Ocean cycles, The Pause and Global Warming

By Andy May

h/t Joachim Seifert

There is a new post by Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, translated by Pierre Gosselin, on the effect of ocean cycles on 20th century warming and the 21st century pause. They had previously written about this in their popular book The Neglected Sun, in English here. Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry have also written about the effect of ocean cycles here. These roughly 60 to 65-year cycles have the advantage of explaining the warming from about 1910 to 1944 and the warming from 1975 to 2005 with a similar mechanism. This is important, because the two warming events are very similar, as shown here and in figure 1.

Figure 1

In the IPCC WG1 AR5 document (page 887), they have a hard time explaining the earlier 20th century warming. The text is so confusing we will not attempt to paraphrase it:

“Nonetheless, these studies do not challenge the AR4 assessment that external forcing very likely made a contribution to the warming over this period. In conclusion, the early 20th century warming is very unlikely to be due to internal variability alone. It remains difficult to quantify the contribution to this warming from internal variability, natural forcing and anthropogenic forcing, due to forcing and response uncertainties and incomplete observational coverage.”

Why is this warming “difficult to quantify” and the later warming “extremely likely” due mostly to man? The two temperature profiles are nearly identical after removing the secular trend out of the Little Ice Age.  But, the first is a mystery and the second is understood? We have a problem with this.

Figure 2

Figure 2 is a portion of FAQ 10.1, Figure 1 in WG1 AR5 (page 895). The bottom graph shows the mean surface temperature in black, the CMIP 3 global climate model in blue and the CMIP 5 climate model in red. All natural and anthropogenic model components are included. The warming trend from 1975 to 2009 is modeled well. But, the similar warming from 1910 to 1945 is not, the models simply slice through the mid-point. The top graph shows the same surface temperature record in black. But, the two models are run with the IPCC assumed natural forcing alone, leaving out the anthropogenic forcing. Since the natural forcing is assumed to be close to zero (see figure 3), except for volcanism, the line is flat with dips at volcanic events. In the top graph neither warming period is modeled well.

Figure 3

Figure 3 is from WG1 AR5 figure 10.5 (page 884). The observed warming (1951-2010) is again shown in black, the greenhouse gas warming (GHG) is shown in green, the combined anthropogenic forcings (ANT) are shown in orange, other anthropogenic forcings (“OA,” mostly reflective aerosol emissions) are shown in yellow, all natural forcings are shown in blue and labeled “NAT.” Internal variability, basically the ocean cycles, is assumed to be zero over the period of 1951-2010. It should be clear from these graphs that something important is left out of the models for this relatively short time period. Lüning, Vahrenholt, Wyatt and Curry and many others would suggest that they have not modeled the ocean cycles correctly.

A summary of Wyatt and Curry’s stadium wave ocean cycle theory can be seen here. As Lüning and Vahrenholt note in their recent post there have been a flood of new papers discussing the role of ocean cycles in recent global warming trends. These include Meehl, et al. in the August 2016 Nature Climate Change. If the link doesn’t work, look up “Contribution of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation to twentieth-century global surface temperature trends” in Google scholar. Meehl, et al. write:

“Here we show that the largest IPO [Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation] contributions occurred in its positive phase during the rapid warming periods from 1910-1941 and 1971-1995, with the IPO contributing 71% and 75% respectively, …”

This directly contradicts the IPCC conclusion that man caused most of the warming between 1951 and 2010. The tropical Pacific Ocean cooling from the early 1990’s to 2013 may have been one of the causes of the “pause” in surface warming observed from 2000 to 2010. This is discussed in more detail in a new paper by Chikamoto, et al, “Potential tropical Atlantic impacts on Pacific decadal climate trends.” The tropical Pacific Ocean cooling was not predicted by the IPCC climate models and it may have had an impact on global warming. Chikamoto, et al. present a new model that does model the pause. It is based, in part, upon Pacific and Atlantic sea surface to 700 meter depth temperature and salinity trends.

Another paper suggesting that the IPCC CMIP5 models do not account for multidecadal ocean cycles was recently published by Peings, et al. in the Journal of Geophysical Research, see here. Monika Barcikowska, et al. suggest in the AMS Journal of Climate, that sea surface and atmospheric temperatures are dominated by a 65 year variability component. This variability suggests that the warming trend from the 1970’s to the 2000’s will be followed by a cooling trend of similar length.

Finally, it is notable that Dai, et al.‘s Nature Climate Change paper: “Decadal modulation of global surface temperature by internal climate variability” suggests that internal climate variability, mainly through the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, was largely responsible for the recent slowdown in global warming (aka the “pause”). If this is true, how can man be responsible for most of the warming and nature responsible for most of the cooling during the pause? We detect a contradiction here.

In conclusion, it seems highly unlikely that natural forcings (“NAT” in figure 3) and internal climate variability are zero or close to zero as claimed by the IPCC in WG1 AR5. That being the case, anthropogenic forcings are overestimated in that study, since they were computed by subtracting the natural forcings. We now have numerous studies, many are cited above, that make it clear that multidecadal ocean cycles of 60 to 65 years have a significant influence and appear to explain most, if not all of the warming seen from 1910-1944 and 1975-2009.

Dr. Lüning and Professor Vahrenholt received a great deal of criticism when they published their book “The Neglected Sun” in 2012. At present, they are accepting apologies for this criticism – if it is from the heart. You can contact them here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
273 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
rbabcock
December 10, 2016 11:16 am

Since the temperature record has been so corrupted, really what is the point of any of this?

Chimp
Reply to  rbabcock
December 10, 2016 11:27 am

Despite the rape of the data by gatekeepers, it’s still evident that there was a warming cycle in the early 20th century and another in the late, with a cold cycle in between.
Both the warming and the cooling show up strongly in the record as compiled by NOAA in the late 1970s, before “adjustments” which cooled the early 20th century warming and warmed the mid-century (modern) cooling. Recall that in the ’70s, global cooling was seen as a threat, not warming.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
December 10, 2016 11:28 am

Consider also that all during the decades of cooling, CO2 was on the rapid rise.

Reply to  Chimp
December 10, 2016 5:23 pm

Look what happened to the global cooling that occurred from ~1940 to ~1975 – it was erased!
Why? Because it disproves the CAGW hypothesis.comment image

Latitude
Reply to  rbabcock
December 10, 2016 11:34 am

I agree…every paper should come with a disclaimer

1sky1
Reply to  rbabcock
December 10, 2016 12:11 pm

Indeed, the temperature record has been corrupted–largely through various adjustments that produce a bogus trend. Nevertheless, multidecadal oscillations are evident and beg for a convincing physical explanation that is NOT provided by phenomenological “stadium wave” conjectures or by visual comparisons with equally tenuous ocean-temperature indices. But without such self-indulgent exercises. academic minds would be hard-pressed to come up with justifications for federal funding of “climate science.”

Reply to  rbabcock
December 10, 2016 12:41 pm

rbabcock,
here you can check a comparision of a fairly good graph, a corrupterd graph and CO2. Double warming an no ocean cycles after “reworking” the data by NASA GISS.
http://klimawandler.blogspot.de/2016/12/hat-die-nasa-giss-bei-ihrer-klimakurve.html

TA
Reply to  rbabcock
December 10, 2016 4:16 pm

A chart like this, one that shows the REAL temperature profile, should be included along with the manipulated NOAA/NASA surface temperature charts.
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Screen-Shot-2016-12-05-at-2.13.20-AM.png
With this temperature profile, you can see how the temps warmed to the 1940’s, then cooled down to the 1970’s, and then warmed again to almost the same level as in the 1930’s.
Everyone, please include this temperature profile in all future comparisons. Why go along with the NOAA/NASA lie voluntarily, without showing the real profile?

Reply to  TA
December 10, 2016 5:14 pm

But … but … we disappeared those graphs.

Javier
Reply to  TA
December 10, 2016 5:19 pm

It is fun to read Tony Heller’s rants, but you shouldn’t take it all too seriously. There is no reason to believe that you can put more trust on 1975 temperature records than today’s records. They are probably as wrong or more.

Reply to  TA
December 10, 2016 5:51 pm

javier,
in 1970 they had no goal, they just observed the data availble. There was no need to adjust the temperatures according to the CAGW and the CO2 curve. But today it is. Just compare th above 1970s curve with Hadcrut 3, then Hadcrut 4, then NASA GIStemp.
Steadily the past went colder and the present went warmer. You can check the od data, if there were some mistakes and correct it and you will get a slight different picture. But if the temperature rise at once more tha double, the data can’t have been so wrong. There was an aim and goal inthe re-work of the data; It has to be proved the temperature is following CO2.
Seek anyou shall find…

Stephen Richards
December 10, 2016 11:18 am

translation is ” The Cold Sun” ??

Chimp
Reply to  Stephen Richards
December 10, 2016 11:24 am

“Die kalte Sonne” is the German title. In English translation, they call it “The Neglected Sun”.

Greg
Reply to  Chimp
December 10, 2016 12:45 pm

maybe they realised it was not really that cold ( Die nicht so kalte Sonne ) and have now realised it’s oceanic cycles.

That being the case, anthropogenic forcings are overestimated in that study, since they were computed by subtracting the natural forcings.

There are no direct measurements of the “volcanic forcing”, it is inferred from atmospheric optical density: AOD. The scaling used to do this is somewhat arbitrary meaning the resulting climate sensitivity to volcanic forcing is equally arbitrary.
Initial attempts to estimate the scaling by a direct physical model done by Hansen’s team and published in Lacis et al 1992 found it to be around 30 W/m^2.
This was later changed to a much lower value in an attempt to reconcile GCM output with the surface temperature record. This was necessary since they were trying to explain all the late 20th c. warming in terms of radiative “forcings”.
The fundamental problem is that they are just fudging around with dozens of poorly constrained model ‘parameters’ until they get a fit the very limited period of temperature rise from 1975 – 1998. This is known as over-fitting. This leaves huge possibilities of being ‘right for the wrong reason’: they produce something which is a rough fit but with parameter values that have nothing to do with reality.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
December 10, 2016 5:24 pm

Greg,
Energy from the sun gets circulated around and released by oceanic cycles.

Bloke down the pub
December 10, 2016 11:45 am

Even with modern data collecting buoys, and satellites, the knowledge of ocean temperatures is barely adequate. To try and compare the situation today with that of a centuries ago to an accuracy of fractions of a degree is an absurdity. Decades of data will be needed before we can get a good grip on what the oceans are really up to.

george e. smith
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
December 10, 2016 12:44 pm

Bring more grant money for unemployed physicists.
g

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
December 10, 2016 12:45 pm

Excuse me; that was supposed to be unemployable physicists.
g

Greg
Reply to  george e. smith
December 10, 2016 1:00 pm

Well if they were to employ physicists they would get told straight away to stop adding and averaging temperatures when doing energy calculations, because it is physically meaningless.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/10/are-land-sea-temperature-averages-meaningful/
They would also get told that you can’t regress a temperature record against a radiative input because one is the integral of the other and it’s even more complicated if you have feedbacks in the system, as we know to be the case in climate.
They would be told that they need to do something like this:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/06/on-determination-of-tropical-feedbacks/comment image
They would also be told that they have an ill-conditioned problem with a basket load of unconstrained variables and that anything they produced would likely be spurious and not suitable fit for purpose.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
December 10, 2016 12:48 pm

Bloke down the pub
December 10, 2016 at 11:45 am:
Just checking the data before massive reworking shows enough:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp-dts/mean:37/mean:13/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:37/mean:13/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1875/to:1915/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1937/to:1977/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/offset:0.45/scale:1.2
Double warming after re-working the data isn’t possible without having a certain aim.

Bindidon
Reply to  Johannes S. Herbst
December 10, 2016 1:43 pm

Johannes S. Herbst on December 10, 2016 at 12:48 pm
You seem to belong to those people who either do not want or can’t manage to see at WFT that HadCRUT3 no longer is supported. It has been replaced ba HadCRUT4 around 2014.
Please read about the reasons which led to the switch (mainly: the inclusion of several stations in the Russian Arctic:
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/crutem3/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD017139/full
Ja ja, es ist kompliziert, aber bitte lesen Sie es trotzdem!

Bindidon
Reply to  Johannes S. Herbst
December 10, 2016 2:45 pm

Forrest Gardener, I usually have great respect for your opinions, but here you bypass some red line. What you write is incredibly ridiculous.
I like sound skepticism. From that you are here half a galaxy away. Such answers to my comments I really don’t need.

Reply to  Johannes S. Herbst
December 10, 2016 6:20 pm

Bindidon,
I read the stuff, but still i have some questions:
Why is Hadcrut3 similar to RSS/UAH and Hadcrut4 is not, but hotter?
Why has Gistemp a double warming than Hadcrut 3?
Yes, Hadcrut 3 is only continued to 2014, but this is still long enough to compare with other trends.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1979/to:2014
This is a comparision of all 4 mentioned graphs fom 1979 to 2014, leaving out the 2015/16 El Nino warming.
hadcrut 4 is not so much different to Hadcrut 3 for that time, so you can keep it. But just tell me how using the same stations and data, how come GISTEMP has double warming?
There was a need and a goal and it has been achieved.

Bindidon
Reply to  Johannes S. Herbst
December 11, 2016 8:47 am

Johannes S. Herbst on December 10, 2016 at 6:20 pm
I read the stuff…
That I don’t understand!
So many explanations… and I recall: the main difference between HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4 is the transition from CRUTEM3 to CRUTEM4, which includes among other changes a big amount of stations in arctic Russia which were absent in CRUTEM3, what led to a strong anomaly increase in that region.
But just tell me how using the same stations and data, how come GISTEMP has double warming?
I understand your claim! But you are yourself the origin of it: your WFT graph is incorrect.
1. You want to compare global data, but use here GISTEMP-dTs (GLB-Ts, land-only ) in the graph. That is wrong, as this dataset does not “contain” the cooling oceans. You must use GISTEMP-LOTI instead, i.e. GLB.Ts+dSST (land + ocean).
2. To compare anomaly based times series of whatever, you must align all these series to a common baseline, e.g. here that of UAH: the mean of their 1981-2010 anomalies.
Computing the mean for all non UAH series during 1981-2010 gives you for each series an offset which you have to subtract from all its anomalies.
Actual offsets (a few examples):
– RSS3.3 TLT: 0.097
– HadCRUT4 globe: 0.293
– GISS land+ocean: 0.431
3. That’s now the new graph (without HadCRUT3, useless):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/offset:-0.293/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2014/offset:-0.431
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161211/4vv3k9ec.jpg
OK, Johannes?

December 10, 2016 11:48 am

I’ve been following this blog for over a year, and come to the considered conclusion that no one really knows what is going on with long term or short term climate. There are a group of plausible and supported models that all have flaws that various participants in this forum vehemently point out.
The IPCC CO2 models have great verbiage in their support, but fail over the historic record i. e. before 1975.
I came in biased towards the solar variability models, but the relatively short term measurements of solar variability and the much less reliable proxies for said variabilty do not conclusively support the real historical variability in climate.
My math skills are sufficiently bad that the thought that climate could be chaotic is something like saying “God did it”–bringing up something I know I don’t understand to restate that no one else has a good explanation either. Has anyone ever derived a “chaotic” formula from a data set, rather than doing the formula first and then looking for a data set that matches the output of that formula? I have no idea.

Lance Wallace
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 10, 2016 11:58 am

“Has anyone ever derived a “chaotic” formula from a data set, rather than doing the formula first and then looking for a data set that matches the output of that formula?”
Lorenz.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 10, 2016 12:39 pm

Has anyone ever derived a “chaotic” formula from a data set, rather than doing the formula first and then looking for a data set that matches the output of that formula?
I keep meaning to. Not to actually predict climate, because given initial sensitivities, that can’t happen, but to show that a simple model could – ex of ANY CO2 – produce the sorts of outputs we see in the climate record? I think that could be done.

