The unstoppable MWP

It crops up repeatedly: but there was no medieval warm period (MWP), therefore the modern warming is unprecedented.

The CO2 Science web site has a long-running project to examine records all over the world concerning temperatures in the medieval period. Their overview page makes a great introduction to the project. They cite material from hundreds of scientists and institutions. Really quite impressive.

So when will the warmists stop saying there was no medieval warm period?

316
Leave a Reply

avatar
38 Comment threads
278 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
13 Comment authors
NickKenClarenceBob DRichard Treadgold Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Andrew W,

Bob, be honest, that quote refers to Greenland glaciers, not arctic sea ice extent.

Why am I not being honest? Read what I said when I introduced Howat above:

…the Arctic region had less ice than now in the 1930s and 1940s

I’m talking here about the Arctic region in general, using Greenland as a useful proxy.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“Now we know from actual climate scientists (Howat, for example) that the Arctic region had less ice than now in the 1930s and 1940s,” “Well, this will be a link I’ve gotta see! Where is it??” ‘Rapid Changes in Ice Discharge from Greenland Outlet Glaciers’ ftp://www-ftp.tucson.ars.ag.gov/Tucson-Abs-Pres/Smith/Howat_et_al_2007.pdf NYT article:- ‘Greenland isn’t melting as fast as we feared.’ It was big news when the rate of melting suddenly doubled in 2004 as ice sheets began moving more quickly into the sea. That inspired predictions of the imminent demise of Greenland’s ice — and a catastrophic rise in sea level. But a paper published online this afternoon by Science reports that two of the largest glaciers have suddenly slowed, bringing the rate of melting last year down to near the previous rate. At one glacier, Kangerdlugssuaq, “average thinning over the glacier during the summer of 2006 declined to near zero, with some apparent thickening in areas on the main trunk.” I asked the lead author of the paper, Ian Howat of the University of Washington, for some perspective. Here’s his take: “Greenland was about as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s, and many of… Read more »

Simon
Guest
Simon

Good grief. Glaciers are not sea ice.
Glacier growth is more a function of precipitation at high altitude.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The NATURAL PHENOMENON ATTRIBUTION (NAO, AO) is in respect to “The primary conclusion”.

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

By the way, Andrew W, can you spell out what your concerns are regarding the Arctic sea ice extent? I’m just curious, because apart from some general hand-wringing about polar bears, I’d like to know exactly why we should be worried.

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

I mean, I understand the issues regarding ice sheets re sea level, but why the alarm at the sea ice? It floats, and doesn’t affect sea level rise at all.

Who cares if a minimum is greater or lower than average? It all re-freezes again in winter. The winter extent just six months ago was one of the highest in the same record.

We had people going on a few years back in 2007 about “multi-year ice”, and how “new” ice could never survive season-to-season, etc. The years after 2007 shut them up, of course. A LOT of multi-year ice grew again, completely ignoring the predictions.

Now we have the same hand-wringing, but I’d like to know exactly why the panic?

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Glacier growth is more a function of precipitation at high altitude.

It’s good to see Simon has finally learnt something from us. 🙂

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Andrew and Simon (echoing Bob to a degree), if there’s no anthropogenic attribution for sea ice extent – what’s the problem? Not for nothing is the word “passage” included in Northwest and Northwest Passages e.g.:- 08/28/2008 A Navigable Arctic Northeast and Northwest Passages Both Free of Ice By Christoph Seidler For the first time ever, both the Northwest and the Northeast Passages are free of ice. Shipping companies have been waiting for this moment for years, but they will have to wait a little while longer before they can make use of the Arctic shortcut. Shippers in Bremen are getting impatient. The Beluga Group, a shipping company based in the northern German city, had planned to send a ship through the Northeast Passage — or the Northern Sea Route, as Russians call it — this summer, according to spokeswoman Verena Beckhausen. The route leads from the Russian island Novaya Zemlya, off the northern coast of Siberia, through the Bering Strait between far eastern Russia and Alaska. This route is radically shorter than the normal trip through the Suez Canal. From Hamburg to the Japanese port city of Yokohama, for example, the trip using… Read more »

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

why the alarm at the sea ice? It floats, and doesn’t affect sea level rise at all.

Who cares if a minimum is greater or lower than average? It all re-freezes again in winter.

Congratulations, Bob, you have raised willful ignorance to the status of an art form!

Let me give you a clue: reduced ocean albedo -> increased heating -> warming permafrost -> methane emission -> increased heating -> warming permafrost -> methane emission -> increased heating -> warming permafrost -> methane emission -> increased heating -> warming permafrost -> methane emission -> increased heating and so on.

