Press for a 'Climate Scientist Who Got It Right'

TAG says:
February 5, 2014 at 9:52 am
[…]What if the current flatlining of temperatures is only a pause caused by the overlaying of a natural cycle on a anthopenially caused increase? If one has a serious cancer then a lack of medical knowledge in its treatment is of no comfort even if it has gone into remission for no apparent reason.
—————————————————————————————————————–
It seems that you’re advocating the much-abused precautionary principle”, as mis-applied to climate science for some time.
As you say, the current lack of warming may be a natural cycle cancelling out an anthropogenic rise. But, logically, that’s unlikely for a few reasons.
First, the mainstream-predicted effect of CO2 should have been rising in line with the increase in CO2 itself, so the effect of any natural cycle would have to be coincidentally changing by exactly the same amount over the past nearly 2 decades to give a “flatline”. Physically, that would be a remarkable coincidence.
On the other hand, if medium term (say, 50 – 500 year) natural cycles have been the major cause of the warming in the last century, then it would be perfectly normal to expect them to appear “flat” for a period either side of the peak because that’s how cycles tend to work.
Also, if a “cooling” phase of a natural cycle is currently suppressing warming then, during the peak warming that everyone got so worried about, the “warming” phase of that same cycle must have been augmenting the observed warming rate. Seeing as this putative cycle is (at least) strong enough to cancel all current warming trend – with greatly increased CO2 levels, so a stronger anthropogenic effect – in its warming phase it must have accounted for over 50% of the observed rate of warming.
Finally, if may extend your medical analogy slightly with a real-life example:
Last year my wife had a lump come up under the arch of her left foot. One of the possibilities is that it’s quite a nasty cancer which will metastise and possibly kill her. The treatment for such a thing is a mixture of radio- and chemo- therapy with probably amputation at the knee or hip.
However, medical science is fortunately advanced enough that it recognises the possibility that the lump might be a benign tumor or even a simple cyst. It also recognises that the risk to my wife of waiting for a clear diagnosis is far lower than the risk of “precautionary” aggressive treatment.
It wasn’t always thus. In the distant past it seems that doctors were quite willing to perform drastic procedures, often causing permanent injury or even death, for ailments that we now know a simple aspirin would cure.
Given the extreme immaturity, by any measure, of climate science there’s a very real danger that they’re reaching for the bone saw prematurely.

An aside on my above post.
There is about a 50-50 chance, that if you are using an optical mouse (non-laser; LED type) , that it has an optical system comprising a digital imaging camera, and an oblique LED illumination system, that has optics I designed.
Probably half of all those digital cameras have an imaging lens that has engraved (molded) onto one of its surfaces, an optical low pass, anti-aliasing filter, that deliberately makes an otherwise very sharp image, into a not so sharp, low resolution imaging lens. that is fuzzier, than the low pixel resolution sensor, can resolve. (Nyquist filter).
The filter surface consists of a series of concentric rings, like those radiating from a pebble dropped in a pond, with a sinusoid lookalike radial crossection.. As a result the filter surface perturbations, introduce deliberate spherical aberrations, having zones of negative and positive spherical residuals, and zones of zero aberration. The peaks and troughs, are essentially parallel to the base surface, so they focus at the correct focus point, and one side of the slopes gives under-corrected spherical, so it focusses that light shorter than the nominal focus. The opposite edges produce over-correction, so those regions focus beyond the nominal focus. And in between focusses in between..
Now the crossection of the ring perturbations is not actually sinusoidal. The profile is actually generated, by taking an ODD order (actually 11th) Tchebychev Polynomial, and integrating it term by term, to get an even order 12th order polynomial, that is scaled to the lens aperture stop size, and then scaled to the required maximum slope deviation.
It was hoped that this would result in smudging the focus along the axis, on both sides of the nominal focus to emulate an ersatz Laser beam Gaussian waist over some ersatz “Raleigh range”.
Well that is NOT what happened, when these lenses were first manufactured (accurately).
Instead what results,is three overlapping very sharp images; one at the nominal focus, and one at the minimum focus, and the other at the maximum focus. The nominal focus image is twice as bright as the other two, because it gets energy from both the peaks, and the troughs of the “wave”.
Well the Tchebychev derived profile, was not chosen for optimum imagery. It was just a very simple way to derive a profile that would work at all, and was easily changed to get any level of fuzziness wanted. The cognoscenti can figure out why the Tchebychev odd order integrated.
I subsequently derived a much better wave profile, that more uniformly spreads the energy along the axis, instead of making three sharp images. The overlap of the three images, does fuzzy to combined image enough to stop the lens from out resolving the sensor.
But that exercise was a dramatic demonstration of how much of nothing much, happens near the peaks and troughs and slope edges, of sinusoid like wave forms.
I don’t see the present warming “hiatus” as any kind of plateau. It looks just like any ordinary “peak” with an abundance of high values, which eventually will be followed by a decline.
Well we’ll wait to see.
But I’ll trust Easterbrook’s prognostications before the IPCC; who could use a good dose of IPeCaC !