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 11, 2016 5:18 am

Hi Tom Halla,
I have no formula, but my observation is like this:
There are a number of periodic natural cycles which influences climate, like the atlantic oscillation (60 years) or the sunspot number cycle (11 years), the latter following somthing like connected with a rubber string. There are also cycles with thousand years and 220 years, but those aren’t so visibly in short times observations.
The most prominent is the 60 years AMO cycle.
There are also irregular events like El Nino Southern oscillation and volcanoes
which are influencing the temperature record. There is also the possibility that several El Nino in a row are pumping the heat up, having no time for sufficient cooling between.
Then we have a possible influence of CO2 of about 1.2°C per doubling. Addidional positve (like watersteam or clouds) feedbacks (up to 4 degrees) or negative feedbacks (up to -1.5°C).
Then there is a possile bias in the temperature records and and a possible willful re-working of the data to fit to a certain purpose.
You see there is a lot of numbers and factors which can influence nearly everthing.
One thing is absolutly sure: It can not be CO2 allone, as the other factors are dominant and surely there.
My bet is like follows:
1. We are at the beginning of a declining AMO wich will lead to a declining temperature the next years.
2. There hs been heat build-up from El Ninos the last 20 years or so, but that will be equalled within about 5 years, provided no other el Nino is happening.
3. It seems that we are also at the decline of the 220 years cycle, defined by sunspot numbers, which will also lead to some cooling.
4. There seems to be a bias in the surface temperature records from Urban Heat Islands and uneven distributionen of the weather stations, wich has added some tenth of a °C to the record.
5. Additional some planful upward adjustment seems to be happened by progressive graph makers.
6. Satellite (RSS,UAH) and radiosonde/weatherballoons temperature data seems to be realistic, avoiding UHI and other bias.
7. Using the satellite data and being at the begin of a decline of up to 0.5 degrees within the next decades, i just I am hoping that CO2 has some influence on global temperature, thereby avoiding to freeze off some precious body parts.
So I bet one crate (10 liters) of wonderful Franconian* Beer or equivalent (*Franconia is a part of Bavaria) that next year 2017 we will already see a slight decline in overal temperature, coming back to the level of 2014 with RSS/UAH global temperatures. Normally the bet is settled by drinking the beer crate together (and some friends) but depending on how far we are apart we have to do it virtually…

Reply to  Johannes S. Herbst
December 11, 2016 8:00 am

Thank you, but I live in Cottonwood Shores, TX (a distant suburb of Austin), so it would probably have to be virtual.

December 10, 2016 11:54 am

” multidecadal ocean cycles of 60 to 65 years have a significant influence and appear to explain most, if not all of the warming seen from 1910-1944 and 1975-2009″
What they don’t explain is the warming seen from 1910-2016. Cycles go up and down. But this sequence is up-pause-up. It could well be that there is a cycle added to a warming trend. But it isn’t just cycle.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 12:05 pm

nick
it is a cycle
sine wave ca 87 years
the sharp drop coming is just around the bend….

Reply to  Henry
December 10, 2016 12:06 pm
george e. smith
Reply to  Henry
December 10, 2016 12:52 pm

What about it makes you sure it is a sine wave ??
A sine wave is a very specific mathematical formula: e.g. A = k sin(B).
So what is your sine wave formula for your sine wave ??
G

Greg
Reply to  Henry
December 10, 2016 1:05 pm

He says it’s a sine wave but fits a polynomial. Don’t even try George, he’s beyond help.

Frederik Michiels
Reply to  Henry
December 10, 2016 3:03 pm

nope it’s not an exact sine wave. the actual rise we see follows exactly the path of the global sum of ENSO.comment image
you also see the pause on it which now will be gone as the latest nino tipped the scale from “balanced” to slightly in favor of el nino.
what did strike me is how this graph is nearly exactly the same as the global temperature graph. it’s easy to interprete: when el nino dominates it adds up and the graph rises. When La nina’s dominate, the graph falls.Of course the graph only goes to 2014 so the latest El nino will make a jump up in it again.
as i don’t like to post graphs without sources the article and lots of explenations can be found here

Latitude
Reply to  Henry
December 10, 2016 3:38 pm

Why does everyone ignore the AMO?….LOL
..those temp steps happen when the AMO and PDO aligncomment image?zoom=2

Latitude
Reply to  Henry
December 10, 2016 3:40 pm

comment image

ClimateOtter
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 12:07 pm

If I recall rightly there was a .3C drop from the 1940s to the mid 1970s. That doesn’t sound like a pause.

Reply to  ClimateOtter
December 10, 2016 12:20 pm

We think. The oceans were grossly undersampled (with suspect tchniques) prior to Argo. The GISS land/ocean has been manipulated to ‘disappear’ the cooling from ~1945-1975 that HadCrut shows. What can be said with certainty is that in the sat era from 1979, both RSS and UAH show warming from 1979-2000, and rough stasis since except for the now rapidly cooling 2015-16 El Nino blip. Still strong evidence for natural variability, since ~ 1/3 of all the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958 (onset of Keeling Curve measurement) took place after 2000.

george e. smith
Reply to  ClimateOtter
December 10, 2016 12:58 pm

Well the oceans were sampled by water temperatures from arbitrary unknown depths, and then they just assumed that the air temperatures were identical. to the water temperatures, so they mixed that with the land air temperatures from some specific distance above the land surface.
What silly rubbish would you expect to get as a result.
Christy et al showed (2001 Jan) they aren’t the same, and they aren’t correlated. Who would ever believe they would be ??
G

Bindidon
Reply to  ClimateOtter
December 10, 2016 2:26 pm

ristvan on December 10, 2016 at 12:20 pm
The GISS land/ocean has been manipulated to ‘disappear’ the cooling from ~1945-1975 that HadCrut shows.
Well ristvan: which HadCRUT do you mean – why did you omit the revision digit? By ‘inadvertance’ ?
Are you still living in the HadCRUT3 era, what so pretty good allows you to let ‘disappear’ hundreds of stations in the Arctic regions which were first integrated in CRUTEM4?
Here is a chart with plots of HadCRUT4 and GISS land+ocean for 1945-1975:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161210/hn5r2w8v.jpg
Linear trend estimates in °C / decade:
– HadCRUT4: -0.016 ± 0.008
– GISS: +0.015 ± 0.008
We have here a discrepancy of no more than 0.03 °C / decade. And you talk us about ‘disappear’…
Sorry, that’s not so terribly credible. And I’m all but a warmist!

O R
Reply to  ClimateOtter
December 11, 2016 2:48 am

Ristvan,
“The GISS land/ocean has been manipulated to ‘disappear’ the cooling from ~1945-1975 that HadCrut shows.”
You obviously don’t have the slightest clue..
With the latest major update of Gistemp loti, the switch from ERSST3b to ERSST v4, the cooling from 1945 to 1975 COOLED by 0.13 C:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/v4-v3b.gif

Bindidon
Reply to  ClimateOtter
December 11, 2016 10:43 am

Andy May on December 10, 2016 at 6:01 pm
In short, I’m not impressed.
Well, Andy May… is that the only answer you have at hand? Amazing.
I wrote: Well if you can manage to beat strength and accuracy of what is presented in the paper, feel free to communicate.
I’m not at all interested about wether or not you ‘are impressed’. I’m interested in a science based alternative you or anybody else could present here, with a level of accuracy beating the work of these PAGES 2k people.
So in fact this means you are simply not able to falsify their results.
Why did you then answer?
Thanks, understood.

george e. smith
Reply to  Andy May
December 10, 2016 12:59 pm

In what way is your trend ” secular ” ?? As distinct from what ??
G

george e. smith
Reply to  Andy May
December 10, 2016 1:37 pm

Well I always thought ” secular ” was alternative to “religious” or some facsimile.
What’s unreligious about climate changes ??

Bindidon
Reply to  Andy May
December 10, 2016 2:42 pm

Andy May on December 10, 2016 at 12:15 pm
There is a secular trend up since the Little Ice Age for sure.
For sure ? Is this a rather private opinion? Or are you able to present real scientific results about that?
What I actually know (until it gets superseded by something more accurate) is this:
https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2012/03/Pages_2013_NatureGeo.pdf
In this publication you read quite the inverse. From the paper’s abstract:

There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century.

Well if you can manage to beat strength and accuracy of what is presented in the paper, feel free to communicate.

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
December 10, 2016 5:32 pm

george e. smith,
Secular is Latin. It comes from “saeculum” which means generation or century (100 years). In Spanish “siglo” means century and comes from saeculum.
A secular cycle can be used in a strict way to mean a centennial cycle or in a relaxed way to mean a very long cycle (longer than a human life).
The other meaning of secular as opposed to religious or spiritual is completely unrelated.

gymnosperm
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 12:19 pm

Ultimately we must explain the cooling trend from the Paleocene to the present. The sequence is down-pause-down.

michel
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 12:22 pm

Trying to figure out what your argument shows. Is it saying, there is an underlying CO2 driven trend, on which are superimposed two cycles of ocean current induced warming?
So then we would, to assess the overall trend, simply draw a line of best fit through the progression from 1910 to the present? And any ups or downs around that line would be natural variation?
It makes some sense, but why pick 1910? Why pick any particular year? You’d have to justify the choice, and you’d have to account for any other long term trends of rising temps before CO2 became, by hypothesis, a driving factor.
Without having done the work, it seems like a bit of a long shot.

Reply to  michel
December 10, 2016 12:41 pm

Michel, you need to reverse your argument to be logically correct. We know there are long cycles unrelated to AGW. The MWP and LIA provide historical evidence and support can be found globally in various paleoproxies. We know there is a natural warming trend coming out of the LiA; the last Thames ice fair was 1810 and retreating glaciers are uncovering MWP tree stumps in the Alps, the Rockies, and Alaska. Even IPCC said AGW could not explain the warming from ~1920-1945; it did not warm from ~1945-1975. So the logically correct question is, how much of the warming from ~1975-2000’is AGW, and how much is not? The only certain thing is that to assert it is mostly AGW must be wrong. See my comment elsewhere this post on this century’s pause in warming but not CO2.

Reply to  michel
December 10, 2016 12:57 pm

michael, ristvan,
checking the somhow realistic hadcrut3 (available to 2014) you see not only a pause, but even a drop from 1880, 1940 and 2000
But then there was NASA GISS, “ironing” the curve to fit for CO2 incline.

george e. smith
Reply to  michel
December 10, 2016 1:12 pm

How convenient Johannes. It just so happens that the CO2 is increasing at exactly the same rate as the Temperature; even though those two things are not even measured in the same terms. They aren’t even dimensionally identical quantities.
So the loudness of the TV advertising pitch increases at exactly the same rate as the average mileage life of automobile tires.
g

Reply to  michel
December 10, 2016 6:42 pm

george e. smith
December 10, 2016 at 1:12 pm
“How convenient Johannes. It just so happens that the CO2 is increasing at exactly the same rate as the Temperature; even though those two things are not even measured in the same terms. They aren’t even dimensionally identical quantities.”
You didn’t get my point.
Yes, the CO2 graph has to be correlated in some way to fit to the temp graphs.
By checking HADCRUT you see an alignment for about 25 years, above and below it is absolutely not fitting.
But by comparing GISTEMP with the same CO2 graph, you have a nearly perfect fit. And it has even a double rate of warming. This can’t have been done without a certain aim and a selectiion of the most fitting data.
And some guys use just the latter to show correlation between CO2 and temperature rise.

Geronimo
Reply to  michel
December 10, 2016 9:28 pm

Ristvan,
Other than perhaps ice ages what evidence is there for long cycles? There are plenty of fluctuations
in the climate but I do not see much evidence of cycles. And even ice ages suddenly switched between
40 000 year cycles and 100 000 year cycles so long term periodicity is lacking in the temperature record.

Reply to  michel
December 11, 2016 9:53 am

Geronimo, we know there was a Roman warm period followed by the Dark Ages. Then it warmed into the MWP. For example, Viking burials on Greenland in what is now permafrost. The it coold into the LIA. Now it is warming again, approximately since the last Thames Ice Fair in 1810. Now, there are historic and archeological evidence for all this beyond sometimes untrustworth paleoproxies. Those proxies include speleotherms, alkenones, Ca/Mg ratios, d18O, much more than just tree rings. The historical evidence is what was meant by long cycles–within the Holocene itself.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 12:26 pm

Zoom out in your view a little. Imagine you are immortal and have watched the cycles of ice to green and back again ever since the continents began their travels. The oscillations on decadal and centennial scales become part of the noise and the overall cycle stands out.
What is so disturbing about being on the upward slope of an oscillation?

M Courtney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 12:32 pm

We started measuring the temperature of the weather because it was noticeable.
It was noticeable because it had got cold. The LIA.
It is to be expected that temperature will be drifting away from an exceptional start point. And if it weren’t exceptional there wouldn’t have ben a start.

george e. smith
Reply to  M Courtney
December 10, 2016 1:17 pm

Well we noticed because it might be anywhere between -94 deg. C and +60 deg. C ; of course measured by the surface Temperature; that being the source of the EM LWIR cooling radiation. Yes the temperature range is very noticeable. Some people would be quite uncomfortable at some of those places. They should not go there.
G

Javier
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 12:34 pm

The best temperature prediction that I have seen was made by Warren Meyer when in 2007 he combined a long term trend of +0.4°C/century, a new trend starting in 1945 of +0.35°C/century and a sine wave with a period of 63 years:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/model1-500×341.gif
At that time, we were in the midst of runaway alarmism with Arctic sea ice crushing and a Nobel prize for Al Gore. The Pause hadn’t been invented yet, as there was insufficient data to show a deceleration of warming.
He updated it in 2013:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/model2-500×340.gif
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/09/update-on-my-climate-model-spoiler-its-doing-a-lot-better-than-the-pros.html
He put to shame the multi-million dollar models.
The sine wave is what Andy is talking about.
The +0.4°C long term trend is natural post-LIA warming.
The +0.35° short term trend is anthropogenic effect.
As far as I know there is no evidence that he got anything of that wrong, and with the exception of Los Niños/Las Niñas, his model is still performing.
We are scheduled to end the post-LIA warming within decades. CAGW requieres that every bit of warming is anthoropogenic. Otherwise not catastrophic and better dealt with simple adaptation measures (as always). This will go down as another example when scientists group thinking got it all wrong.

Chimp
Reply to  Javier
December 10, 2016 12:51 pm

Javier,
IMO the main anthropogenic component is clearer skies over the NH from the 1970s. China and India might be retarding this effect now.

Reply to  Javier
December 10, 2016 12:53 pm

“The best temperature prediction that I have seen”
In what sense? It’s testable. The prediction shows temperatures (HAD 4) after 2008 topping a little over 0.4°C. 2015 was 0.760, 2016 so far is 0.816.

henryp
Reply to  Javier
December 10, 2016 1:03 pm

.35 =
Difference in apparatus, recording and calibration….

Javier
Reply to  Javier
December 10, 2016 1:05 pm

2015 was 0.760, 2016 so far is 0.816.

Those are spikes from El Niño, Nick. Do not make the mistake of making a trend from the last 2 years when we already know they have been exceptional.

Reply to  Javier
December 10, 2016 1:16 pm

” spikes from El Niño”
Well, the numbers from 2010 are 0.556, 0.421, 0.469, 0.512, 0.76, 0.816. Only 2011 seems to have been on or below his prediction curve. The rest above and rising.

george e. smith
Reply to  Javier
December 10, 2016 1:21 pm

Doesn’t look even remotely like a sine wave to me. Even in the drunkest stupor I may ever have had, I would not describe that as a sine wave (plus a linear trend.)
Looks quite triangular to me, which means it has many harmonics added to it.
g

Javier
Reply to  Javier
December 10, 2016 1:23 pm

Only 2011 seems to have been on or below his prediction curve. The rest above and rising.

Excellent, Nick. Now do the same for CMIP5 average and come telling me that they did a much better job.