This is called POSITIVE FEEDBACK and no, its not like saying “hey, I like your tie…”

Clearly, you and NZCSET deserve each other!

Andrew W
Guest
Andrew W

“…special care must be taken in how these and other mass-loss estimates are evaluated, particularly when extrapolating into the future because short-term spikes could yield erroneous long-term trends. Rather than yielding a well defined trend, our results are significant in that they show Greenland mass-balance can fluctuate rapidly”

Given the loss of Arctic sea ice mass has been far more dramatic than the reduction in extent:

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

I’d wager ice free by the end of the decade, and I’d expect the disappearance of late summer/autumn sea ice north of Greenland to show that indeed “Greenland [ice] mass-balance can fluctuate rapidly”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Positive feedback on what?

Positive feedback on natural variability is still natural variability.

And before you start raving feverishly about GHG emissions you will have to explain these series in terms of CO2 levels:-

Fairbanks
Nuuk
Akureyri
Svalbard
Ostrov Dikson
Hatanga

http://climate4you.com/images/ArcticTemperatures.gif

Then explain away the AO-Arctic temperature influence (including Nuuk) wrt to CO2

http://acsys.npolar.no/meetings/final/abstracts/posters/Session_1/poster_s1_009.pdf

Then explain away the polar sunspot/temperature correlation wrt CO2

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/sunspot_demise_fig3.png

Then explain away the Arctic solar irradiation/temperature correlation wrt CO2

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/scripts/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/imagemanager/files/Wilson.jpg

Then explain away the IPCC CO2 forcing problem:-

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png

And so on.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part II

Posted on September 17, 2012 | 468 Comments

Judith Curry

Pursuant to Part I, i ask the following questions:

* Whence an ‘ice free’ Arctic?
* Does an ‘ice free’ Arctic matter?

Whence an ‘ice free’ Arctic?

‘Ice free’ is put in quotes, because ‘ice free’ as commonly used doesn’t mean free of ice, as in zero ice. The usual definition of ‘ice free’ Arctic is ice extent below 1 M sq km (current minimum extent is around 3.5 M sq km). This definition is used because it is very difficult to melt the thick ice around the Canadian Archipelago. And the issue of ‘ice free’ in the 21st century is pretty much a non issue if your require this thick ice to disappear.

>>>>>>

http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/17/reflections-on-the-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-part-ii/

Andrew W
Guest
Andrew W

Richard C (NZ) says:
September 24, 2012 at 8:22 pm

Well, I’m sure there must be some point to that comment.

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

RC2, do you really think your parade of denier sites matters to anyone?

Why not throw in some creationist and Flat Earthers into the bargain?

Seriously, though, I suggest you read a basic science text, such as “Global Warming for Dummies” before you embarrass yourself any further….

Andrew W
Guest
Andrew W

For pete’s sake Richard C, the first thing you offer is data for 6 cherry picked weather station sites.
Here’s a map of the globe, you can click on it till your hearts content to get station data from the entire globe, including lots of sites in the Greenland – North Atlantic area, most of which you’ll find far less useful to your cause that the sites you mention.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

Nick
Guest
Nick

Did any of the “serious skeptics” here watch this video regarding the MWP?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s&feature=youtu.be&t=6m4s

It has been posted up thread but the only person who appears to have watched any of it is Andy and his rebuttal to it was pure ad hominen. I think the video raises some interesting points about the provenance of some of the data behind the MWP and I would be interested if someone could provide a more reasoned analysis than Andy’s.

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Do you really believe that?

Positive feedback has never yet been observed to occur in this way. In fact, we can state quite definitely that it doesn’t happen, because if it could it would have happened in the past, when the temperatures were significantly warmer, and for longer.

Besides, I was asking Andrew W, not you.

Simon
Guest
Simon

The current Arctic sea ice extent is six standard deviations from the mean, and you are arguing that there is no positive feedback? You’ve just been bitten by a low albedo black swan.

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

The reduced albedo can only have an effect over the next few weeks, until the ice refreezes. Last maximum was almost as high as any in the recent years, so the current minimum was in fact NOT due to reduced albedo.

I’ve just been reading what WG1 says on the issue, and they’re significantly less alarmist than you guys. They talk about permafrost melting only near the end of the 21st century, but they make the point that methane has a very short residence time, and the projection under A1B is for a reducing methane concentration after 2050.

The IPCC says:

Abrupt climate changes… are not considered likely to occur in the 21st century, based on currently available model results.

Stop getting all worked up over nothing.

We saw in 2007 there was a low minimum, yet the next few seasons were quite normal. We know the winds were responsible for that low minimum, and this year too.