My doctor is a skeptic. I’ve told him that 25 years ago I grew quickly during my teenage years, a growth that directly correlated with a large increase in food intake. It is true there has been a hiatus in my growth for nearly two decades, however it turns out that growth is merely hiding around my waist. Food intake is still high and indeed increasing and once vertical growth resumes I am in danger of banging my head on door frames. My doctor does not seem concerned.

RichardLH says:
February 5, 2014 at 2:05 pm
george e. smith says:
February 5, 2014 at 12:29 pm
So, as an engineer, if you saw the two following graphs about anything other than Global Temperature, what would you say happens next?
—————————————————————————————————–
I can’t speak for George but, as another engineer, I’d say it depends entirely on what’s being graphed and how well understood it is.
Ignoring all the manipulations and uncertainties, those graphs show about 130 years of temperature history. Even if we only consider the 195000 years of changing climate that modern man has been around (and survived) during, that’s less than 0.1% of the historic data.
Trying to determine what’s going to happen next from that is like looking at this:
http://s113.photobucket.com/user/Charlie_D_Brown/media/see1st117.jpg.html
and telling me which track from a Rogers and Hammerstein musical soundtrack those 5733 samples come from. In fact, I’ve made it comparatively easy for you by at least telling you that it is from an R&H soundtrack because you have a known set of possibilities to chose from!

The last figure has been superseded by:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/clip_image00212.jpg
I didn’t write this, so didn’t know she was going to use the older one.
Don