Reply to  Javier
December 10, 2016 1:54 pm

Javier,
all agreed, except
(1) The 0.35° C antropogenic effect – there is NONE……
and (2) The PAUSE (plateau) was detected as the earliest, back in 2002,
published paper 2003, right immediately after issuing of TAR in Mar 2001
(The great MILLENIAL WORKS OF CLIMATE SCIENCE)
Therefore credit to those two guys who detected the pause/plateau/hiatus first …..
….. the literature:
[PDF]Fuel Consumption
http://www.biokurs.de/…/Fuel_Consumption_and_Global_dT-1.pdf
Diese Seite übersetzen
von LB Klyashtorin – ‎2003 – ‎Ähnliche Artikel
Consumption and Global Temperature Anomaly by. L.B. Klyashtorin & A.A. Lyubushin. Reprinted from. ENERGY &. ENVIRONMENT. VOLUME 14 No. 6 2003.

Charles May
Reply to  Javier
December 10, 2016 2:28 pm

I have my own longer term analysis. BTW, it does have a 65-year cycle of 65.032 years with an amplitude of .072. Since someone else was looking for one around 87 years I might have that too. I have a cycle at 89.53 years with an amplitude of .056.
They have been there for a long time as you will see.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgYwhSLXWbuEzfKcyMw
And for the H4 time period I have this.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgYwiCHUxVTsMBtfZkw
My prediction lines up with the above and what Dr. Page is showing.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgYwjvhOCdz4nF-vEvw
If you need more information I can offer more details.

Reply to  Javier
December 10, 2016 2:36 pm

“come telling me that they did a much better job”
Climate models don’t claim to predict on decade scales. They aren’t initialised for that. However, I note that your “best” prediction (Meyer) from 2008 had negative trend to now. Models have a current trend of about 2°C/Century. The observed, HADCRUT 4, from start 2009 to now is 4.3 °C/Century.
OK you can argue about El Niño. What you can’t do is say observations corroborated Meyer.

Latitude
Reply to  Javier
December 10, 2016 2:38 pm

Those are spikes from El Niño……….
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/PDO_AMO_files/image005.jpg

Bindidon
Reply to  Javier
December 10, 2016 3:09 pm

Javier on December 10, 2016 at 12:34 pm
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161211/ycp7wg93.jpg
Maybe we wait a few years, till the thin green trend line moves down to a fit with your sine wave?
Be patient, Javier! Your time might come.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
December 10, 2016 3:32 pm

Nick,

Climate models don’t claim to predict on decade scales.

Climate models can’t claim to predict on any temporal scale.
In a few years Warren Meyer will update again its model and it will continue being better than climatologists models.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
December 10, 2016 3:51 pm

Joachim,

(1) The 0.35° C antropogenic effect – there is NONE……

Unlikely and unprovable.

[PDF]Fuel Consumption
http://www.biokurs.de/…/Fuel_Consumption_and_Global_dT-1.pdf
Diese Seite übersetzen
von LB Klyashtorin – ‎2003 – ‎Ähnliche Artikel
Consumption and Global Temperature Anomaly by. L.B. Klyashtorin & A.A. Lyubushin. Reprinted from. ENERGY &. ENVIRONMENT. VOLUME 14 No. 6 2003.

Dead link.
The problem is that the pause could not be demonstrated in 2003 because due to El Niño it was impossible to demonstrate a pause then.
http://i.imgur.com/uhdz4Sr.png
Same argument I told to Nick. You cannot use El Niño or La Niña years one way or another.

TA
Reply to  Javier
December 10, 2016 4:43 pm
Leo Smith
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 12:42 pm

Chaotic systems do not show periodic behaviour, and yet they are not still. Neither are they spectrally flat. Nor do they really have a meaningful average.
They may from time to time display quasi-periodic behaviour, but never forever.

george e. smith
Reply to  Leo Smith
December 10, 2016 1:22 pm

But then nothing eve happens forever, so then chaos could be quite normal, and quite natural.
g

joelobryan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 12:57 pm

Nick,
Explain the initial LIA cooling from 1325 CE to 1450 CE
Then you have your explanation for the warming rebound of the 20th Century

Reply to  joelobryan
December 10, 2016 1:18 pm

Can you explain that?
Talking of LIA doesn’t explain anything. It just says it is warmer now because it was colder before.

george e. smith
Reply to  joelobryan
December 10, 2016 1:23 pm

So what IS your explanation; and why do you believe that one leads to the other.
g

Richard M
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 1:01 pm

Sorry Nick, your denial is somewhat funny. The start of your period is at the end of a period with low solar activity AND with both the AMO and PDO negative. You end date is during the high point of the AMO and just past the end of the last PDO cycle not to mention the super El Nino that currently has led to the recent big jump.
If you want to be taken seriously you need to get out of denial mode.

Greg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 1:10 pm

It could well be that there is a cycle added to a warming trend. But it isn’t just cycle.

That makes a lot more sense, Nick. But if there’s constant ‘trend’ from 1900 it does not fit the hypothesised GHG ‘forcing’.
The ‘catastrophic’ warming relied on ignoring the early warming and attributing ALL the late 20th c. warming to GHG. That requires ignoring the trend you are suggesting in the early half of the 20th c.

Reply to  Greg
December 10, 2016 1:20 pm

“But if there’s constant ‘trend’ from 1900”
I didn’t say it was constant.

george e. smith
Reply to  Greg
December 10, 2016 1:30 pm

Well a cycle is a somewhat specific entity. it presumes that the value eventually returns to the starting point; no matter where in that cycle the starting point is.
If, as some people insistently assume the system involves complicated feedbacks; water amplification and the like, why is it not just a transient event that has overshoots caused by propagation delays in the system.
There doesn’t need to be a mechanism for some pseudo cyclicity; just a not monotonic transient response.
G

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 2:02 pm

Nick Stokes @ 11:54
Could the semi-continuous gentle warming not just be that we are still rising out of the Little Ice Age?

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
December 10, 2016 2:38 pm

That is just an observation. It is warmer now because it was colder before. Yes, it’s true, but doesn’t help.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 2:18 pm

Nick,
The 60-70 years cycle is not the only cycle… It starts with the Enso (2-5 years) cycle and goes on with several cycles longer and longer: the 1000-1200 year and 2000-2400 years cycles which brought us the warm Roman and Medieval periods and the colder periods in between. The average warming trend since ~1850 may be just caused by these cycles…
What the up – slighty down – up – flat trend says is that if CO2 has such a huge effect, its effect is near completely removed by the 60-70 year half cycle. The only part of the trend one may attribute to CO2 is the change in slope between the two non-climbing periods: 1945-1975 for the first period and 2000-2015 for the second… In the first period the increase in CO2 is ~15 ppmv. In the second period ~40 ppmv…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 10, 2016 2:44 pm

“1945-1975 for the first period and 2000-2015 for the second”
But “non-climbing” is not the same. For HAD 4, trend from start 1945 to start 1976 was -0.166 C/Cen. For start 2000 to start 2015 it was 0.685 °C/Cen.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 11, 2016 10:32 am

Nick,
Depends of the begin and endpoint bias… Take 2001-2014 and the “pause” gets more real: 0.05 degrees/century in HadCRU4…
We need longer time spans beyond El Niño / La Niña episodes and what the temperature will do after the huge El Niño of the recent years. After the 1998 El Niño, temperature did get flat, but at a higher level than before.

Bloke down the pub
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 2:53 pm

Nick, you say ‘they don’t explain() the warming from 1910-2016’, yet in the post they say The two temperature profiles are nearly identical after removing the secular trend out of the Little Ice Age.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
December 10, 2016 3:35 pm

Well, that doesn’t explain it. It just does some arithmetic using it.

AJB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 4:14 pm

Cycles [plural] go up and down. But this sequence is up-pause-up. It could well be that there is a cycle [singular] added to a warming trend.

Superimposition notwithstanding; cycles innumerable, timescales indeterminate, spontaneous events aplenty. Oddly chaotic even.

But it isn’t just cycle [indefinite].

And the proof of such assertion is no doubt associated with a natural affinity to rulers and straight lines, numerological origami and average human lifespan, or something equally fearful. Nuts, whole hazelnuts. A glass and a half in every bar.

TA
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 4:32 pm

“What they don’t explain is the warming seen from 1910-2016. Cycles go up and down. But this sequence is up-pause-up.”
Not if you look at the real temperature profile instead of those bastardized charts you use. Then you see cycles go up, then down and then up again. You should incorporate this profile in your future comparisons:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Screen-Shot-2016-12-05-at-2.13.20-AM.png

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 5:36 pm

Gawd, people, do you even understand the inanities you expound? Do you people understand the sciences you bruit? IPCC climate models are shown to be deficit. Every projection is based on those models. Necromancy is a loser.
We live in a period of warmth. Rejoice!
Fukk off.

tony mcleod
Reply to  charlieskeptic
December 10, 2016 8:39 pm

Powerful stuff charlie. I’m going to quote you.

TedM
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 5:58 pm

Or another cycle with a konger wavelength superimposed on the other cycles

December 10, 2016 12:09 pm

Nice post, Andy May. Some supplemental info. Prof. Lindzen made essentially the same observation about the warming from ~1920-1945 being statistically indistinguishable from the warming ~1975-2000 (his periods, slightly different from yours). IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM figure 8.2 makes the very clear point that the earlier warming cannot have been mainly AGW; there simply was not enough of an increase in CO2. It had to be natural variation, and it is highly likely mostly oceans since NASA says the upper 3 meters of the ocean stores as much heat as the entire atmosphere. Yet SPM fig. 8.2 asserts the later period is mostly AGW. Utter nonsense, since natural variability did not magically stop in 1975 only to return in 2001 with the pause.

Reply to  Andy May
December 10, 2016 12:25 pm

Yes. Akasofu noted it in a 2010 paper for the Arctic. I separately rederived his conclusion qualitatively in essay Northest Passage, using old DMI and Russian Arctic ice extent maps for August, plus the evidence of Larsen’s single season NWP transitmin 1944.

Reply to  ristvan
December 10, 2016 12:28 pm

The problem with the 60 year cycle dominance claim is that we should now be at the low point. 16 years – quarter cycle – after the warming was supposed to have stopped. Yet there is one record warm year after another.

Javier
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 12:40 pm

Forget El Niño noise. 2015-16 are not within trend and likely to be corrected over 2017-19. No significant warming until about 2035-40. Those models are going to explode.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 12:45 pm

Not in the satellite record after taking out the nonAGW El Nino blip of 2015-16, which is now rapidly cooling to warmunist dismay–as evidenced by the recent reactions to Rose and Delingpole calling this inconvenient truth to the public’s attention.

Chimp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 12:49 pm

Nick,
Only in the cooked books “surface record” is there a warmest year after year.
Andy May
December 10, 2016 at 12:44 pm
If there be any effect on GASTA from CO2, it’s not only not measurable but not detectable. For over 30 years after WWII, the earth cooled dramatically under ever rising CO2.

Richard M
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 1:17 pm

Wrong Nick, we are not at a low point. First of all the PDO is really just a reflection of ENSO and hence the recent El Nino removes it from much consideration. The real influence is the AMO because it drives Arctic sea ice levels. It went positive around 1995 and will stay warm until around 2025. We are probably at or near the peak of its influence on temperature.
It takes time for ice to melt which is why we didn’t see a big effect until 2007. Now we have vast areas of the Arctic Ocean releasing heat. This affects the GASTA in two ways. First, the Arctic itself is much warmer and second, some of the energy affects other areas of the NH. Since it doesn’t take as much energy to significantly warm the Arctic as it would other areas of the planet, the temperature increase is more dramatic and has a large influence on the GASTA.
Is there an underlying small warming trend? Probably. Do we know the cause? Nope. It could be the recovery from the LIA, it could be a long term bump in solar energy slowly released from the oceans, it could be CO2. It could be all of the above. Right now we don’t have enough information to pin down such a small number.

Greg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 1:20 pm

That period used to have cooled drastically, it does not have cooled any more. [sic].
Sorry about the grammar but most human languages are not design to express the past changing. It’s tricky.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 1:23 pm

So the climate confrences I went to in 2008, which put the warming at 1.2 C was wrong ? It took an el nino year to get the temperature to 0.816 C . They didn’t revise the 2015 temperature upwards ? I seem to recall it was only slightly warmer than 1998. ( and I thought that number was adjusted )
Right now the numbers coming out from officialdom, are primarily belief based. I can predict what the numbers will be next year based on the behaviour of NOAA.

weltklima
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 2:09 pm

Nick, as Andy May points out, two replies later; we are still on an
upward secular trend (absolute peak 2080 AD)…and this trend is
overlayed by the 61.6 years warming/cooling trend, now in the
cooling phase until 2040…..
Both, the secular trend (warming) and the 61.6 year trend (now
cooling phase) compensate each other in their forces until 2040 AD
…. which means that temps will remain horizontal until 2040, the
present PAUSE/plateau…… it will NOT stay entirely horizontal, but
will have small increases upwards, due to fiddling of the data, with
the aim of producing at least some small upward warming.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 5:41 pm

Mr. Stokes, you are trying too hard. The world happens. The world is cyclical? I don’t understand it. Do you?

TA
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 11, 2016 7:10 pm

“We should not be surprised that we are seeing record breaking temperatures,”
I wouldn’t consider one-tenth of a degree to be record breaking. That’s how much hotter 2016 got than did 1998. Now the temp is way down from that highpoint, so we are no longer in “record breaking” territory. 2016 and 1998 at best will tie for the hottest year since 1979. If it gets any colder, 1998 might keep its record.

Ron Clutz
December 10, 2016 12:16 pm

There is also an important paper entitled The influence of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation on Temperature and Precipitation over the Globe, Bo Dong • Aiguo Dai 2015
“From 1920 to 2012, there are roughly two warm IPO phases (1924–1945 and 1977–1998, with warm SSTs in the central and eastern tropical Pacific) and two cold IPO phases (1946–1976 and 1999–2012, with cold SSTs in the same region). The most recent cold IPO phase is still continuing. We found that phase switches of the IPO are concurrent with major climate transitions over the globe, including abrupt shifts in SST, SLP, T and P.”
“Annual surface air temperature is positively correlated with the IPO index (i.e., higher T during warming IPO phases such as 1924–1945 and 1977–1998) over western North America except its Southwest, mid-latitude central and eastern Asia, and central and northern Australia, but the correlation is negative over northeastern North America, northeastern South America, southeastern Europe, and northern India. Annual precipitation tends to be higher (lower) during warm (cold) IPO phases such as 1924–1945 and 1977–1998 (1946–1976 and 1999–2012) over southwestern North America, northern India, and central Argentina, while it is the opposite over the maritime continent including much of Australia, southern Africa, and northeastern Asia (Fig. 4b).”
“Besides the direct impacts on decadal variations in T and P, we also found some decadal modulations of ENSO’s influence on T and P on multi-year timescales by the IPO over northeastern Australia, northern India, southern Africa and western Canada.”
“Thus, the IPO is an ENSO-like low-frequency mode not just in its SST and SLP patterns (Zhang et al. 1997), but also in its impacts on T and P and atmospheric fields. These results imply that many of the surface and atmospheric processes associated with ENSO also apply to the IPO phase changes, with the warm (cold) IPO phase resembling El Nino (La Nina). Our results also suggest that it is important to predict IPO’s phase change for decadal climate predictions.”
From: The influence of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation on Temperature and Precipitation over the Globe Bo Dong • Aiguo Dai 2015
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/climate-report-from-the-water-world/

Javier
Reply to  Ron Clutz
December 10, 2016 12:59 pm

We found that phase switches of the IPO are concurrent with major climate transitions over the globe, including abrupt shifts in SST, SLP, T and P.

Holy cow. Do climatologists ever bother to read their subject scientific bibliography? This is a major shortcoming for someone who considers himself a scientist. Yet repeatedly I find that most climatologists do not dominate their subject bibliography.
Curtis Ebbesmeyer et al., described beautifully in 1991 how the Pacific and the Americas underwent a step change in 1976, studying no less than 40 variables.
Ebbesmeyer, Curtis C., et al. “1976 step in the Pacific climate: forty environmental changes between 1968-1975 and 1977-1984.” (1991): 115-126.
http://aquaticcommons.org/4562/1/EbbesmeyerEtal_1990_ProcPacCLIM7th_pp115-126.pdf
They don’t even cite them obviously. Better to go down as the first to have discovered it.
Our planet experiments major climatic transitions when it changes from a phase to the next, and mankind has nothing to do with that.

