Comments
Et tu Trouet?
New Scientist, also known as Nude Socialist magazine, never misses the opportunity to use the derogatory phrase ‘climate-change deniers’ in order to smear sound scientific argument against an unverifiable computer modelled catastrophe driven by harmless aerial plant food gas. The latest opportunity has arisen courtesy of a new paper in Science magazine by Trouet el al, which purports to explain the Medieval Warm Period, or Medieval Climate Anomoly as it is termed in this paper, as a regional phenomenon driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Mikey ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann has a predictable ‘this means it’s worse than we thought’ comment in the Nude Socialist article, perhaps not noticing that the proxies used don’t give much of a hockey stick shape. Deniers ‘scuppered’ sounds like wishful thinking. Also, what’s the explanation for the Holocene Optimum and the Roman Warm Period?
Of course, Steve McIntyre is giving the paper a thorough examination over at Climate Audit. Craig Loehle has this amusing comment on the CA thread: “It is hilarious that the same people who dismissed my reconstruction as only having 18 proxies are quite happy to make a bold statement about the MWP based on 4. It also stretches my credulity that the NAO was stuck in one mode that long.”
Talking of the NAO, as CRN has reported previously, Tsonis et al name the NAO as the ‘pacemaker’ of the climate shifts that can explain all the 20th century temperature changes. Alarmists ‘scuppered?’
Wang, Swanson and Tsonis, GRL (2009): ‘The pacemaker of major climate shifts.’
The Abstract states:
Models and data suggest that the interplay of major climate modes may result in climate shifts [Tsonis et al., 2007]. More specifically it has been shown that when the network of North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and North Pacific Index (NPI) synchronizes, an increase in the coupling between these oscillations destroys the synchronous state and leads the climate system to a new state. These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability. Here we probe the details of this network’s dynamics to investigate if a certain oscillation is the culprit in these shifts. From a total of 12 synchronization events observed in three climate simulations and in observations we find that the instigator of these shifts is NAO. Without exception only when NAO’s coupling with the Pacific increases a shift will occur. Our results suggest a dynamical sequence of events in the evolution of climate shifts which is consistent with recent independent empirical and modeling studies.
The paper concludes:
Many studies have in the past dealt with the origin and mechanisms of climate oscillations as well as with the consequences of their interactions. Our study with the help of a novel approach identifies for the first time which may be the most significant of these oscillations. In a dynamical scenario where the major modes of variability in the northern hemisphere are synchronized, an increase in the coupling strength destroys the synchronous state and causes climate to shift to a new state. Here we were able to identify that the major participant in this coupling strength increase is NAO, which we found to be behind all climate shifts observed in observations as well as in three climate simulations. Understanding variability of our extremely complex climate system is far from complete as new and often contradicting views are proposed. In this realm we hope that our results will provide some direction and focus to this perpetual quest for understanding climate variability.
Kyle Swanson and Anastasios Tsonis GRL (2009):‘Has the climate recently shifted?’
The Abstract states:
This paper provides an update to an earlier work that showed specific changes in the aggregate time evolution of major Northern Hemispheric atmospheric and oceanic modes of variability serve as a harbinger of climate shifts. Specifically, when the major modes of Northern Hemisphere climate variability are synchronized, or resonate, and the coupling between those modes simultaneously increases, the climate system appears to be thrown into a new state, marked by a break in the global mean temperature trend and in the character of El Ni˜no/Southern Oscillation variability. Here, a new and improved means to quantify the coupling between climate modes confirms that another synchronization of these modes, followed by an increase in coupling occurred in 2001/02. This suggests that a break in the global mean temperature trend from the consistent warming over the 1976/77–2001/02 period may have occurred.
The paper concludes:
If as suggested here, a dynamically driven climate shift has occurred, the duration of similar shifts during the 20th century suggests the new global mean temperature trend may persist for several decades. Of course, it is purely speculative to presume that the global mean temperature will remain near current levels for such an extended period of time. Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing. However, the nature of these past shifts in climate state suggests the possibility of near constant temperature lasting a decade or more into the future must at least be entertained. The apparent lack of a proximate cause behind the halt in warming post 2001/02 challenges our understanding of the climate system, specifically the physical reasoning and causal links between longer time-scale modes of internal climate variability and the impact of such modes upon global temperature. Fortunately, climate science is rapidly developing the tools to meet this challenge, as in the near future it will be possible to attribute cause and effect in decadal scale climate variability within the context of a seamless climate forecast system [Palmer et al. 2008]. Doing so is vital, as the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.
