a complex water system and run it through a computer simulation for days; or apply some good engineering fundamentals, nomographs and safety factors and get the same results. But that is engineering – applied sciences.
Sciences on the other hand, are research that some day may provide a basis for engineering. For now, anyone who depends on climate models rather than solid researched applied science and geosciences is likely to get some nasty surprises.
Great discussions, but I must keep reminding myself this site is about research, science, opinion and competing theories/philosophies and not engineering so nothing is as certain (even in engineering there is never “certainlty”).
Thanks to everyone for the educational information.

phlogiston
January 18, 2014 6:16 pm

Bob Tisdale on January 18, 2014 at 1:04 pm
phlogiston says: “In addressing Don Easterbrook you assert repeatedly that the PDO is an “aftereffect” of the ENSO. This in no way contradicts anything that Don said, he left the cause of the PDO as unknown.”
Easterbrook presents the correlation between the PDO and global surface temperature. This suggests that the PDO drives global surface temperatures. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism through which the PDO (as defined by JISAO) can drive global surface temperatures, so the premise is flawed.
Bob you appear to be contradicting your own argument. There appears to be an issue of definitions and semantics here. You have set out at great length in your book “who turned up the heat” your central premise that large ENSO events elevate global temperature in a stepwise manner. You further state that the Pacific ocean alternates between multi decadal periods of el Nino and La Nina dominance. What you imply is what Joe D’Aleo ( as cited by Don Easterbrook) and many others in the literature describe as ENSO asymmetry. Your focus is mostly on the recent few decades which show an el Nino > La Nina asymmetry. You are cautiously silent about the flip side of this scenario, that there must be alternating periods of the opposite asymmetry i.e. La Nina > el Nino. This is the alternation that many would recognise and describe as the PDO. Many in the literature imply the PDO in another way using the term “ground state” of the Pacific, which alternates between favouring el Nino and La Nina.
So the “PDO” is sometimes a shorthand for multidecadal ocean driven cycles in general. The proposal that the “PDO” drives global climate is not exclusive to Don Easterbrook, many have made it and it has now even been published in Nature. You imply it in your own writing but don’t like to admit it. Don Easterbrook has at least published it many times for which he deserves credit. He made a prediction that the recent warming period would reverse before the current “pause”.
Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry essentially make the same argument in a more sophisticated way in their stadium wave paper, where they extend it beyond just the PDO and bring in the other global oceanic oscillations such as the AMO.
Finally, you use what looks like argumentum ad ignorantium in saying “Don cant say that the PDO drives global climate because he doesn’t have a mechanism”. This sounds like a “the models dont predict it” type argument. On the subject of mechanisms why do refuse to answer my question about what mechanism you propose for the PDO being an aftereffect of the ENSO?
I’m a great fan of your work but it seems you’re being a tad territorial about ENSO and the PDO. You are right of course to call out Don on data sources and validity.

phlogiston
January 18, 2014 6:33 pm

John Finn on January 18, 2014 at 5:22 pm
Me too – as it seems to suggest that temperatures in the 2000s were consistently below those in the 1990s.……or is the post-2000 bit part of the Easterbrook projection? Can anyone clarify?
Its a projection. It was presented in a conference in 2001 (see text).

phlogiston
January 18, 2014 6:51 pm

Richard M
I agree with your point concerning the strong influence of the MOC / THC in climatic trends and that it is a mistake to exclude this when discussing ENSO. Thanks also for bringing to our attention the work of Dr William Gray, I’ll check out the paper.

Editor
January 18, 2014 8:01 pm

phlogiston: The PDO means different things to different people. The PDO can mean the variability of ENSO. It can also refer to a dataset. This is why I have argued that when discussing ENSO another phrase should be used–Pacific Decadal Variability (PDV) for example.
Once the PDO dataset is introduced into a discussion, the term PDO is no longer referring to the variability of ENSO on any time frame.
Trenberth understands the difference, so the question is: why did he and Fasullo use the PDO instead of an ENSO index like NINO3.4 SSTa? I suspect he wanted or needed the breakpoint of 1999 that came with a newly created PDO dataset (he didn’t use the JISAO version), and that, if he used NINO3.4 data, then it could be argued that the ENSO breakpoint was in fact 2007. Maybe it has to do with the ORA-S4 reanalysis as well. Something to ponder, phlogiston.
Here’s a link to Trenberth and Fasullo (2013). Reading between the lines, why aren’t they using an ENSO index?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/pdf
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Regards

Editor
January 18, 2014 8:10 pm

phlogiston, PS: Papers like von Storch et al (2013) are using 1998 as the start of the hiatus. Obviously, Trenberth is trying to shift that to 1999 which does impact the hiatus period trend. The models still look bad, but not as bad.
Regards

Werner Brozek
January 18, 2014 9:00 pm

phlogiston says:
January 18, 2014 at 6:33 pm
Its a projection. It was presented in a conference in 2001 (see text).
Taking a close look at the diagram, I agree, but furthermore I think the projection actually started from 1998 since the “IPCC projected warming” seems to start in 1998. So it seems to me that the extra low point that Bob Tisdale mentioned was also a projection.
(I recall a very recent post by Dr. Ball where an issue was brought up repeatedly and was never answered. It would be nice if any person doing a posting would be available for at least the following 4 hours to address issues that may arise.)