Chimp
Reply to  Javier
December 10, 2016 2:04 pm

Javier,
I experienced the change in the winter of 1977 up close and personal. I know from direct experience how powerful is the PDO, discovered some 20 years later by a PNW fisheries researcher.

Richard M
Reply to  Ron Clutz
December 10, 2016 1:33 pm

There are many who claim the PDO (IPO) went negative in 1999 but I think that is just a misreading of the La Nina which followed the 1997-98 Super El Nino. If we are truly talking about a 60-65 year cycle then the PDO didn’t go negative until at least 2005-2007.
That means we have just finished the first decade of negative influence. If you look back the 1945-1955 you also do not see a big influence. It is the 1960s-70s where the global cooling scare took hold. I think another part of this is the AMO was (and is) still positive which negates much of the early PDO influence.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Richard M
December 10, 2016 8:48 pm

That’s all well and good Andy but surely if the global temperature continues to rise at 20 times the long term average or in the shorter term we have a blue water arctic event next summer or the one after then I think you’d have to begin to suspect there are more than just natural cycle/oscillations going on.

bit chilly
Reply to  Richard M
December 11, 2016 2:59 pm

agreed richard.

ShrNfr
December 10, 2016 12:17 pm

The AMO seems to sync with the solar magnetic cycle and hence with the TSI, cosmic rays and heaven knows what else. As we head out of the grand solar maximum into what may be a grand solar minimum, we may find that the AMO goes down and stays down. All we know now is that we are probably on the downslope of the AMO.

Latitude
Reply to  ShrNfr
December 10, 2016 12:24 pm

Entirely too much attention has been given to the PDO…
…and not nearly enough attention to the AMO…the one that flows directly into the Arctic

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Latitude
December 10, 2016 12:39 pm

Yes, but watch for a synchronicity among multiple oceanic negative oscillations and get ready for a sizable drop like the 70’s (so sayeth Joe Bastardi).

Latitude
Reply to  Latitude
December 10, 2016 2:18 pm

yep….AMO and PDO are both lined up to go down together…exactly like they did in the 70’s…..when we were all going to die from global cooling

bit chilly
Reply to  Latitude
December 11, 2016 3:02 pm

in and out of the arctic. the outflow is also warmer when there is more ice .thank god i do not use arctic ice (or any ice) in the occasional single malt i enjoy from time to time.

Richard M
Reply to  ShrNfr
December 10, 2016 1:38 pm

It isn’t hard to see the AMO as a completely self driven cycle completely due to the rotation of the Earth and the placement of the land. Nothing else is required. Cyclical melting of Arctic sea ice drives the warm and cool parts of the cycle. When there is less ice open water provides radiation cooling, when the ice returns it insulates the water and allows it to warm.

weltklima
Reply to  Richard M
December 10, 2016 2:16 pm

Richard, if it were a self-driven cycle, you would not obtain
an exact 61.6 years temp cycle, which you get by taking an
exact GISP2 Holocene graph and place vertical lines
each 61.6 years onto the graph for the entire 10,000 years
time span. In such a regularity, only external forcing is capable
to produce such an exact cycle..

tony mcleod
Reply to  Richard M
December 10, 2016 8:55 pm

“exact 61.6 years”
I’d say it isn’t a week more than 61.4.
Seriously, weltklima can you show us that result?

henryp
Reply to  Richard M
December 10, 2016 9:38 pm

Placement of ‘ land…ehhhh
Make that earth’s ‘inner iron core’
(Magnetic north pole moved more north)

December 10, 2016 12:23 pm

In addition to the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation AKA Pacific Decadal Oscillation, there is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Also, consider an ENSO index smoothed by several years. And, these may be loosely linked to each other.

December 10, 2016 12:24 pm

“This directly contradicts the IPCC conclusion that man caused most of the warming between 1951 and 2010. “
No, it doesn’t. You truncated the quote to change its meaning. The full quote is

Here we show that the largest IPO contributions occurred in its positive phase during the rapid warming periods from 1910–1941 and 1971–1995, with the IPO contributing 71% and 75%, respectively, to the difference between the median values of the externally forced trends and observed trends.

It isn’t 75% of the warming. It is 75% of the difference between observed and expected. We knew there was a difference; they are quantifying the contribution to it.

Reply to  Andy May
December 10, 2016 1:07 pm

“We are comparing apples to apples here”
No, you aren’t. IPCC is 1951 to 2010; Meehl here is 1971 to 1995. But the key thing is that IPCC said over that period, expected was at least half observed, best estimate is that it was about the same. Meehl, in a different period, talks about a proportion of the difference. That makes no judgement about how big the difference is, especially for a very different period.

Reply to  Andy May
December 10, 2016 3:00 pm

Andy,
” Is that not correct”
I don’t think so. ” natural forcings” and “externally forced trends” sound like opposites. I don’t have the full paper either. But I think “externally forced trends” means AGW+solar+volcanoes; natural the rest.

bit chilly
Reply to  Andy May
December 11, 2016 3:07 pm

andy, i believe the cost to the tax payer for that paper was a lot more than $32 😉

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 5:47 pm

Wadda joke! If you assume my assumptions, then you will get my conclusion.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 8:56 pm

No it isn’t….the word cat is written in crayon.

December 10, 2016 12:31 pm

Exactly all the warming has been natural and that warming ended around 1998.
Going forward expect cooling.

Reply to  Salvatore del Prete
December 10, 2016 1:15 pm

Yes, could be possible that nearly all cycles are due to natural/ocean cycles.
Here is a graph from 1976:
In 1910 it was 15.0°C, in 1940 itwas 15.5°C and in the 1970s again 15.0°C.
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure_files/image012.jpg
Okay this is a smoothed northern half globe land temp graph.
if we add the RRS/UAH graph, increasing again 0.4 – 0.5°C until now, then all warmig is due to natural cycles only. 1940 being as warm as today…

TA
Reply to  Johannes S. Herbst
December 10, 2016 5:12 pm

Yes, your graph looks kind of like this graph. Both show the 1930’s being as warm as today.
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Screen-Shot-2016-12-05-at-2.13.20-AM.png

tony mcleod
Reply to  Salvatore del Prete
December 10, 2016 8:58 pm

Starting when?comment image
Soon I hope.

co2islife
December 10, 2016 12:33 pm

Someone please show me empirical evidence IR between 13 and 18µ can warm the oceans. The oceans have warmed 0.20°C since 1970 and there simply isn’t enough energy in those wavelengths to warm the atmosphere, let alone the oceans. Someone please point me to an experiment that shows non-static water being warmed by those wavelengths.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/global-ocean-temperature-0-700m.gif

Reply to  co2islife
December 10, 2016 12:40 pm

“Someone please show me empirical evidence IR between 13 and 18µ can warm the oceans. “
Sunlight warms the oceans. Oceans are net emitters of IR, not absorbers.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 2:02 pm

Thought: What color is the ocean? Probably greenish – blueish. So optically the reds are absorbed. Why not, then the infra-reds? Absorption makes heating.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 2:17 pm

Nabbiz, it is easy to prove in the lab that infrared does not penetrate water. There may be some surface skin effectbon evaporation, but for the oceans that is likely confounded by the surface biofilm. Radiative ocean heating is from sunlight. Radiative ocean cooling is from infrared.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 3:06 pm

“Absorption makes heating.”
Yes, but there has to be balance. Oceans can’t absorb everything without emission, else boil. The oceans are warm enough that they emit as IR more than they receive as sunlight. Down IR makes up the balance, but doesn’t have to be absorbed.
It could, though. The absorption pathway is exactly the reverse of emission, and oceans certainly emit – that is one way of measuring SST (skin). Paths have to be reversible; there is no one-way mechanism.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 5:52 pm

And when relatively ice-free oceans emit more IR?
One should get its CO2 message straighter.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2016 5:56 pm

Crap!
Time offsets screw up comments.
Nonetheless, Nick can’t keep up with contrary comments.

bit chilly
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 11, 2016 3:12 pm

interesting comment regarding sst measuring from nick. anyone have an infrared image of a breaking wave ? the infrared cameras filming rescues at sea sometimes appear to show breaking waves emit more ir than the surrounding ocean.

Reply to  co2islife
December 10, 2016 12:53 pm

CO2, it doesn’t. The whole backradiation thing is mostly a big misconception by armchair skeptics who should have studied more about radiative cooling before commenting. The only warming energy is incoming solar (plus maybe an insignificant amount of geothermal from Earth’s interior). That is especially true for oceans. Sunlight warms the photic zone where photosynthesis can take place. IR cools, because it is generated energetically by the sun warmed surface temps. It isn’t ‘hotter’.

Christian
Reply to  ristvan
December 10, 2016 2:08 pm

ristvan,
Jesus you talking about something you dont understand, it is always the sun what warms the earth, but when its becomes night its getting cooler and what does CO2 do, yes it decrease the ability of the earth to get cool.
Not magic so simpel, but i do see, most people did not get it

co2islife
Reply to  ristvan
December 10, 2016 2:17 pm

The only warming energy is incoming solar

Bingo, that is what I thought. How could a radiating body possibly warm itself…it can’t. Now, if the only warming energy is incoming solar radiation, doesn’t it stand to reason that the same incoming radiation that is warming the oceans is also warming the atmosphere? The warmer the oceans are the warmer the atmosphere above them will be through conduction, convection, and radiation. El Nino’s and El Ninas pretty much prove that point. It also explains the stepwise ascent of temperatures, as opposed to linear with the ascent of CO2. It seems to me that explaining the additional source of incoming radiation through cleaner air and fewer clouds over the oceans, and greater humidity over the land does a much greater job explaining temperatures than does CO2.

henryp
Reply to  co2islife
December 10, 2016 10:29 pm

Fewer clouds due to less incoming uv…

Reply to  ristvan
December 10, 2016 2:25 pm

Did you forget a sarc tag? Days warm, true. Sunlight does that. Nights cool, also true. IR radiates away from the surface. How efficient that radiative coolingnis depends on the GHE. Nights cool more where it is dry (like deserts) than where it is humid (like Fort Lauderdale) because water vapor is a more potent GHG than CO2. Nights never warm from IR backradiation no matter how humid. Sort of an experiential physics summary with no math, just ordinary observations.

co2islife
Reply to  ristvan
December 10, 2016 4:09 pm

but when its becomes night its getting cooler and what does CO2 do, yes it decrease the ability of the earth to get cool.

Once again, how does CO2 cause the oceans to warm? The water above the oceans are saturated with H20. CO2 has an immeasurable, zero, nada, zip impact on the lower 0.1km of the atmosphere according to MODTRAN. What IR radiation is emitted by the oceans between 13 and 18µ is a completely absorbed by H2O. How then does CO2 cause the oceans to warm? If it isn’t CO2 causing the warming, something else must be causing the warming. That cause is more visible light reaching the earth. That warms the oceans, that warms the atmosphere above it. CO2 and IR between 13 and 18µ have nothing to do with it. Have the temperatures in the dry deserts been increasing? No. Just look at the best example Antarctica. Temperatures have remained stable even though CO2 has dramatically increased. If you isolate the impact of CO2, focus on controlling all other factors, single out the impact of 13 and 18µ you get no warming. Remove all H2O from the atmosphere, get the radiating body near -80°C, and you get as close to a control for CO2 as you can get. The impact of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere since 1957 is immeasurable. If Co2 is the cause, why isn’t Antarctica warming?
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/stations/vostok.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/stations/amundsen.gif

Bindidon
Reply to  ristvan
December 10, 2016 5:09 pm

co2islife on December 10, 2016 at 4:09 pm
If Co2 is the cause, why isn’t Antarctica warming?
Why should this stoopid CO2 be all the time the one and only cause of everything?
Inbetween I hear and read this eternal lamento more often from skeptics than from warmistas.
That really gets boring a bit.
Whatever the amount of atmospheric CO2 concentration, co2islife: its effects are WAY from the level needed to beat the effects of
– the lack of warm land masses like in the NH;
– the violent circumpolar currents around the Antarctica continent;
– the huge Antarctica ice sheet.
Antarctica IS warming, co2islife. The linear estimate of the UAH grid anomalies at 80-82.5S for 2000-2013, a period without huge positive ENSO peaks, is about 3 °C / century.
But this warming has no chance to compete with the 4.5 °C / century at 80-82.5N.

co2islife
Reply to  ristvan
December 10, 2016 5:29 pm

Did you forget a sarc tag? Days warm, true. Sunlight does that. Nights cool, also true. IR radiates away from the surface. How efficient that radiative coolingnis depends on the GHE. Nights cool more where it is dry (like deserts) than where it is humid (like Fort Lauderdale) because water vapor is a more potent GHG than CO2. Nights never warm from IR backradiation no matter how humid.

Bingo, I’ve pointed that our 1,000x times. Once again, this is a science. CO2’s only way to affect temperature and/or climate is by absorbing 13 to 18µ IR Radiation. That is the only defined mechanism by which CO2 can cause climate change temperature increase. There is no mechanism by which CO2 can do anything but increase temperature. It traps heat, that is it. 13 to 18µ is consistent with a black body of temperature -80°C. Any real scientist would then focus on the parts of the globe where the impact of CO2 can be isolated. Basically, all factors need to be controlled for except for CO2. That is how a real scientist would do an experiment. A real scientist would study the parts of the globe closest to -80°C and where there is extremely dry air. By focusing on areas near -80°C you are isolating the IR wavelengths attributed to CO2 absorption. By focusing on very very dry air you remove H20, isolating the impact of CO2. That is how a real scientist would construct an experiment to measure the impact of CO2 on the atmospheric CO2. Those conditions are present at the S Pole. Here are the results. There is absolutely zero warming in the S Pole going all the way back to 1957. CO2 has greatly increased, and trapping IR between 13 to 18µ has led to zero warming. Do you have any evidence nighttime temperatures in the deserts have been increasing? I’ve never seen any that controls for H2O.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c019b034e608b970c-pi
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/amundsen.gif

BruceC
Reply to  ristvan
December 11, 2016 1:16 am

Bindidon:

Antarctica IS warming, co2islife. The linear estimate of the UAH grid anomalies at 80-82.5S for 2000-2013, a period without huge positive ENSO peaks, is about 3 °C / century.

Huh?? (scratching head whilst cleaning glasses)
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh154/crocko05/UAH%20-%20South%20polar_zpsr3zpvz3m.png

Reply to  ristvan
December 11, 2016 1:45 am

“whilst cleaning glasses”
I can’t see what you’ve plotted there, Bruce. UAH V6 gives whole period trends at the bottom. And for SoPol, which is 60-90°, so not at all the same as Bindi’s and lots of ocean, they give zero trend. But for land, it is 0.07°C/decade.

BruceC
Reply to  ristvan
December 11, 2016 1:54 am

0.07C/decade. May as well say – ZERO.
BTW Nick, wouldn’t ‘Bindi’s’ 80-82.5S be a, what do you call it …… a cherry pick?

Reply to  ristvan
December 11, 2016 2:06 am

“a cherry pick?”
No. 82.5S is as far as UAH goes. And below 80 you are including ocean, though 77.5 might be OK.
0.07 C/dec is not that far below global, at 0.12.

BruceC
Reply to  ristvan
December 11, 2016 2:14 am

My fairly expensive AWS only reads in 0.1C intervals, with an error margin of +/- 1C.
Gotta laugh at all these ‘estimates’ to two decimal places where there is not even a thermometer.

Javier
Reply to  ristvan
December 11, 2016 2:32 am

Plus Antarctica tends to show the opposite temperature trend to the rest of the world during most of the Holocene. If Antarctica has started warming, it is possible that the rest of the world has started cooling masked by the effects of El Niño. We should know in a few years.