Tsonis et al, GRL (2007): ‘A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts’
In the mid-1970s, a climate shift cooled sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific Ocean and warmed the coast of western North America, bringing long-range changes to the northern hemisphere. After this climate shift waned, an era of frequent El Ninos and rising global temperatures began.
Tsonis et al. have investigated the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles’ patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times.
Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then. a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability.
The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century.
Major climate shifts have occurred or will occur around 1913, 1942, 1978, 2033, and 2072 according to the authors of this recent paper, who also predict a 0.2 Celsius cooling between 2005 and 2020 which should be followed by a 0.3 Celsius warming until 2045 or so – then cooling for the rest of the 21st century.
April 8th, 2009 at 4:59 am
MWP a regional (not global) phenomenon? Really?
Asia: Evidence for the Existence of the Medieval Warm Period in China.
Abstract: “it can be estimated that the annual mean temperature in south Henan Province in the thirteenth century was 0.9–1.0°C higher than at present.”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/gh98230822m7g01l/
Australasia: Evidence for a ‘Medieval Warm Period’ in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of summer temperatures in New Zealand.
Abstract: “This record is the longest yet produced for New Zealand and shows clear evidence for persistent above-average temperatures within the interval commonly assigned to the MWP.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001GL014580.shtml
Arctic: Environmental change in eastern Greenland during the last 1300 years – evidence from foraminifera and lithofacies in Nansen Fjord.
Abstract: “The evidence suggests that the climate in the region of Nansen Fjord was warmer and more stable than today during a ‘Medieval Warm Period’”
http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/2/179
South Africa: Using thermal and hydrological demand for crops crown by the first agropastoralists, Huffman (1996) constructed a climate history of the region based on evidence acquired from various Iron Age settlements. Relic evidence of the presence of cultivated sorghum and millets proved that the climate of the subcontinent-wide region must have been warmer and wetter than it is today from approximately AD 900-1300 – indeed these crops cannot be grown in that part of southern Africa under current climatic conditions, which are far too cool and dry. Support for this result came from Tyson et. al. (2000), who obtained a quasi-decadal record of oxygen and carbon-stable isotope data from a well-dated stalagmite of Cold Air Cave in the Makapansgat Valley (30 km southwest of Pietersburg, South Africa). See also Holmgren et. al. (2001 & 2003) also Lamb et. al. (2003).
N America: Arseneault and Payette (1997) analysed tree ring and growth-form series in Quebec to produce a climate record for this region between 690 and 1591 AD – revealing a MWP. The scientists concluded that the Medieval Warm Period there was approximately 1°C warmer than the 20th century. Same continent but over a bit, Calkin et al. (2001) assessed ‘the most current and comprehensive research of Holocene glaciation’ along the Gulf of Alaska between the Kenai Peninsula and Yakutat Bay, where they detected a Medieval Warm Period that lasted for “at least a few centuries prior to A.D. 1200.”
South America: Cioccale, M.A., Climatic fluctuations in the Central Region of Argentina in the last 1000 years. Quaternary International 62: 35-47 (1999) and Jenny, B., Valero-Garces, B.L., Urrutia, R., Kelts, K., Veit, H., Appleby, P.G. and Geyh M. 2002. Moisture changes and fluctuations of the Westerlies in Mediterranean Central Chile during the last 2000 years: The Laguna Aculeo record, Quaternary International 87: 3-18 (2002) the latter being a fine example of archaeolimnology
Europe: MWP evidence for MWP in Russia from Hiller et al. (2001), Norway from Hiller et al. (2001), Scotland from Brooks and Birks (2001), Switzerland from Filippi et al. (1999), Germany from Niggemann et al. (2003) and
Antarctic: an ice core from the eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula, clearly identifies the Medieval Warm Period.
SST (Sea Surface Temperature): Keigwin (1996)
April 8th, 2009 at 6:18 am
Nice comment Roland, shows some off us are prepared to look at the facts, not the spin
April 8th, 2009 at 7:12 am
It all seems like a rush to judgment to me.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:27 am
Are they going to erase the historical record of the Vikings in Greenland as well? May as well change all those “wine flavored” street signs in London to complete the changed history.
Can you believe there was nearly a war over English wine?