A little history–
I discovered the strong correlation between the PDO, climate, and glacier fluctuations in 1999 and gave a few talks about it, but this was without any written publication. In 2000, I presented a paper at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, which included a peer-reviewed, published abstract. As Tom G(ologist) points out–
“The purpose behind the publication of abstracts in conference proceedings is to allow all the other members of the society to preview ongoing research and findings so they can conduct a pre-peer review by attending the talk, asking questions, meeting the researcher and having discussions and providing their feedback. The Abstracts are solicited by the moderator of the session and reviewed prior to selection.
I have had abstracts accepted and rejected for specific theme sessions at GSA. And I can tell you that the exposure and feedback you get at the GSA conferences is far better than the formal peer review process of a final paper.
The other reason you publish an abstract is to establish primacy for your research and findings.
The one thing which you have to know, however, is that you do not show up a GSA and read your abstract to the audience – on in the case of a poster session, stand at your poster for four hours – without having real data and science to present.” Hence, all GSA abstracts are considered to be publications that can be cited–all are available on the GSA website.
Here is a list of papers:
Easterbrook, D.J., ed., 2011, Evidence-based climate science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming: Elsevier Inc., 416 p.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2011, 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.
D’Aleo, J. and Easterbrook, D.J., 2011, Relationship of multidecadal global temperatures to multidecadal oceanic oscillations: in Easterbrook, D.J., ed., Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p. 161-184.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2011, 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., Gosse, J., Sherard, C., Finkel, R., and Evenson, E., 2011, Evidence for synchronous global climatic events: Cosmogenic exposure ages of glaciations: in Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p. 53-88.
D’Aleo, J., 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., 2010, A walk through geologic time from Mt. Baker to Bellingham Bay, WA: Chuckanut Editions, Bellingham, WA, 329 p.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2009, 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., 2009, 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., 2008, 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, American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, CA.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Implications of glacial fluctuations, PDO, NAO, and sun spot cycles for global climate in the coming decades: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 40, p. 428.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, 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., 2008, Synchronicity and sensitivity of alpine and continental glacial fluctuations to global climatic changes during the Younger Dryas; implications for the cause of abrupt global climate changes: Abstracts of 33rd International Geological Congress, Oslo, Norway.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, 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., 2007, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global warming and climate changes in the coming century: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 39, p.507.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, 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., 2007, 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., 2007, Younger Dryas to Little Ice Age glacier fluctuations in the Fraser Lowland and on Mt. Baker, Washington: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 39, p.11.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, The cause of global warming and predictions for the coming century: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 38, p.235-236.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, Causes of abrupt global climate changes and global warming predictions for the coming century: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 38, p. 77.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, Causes and effects of abrupt, global, climate changes and global warming: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 37, p.41.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2003, Synchronicity and sensitivity of alpine and continental glaciers to abrupt, global, climatic changes during the Younger Dryas: Abstracts with programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 35, p. 350.
Easterbrook, D.J., ed., 2003, Quaternary Geology of the United States: International Quatenary Association, 2003 Field Guide Volume, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, 438 p.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2003, Cordilleran Ice Sheet glaciation of the Puget Lowland and Columbia Plateau and alpine glaciation of the North Cascade Range, Washington: in Easterbrook, D.J., ed., Quaternary Geology of the United States, International Quatenary Association, 2003 Field Guide Volume, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, p. 265-286
Easterbrook, D.J., Pierce, K., Gosse, J., Gillespie, A., Evenson, E., and Hamblin, K., 2003, Quaternary geology of the western United States, International Quatenary Association, 2003 Field Guide Volume, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, p. 19-79.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2003, Cordilleran Ice Sheet glaciation of the Puget Lowland and Columbia Plateau and alpine glaciation of the North Cascade Range, Washington: Geological Society of America Field Guide 4, p. 137–157.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2003, Determination of 36Cl production rates from the well-dated deglaciation surfaces of Whidbey and Fidalgo Islands, Washington: discussion: Quaternary Research, vol. 59, p.132-134.
Easterbrook, D.J. and Kovanen, D.J., 2001. The next 25 years: global warming or global cooling? Geologic and oceanographic evidence for cyclical climatic oscillations: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 33, 253.
Easterbrook, D.J., and Kovanen, D.J., 2000, Cyclical oscillation of Mt. Baker glaciers in response to climatic changes and their correlation with periodic oceanographic changes in the northeast Pacific Ocean: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 32, p. 17.

Werner Brozek says:
February 5, 2014 at 12:01 pm
Steve Reddish says:
February 5, 2014 at 10:36 am
This resembles after-the-fact playing with the data.
(Then Werner says:)
Perhaps, but what is the problem with that? Suppose that temperatures went up smoothly from 1970 to 2000 and then went down just as smoothly. In 2010, I could say it has not been this cold in 20 years. Then only 1 year later, I could say it has not been this cold in 22 years, etc. In exactly the same way, I may now say the graph is flat for 17 years. And if we then have a La Nina, in only one year, I may be able to say the graph is flat for NOT 18, but 19 years.
Werner, good to hear from you – Nice to get feedback on one’s comment.
I agree with your first point, of the claim being made in 2010 and 2011 that the cold had been unmatched for 20 and 22 years, respectively, because that would be just quoting the recorded facts per your example.
I also agree that the period for the length of time that the computed average has been flat could be extended 2 years for each year of continued cooling, as that would be mathematically correct. But is computing an average over time the best use of the data? If you computed the average temps since some point before the beginning of the MWP you could get a flat graph as well, but to what end? Averaging masks changes, hiding highs and lows.
I suggest that the trend, whether rising or falling, is the vital question at each each point in time. People care during each year, how that year compares to its predecessors. The temp trend for the period between Mt. Pinatubo’s eruption and the warm peak in 1998 was considered (correctly) at the time to be rising. Should we now say that the trend during that time is being changed to flat?
By admitting that the temp trend was rising until 1998, we are able to note that the temp trend has been falling since then. By doing this, we do not have to go against people’s memories of that time, and we remove the argument used by CAGW proponents that we are currently merely in a “pause”.
Again, to be able to point out that the trend is now downward, and has been for several years, is a far stronger argument than that a computed average has been flat for a slightly longer period.
SR