BruceC
Reply to  ristvan
December 11, 2016 3:12 am

But is Antarctica actually warming Javier?
According to historic temp data from Amundsen/Scott Base;
1958
Average annual temperature: -47.8C
Annual average maximum temperature: -45.8C
Average annual minimum temperature: -51.4C
2015
Average annual temperature: -49.2C
Annual average maximum temperature: -45.5C
Average annual minimum temperature: -52.8C
Not to mention that the ‘dome’ base built there in 1975 was dismantled in 2009.
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh154/crocko05/AmundsenndashScottSouthPoleStation3_zpsd19ef72f.jpg
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh154/crocko05/AmundsenndashScottSouthPoleStation1_zps0523ab44.jpg

BruceC
Reply to  ristvan
December 11, 2016 3:35 am

As Nick is a fellow Aussie, he should appreciate the following Australian bases in Antarctica;
Casey:
1991
Average annual temperature: -7.5C
Annual average maximum temperature: -5.7C
Average annual minimum temperature: -9.6
2015
Average annual temperature: -10.2C
Annual average maximum temperature: -7.6C
Average annual minimum temperature: -14.7C
Davis:
1989
Average annual temperature: -10.0C
Annual average maximum temperature: -8.2C
Average annual minimum temperature: -12.2C
2015
Average annual temperature: -11.5C
Annual average maximum temperature: -9.0C
Average annual minimum temperature: -15.8C
Mawson:
1991
Average annual temperature: -9.7C
Annual average maximum temperature: -7.8C
Average annual minimum temperature: -11.9C
2015
Average annual temperature: -12.5C
Annual average maximum temperature: -10.0C
Average annual minimum temperature: -16.7C

Bindidon
Reply to  ristvan
December 11, 2016 7:45 am

BruceC on December 11, 2016 at 1:16 am & follow.
Huh?? (scratching head whilst cleaning glasses)
That you don’t need to do either, BruceC. And you don’t need to show me any chart concerning UAH, I have all the data at home, and of course not only
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
With charts you build upon that dataset, you will, for the polar regions, a best be able to show what happens for the latitudes 60-82.5 N resp. 60-82.5 S:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161211/zf6o235x.jpg
As you can see, rien de nouveau: nothing unusual.
Thus, when I write that Antarctica is warming, than of course I don’t mean the continent as a whole. How could I ever ignore it’s actually rock solid against the warming experienced in the northern polar regions?
But what you can’t see using this file ‚uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt‘ is that the trends in the polar regions may highly vary from latitude to latitude, and also depending on the period chosen for the estimates.
To have a closer look at that you need to process UAH’s 2.5° gridded data: a set of files containing, for each year, monthly grids of 72 latitude stripes of 144 cells (but the outermost stripes below 82.5S and above 82.5N contain no data).
The set is located in the same directory and consists of the files tltmonamg.1978_6.0beta5 through tltmonamg.2016_6.0beta5 (like the ncdc variants, they exist for 4 different atmosphere layers: lt, mt, tt and ls).
You may, among lots of possibilities, compute the linear trend for each of the 66 2.5° latitude stripes for which data is available (the tt layer has 70).
Here is a chart showing the linear trends for these stripes over different time periods: 1979-2016, 1998-2016 and 2000-2013 (a period well inside of the 2 recent El Niños).
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161028/g25fmuo9.jpg
And here you see what I mean with ‚Antarctica is warming‘.
I did not at all wonder about the fact that the northernmost stripes experience warming up to over 4.5 °C / century (96 of the 100 grids with the highest trends are located in 80-82.5N).
But what happens at the South Pole was for me a real surprise, especially during that 2000-2013 period where I had expected a cooling way stronger than for the period 1979-2016. But…
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161211/v8uswh8x.jpg
Over 3 °C / century, in a period where in fact I expected about -3!
My rule, BruceC, is as follows: while I ignore the exxagerations of warmists when they talk about a problem, I don‘t ignore the problem itself.
And I conclude with another fact: namely that while the poles show warming during this 2000-2013 period, the latitudes 35S-35N didn’t at all.

BruceC
Reply to  ristvan
December 11, 2016 1:16 pm

Thank you for your thorough explanation Binbidon, much appreciated. However it still doesn’t explain the falling surface temps reordered at the 4 bases I quoted above.
(still scratching my head – my glasses are now clean)

BruceC
Reply to  ristvan
December 11, 2016 1:19 pm

reordered => recorded
(more coffee required)

December 10, 2016 12:34 pm

As I have said (I think) the days of AGW theory being viable are going to end as global cooling which began earlier this year will continue to evolve. First stage was the ending of El Nino and one can see OLR increasing now as a result of this.
My solar theory in one sentence is– Extremely low solar conditions that are persistent will push the terrestrial items which control the climate toward modes which will result in the albedo of the earth to increase therefore promoting cooling.
The 500 mb level in the N.H. seems to be showing an overall cooling trend of late. What I want to see is for this trend to continue but for the poles to be warm relative to the lower latitudes at this level.
This time in the climate is at a crossroads to my way of thinking and this next 6 to 12 months could be very telling.
I also like the overall snow coverage in the N.H. and it looks like it will be going more above average within the next few days, from a level very slightly above average as of today.
Sea surface temperatures overall are on the decline as far as I can tell.

Reply to  Salvatore del Prete
December 10, 2016 1:34 pm

ristvan,
Today I red an article about a bavarian skiing tourism manager, telling that the snow coverage in the bavarian alps didn’t go down since the 1970s. Also the winter temperatures went not up, but the summer temperatures. Therefor the decline of the glaciers.

arthur4563
December 10, 2016 12:37 pm

I find it remarkable, and depressing, that so many people can have such positive beliefs about processes (climate) for which there is so little knowledge. The lousy predictions made by the computer climate models upon which warmists depend so completely are good and sufficient reason to doubt just about anything they claim. They really can’t be this dense, now can they? Well, if they can convince themselves that nuclear power is a very dangerous technology after all these decades of hundreds of them in operation and no fatalies in the Western world, I guess they can convince themselves of just about anything. Amazing!

henryp
Reply to  arthur4563
December 10, 2016 1:15 pm

Ukrain problem not yet resolved.
Need te encapsulatipn
Ukrain caanot pay for it
Nuclear energy is a disaster waiting to happen

TA
Reply to  henryp
December 10, 2016 5:26 pm

henryp, they are in the process of putting a new cap on the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. They constructed it off-site and were very close to putting it in place over the reactor building just a few days ago.
Here’s an article describing the construction of the cap with a good picture of it:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/27/science/chernobyl-capping-a-catastrophe.html
Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen. Modern nuclear reactors can be built that will not turn into nightmares. Nuclear reactors are humanity’s best alternative for the longterm. We should start building them now. Tear down the windmills and solar thermal plants and replace them with nuclear power plants.

TA
Reply to  henryp
December 10, 2016 5:31 pm

There’s that damn logo again. I keep forgetting the New York Times has started adding this (?ref=oembed) to to the end of the webpage url.

tony mcleod
Reply to  arthur4563
December 10, 2016 9:04 pm
Charles May
December 10, 2016 12:42 pm

Andy
I knew you had to be a bright fellow. We both have the same last name.
The mention of the 6o-65 year cycle got me going a few years ago. Joe Bastardi and others have mentioned it so I started my own investigation. I use a technique called OFT developed by Dr. Evans to analyze various data sets. I then further process the results with my own techniques.
Here is my latest that shows the 65-year cycle. As you can see for yourself, with the inclusion of many more cycles I obtain a very good fit to the data. And, I do include a contribution from CO2. It does appear we should not be worried about it.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgYwgIUlc2fArGMd5IQ
With as few as 5 cycles including the 65-year cycle here is what it looks like:
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgYwfAD8WvYzldLC1EA

Charles May
Reply to  Andy May
December 10, 2016 7:02 pm

The essence of what I have done starts with the Optimal Fourier Transform that you can get to from Dr. Evans spreadsheet which can be found here.
http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
You will find a link to his spreadsheet there. It took me a while to learn how to use it. In my long career in the Naval Nuclear program I made extensive use of signal analysis.
I take the results of the OFT analysis and use them as inputs in a Marquardt procedure that tries to minimize the sum of the squares. I think in some cases I am over 90 sinusoids. At that figure the program then processes 90 initial but good guesses for each of the sine waves. To all that I add a DC offset.
The CO2 figures are done the same way. There is an initial guess for the starting temperature and then a guess for the ECS.
In a way I don’t need an input for CO2. I can approximate the data quite well with all natural cycles.
Here is how I like to think about what I have done. How much of a contribution from CO2 can I accommodate and still fit the data? In essence, that is the question I have answered. I can say you won’t get this from the GCMs.
BTW, I posted an earlier comment to Javier. You may find that even more shocking. I essentially applied these techniques to the Chritiansen data.
Thanks for reading the comment. I have done the same thing with all the Nino region data too and posted comments to this website that nobody reads. Then I posted comments as charplum. Since your name is May you deserved to know who I am.
With what happened in the UK you and I can now both say the Mays have it.

Javier
Reply to  Charles May
December 11, 2016 3:26 am

Charplum? Of course, you have a prediction of very wide swings in temperatures from now to 2025.
Problem is you are very likely to be wrong. What you do is mathematical analysis, not empirical analysis. Very much like Willis Eisebach you reduce it all to mathematics without consideration for the nature of the data, its inhomogeneities, what produces it, or its underlaying chaotic nature.
You adjust past data to a mathematical function based on frequency analysis, which is ok, but then make the quantum leap of thinking that the function has any predictive value. This has already been shown in stock market analysis not to be true. Your found cycles will soon stop working or change their beating, because they are not true cycles but resonances from the inhomogeneities going through the chaotic filtering.
In climatology, a cycle is not a cycle unless:
a) It has been taking place for at least several thousand years (wavelet analysis usually required)
b) It is found with the same beating and phase in at least two independent datasets from two unrelated physical processes.
I have been looking for the Gleissberg 87 yr cycle lately and I can’t found it neither in the data nor in the literature. It seems there was a clear 87 yr periodicity during the Mid-Holocene, but it is no longer taking place. People then start playing with the data and find a dubious 87 yr periodicity in the length of the solar cycle. How is that supposed to work? It cannot be seen in solar activity. That is not the supposed Gleissberg cycle.
Cycle analysis is very complex in climatology (unlike in electricity). Most oscillations are not cycles. Oscillations have little predictive value.
The 65 year oceanic-atmospheric oscillation described in this article is very real, yet it is likely not a cycle. Looking at the past it can be anywhere from 55 yr to 90 yr. It is probably related to two well known solar cycles of 52 and 104 yr, that are probably its ultimate cause, and as they change in relative amplitude the oscillation tends to approach one or the other. The centennial solar cycle is becoming more muted for well known reasons, and much to the chagrin of Salvatore del Prete the current minimum will be both shallow and short. The 65 yr oscillation is probably reducing also its amplitude and becoming shorter with every oscillation, until solar variability changes increase again in a couple of centuries.
The centennial solar minimum has probably contributed little yet to the Pause that appears to be the product of the change of phase in the 65 yr oscillation. Looking forward to the next couple of decades both will join forces and we might see some cooling, although nothing dramatic, as both cycle and oscillation are quite muted. The swings in temperatures that you predict are extremely improbable.

Charles May
Reply to  Javier
December 11, 2016 7:45 am

Javier
From reading your comment I am not sure you looked at my earlier comment. Therein, I presented analysis of the long running climate data that includes Christiansen and Moberg. I did find a 65-year cycle and an 89-year cycle. They have been there for 2000 years.
Perhaps I don’t understand when you say that I adjust the data. I do not make any changes to the raw data. I use it the way it is.
You are suggesting that the 68-year cycle may the be the beating of two other frequencies. I can’t and won’t argue with you because that is not a distinction I am interested in. I am simply trying to determine how much a role natural cycles have in the climate vs. CO2.
I have heard statements from others such as, “CO2 is only a concern once we get past 1950.” What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that in 1950 there was a wall switch that turned on the ECS relationship? If that statement was true then how can things be explained prior to 1950?
Our life experiences may be totally different along with the problems we had to solve. I spent more than 35 years solving real hardware problems without the benefit of anything like a GCM. To me, the test data were gold and out of all the design innovations I implemented they all came from test measurements and playing Columbo with these measurements. I made use of signal analysis in that detective work.
Maybe folks should investigate the data first to find out what needs to be in a general model.
I once got into a battle with an expert in fluid dynamics at a meeting. He presented his theory from a peer reviewed paper.. I presented what had been learned from the test data that had special instrumentation. He made the statement that my test data were bad because it did not match his paper.
I won that fight more than 25 years ago. My design changes were adopted and they worked.
We know that the ice core measurements on CO2 were flat until around 1800. So how then are the MWP and the LIA explained? I think that is why the hockey stick was fabricated.
The way things stand now I would never have presented to my management something like the GCMs as being capable of evaluating designs. I could not support their use. They have never been validated.
From your reply I don’t know if you looked at my analysis of the 2000 year long data stream but I can tell you some of the cycle periods line up with what McCracken identified. Further, I think some of those periods may be found coming the cycles I found in the Nino regions. I can’t identify all of them. I might need some help with that.
In the short term I think my predictions that I get from signal analysis are more viable than the GCMs. Quite frankly they suck. That is my viewpoint from the deplorable world of working on real hardware.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
December 11, 2016 9:29 am

I presented analysis of the long running climate data that includes Christiansen and Moberg. I did find a 65-year cycle and an 89-year cycle. They have been there for 2000 years.

And that is the problem, Charles.
Moberg et al., reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures is just one of several, and they do not show a great agreement. Why does Moberg et al., reconstruction show those periodicities. Where are they coming from? What proxies contain them? Are they a subproduct of the way the data was assembled and modified by Moberg et al.?
You assume that just because you detect a periodicity in Moberg et al., reconstruction, that periodicity represents a real cycle. But you don’t have any evidence supporting that assumption. They could be a byproduct of the process. A different reconstruction with different proxies could produce different cycles. You need to find evidence that the periodicity represents a real cycle within the period for which we have relatively good climate data.
The 65 yr oscillation we all know about, both in temperatures and currents, so that one is pretty safe, but where is the 89 yr oscillation? It turns out that when we look at AMO in the past and the Arctic ice cycle we find that it oscillates with an irregular periodicity.
http://i.imgur.com/nNKsFk5.png
So, what’s the deal? Is the 65 yr temperature periodicity coupled to the AMO cycle through those irregular periodicities or not? If it is can it be considered a 65 yr cycle? If not, is there a real 65 yr cycle?
As you can see it is not as simple as analyzing the data from a temperature reconstruction and proposing a bunch of cycles, and extrapolating them to the future.
This is your temperature prediction:
http://i.imgur.com/yZqjdTW.png
Perhaps your technique is top-notch but I just don’t see that happening.

Charles May
Reply to  Javier
December 11, 2016 10:47 am

Javier
I am glad you have brought this up. I have notice the spikes I have too and lately I have been trying to clean them up.
BTW, that sudden drop in temperature you are seeing in 2017 might just be Dr. Evan’s’ ND. Don’t dismiss it so quickly. You will also notice a dip in 2022. That was predicted by Dr. Page. It is on his website.
I know I can identify other sources for where some of the frequencies come from. Several of them come from McCracken.
The actual composite reconstruction I use comes from Dr. Evans’ spreadsheet and to me it more resembles the Christiansen reconstruction than Moberg. Dr. Evans does describe how he came up with his reconstruction.
Perhaps, I have a problem with the definition of a real cycle. If it shows in in the signature it is real to me. It may be a combination of two or more things. Investigating where it comes from is for another time.
Lately, I have taken efforts to reduce the number of cycles that I use. Adding more cycles is not always the answer. I am hopeful that the magnitude of the fluctuations will be reduced. I am adapting.
I suppose what got my attention is when you brought up the seemingly wild swings. I may have too much magnitude in them now but 2017 will be interesting to watch. Is this the year of the ND? The ND spreadsheet that also has his composite reconstruction is given at this website:
http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html
Dr. Evans has proposed model architecture changes which will result in a lower ECS. BTW, that is what I document in analyzing the raw data and not projecting. I show the ECS=0.227 which is right in line with what Dr. Evans said it should be.
I don’t mind this conversation at all. I am a good listener.
..