Going to take more than one science scam paper to change history.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Talking of wine, the limit of Roman period vineyards was further North than those of the MWP – see map here:
http://www.winelandsofbritain.co.uk/lecture.htm
DEFRA on the history of the UK industry:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/wine/industry.htm
Independent:
Veni, vidi, viticulture – remains of Roman vineyards found in UK
One of the main wine-producing areas of Roman Britain seems to have been the Nene Valley, in what is now Northamptonshire. In the valley, near the village of Wollaston, archaeologists have found ancient vineyards covering at least 30 acres, in which vines were grown in the Mediterranean Roman style, exactly as described by classical authors such as Pliny and Columella. On one site, the remains of four miles of bedding trenches have been found. Estimates suggest that the site contained 4,000 vines, producing 10,000 litres of wine a year.
In Roman times, Britain had a slightly warmer climate than now; and, with 500 to 600mm of rain a year, Northamptonshire is at the lower end of the British precipitation range, which would have meant fewer fungal problems. The area would therefore have been suitable for grape production.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/veni-vidi-viticulture–remains-of-roman-vineyards-found-in-uk-738723.html
April 10th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
The unambiguous presence of elephant seal remains in areas today choked with sea ice year round suggests that Antarctica was warmer than present a 1000 years ago.
http://www.umainetoday.umaine.edu/issues/v6i5/elephants.html
http://www.asoc.org/Portals/0/pdfs/elephant_seals_02_04_2007_antarcticsun.pdf
Other sources for a global MWP here:
http://www.cgfi.org/2008/08/27/global-warming-every-1500-years-what-it-means-for-engineering-by-dennis-t-avery/
April 13th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Excellent points, Roland!
More anthropological evidence:
The Huns boiled out of Asia during the Roman Warming Period, and their Mongol cousins exploded out of the Gobi at the beginning of the 13th century-during the Medieval Warming Period. Now, why should that be? They were from north-east Asia, after all.
The Mississippian culture-the North American mound builders-flourished in the center of the Continent between 800 and 1500 a.d. Sound familiar?
In South America the Incan Empire flourished from the 13th to 16th centuries. When Pizarro came they were in the midst of a civil war. Why was that?
Ditto the Mayans.
It`s interesting to note that these very seperate civilizations flowered during the Roman and Medieval warming periods, and withered with the coming cold periods. Of course, Europe emerged from her Medieval shell in the later stages of the MWP, and I do not believe that is any coincidence, either.
If the MWP was a local event, it had a mighty large locality…
April 16th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Excuse me Paul, but what did you say were your qualifications to pronounce on the truths of climate change, I forgot. Oh wait, it says here you have a bachelors degree in biology degree from 1979. I see.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Jim, what qualifications does Al Gore have? Also, how about being a AR4 SPM lead author by virtue of reading some books on a train:
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/02/interesting-talk-by-ipcc-1st-author-of-1st-draft-of-summary-for-policymakers/
April 16th, 2009 at 12:41 am
Aside from the fact that Gore spends a lot of time talking to scientists such as Jim Hansen and others, and has been studying the issue for 30+ years, he doesn’t operate this website and is not responsible for what you say. You do, and you are. Gore also doesn’t using condescending language when referring to scientists who’ve published rigorous peer-reviewed literature (read “Mikey ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann”). Or wait, tell me you’ve got issues with Hansen and Mann, as well as Gore and the “Nude Socialists”.
The thing about deniers such as yourself is that you don’t even realize that your attempts to be funny with name calling etc shows exactly where your viewpoints originate from. And they’re decidedly not from the science.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:55 am
We can all read and talk to scientists, but Gore has no scientific qualifications, so he wouldn’t fit with your declared criteria. Gore is responsible for the erroneous AIT movie. If you’re worried about language, then start with the likes of Gore, Hansen and Mann who have a long track record of abuse against those who disagree with their alarmist views.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:44 am
“We can all read and talk to scientists”
Then why don’t you go talk to some of them? How many climate scientists have you interacted with. As for reading, how much of AR4 have you read? If you’ve read it, how much do you agree or disagree with? How about the NAS, AAAS, SIGMA XI or other scientific societies summary reports on the topic?
“Gore has no scientific qualifications”
He has as much scientific background as you do, most likely a lot more. He has taken courses from Roger Revelle and has had numerous dialogues with top level scientists such as Hansen.