No positive feedback, no released methane, no runaway warming, or anything even close to that.

If you have some evidence that this year’s minimum is due to reduced albedo and positive feedback, please provide it.

Andy
Guest
Andy

My arguments were not ad hom, because I didn’t present any arguments.
I listened to about 5 seconds of ex-Guardian journalist Peter Hadfield droning on in his irritating nasally voice and decided that I had better things to do with 15 minutes of my life.

UPDATE – I did fast forward to a random segment in that video and found a “hockey stick” graph for the southern hemisphere. How is Gergis at al going by the way?

Simon
Guest
Simon

but if he is correct, the whole MWP > current temperature argument is a manufactured crock achieved by cynical manipulation of other people’s charts.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Presumably his argument requires some kind of faith in the hockey stick and related paleoclimatic reconstructions.

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

No, just some actual diligent science, which is why you are afraid to watch it… what are you going to tell your kids, Andy?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“do you really think your parade of [evidence refuting alarmism] matters to anyone?

Yes. But not to you obviously because you don’t address any of it.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Having now watched 6 minutes of this video, this is what it claims –
– no, so far, mention of any science about the MWP
– plenty of arguments around the hockey stick graphs, the Wegman report etc
– arguments that the MWP graphs are being doctored, whilst at the same time showing several graphs of paleo reconstructions with the instrumental record spliced on, and no mention of the “divergence problem” (i.e “Hide the Decline”)

Does it get any better?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“the first thing you offer is data for 6 cherry picked weather station sites”

Arctic weather station sites Andrew. I thought that was appropriate given the stream of discussion had meandered to the Arctic.

Curiously, those stations don’t exhibit CO2-forced-like characteristics. Did you notice that Andrew?

Neither does this Box et al Greenland summer temperature plot:-

http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Greenland_summer_air_T_update_to_Box_et_al_2009.png

Unless of course, there’s an as yet undisclosed anthropogenic event that occurred in the late nineties to cause the spike.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I suspect too that the IPCC methane forcing expression (simplified as it is) is as imprecise as the carbon dioxide forcing expression.

And because the initial process that a methane feedback acts on (supposedly as a result of warming) is reducing albedo, that whole positive feedback argument is put on ice (Ha!) over winter.

Andy
Guest
Andy

This video claims that the graphs showing a warmer MWP have been “doctored”.
The argument for this is that they have removed the instrumental record part of the hockey stick graphs and rely on the proxy data alone.

The proxy data, or at least the tree ring data, shows a decline in proxy-deduced temperature in recent decades,

I would argue that the graphs that were originally shown – the instrumental record spliced onto the proxy series to “hide the decline”, are the ones that were doctored, not the other way around

Andrew W
Guest
Andrew W

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/09/the-unstoppable-mwp/#comment-118125 Richard Treadgold says: September 20, 2012 at 10:18 am Rob, You’ve done a great deal of work here. The scientists that have produced the papers (here and here) do not postulate on whether the previous warming was greater than today or not because you simply cannot tell from the data gathered. Your links are absent. You say the temperatures cannot be compared with today’s, so in your comments on each study, which refer to the temperatures being higher or lower than the CWP, how do you know they’re higher or lower? Who defined the MWP as “between AD 950 to 1250″? I missed it. And why might it not have slightly different periods in different places? The site describes how the various definitions of the MWP follow the various authors, so are you correct to claim that CO2 Science “moved” the MWP? (my bold) https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/09/the-unstoppable-mwp/#comment-118192 Andrew W says: September 20, 2012 at 12:53 pm Who defined the MWP as “between AD 950 to 1250″? I missed it. And why might it not have slightly different periods in different places? If the MWP has different periods in different places, what would the effect… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Andy doesn’t have the foggiest idea what “hide the decline means

“Hide the decline” refers to the splicing of instrumental records onto the paleoclimatic reconstructions to hide the apparent decline in temperature records as shown by the proxy reconstructions post 1960 (otherwise known as the “divergence problem”)

I stated this before. Do you disagree with my interpretation?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“Richard C thinks the data from 6 cherry picked near Arctic weather sites counts for more than the data from the hundreds of others”

Baloney, I don’t “think” that at all. I’ve merely provided a sample of Arctic stations that don’t exhibit CO2-forced characteristics and since then the Box et al Greenland summer record that doesn’t either.

Care to present the “hundreds of others” (individually) that you seem to imply do so Andrew?