Charles May
Reply to  Javier
December 11, 2016 1:00 pm

Javier
I thought I would furnish more here. It will be helpful to both of us.
My intention in analyzing the composite data with the H4 data was not to get a precise fit to the overall data that is very tight. Rather, I was trying to find out the underlayment of the H4 data. I posted that information in a earlier comment.
That earlier analysis effort included two long term cycles. One had a period of 988 years and the other 350 years. I picked them from frequency information that was available on this website. there is no way any analysis was going to identify those cycles from only 165 years of data. Well, I put them in and you can see that they worked.
Anyway, I greatly reduced the number of cycles so it would be free of noise. Here is what I got.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgYwpmfYQ3wY0LUQUoA
for the h4 data
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgYwofSpejjDlFAPZLQ
The projection until 2050.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgYwnVj6NWwmZwBrhQw
Here are the frequencies included in this analysis.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgYwm4KgT-ypAMrhY4Q
Here is a frequency sweep I performed on thes data to identify candidates.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgYwqqvgF68yBq6zOsA
Certainly the basis for some of the frequencies comes from here.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgYwl9rDBfR9TbLdqTQ
I would welcome anyone to identify some of these frequencies and where their physical basis comes from.
Instead of using an underlayment of the two long period frequencies I identified I may now use these instead.
Javier, I welcome your input and thoughts.

Reply to  Javier
December 11, 2016 11:27 am

top to bottom
hale, gb, dv, etc
many proxies and data
as discussed previously
bottom to top
who knows exactly?
come here 1km down into a gold mine and feel the kJ coming off your face….
yet the SH has not been warming at all?
only NH shows warming
must be earth’s inner core moving at certain cyclic intervals?
top to bottom and bottom to top clash to find their own cycle which basically is a mixture….

Javier
Reply to  Javier
December 11, 2016 1:04 pm

that sudden drop in temperature you are seeing in 2017 might just be Dr. Evan’s’ ND. Don’t dismiss it so quickly.

Alternatively it might just be the end of El Niño, as most experts believe and has happened repeatedly before.

You will also notice a dip in 2022. That was predicted by Dr. Page.

A dip of -1°C is really remarkable and probably requires an even stronger El Niño in 2019-20 followed by a very strong La Niña. The problem is that ENSO has not been successfully predicted and shows no correlation with solar activity. I don’t see how Norman, David, or you could come up with such prediction. Every prediction of a strong cooling for the past three decades has failed, including Easterbrook, Akasofu, Latif, and McLean. Skeptics have a worse track record predicting climate, and for a good reason. We are still climbing the peak of the millennial solar cycle. No significant cooling ahead unless a big volcanic eruption comes our way. And skeptics generally only predict cooling.

I know I can identify other sources for where some of the frequencies come from. Several of them come from McCracken.

Number matching doesn’t count. You have to plot the periodicities and show that they are in phase and share the same irregularities.

I show the ECS=0.227 which is right in line with what Dr. Evans said it should be.

It is certainly an outlying value.

I don’t mind this conversation at all.

Discussing science shouldn’t get personal. After all supposedly we share the same goal, although too many people just want to be right, rather than finding that the truth lies outside their pet theories.

Charles May
Reply to  Javier
December 11, 2016 2:29 pm

Javier
You are going to cause me to empty my folder. I keep tabs on many things as you will now see.
Regarding the sudden drop in temperature that might be anticipated if Dr. Evans is correct. In an earlier post I mentioned the Colombo aspect of what we try to do, the detective work.
In 1982 there was a strong El Nino as seen here.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgYwr7U25NO7Hi2iqnw
Yet when it comes to the satellite record it was not prominent like the one in 98 or the one we just experienced. Maybe these events are not strongly connected in the two datasets. It could happen again this year if H4 drops.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgYwujip4MVXUUrG-ag
Presently, I find the Nino regions the most interesting. I am out there on a limb but it has not been cut yet.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgYwsEVZ9_yJ4r0Yq5w
Now here is where I am out on a limb. I have been showing a camel hump for most of this year. As you can see the projections have been changing but the prediction still holds.
Let’s say it happens. Then take a look on the downside of the second hump. Pretty large I would say. Is it possible the drop might happen first in H4 and be disconnected from El Nino? It happens later in the ocean due to thermal inertia of the ocean.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgYwt_ckr0C2QqaghyA
Javier, I don’t have much left to show. The bag is getting empty.
Enjoying it

Javier
Reply to  Javier
December 11, 2016 2:05 pm

Javier, I welcome your input and thoughts.

I am more based on what is published in the scientific literature. There are a lot of people working on these issues for decades and I don’t think I can contribute much except through selection and integration of the most consistent findings.
The 988 periodicity resembles the millennial solar cycle (~ 975 yr). This is a cycle that wavelet analysis shows was very strong during the first half of the Holocene, was subdued between 5000-3000 yr BP and has been gaining force again since. It has its lows at X.2-X.3 Kyr BP (X = 0 to 10) where it produces a clear climatic effect.
One of the problems is that volcanic activity had an important effect on temperatures since about 1100AD to about 1850AD with very clear effects on the record. volcanic activity is not cyclical, yet if you are explaining its effects on temperatures in terms of cycles, you are distorting your conclusions. The same goes for non cyclical internal variability. A good deal of your periodicities might turn out to be not real.
http://i.imgur.com/dLwwN4e.png

Charles May
Reply to  Javier
December 12, 2016 10:10 am

Javier
I definitely wanted to get back to you today. I had a conversation this morning with the person who did the signal analysis at one of our laboratories.
He told me that when they are doing analysis like at least a record length of at least four times the length of the period they are looking at and that they would really like it to be 10 times.
On that point alone when analyzing a 2000-year record that criteria have been met. Since I have witnessed some controversy about 60 or 65 years let me say you are both right. I found both in the 2000 year record.
0.07199 0.015377 65.032 20.926
-0.02813 0.016636 60.111 18.444
So in the record length of 165 years for H4 it is problematical. It is not for a 2000 year record.
This same person was responsible for evaluating wavelet analysis at the labs. He said their usefulness is limited to transient events. That did not apply to most of the monitoring we were doing. We have very long records. That is not to say they would not be useful. We did have transient events where this might apply like check valve slams.
On the singular events like volcanos he said the analysis would dismiss them as noise.
This is detective work again. But I know I have read on this website that volcano activity may be periodic. If the Jovian planets can influence the Sun why can’t they influence plate tectonics? I think it was someone named del Petro. I can’t be sure.
I know I have some very long period cycles in this analysis but the ones I selected to include came from the McCracken paper where I hope they were identified as real.
For the moment I will stand by what I have done. There is no doubt that I need answers to some questions. Maybe the best way to phrase where I am is that much of what I have done is possible and could be probable.
Javier, with your questions and concerns you have forced me to dig a little deeper and test myself. There is nothing wrong in that. As things stand now I do believe that the 65-year and the 60-year cycle are real so you guys can quit arguing.
I asked my friend to update me in writing. If anything comes from that I will try to update.

Charles May
Reply to  Javier
December 12, 2016 10:33 am

My memory is not so bad. I had saved this in an email.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 8, 2014 at 10:39 am
I have many other studies which show this to be fact which is one of the parts of my solar/climate connections.
Quite right. Seismic activity is NOT independent of solar activity:
NASA:Volcanic eruptions and solar activity
ABSTRACT
The historical record of large volcanic eruptions from 1500 to 1980, as contained in two recent catalogs, is subjected to detailed time series analysis. Two weak, but probably statistically significant, periodicities of ~11 and ~80 years are detected. Both cycles appear to correlate with well-known cycles of solar activity; the phasing is such that the frequency of volcanic eruptions increases (decreases) slightly around the times of solar minimum (maximum). The weak quasi-biennial solar cycle is not obviously seen in the eruption data, nor are the two slow lunar tidal cycles of 8.85 and 18.6 years. Time series analysis of the volcanogenic acidities in a deep ice core from Greenland, covering the years 553-1972, reveals several very long periods ranging from ~80 to ~350 years and are similar to the very slow solar cycles previously detected in auroral and carbon 14 records. Solar flares are believed to cause changes in atmospheric circulation patterns that abruptly alter the earth’s spin. The resulting jolt probably triggers small earthquakes which may temporarily relieve some of the stress in volcanic magma chambers, thereby weakening, postponing, or even aborting imminent large eruptions. In addition, decreased atmospheric precipitation around the years of solar maximum may cause a relative deficit of phreatomagmatic eruptions at those times.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
December 11, 2016 2:27 pm

http://i.imgur.com/BhrV6JL.png
Do you see the problem? You have incorporated a non-cyclical phenomenon into your cycle analysis, contaminating it. This is partially what I mean with inhomogeneity of the data. A problem that engineers usually don’t consider because cycle analysis in their disciplines is usually realized over homogeneous data. The other problem of inhomogeneity is due to the degradation of the data that becomes fuzzier the older the record gets.

Charles May
Reply to  Javier
December 11, 2016 2:51 pm

Your pictures clarified things. No, I don’t wish to include singular events. One of the things that might clear things up is to omit those portions of the data where these events occur and try again.
In some of those events a trend seemed to be in the works and the event only deepened it. Omitting those portions might be an answer.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
December 11, 2016 3:32 pm

In 1982 there was a strong El Nino … Yet when it comes to the satellite record it was not prominent like the one in 98 or the one we just experienced. Maybe these events are not strongly connected in the two datasets.

Every Niño is different, like every volcanic eruption is different.

I have been showing a camel hump for most of this year. As you can see the projections have been changing but the prediction still holds.
Let’s say it happens. Then take a look on the downside of the second hump. Pretty large I would say. Is it possible the drop might happen first in H4 and be disconnected from El Nino? It happens later in the ocean due to thermal inertia of the ocean.

First, a prediction that changes from -0.5 to +1.5 over the course of 8 months is no prediction at all. Second it is said that the entire thermal capacity of the atmosphere is contained in just the first 3 meters of the oceans. It is a lot harder for the atmosphere to warm/cool the oceans than the opposite.

In some of those events a trend seemed to be in the works and the event only deepened it. Omitting those portions might be an answer.

What I see is that volcanic eruptions have a short term (two decades maximum for back to back large eruptions) cooling effect followed by a short thermal reaction in the opposite way. Once the effect is passed whatever was the previous trend continues. PAGES 2K doesn’t agree with me, but they are trying to downplay the role of solar variability on the Little Ice Age, and thus want to explain the LIA in terms of volcanic activity.

December 10, 2016 1:29 pm

It is just because we are human:
1. If you get a message, repeated many times by many people, you will believe it.
2. People normally don’t check facts, but believe so-called authorities.
3. If you believe in something you are searching for “facts” that support your belief = confirmation bias.
4. One wrong belief in science needs one generation up to 50 years to get rid of. The authorities have to die with the wrong belief, it seems.

Reply to  Johannes S. Herbst
December 10, 2016 2:07 pm

HB, am more optimistic. The internet has changed a lot of dynamics for both better and worse. The climate wars will indicate much, as the first great science/policy debate of it. The first 25 years of CAGW were pre-useful internet (my def of useful is google plus on line science papers). iPCC owned the debate and stuff like Mann’s hockey stick was possible. It has not gone so well for warmunists since theminternet became useful information tool mid aughties.. Climategate, WUWT, Climate Audit, Climate Etc, NALOPKT, No Tricks Zone, GWPF, now the Paris Accord critiques. I expect the demise of CAGW will be much quicker than the rise.

Reply to  ristvan
December 10, 2016 6:08 pm

Well, Rud, you are correct: Initially, the liars had the podium. Now, especially with President The Donald, there are now contrary voices. With, at least, a venue, then other voices have a chance. But don’t bet on the outcome: People do make up their own minds.

Reply to  Johannes S. Herbst
December 13, 2016 1:51 pm

To J. S. Herbst
Your “It is just because we are human” comment has only four points, but they add up to a ton of knowledge.

Richard M
December 10, 2016 2:01 pm

I believe almost all climate related data has been contaminated by researcher bias. In medical research this type of bias led to the adoption of double blind studies. They found out anything else was not trustworthy. And yet, here we have an entire field of science denying proven researcher bias science and claiming they are immune to exactly the same problems found in medical research. Climate pseudo-science is a religion and nothing else.
We simply cannot trust any data from NOAA or NASA. As such Mr. Trump needs to do a complete audit of this work. However, it is going to be very difficult to find enough unbiased people to tackle this massive effort. There is a lot of data and programs to be verified.
Until this work is completed it is going to be difficult to do any real science.

Reply to  Richard M
December 13, 2016 1:50 pm

to Richard M.
The coming climate change catastrophe is a false boogeyman used by politicians to scare people into demanding more government power to fight “evil CO2”.
Predicting a coming climate catastrophe has nothing to do with science — the scientists on the goobermint payrolls are just useful idiots to help the politicians reach their goal of more power over the private sector.
Sometimes useful idiots have PhDs — but they still know nothing more about the future climate than village idiots.
climate computer games making wrong predictions for 40 years are not science.
Climate change is 99% politics and 1% science.

Javier
December 10, 2016 2:03 pm

The point that Andy May is rising in this article is a very important one. The ~ 60 year oscillation (doesn’t look like a cycle) is very well described in dozens of articles and well grounded in empirical evidence. There are interesting hypotheses to explain it, like Martia Wyatts’ Stadium wave hypothesis. There is good evidence that Arctic sea ice trends are linked to AMO trends that follow this oscillation.
Yet the official IPCC and alarmist story completely ignores these facts because they reduce the alarmistic tone and disarm the “climate crisis” meme. It is so important.
From a scientific point of view my opinion is that climate forcings do not act continuously but they push and pull according o different cycles and events. For example solar variation is 5.6 years above average and 5.6 years below average, and then El Niño and QBO oscillate irregularly, and volcanic eruptions take place irregularly. The Oceans of the Earth integrate all these forcings and variability and oscillate semi-regularly according to their teleconnections with a certain time-delay and in a chaotic manner. When the oscillation warms it increases the rate of warming and alarmism goes through the roof. When the oscillation opposes warming it decreases the rate of warming and skepticism counterattacks.
So this oscillation not only affects climate, it also affects human politics. Powerful stuff indeed.

Chimp
Reply to  Javier
December 10, 2016 2:07 pm

And fish.

bit chilly
Reply to  Chimp
December 11, 2016 3:29 pm

plankton first,then the fish.

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
December 10, 2016 2:38 pm

The destiny of those accused of cooking the climate was burning at the stake. Today we are a little bit more civilized and only their professional lives and income sources are destroyed. Yet they are equally innocent.

Chimp
Reply to  Andy May
December 10, 2016 6:17 pm

We have advanced. Today it’s the jawbone of a Mann.
Distinction without a difference in this case.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Andy May
December 10, 2016 9:44 pm

Today it’s science and satellites. Only tiny outlying enclaves of believers are still twisting themselves in knots trying to explain away human effects. The vast majority of the rank and file, on the ground on the ground researchers are in no doubt. It’s is a matter of how much warming, how fast and is there a geo-fix that won’t do even more harm because we’ve already baked in an unpredictable shit-storm. The polar anomalies are just hints, portents of what’s to come. Major geo-changes are afoot already folks, baked in.

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
December 11, 2016 3:49 am

Tony,

The polar anomalies are just hints, portents of what’s to come. Major geo-changes are afoot already folks, baked in.