“Gore is responsible for the erroneous AIT movie”
Erroneous in what respect? Did he get the principal points wrong (i.e. that GHGs are warming the planet, and if unimpeded, could lead to many severe consequences). Yes or no. If “no” then how and where is he wrong?
“If you’re worried about language…”
Not worried. Just pointing out that yours describes pretty much exactly what your real motivations are, to those unclouded by same.
“Gore, Hansen and Mann who have a long track record of abuse against those who disagree with their alarmist views.”
Abuse you say? Long record? Big words. Is disagreement with those who take pot-shots at you based on flawed analyses your idea of “abuse”
April 16th, 2009 at 5:47 am
Which climate scientists have I interacted with? – the ones that Al Gore hasn’t. Reports represent the views of the few lead authors that write them. Gore has no academic scientific qualifications, period!
AIT was deliberately erroneous or misleading in all respects – some of the most contentious claims made in AIT were highlighted and upheld in the UK high court action against AIT. There is no convincing evidence that GHGs are responsible for warming the currently non-warming planet. There is plenty of evidence that warming is driven by natural variability of internal climate factors and external solar factors poorly understood by the IPCC.
Climate Research News exists primarily to publicise peer reviewed science, and observations, that are ignored by the UN IPCC and the mainstream media.
I have nothing but contempt for eccentric, politicised ‘scientists’ who talk of ‘holocaust deniers’, ‘coal trains of death,’ putting oil/coal company execs in prison, and present the virtual world of a computer modelled CO2 driven climate catastrophe unverifiably projected decades into the future as ‘reality.’ Nor to I have any time for scientists who withhold data, use selected data, or use demonstrably erroneous methodology and behave like a spoiled child when someone exposes the flaws in their ‘work.’ Nor do I have time for climate alarmism evangelists who charge $100,000 per sermon.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:37 am
“Nude Socialist magazine”
“Mikey ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann”
“harmless aerial plant food gas”
And just look at that long sidebar list of links to upstanding denir…, I mean other science blogs!
Oh, my, and you claim that this blog is concerned with science?
Yes, Virgina, there is at least one parallel universe, and we’ve just stumbled into it.
April 16th, 2009 at 7:03 am
You’re the one in ‘denial’ – denying natural climate variability, which has yet to be exceeded despite man-made CO2. Live in the real world, not in a computer model.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:48 am
Sorry “admin” but you didn’t answer my questions (and at the same time raised a number of others). So again:
1. How many climate scientists have you conversed with either directly or via email? Who are they, and with what organizations are they affiliated? What topics did you discuss?
2. How much of the AR4, the NAS reports, the AAAS reports, the Royal Academy reports, the Stern report, or any other large, synthetic synopses of the topic have you actually read? Please be specific, otherwise there is no way to understand which parts you disagree with.
3. Relative to the statement “Reports represent the views of the few lead authors that write them”, please tell me how many lead and contributing authors, and reviewers, were involved in reviewing the 4 final products of the AR4. (It’s OK if you don’t know, I’ll provide the answer, and the place where you can check it if you don’t believe me).
4. You state: “There is no convincing evidence that GHGs are responsible for warming the currently non-warming planet. There is plenty of evidence that warming is driven by natural variability of internal climate factors and external solar factors poorly understood by the IPCC”. This statement is BLATANTLY, PATENTLY, FALSE, as a reading of AR4 or any large number of other sources would show. It is in direct contradiction to many hundreds of research results, going clear back to John Tyndall’s original discoveries in 1859 (no, not 1959, but 1859 when the infrared radiative emissions of gases were discovered). This claim of “no evidence” shows clearly that you do not understand (1) the radiative properties of GHGs and (2) the methods by which signal (cause) is extracted from stochasticity (randomness) in complex systems. And if I’m wrong on that, then please prove me wrong by explaining either or both of them, so I can stand corrected, here in public. Yes, it will be painful, but for the sake of truth, I’m willing to take it.
5. You indicate an intense disdain for (among other things), climate models. Please provide a more detailed explanation of exactly why the computer models are faulty and how they fail to account for natural climate variability.
6. I do not believe, based on your statements here (including, e.g., “Nude Socialists”, hatred for Al Gore and Jim Hansen, etc), that your opposition to AWG is based on anything other than a right wing political viewpoint. I don’t believe you have the background to properly interpret and understand the complexity of the science. Rather, you think that with a 30 year old BS in biology and some dabbling in climate journals, you have the ability to understand an incredibly complex and large scale problem. Again, here’s your chance to prove me wrong with specifics.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:20 am
The answers to most of your questions are on this site – click on the various tags on the left-hand side.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:05 am
“The answers to most of your questions are on this site – click on the various tags on the left-hand side.”