Mac the Knife
January 18, 2014 9:07 pm

Bob Tisdale,
Dang it, Bob! All you’re doing here is strafing your own allies! Your disagreements with Dr. Easterbrook and Dr. Page are a distraction from what should always be a determined focus on the main target: Refuting the false CO2 scare mongering of Anthropogenic Global Warming pseudoscience and the irrational megalomania it is driving in our national governments and energy policies! In comparison to THAT, your differences with Drs. Easterbrook, Page, and others are trivial.
Please, Please! Stop strafing your own troops and allies and get your sights focused on the main target…again!
Mac

agfosterjr
January 18, 2014 9:27 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
January 18, 2014 at 5:52 am
================================
You quote Sidorenkov thus: “[…] the asthenosphere underlying the lithosphere does not behave like a solid body but rather flows like a viscous fluid. […]”
This seems to be an invention on his part– “viscous” maybe, but in the sense that very warm glass is viscous, flow rates being in the range of centimeters per year. dLOD of 1ms amounts to displacement of half a meter per day, hundreds of meters per year. What seismic or ceramic evidence supports such a peculiar characterization of the asthenosphere? –AGF

agfosterjr
January 18, 2014 9:37 pm

Mac the Knife says:
January 18, 2014 at 9:07 pm
===============================
While we are engaged in ideological warfare with radicals, unlike the radicals we are also engaged in the pursuit of truth. We have no need of any appearance of false unity like the CRU crew are so fond of projecting. The fact remains, the “deniers” are more in line with the IPCC than Gore and Hansen, and here at WUWT nothing could be more healthy than debate between conflicting views. We don’t agree about much of anything besides the obvious point that when you pull the cover off the junk science, the radicals don’t agree about anything either. We have no need of anthing but complete transparency. –AGF

Janice Moore
January 18, 2014 10:36 pm

Given the following:
1. Werner Brozek says: January 17, 2014 at 10:34 pm
Re: Bob Tisdale says: January 17, 2014 at 8:47 pm: “That is, cooling is not occurring from the peak around 2001 through 2010 as your color coding states.”
I figured out what the author did here. Bob, you are of course correct that a change of +3.5 and +3.0 are not cooling, but what the author meant to show was that from 1992 to 2002, the slope was +3.5 and from 1993 to 2003, the slope was 3.0. So in this sense, cooling occurred from 2002 to 2003 (and up to the present). However it may not have been the best way to show it.
*********************************
2. Bob Tisdale says: January 18, 2014 at 3:35 am
Re: Werner Brozek says: “So in this sense, cooling occurred from 2002 to 2003 (and up to the present). However it may not have been the best way to show it.”
Werner, not only is Figure 6 not the best way to show it, it’s misleading. After the peak in 10-year trends around 2001, the ten-year periods are simply warming at a lesser rate, until they drop below zero, then they’re cooling.
…………………………..
Dear Mac,
You make a good point (at 9:07pm today). Bob Tisdale is an exceptionally conscientious scholar and scientist. However, the very LOUD noise Tisdale is making in the course of correcting Easterbrooks’ apparently ham handled graphs via his assertions that the warming has not stopped but only slowed OVERWHELMS any tiny bit of truth we are gaining about trends versus data values.
We are, indeed, in a war for truth. At ALL TIMES, we need to be aware of that fact, otherwise, we play into the enemy’s hands. The manner in which to correct Easterbrook on such a detail is privately or, at the least, ALSO AFFIRM THE BASIC TRUTH THAT WARMING (to the extent that it is, indeed real) HAS STOPPED. Instead of simply knocking down Easterbrook’s poorly constructed rocket, give him (and, thus, all of us) the blue-print for re-building it so that we end up launching our offensive missile and hitting the target. As it is, we are just sitting here looking at Tisdale standing triumphantly over the shattered ruins of Easterbrook’s graphs.
The upshot of Tisdale’s remarks is to, indeed, promote AGW. I was dismayed as I read Tisdale’s comments. Accuracy is good, but AFFIRMATION of the main truth:
CO2 UP –> WARMING STOPPED, is the most important thing, here.
All that said, Easterbrook has failed miserably to provide:
1) his data; and
2) to be present for questioning (unless his absence was due to an emergency).
Take care, down there, in The Socialist State of Seattle (ugh),
Janice