Exactly the kind of talk you would expect from superstitious middle agers.
You can’t possibly know any of that, therefore you are just believing it. Somewhat in your unscientific mind you think that believing in scientists opinions is the correct thing to do, yet science is precisely about not believing. We went the science way because we wanted to stop believing.
Nothing of that will happen. We have seen the scientific community getting it wrong many times before. Every time scientists chose to trust their theories and models over the evidence they get lost. The continental drift theory was delayed 20 years because the scientific community decided to trust their theories and models over the evidence. Now they are looking for missing heat in the deep oceans to salvage their theories. It is a huge warning sign that they have it wrong. And the system is working with a huge amount of money and resources so the theory is maintained and science doesn’t auto-correct leaving the top bureaucrats and politicians as naked as the emperor.
You can just relax and enjoy the nice climate of the Modern Warm Period. We just couldn’t possibly have been luckier with the climate this late in the Holocene.

weltklima
Reply to  Javier
December 11, 2016 10:32 pm

…… the ~60 year temp oscillation is not only described in dozens of articles,
but it was alread determined NOT to be a “~60” year or a “65”-year cycle…..
.Within the last 4 years, the achievement was that this cycle was
CALCULATED to a MORE EXACT value. You can take Scafetta with 61
years, or Rahmstorf and Marotzke with 62 years..or mine with 61.6 years,
a value in between. Everyone can print out GISP2 Alley 2000, get the graph
for 10,000 years, enlarge it (Charles May….cycle work for you) and place 60,
61, 62, 65 year distance lines over it….. and you will see that 60 years are too
short and 65 years are much to long…..
…it is time to get real and take the GOOD CYCLE VALUES, which Javier
describes as HAVING NECESSARILY TO BE PRESENT FOR 1,000ends
of years……and continue to palaver over ~~60 or 65 year cycles.
.

Javier
Reply to  weltklima
December 12, 2016 3:01 am

Well, then you have a problem, because Greenland temperatures have already been shown not to be representative of Northern Europe temperatures.
“Greenland is located in the northern North Atlantic, where climatic variation is considerably affected by the North Atlantic Oscillation/Arctic Oscillation (NAO/AO). Atmospheric dipoles of high and low pressure at the surface are located near the Azores and Iceland, respectively, and fluctuation in pressure differences between the two centres of action induces variations in westerlies in the North Atlantic and northerly winds in Greenland (Hurrell, 1995; Wanner et al., 2001; Hurrell et al., 2003). Therefore, Greenland undergoes cooling when northern Europe experiences warming (positive NAO), and vice versa (Hurrell, 1995). Climate modelling and observations suggest that solar variability induces changes in atmospheric circulation similar to NAO/AO through ozone feedback in the stratosphere (Shindell et al., 2001; Kodera and Kuroda, 2002; Gray et al., 2010; Scaife et al., 2013). When solar activity is stronger (weaker), changes in the positive (negative) NAO/AO-like atmospheric circulation are induced (Shindell et al., 2001; Lean and Rind, 2008). Therefore, it can be expected that stronger (weaker) solar activity induces warming (cooling) in NH temperature, and relative cooling (warming) in Greenland through positive (negative) NAO. Consistent with this theory, Greenland temperatures have deviated negatively (positively) from the NH temperature trend when solar activity was stronger (weaker) over the past 800 yr (Kobashi et al., 2013).”
Kobashi, T., et al. “Causes of Greenland temperature variability over the past 4000 yr: implications for northern hemispheric temperature changes.” Climate of the Past 9.5 (2013): 2299-2317.
We just had a real life example over this type of temperature inversion when temperatures over the North Pole were unusually high, while temperatures over Siberia were unusually low during mid Nov to early Dec 2016.comment image
So whatever temperature cycle you find in Greenland might not be reproduced elsewhere. it is the problem of using a regional temperature proxy record as if it was hemispheric or global. Relying on GISP2 or GRIP for your climatic studies casts a doubt on them. Ole Humlum already did that and found a 1150 yr cycle in Greenland that does not show up elsewhere.
Humlum, Ole, Jan-Erik Solheim, and Kjell Stordahl. “Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change.” Global and Planetary Change 79.1 (2011): 145-156.
And then we have the problem that we believe the ~ 65 yr temperature oscillation is linked to AMO, and AMO appears to oscillate with a variable period of 50-100 years.
http://i.imgur.com/nNKsFk5.png
So either the linkage is incorrect, or the ~ 65 yr temperature cycle is incorrect, or both are incorrect.

December 10, 2016 2:44 pm

The northern hemisphere ocean driven climate is fundamentally oscillatory due to chaotic instability and positive feedback driven oscillations of the AMOC. Specifically it is the positive feedback loop of salinity-downwelling-Greenland ice melt which gives the AMOC its chaotic bistability.
The longer the time period over which one looks at climate and oceanic trends, the more apparent it becomes that there is a difference between the NH and the SH. In short the NH climate is more unstable and variable than that of the SH. Why is this?
The NH has the AMOC and Gulf Stream. These are driven by the salinity-downwelling positive feedback. The Gulf Stream brings high salinity water to the North Atlantic. When it cools its higher salinity makes it downwell cold dense water to the ocean floor – deep water formation in the Norwegian Sea. This deep cold dense water flows south, completing the loop of the AMOC. By doing so it in turn propels the northward Gulf Stream up on the surface, reinforcing the whole circuit with positive feedback.
In the paradigm of current climate science this positive feedback at the heart of the AMOC would be assumed to be runaway and would soon be expected (projected) to turn the Atlantic Ocean into a whirling maelstrom like a washing machine. However in the real world of complex systems positive feedback does not do this, instead it causes oscillation and intermittency. Each “run” of the positive feedback causes eventually a negative feedback, which cuts it off. In the North Atlantic the negative feedback that cuts off the Gulf and cold downwelling feedback – which warms the Atlantic high latitudes – is Greenland ice melt and a resulting freshwater pulse, which chokes off the cold water formation and downwelling.
Thus chaotic oscillations in complex natural systems are driven by a mix of positive and negative feedbacks. The consequence of this chaotic instability in the AMOC is that the NH climate tends to oscillate, with the AMO and other related oceanic oscillations like the PDO.
The several observable oceanic oscillations described by Wyatt and Curry in their Stadium wave paper are all probably driven by either AMOC derived oscillation or by something equivalent in the Pacific.
But in the SH there is no such instability, there is no meridionally bounded ocean south of Africa and South America. In the Southern Ocean you have the unimpeded circumpolar circulation.
Thus there is contrasting behaviour of the climate in the NH, where it is unstable and oscillates, and the SH, where it is much more stable and changes over much longer timescales. This gives a reciprocating interplay of climate change between the two hemispheres. Earth’s climate is chaotic and is always changing, such that the term “climate change” itself is unnecessary, redundant, tautological and meaningless.
This NH-SH interplay gives the phenomenon of the “bipolar seesaw” which operates on timescales of centuries and millennia. It provides a fully adequate null hypothesis for late 20th north hemisphere “climate change” – with the added bonus of explaining the contrasting near stasis or slight reciprocal changes in the SH.
Thus CO2 induced warming, whether or not it is a significant factor, is wholly unnecessary for explaining what really requires almost no explanation – the permanent reality unstable and changing climate.

tony mcleod
Reply to  ptolemy2
December 10, 2016 6:08 pm

“Thus CO2 induced warming, whether or not it is a significant factor, is wholly unnecessary for explaining what really requires almost no explanation – the permanent reality unstable and changing climate.”
.
Except, apart from the arctic circle, it’s getting warmer in the SH at a rate not dis-similar to the NH. Globally, the only big cold anomaly is a patch in the north Atlantic. So no convenient see-saw.

Reply to  tony mcleod
December 10, 2016 11:21 pm

tony
So let’s be clear – you are confirming that no force on earth, other than anthropogenic CO2, can change, has ever changed or will ever change the climate?
As for the South pole, skip forward a few posts to this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/10/ocean-cycles-the-pause-and-global-warming/#comment-2367567
Antarctica as a whole is cooling. SSTs around Antarctica have been in persistent cold anomaly for many years. There is a small trend for growth of southern sea ice. However the climate community finds a spot in western Antarctica which lies above a volcano and extrapolates local warming at this location to the whole Southern Hemisphere.

tony mcleod
Reply to  tony mcleod
December 11, 2016 12:45 am

ptolemy2,
“So let’s be clear – you are confirming that no force on earth, other than anthropogenic CO2, can change, has ever changed or will ever change the climate?”
You’re just being silly there. I’m not confirming anything of the kind.
The trend for southern sea-ice is sharply down – lowest in the satellite era.
“the climate community finds a spot in western Antarctica which lies above a volcano and extrapolates local warming at this location to the whole Southern Hemisphere”
That you’re making up or repeating watt someone else has made up.
There is no see saw. More like a slippery slope.

Reply to  tony mcleod
December 11, 2016 1:46 am

This looks more like a dodgy sensor than actual Antarctic sea ice behaviour:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
The longer term (several decades) trend is up, not down:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

Reply to  tony mcleod
December 11, 2016 6:55 am

Curious – just as Antarctic sea ice seems to be tanking, the opposite is happening up north in Greenland:
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
“See Saw Margery Daw,
NASA shall have a new master…”

Reply to  tony mcleod
December 11, 2016 9:53 am

ptolemy2,
I scoff at you. The Greenland thing is – of course – WEATHER, more precisely, short-term natural fluctuations. The Antarctic thing is – of course – CLIMATE, more precisely, long-term anthropogenic CO2-driven increase in radiative forcing.
/sarc

Reply to  tony mcleod
December 11, 2016 2:00 pm

Kristian
So! I’m scoffed at – thinks – how to respond? How about this from Monty Python’s Holy Grail: “I fart in your general direction!” (in a French accent)
https://youtu.be/QSo0duY7-9s
/sarc

Macha
December 10, 2016 2:56 pm

If CO2 is supposedly so powerful, and is uniform in atmospheric concentration, why is SH so different to NH?. Well, the sea:land ratio is different for a start. The Polar vortexes consequently behave very differently for another. Ultimately the atmospheric pressure differences both vertically and horizontally are what moves energy around. No CO2 discussion needed. Go to https:\\Reality348.wordpress.com for the observer view rather than the modeller view.

Scottish Sceptic
December 10, 2016 3:16 pm

One of the big confusions of climate science, is that many fail to see that multi-decadal oscillations are just part of natural variation.
To be as clear as I can, whilst as an ensemble all forms of natural variation can be modelled by various noise models, that is not to say that some parts of the natural variation are not in themselves an identifiable feature such as AMO, EL Nino, etc.

December 10, 2016 3:37 pm

“Nonetheless, these studies do not challenge the AR4 assessment that external forcing very likely made a contribution to the warming over this period. In conclusion, the early 20th century warming is very unlikely to be due to internal variability alone. It remains difficult to quantify the contribution to this warming from internal variability, natural forcing and anthropogenic forcing, due to forcing and response uncertainties and incomplete observational coverage.”
Not that hard to understand.
1. The early 20th century warming, like ALL WARMING is due to
a) internal variablity
b) external forcing
2. It is unlikely that ALL of the early warming is due to internal Variability
3. It is Difficult to assign a Percentage of the warming that is due to internal variability
4. It is Difficult to assign a percentage that is due to external forcing
Why is it difficult?
A) uncertainties in forcing and response
B) uncertainties in early observations
In other words.. this part of the science…. still unsettled

Chimp
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 10, 2016 4:36 pm

The part of the science for which there is no observational evidence is from a man-made GHE. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Javier
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 10, 2016 5:07 pm

For once I agree with you Steven, yet you don’t take it to its logical conclusion.
– The late 20th century warming is part of the same ~ 60 yr oscillation as the early 20th century warming.
– The only known difference between the early 20th century warming and the late 20th century warming is that anthropogenic forcing was significantly bigger in the second.
– Yet the rate of warming between the early 20th century warming and the late 20th century warming is not significantly different.
– Therefore anthropogenic forcing cannot be very big.
End of the story. We can now grow bigger tomatoes with that extra CO2, and try to protect better all natural environments which is a far more important task that all this climate change brouhaha.

TA
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 10, 2016 5:45 pm

“very likely”
This is the state of climate science today.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 10, 2016 6:43 pm

Mr. Mosher, your Weed Wandering transcends mortal understanding. Despite your affection for socialistic solutions, you say (in response to A) uncertainties in forcing and response B) uncertainties in early observations):
“In other words.. this part of the science…. still unsettled”
Duh!

Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 10, 2016 11:32 pm

Steven Mosher
That paragraph is ugly and tortuous 4am English, written by exhausted coffee-fuelled apparatchiks trying to drive a semantic and logical square peg through a round hole.
It basically amounts to “while we recognise natural variability in climate, we at the same time deny natural variability in climate”.
They should have asked their teenage children to help them with this paragraph – they could have provided a much simpler and more elegant version:
“Climate changes naturally – NOT!”

Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 13, 2016 1:43 pm

You should be more specific:
Perhaps there was no warming at all, or there was significantly less warming than we think there was?
The margin of error in the 1800s had to be at least +/- 1 degree C. and I doubt it is less than +/- 0.5 degrees C. now — considering that up to half the surface area of the Earth still has no temperature data.
More important than “forcings” could be measurement error, faulty or biased “adjustments” to raw data, and faulty or biased “infilling” of missing data.
Measurements errors could be caused by faulty methodologies (such as assuming the temperature of a bucket of sea water is equal to the temperature of the ocean surface), repeated changes in methodologies used for data collection, insufficient global coverage, repeated changes of locations measured, repeated and often large changes in the number of measurements compiled per month, etc.
Much of the alleged warming since the late 1800s is due to “adjustments” to raw data that suspiciously make the adjusted data look more like the computer game predictions … and create a growing gap between surface measurements and satellite/radiosonde measurements.
In addition, 1800’s thermometers tended to read low (when those that survived are compared with modern thermometers), likely making the temperature at the starting point (1880) too low.
My climate blog for non-scientists
Liberals should stay away
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 13, 2016 6:32 pm

+1

TRM
December 10, 2016 4:30 pm

“Dr. Lüning and Professor Vahrenholt received a great deal of criticism when they published their book “The Neglected Sun” in 2012. At present, they are accepting apologies for this criticism”
Not that I criticized them for their work but I would like to applaud them for having the intestinal fortitude and intellectual honesty for publishing what they did when they did. They had to know the backlash they would receive for it but followed the data.

Gary Pearse
December 10, 2016 5:20 pm

My trouble with these studies and this post is it doesn’t take into consideration the data-keepers jacking up of recent temperatures and the bending down of pre 1940’s temperatures. The IPCC and the troughers have shot themselves in the foot with this crooked practice. First, it makes the 1910 -1944 period steeper than it should be by having bent it down and the recent temperatures to be about the same as the earlier (a ltered) period. Moreover, they have cemented in the “Pause” by bending the temps up a la M. Mann papers and Hansen and clones work, thereby making a contribution to the pause. This thumbtack method of rotating the record counterclockwise with the tack at 1945 will result in a downward swoon in the temperature record eventually – maybe when Trump insists on pristine thermometer locations and making it a felony to adjust these temperatures and simply putting up more satellites at a higher altitude (no serious drift) with updated sensor equipment and maybe sensors on the moon. I suspect with real temps going forward, we can expect a 50 to 75 year “Pause” as a correction to the present record.