Yes Paul, good idea, and I did that. But I didn’t find much, so maybe you can help me out. Please point out to me the proper link that addresses how many climate scientists YOU have talked to, who they were, about what topics, etc. Please also point out to me the links that describe exactly which scientific society or governmental or inter-governmental syntheses YOU have read and what YOUR issues are with those. And also any links that demonstrate YOUR knowledge of climate science and climate change. Also, more detail, please on the issues of climate model problems and extracting signal from noise–or in general exactly how the methods used are wrong. But to your credit, several of those links DO have a number of posts decrying socialism, leftists, environmentalists, “alarmists”, show disdain for Al Gore and Jim Hansen and Mike Mann and others, so I guess they are helpful in validating your claims.
By the way, just as an aside, I don’t see RealClimate, Open Mind, Rabbett Run, or a number of other blogs listed over there with the others. I guess maybe you weren’t aware of them eh, because I know you want to “bridge the gap between reality and “official” science. Or are those scientists not “official” in your book?
You really don’t HAVE your own answers to my questions do you? Why is that I wonder.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:17 am
The “admin” stated:
“You’re the one in ‘denial’ – denying natural climate variability, which has yet to be exceeded despite man-made CO2. Live in the real world, not in a computer model.”
OK, good, I see that you agree that the CO2 increase is “man-made”. Also good that you see the importance of placing the observed climate changes in the context of natural variation. So could you then explain to me how scientists should go about quantifying, and attributing to physical causes, the natural climate variability, given the importance of that task? In particular, what are the strengths of the “real world” approach (presumably you mean an observational data approach) you advocate, over a “computer model”?
Thanks!
April 17th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
This site exists to present an alternative perspective to the claimed ‘consensus.’ I’d be happy to link to any site that would reciprocate. Do you think RC, Closed Mind and Rabbett Run would link to CRN? I think not. You can work out from the blogroll on the left hand side which working/published scientists/experts I have interacted with.
The likes of the IPCC and CCSP reports, which I have read, represent the views of the lead authors who wrote them – such as Trenberth, Solomon, Santer, Karl etc.
Climate models are useful diagnostic tools, but they are not crystal balls that can see into the future. Climate change remains poorly understood, so any attribution is based on assumptions, limited current knowledge, and the demonisation of CO2 for a political rather than a scientific agenda.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Paul, these guys are purposely wasting your time; I would recommend you ignore their complaints. They do not have an salient arguments in this instance, just are launching personal ad-hominem attacks.
If they were serious thinkers they would argue the facts, not attack the witness. This is a defense of last resort.
April 26th, 2009 at 4:49 am
I would agree with Timothy Birdnow, a standard QC’s courtroom trick where evidence is strong is to attack the witness on a personal level in an attempt to devalue their evidence. We who question AGW have a legitimate right to query it and if its proponents cant challenge us on facts, personal attacks clearly demonstrate the weakeness of their arguments
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:54 pm
you say “fossil” in this site. i very interesting about this article because my job is as micropaleontologist.thanks
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Foraminifera is important to use determine age and palaeoenvironment. i very interesting about this site because can add to knowledge about fossils.thanks
September 24th, 2010 at 10:03 am
CO2 was discovered to be a refrigerant in 1835, CO2 was patented as a refrigerant in 1924, CO2 fire extinguishers not only put out fire, it removes the heat from the fire for over 100 years now, CO2 is dry ice, because of the Clean Air Act CO2 has been used as a NOx device on every car on the road since 1972 to lower NOx that sun energy turns into nitrogen and (O3) Heavy oxygen (ozone) at ground level, that causes repository illness.
Go to co2u.info, I can prove CO2 is still a Refrigerant for the last 175 years, CO2 is used in welding metals together to prevent welds from rusting from the inside out, CO2 is the cause of all the O2 we breathe today and for the last 300 million years, that is how you make the oxygen we all breathe, from CO2 converted to O2,for the last 500 million years, There is 70 times more CO2 in the ocean than in the air, the atmosphere is from evaporation of water for the last 4.6 billion years, all the weather is from water vapor, and the sun. CO2 is just the causes of all carbon based life.
Bruce A. Kershaw