Janice Moore
January 18, 2014 10:56 pm

An Open Letter to Bob Tisdale:
Dear Bob,
In my “How dare he talk that way to my friend, Mac” vehemence above (for, my post was mainly aimed at refuting A.G. Foster’s smirking attack on Mac), I spoke a bit too strongly. Hypocrite that I am (eye roll), I did not follow my own advice and affirm YOU for the good you have brought to this thread.
Thank you for your so diligently answering questions above and, although with a bit of a narrow focus, doing your best to keep us precise and accurate. Thank you for so generously sharing your many, many, painstaking hours of research with us all over the past months (years, for many here).
Most of all, I respect and value you as a valiant ally in this battle for truth-in-science and very much want you to know that, despite my standing by the essence of my comment just above, I still admire you highly and am sorry for speaking so harshly. I let my emotions get the best of me a little, there. Can you forgive my bluntness? (btw: that’s nothing compared to how I used to talk to Dr. Svalgaard (before I understood him better))
Hoping your answer is “Yes,”
Janice

Mac the Knife
January 18, 2014 11:27 pm

Janice Moore says:
January 18, 2014 at 10:36 pm
All that said, Easterbrook has failed miserably to provide:
1) his data; and
2) to be present for questioning (unless his absence was due to an emergency).

Take care, down there, in The Socialist State of Seattle (ugh),
Janice
Hey Sweet Pea!
I agree with your points about Dr. Easterbrook. I really appreciate Bob Tisdales precise work but I am a pragmatist that understands that team mates can have differing views about how specific nuances of the game should be played inside the club house but on game day, we all play to win! Team building is a hard thing to learn and to teach. I know – I’m a rather rebellious and cantakerous cuss myself. I can’t say as I’m an expert at it… but I have built some fairly effective engineering and technical teams at the big aeroplane factory. And every now and then, one of the more intelligent team mates has to be ‘taken to the wood shed’ because of their unwillingness to just accept the minor differences in viewpoints amongst the team members. I was ‘taken to the wood shed’ several times in my early career, for just such similar indiscretions, by a mentor that taught me well:
Keep Your Eyes On The Prize!
I hope the sun was shining on you today, Janice!
Mac

Janice Moore
January 19, 2014 12:07 am

Oh, Mac, thanks, so much, for responding. I was hoping you would. I hope you could see from my post above that we agree COMLETELY. Re: your leadership ability (I know you weren’t fishing for affirmation, just want to!) — just yesterday, I was listening to a Chuck Swindoll sermon while I did my BOOOORRRRING Pilates stretching on “What Makes a Good Boss” — and guess who I thought of (after myself, of course, LOL, I ALWAYS think about myself first, heh, heh) as exemplifying leadership skills? YOU. I can tell just by how you write and when you choose to say something and what you say (and what little you’ve said about the ol’ office). I’ll bet you are terrific. Tough to be a manager… I hope you have all the authority you need to easily execute the responsibility you’ve been given. (And a straightforward way of not only rewarding (is Operation Eagle still going? I helped with that a little as a college student), but getting rid of the bad apples (THAT is soooo hard — everyone else keeps passing them on to the next barrel instead of just firing their annoying selves). I hope you get lots of atta boys — managers usually don’t.
Well, enough already!
The sun didn’t shine, but, I saw lots of blue sky — hurrah! (and the stars, ah) And, thanks to you, my day is ending on a good note.
Bye for now,
Janice

January 19, 2014 12:13 am

agfosterjr says:
January 18, 2014 at 9:37 pm
Mac the Knife says:
January 18, 2014 at 9:07 pm
===============================
While we are engaged in ideological warfare with radicals, unlike the radicals we are also engaged in the pursuit of truth. We have no need of any appearance of false unity like the CRU crew are so fond of projecting. The fact remains, the “deniers” are more in line with the IPCC than Gore and Hansen, and here at WUWT nothing could be more healthy than debate between conflicting views. We don’t agree about much of anything besides the obvious point that when you pull the cover off the junk science, the radicals don’t agree about anything either. We have no need of anthing but complete transparency. –AGF
+++++++++++++
agfosterjr: I think this is well stated.

Mac the Knife
January 19, 2014 12:49 am

agfosterjr says:
January 18, 2014 at 9:37 pm
Mac the Knife says:
January 18, 2014 at 9:07 pm
===============================
While we are engaged in ideological warfare with radicals, unlike the radicals we are also engaged in the pursuit of truth. We have no need of any appearance of false unity like the CRU crew are so fond of projecting.
agfosterjr,
Who said anything about false unity or any falsehoods?
Explain your allegation.
Mac

Janice Moore
January 19, 2014 12:59 am

Mac — A.G. Foster will never get it; he’s a great 1st Lieut. (great on technical details and knows “the book” inside and out), but would never make a good general.
Mario — Mario! Waaaa, that made me sad. Well, we’ve had our first fight. Sniff. Still pals, though (I hope). Yours, truly, Janice.