Javier
Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 11, 2016 4:00 am

In the big picture the data-adjusters constitute a small climate forcing. Their main effort is to try to reduce the effect of natural variability on temperatures to obtain a linear trend more akin to the CO2 trend.
As the rest of climate forcings are much stronger we could call them simply distorters. What they are doing is futile and that is a sad conclusion for somebody’s work.

co2islife
December 10, 2016 5:38 pm

Did you forget a sarc tag? Days warm, true. Sunlight does that. Nights cool, also true. IR radiates away from the surface. How efficient that radiative coolingnis depends on the GHE. Nights cool more where it is dry (like deserts) than where it is humid (like Fort Lauderdale) because water vapor is a more potent GHG than CO2. Nights never warm from IR backradiation no matter how humid.
Bingo, I’ve pointed that our 1,000x times. Once again, this is a science. CO2’s only way to affect temperature and/or climate is by absorbing 13 to 18µ IR Radiation. That is the only defined mechanism by which CO2 can cause climate change temperature increase. There is no mechanism by which CO2 can do anything but increase temperature. It traps heat, that is it. 13 to 18µ is consistent with a black body of temperature -80°C. Any real scientist would then focus on the parts of the globe where the impact of CO2 can be isolated. Basically, all factors need to be controlled for except for CO2. That is how a real scientist would do an experiment. A real scientist would study the parts of the globe closest to -80°C and where there is extremely dry air. By focusing on areas near -80°C you are isolating the IR wavelengths attributed to CO2 absorption. By focusing on very very dry air you remove H20, isolating the impact of CO2. That is how a real scientist would construct an experiment to measure the impact of CO2 on the atmospheric CO2. Those conditions are present at the S Pole. Here are the results. There is absolutely zero warming in the S Pole going all the way back to 1957. CO2 has greatly increased, and trapping IR between 13 to 18µ has led to zero warming. Do you have any evidence nighttime temperatures in the deserts have been increasing? I’ve never seen any that controls for H2O.
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/amundsen.gif

tony mcleod
Reply to  co2islife
December 11, 2016 4:03 am
tony mcleod
Reply to  tony mcleod
December 11, 2016 4:05 am

Average monthly Antarctic sea ice extent November 1978 – 2016 Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Reply to  tony mcleod
December 11, 2016 8:05 pm

Decades of increase. One month of collapse. Obviously CO2-driven climate change!

co2islife
Reply to  tony mcleod
December 11, 2016 7:26 am

I’m sorry, do you know this is a “science.” Are you claiming that a 3 to 5 ppm change in atmospheric CO2 and its marginal increase in W/M^2 can cause that large of a change? Really? That change is due to El Nin˜o. The following El Nin˜a will reverse all that. Are you going to be claiming next year that man-made CO2 caused the global sea ice to rebound? Your own charts disprove your case…at least for thinking people.comment image
http://media.10news.com/photo/2015/07/24/noaa_el_nino_compare_1997_2015_1437788501599_22007748_ver1.0_640_480.jpg
http://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/scale_1130/public/thumbnails/image/PHOTO%20-%20Satellite%20image%20showing%20El%20Nino%20sea%20surface%20temperature%20departure%20from%20norm-2015.11.12%20-%20NOAA-1920×1080-landscape.png.jpg?itok=bP13oUf2comment image

François
Reply to  co2islife
December 11, 2016 4:48 am

Picking cherries? Today is 11/12/16, and your graph starts in ’57 (as if we had no T° figures for earlier years in the area) and ends in 2000 (1973-1999 only for CO2). Now, that is up to date science.

DWR54
Reply to  co2islife
December 11, 2016 6:33 am

“There is absolutely zero warming in the S Pole going all the way back to 1957.”
Maybe, if you stop your data 16 years ago! Berkeley Earth updated the Amundsen-Scott station data to 2013. After quality control and breakpoint alignment the warming rate between 1957 and 2013 is low, just +0.023C/dec http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/166900
But during the period since your data stop, that is from Jan 2001 to Nov 2013, the warming rate at Amundsen-Scott has been +0.91 C/dec. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the data on your chart just stops before that rapid warming period commenced.

Bindidon
Reply to  DWR54
December 11, 2016 8:12 am

DWR54 on December 11, 2016 at 6:33 am
… from Jan 2001 to Nov 2013, the warming rate at Amundsen-Scott has been +0.91 C/dec.
Exactly.
And during the same period, UAH measured, for the latitudes 80-82.5S, temperatures with a linear trend of 0.3 °C /decade.
This troposphere/surface ratio of 0.3 is amazingly the same as that experienced in the latitudes 80-82.5N in this 2001-2013 period: while the mean estimate of the three northernmost GHCN stations (Siberia, Canada, Greenland) is about 1.2 °C / decade, the trend of UAH measurements there is 0.4 °C / decade.
NO: this is nothing to be horrified about. But it is nothing to ignore.

Reply to  DWR54
December 11, 2016 9:42 am

DWR54 said, on December 11, 2016 at 6:33 am:

Berkeley Earth updated the Amundsen-Scott station data to 2013. After quality control and breakpoint alignment (…) from Jan 2001 to Nov 2013, the warming rate at Amundsen-Scott has been +0.91 C/dec.

*Sigh*
If you people could only stop looking solely at statistically generated linear trendlines all the time and start looking at the ACTUAL data. Here’s Amundsen-Scott from Jan’01 to Oct’16 according to GHCN v3:comment image
I’m sure you can find some linear trend to draw across this data to show warming. However, look at the anomalies during the last couple of years and compare them to the anomalies of the first couple of years. Do you see a [0.91*1.5833=] 1.44 C rise in temperature from 2001/2002 to 2015/2016?
Look, there’s a LOT of noise here, and temps go up and down, interannually and interdecadally. But how much real warming have we seen at the South Pole since 1957?comment image
It’s clear you folks are conditioned to see ghosts in broad daylight.

Reply to  DWR54
December 11, 2016 10:20 am

Seek and thou shall find – something which fits to your belief.
Checking the the yearly average about a longer time, you see nothing like weather patterns: And SURPRISE! the pause is still here: In the sea ice extend a 0 °C trend of 15 years for the Antarctic and of 13 years for the Arctic.
In my blog you see a concise overwiev of the related graphs and data:
http://klimawandler.blogspot.de/2016/12/arctic-weather-and-temperature-trends.html

Bindidon
Reply to  DWR54
December 11, 2016 5:14 pm

Kristian on December 11, 2016 at 9:42 am
It seems to me that, quite as usual (especially on Roy Spencer’s pages), SuperClimateMan Okulær behaves once more a bit too teachy.
If you download the GHCN V3 dataset in both the unadjusted and the adjusted variants, and select the records for the GHCN station 70089009000 aka AMUNDSEN-SCOTT, you obtain two very different time series (with lots of interruptions within them due to invalidated months upon quality control, but we don’t need to care here about that).
Here is a chart for the GHCN adjusted variant:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161212/i58cnekr.jpg
Wow! At a first glance, it looks like DWR54 getting out of luck here! We are definitely not on a chart showing a trend of 0.91 °C / decade. In fact it’s even a pretty negative trend of –0.53 °C / decade…
But now look at the GHCN unadjusted variant:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161212/dmgokkcl.jpg
Oooops! Here we suddenly are back on the right corner, with a linear trend of 0.96 °C / decade.
The nice irony here is that usually, WUWT commenters complain about GHCN adjusted data being highly flawed for all possible stations because the data shows more warming than the unadjusted variant!
(Mostly, the hints on that come, if I well remember, from McIntyre’s ClimateAudit, with perfectly selected stations like DARWIN, REYKJAVIK etc etc.)
This time, these commenters would, since cooler is right and warmer is worse by definition, rather choose the adjusted variant, I guess 🙂
But that’s the wrong idea. Simply because DWR54‘s comment is based on Berkeley data, and these people use by far much accurate verification and validation procedures for unadjusted data than does NOAA (see Berkeley’s methods for detailed explanations).
And thus they don‘t need NOAA’s adjusted data, what explains the trend of 0.91 °C /decade, slightly differing from that directly computed out of the GHCN unadjusted series (0.96).
Thus yes: DWR54 is RIGHT, and Okulær isn’t.
P.S. One might accuse DWR54 of cherry picking due to the choice of the period (2001-2013). But remember that DWR54 answered to co2islife’s claim:
There is absolutely zero warming in the S Pole going all the way back to 1957.

Bindidon
Reply to  DWR54
December 11, 2016 5:24 pm

P.S. It’s 2:20 am here, time to leave.But I forgot to add a hint to an evidence:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161212/n77uqmit.jpg

Reply to  DWR54
December 11, 2016 9:17 pm

Seems that Bindion here managed not to understand – and thus was not able to address – my point at all. Funny.

Bindidon
Reply to  DWR54
December 12, 2016 1:19 am

But… I very well did, Kristian. As usual, you didn’t manage to anticipate how redundant your messages sometimes can be, that’s all. That in turn my answer couldn’t become much better, was inevitable. Have a great day!

Reply to  DWR54
December 12, 2016 2:16 am

No, you very well didn’t, Bindion. You just went on with the linear trendlines when I specifically pointed you to the DATA …
Have a wonderful life.

clipe
December 10, 2016 6:03 pm

It is warmer now because it was colder before

Nick Stokes

December 10, 2016 7:27 pm

Because of the oceans’ higher heat energy compared to energy content of the atmosphere, it is always good to see these types of investigations.

Old Gregg
December 10, 2016 8:49 pm

You folks are awesome! I read your posts and I’ll admit that I can’t follow most. I’m college educated but in business, not science. I’m like the knuckle dragging neanderthal watching the homosapiens make a fire. My thing is, we track hurricanes using computer models. Even 12 hours out from landfall the cone for where it’s going to hit is huge. Yet, rubes like me are expected to believe that the planet is going to be x-number of degrees warmer in 50 years based on computer models of global warming. I’m may be stupid but I’m not ignorant. Climate change bs seems like a contrived excuse to redistribute income and keep climate change scientists lavish in grant money.

Brian H
Reply to  Old Gregg
December 11, 2016 5:12 am

Neanderthals had larger and equally complex brains. They were less aggressive, hence doomed.

Reply to  Brian H
December 11, 2016 5:44 am

And you know that how? Most of the Neanderthal sites were excavated a rather long time ago, with much less care than recent work, so the only thing we can tell is that they survived a cold climate for a long time, and lost out to immigrants who were not genetically all that different, as the recent discoveries about non-Africans having some small percentage of Neanderthal ancestry shows. Different technology? Different culture? Faster runners? Some disease that left no trace?
Telling why one genetic group replaced another is a stone pain-in-the-ass, if all one has to rely on is archaeology.

Reply to  Brian H
December 11, 2016 8:10 pm

And physiologically better adapted to cold weather condition.

Reply to  Old Gregg
December 13, 2016 1:25 pm

To Old Gregg:
YOU WROTE:
“Climate change bs seems like a contrived excuse to redistribute income and keep climate change scientists lavish in grant money.”
MY COMMENT:
I recommend you delete ‘seems like” from your sentence, and replace those words with “is” !
You are a true climate expert (I’m serious).
You have no idea what the future climate will be (nor does anyone else).
You recognize why CO2 has been demonized (many people do not).
And you make your points in a way that’s funny too.
You hit a home run.
Anything you learn beyond what you’ve already stated is just additional details.

December 10, 2016 9:11 pm

The supplementary info on methods for Meehl (2016) is available open access at http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n11/full/nclimate3107.html#supplementary-information

Reply to  Andy May
December 11, 2016 11:09 pm

Hi Andy, cannot find an open access copy but one key paragraph is:
“Here we take the novel approach of addressing the problem from the opposite direction. Rather than inferring `total’ internal variability as a residual, we start with an estimate of internally generated
variability from a specific sourceSSTs associated with the IPO in the Pacific froma long unforced climatemodel control run.We then compare the size of the IPO contribution to the observed time series
of twentieth-century GMST, with the size of the contribution from the externally forced response (estimated from the multi-model average of simulations with combined anthropogenic and natural external forcings; see Methods in Supplementary Information)”.

Tim Crome
December 11, 2016 1:05 am

The IPCC assume that there is effectively no natural climate variation since 1750! Ref. IPCC report AR5 WG1 Figure TS.6 on page 54. Not surprising the models don’t work very well.

Brian H
December 11, 2016 5:08 am

Re Dai et al.: If natural variation can ever override ANT, then it is potentially and actually always in charge.

December 11, 2016 5:41 am

Following this discussion, i dared to make a bet about 2017 temperatures:
http://klimawandler.blogspot.de/2016/12/my-bet-on-global-temperature-2017-meine.html

Bindidon
Reply to  Johannes S. Herbst
December 11, 2016 2:41 pm

Bevor man eine Seite über Klima veröffentlicht, sollte man erstmal einige Jahre lang Informationen über das Gebiet sammeln, und lernen, lernen, lernen.

DWR54
December 11, 2016 5:45 am

“At present, they are accepting apologies for this criticism…”
________________
Can’t think why anyone would feel the need to apologise to them. Their own predictive model (Figure 7.12 on page 204 of the pdf link) clearly shows a cooling effect from 2012 onward, relative to ‘present day temperatures’ (their book was published in 2012): http://lustiag.pp.fi/data/pdf/bks/2013_vahrt_neglsun.pdf
Even their projected error margins suggest no further warming before some time in the mid 2040s. Four more years of observational data are in since the model was published and Global temperatures have increased by about 0.45C relative to where they were in 2012, which was a relatively cool year in the current context (their choice, remember). That 0.45C increase since 2012 is reflected in the satellite data too, by the way.
This places observations more or less spot on the IPCC AR4 multi-model average at 2016 for scenario A1B; certainly within the error range. By contrast, Lüning & Vahrenholt’s projections at 2016 are woefully low compared to observations. Off by about -0.5C. Miles off both the best estimate and error margin.
So again, people who criticised L&V 2012 should apologise for what, exactly?

Johann Wundersamer
December 12, 2016 12:48 am

Thanks, Andy May,
a clear haven in the torrents of ‘modelling coupled nonlinear chaotic systems.’
involved a reminder on the difficulties of ‘modelling coupled nonlinear chaotic systems’.

December 12, 2016 4:04 am

the period between 2020 and 2040 will be cooler.
Not really. The summed result of the impact of the sun on climate – between 2020 and 2040 – may be positive – related to grand solar maximum (Steinhilber and Beer, 2011.: “… during the past six decades the Sun has been in a state of high solar activity compared to the entire period of 9300 years.”). A significant impact the Sun (changes in TSI) on climate change, there is always delayed and always much stronger than the variability of TSI. We do not know (satisfactorily) the mechanisms of the amplification. It is not fault the authors of “The Neglected Sun”. “The Neglected Sun” cites many papers talking about these “strengthened” delayed effects, eg.: Swingedouw et al., 2010.: “We argue that this lag is due, in the model, to a northward shift of the tropical atmospheric convection in the Pacific Ocean, which is maximum more than four decades after the solar forcing increase.” “Changes in wind stress, notably due to the NAO, modify the barotropic streamfunction in the Atlantic 50 years after solar variations. This implies a wind-driven modification of the oceanic circulation in the Atlantic sector in response to changes in solar forcing, in addition to the variations of the thermohaline circulation …”; Helama et al., 2010.: “The observed variations may have occurred in association with internal climate amplification (likely, thermohaline circulation and El Niño–Southern Oscillation activity). The near-centennial delay in climate in responding to sunspots indicates that the Sun’s influence on climate arising from the current episode of high sunspot numbers may not yet have manifested itself fully in climate trends.”
Amplifying “lags” (described above) are also described in most recent papers. Eg. regarding basic cycle of 11 years: Andrews, Knight and Gray (2015): “Recent analyses of observations have shown that solar cycle–NAO link becomes clearer approximately three years after solar maximum and minimum.” “We show that the model produces significant NAO responses peaking several years after extrema of the solar cycle, persisting even when the solar forcing becomes neutral.” “This confirms suggestions of a further component to the solar influence on the NAO beyond direct atmospheric heating and its dynamical response. Analysis of simulated upper ocean temperature anomalies confirms that the North Atlantic Ocean provides the memory of the solar forcing required to produce the lagged NAO response.”; Thiéblemont et al. (2015): “In the North Atlantic sector, the 11-year solar signal has been proposed to project on to a pattern resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), with a lag of a few years due to ocean-atmosphere interactions.” “…comparison of both experiments suggests that the 11-year solar cycle synchronizes quasi-decadal NAO variability intrinsic to the model.
These effects can be cooling for “the period between 2020 and 2040” (this requires further precise analysis).
This is another new evidence as to the accuracy the these authors “The Neglected Sun”: “It is therefore essential to keep asking critical questions whenever sensational climate claims are made.”
“Should apologise for what, exactly?”
There is no need to apologize?