Andrew W
Guest
Andrew W

Earlier I said How about a post called “What would it take”? I think it would be interesting to ask people here: What would it take for “alarmists” to accept that the IPCC prediction of warming is exaggerated, and that there isn’t going to be major climate change. And What would it take for “sceptics” to accept that the IPCC warming predictions are largely accurate, and are going to result in major climate change? A few “sceptics” replied after a fashion, but not with anything of substance like “ice free actic”, or 20 years of warming despite a quieter Sun, etc. They responded only with waffle. So here’s what I think it would take in each case: What would it take for “alarmists” to accept that the IPCC prediction of warming is exaggerated, and that there isn’t going to be major climate change? It would take the end of warming for 20 years, and in fact a decline in temperatures by the amount they’ve risen without an explanation consistent with AGW theory as to why no turnaround. and What would it take for “sceptics” to accept that the IPCC warming predictions are largely… Read more »

Andrew W
Guest
Andrew W

Thank you for the confirmation.

Andrew W
Guest
Andrew W

I’ve supplied you with the link. Go look.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Barrow WSO Airport, Alaska, daily temperature 1949 – 2012:-

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/g1sod.pl?500546+19490902+20120924+0+50+0+-20+80+0000100000+12

Barrow, Alaska, CO2 concentration:-

http://serc.carleton.edu/images/introgeo/teachingwdata/examples/BarrowCO2.gif

Houston, we have a problem.

Andy
Guest
Andy

“Thanks for the confirmation”

Confirmation of what?

Andy
Guest
Andy

Since you love SkS so much, here is the great Oracle stating exactly what i did There are a number of misconceptions regarding ‘hide the decline’: The “decline” does not refer to a “decline in global temperature” – it refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitudes. “Mike’s Nature trick” has nothing to do with “hide the decline”, instead refering to a technique by Michael Mann to plot instrumental temperature along with past reconstructions. The decline in tree-ring growth is openly discussed in papers and IPCC reports. “Hide the decline” has become a slogan for climate skeptics. However, there are several misconceptions concerning this email that give a misleading picture of the science discussed in Phil Jones’ email. When one takes the time to read the email and understand the science discussed, the misconceptions are easily put into proper context. The decline is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature Phil Jones’ email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to “hide the decline in global temperatures”. This claim is patently false and demonstrates ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain… Read more »

Andrew W
Guest
Andrew W

Congratulations on finally using a decent source, if you’d done it earlier you’d have known that the “divergence problem” does not refer to “the apparent decline in temperature records as shown by the proxy reconstructions post 1960” but ONLY to tree ring proxies and since Mann’s ’98 paper the avialable range of proxies other than tree rings has grown to the point that tree rings are no longer required to do paleoclimate reconstructions to high levels of confidence (we now have way better data to work with than Mann did back then, which is why he had no alternative, if he wanted high confidence going back even 600 years other than to rely on the tree ring data and work aroud the divergence problem as best he could with the data then available to him).

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“A few “sceptics” replied after a fashion, but not with anything of substance like “ice free actic”, or 20 years of warming despite a quieter Sun, etc. They responded only with waffle.”

Your question Andrew was:-

“What would it take for “sceptics” to accept that the IPCC warming predictions are largely accurate, and are going to result in major climate change?”

My response was:-

A better performance than this:-

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/christy-fig.jpg?w=808&h=622

And deference to radiative heat transfer science so we don’t see this:-

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png

If you dismiss that as “waffle” then you’re merely arguing from your own authority, in your own little bubble, and there never will be anything that can be said that will sway you.

Meanwhile the climate refuses to play IPCC ball. I’m inclined to agree with the commenter who somewhere wondered if the “W” in Andrew W is for “Wriggle”.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Data Tampering: GISS Caught Red-Handed Manipulating Data To Produce Arctic Climate History Revision

http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/01/data-tamperin-giss-caught-red-handed-manipulaing-data-to-produce-arctic-climate-history-revision/

Houston, we have another problem.

Andy
Guest
Andy

So now that you agree I might actually have a clue about the divergence problem, go back and look at the video where Hadfield talks about “doctored graphs” whilst showing a graph that has instrumental data spliced onto the paleoclimatic series.

If he wanted to make a stronger case, he wouldn’t have shown the instrumental record grafted onto the paleo series if, as you claim, these are not needed.

Furthermore, he shows a SH reconstruction showing a hockey stick. The only one of these that I am aware of is Gergis et al which has been withdrawn, temporarily at least, from publications after statistical errors were pointed out (and acknowledged by the paper’s authors).

Also, you say I used a “decent source”. I didn’t actually use any source before. I was using my own words. This might be a bit of weird thing for those that like to spray SkS and Wikipedia links everywhere

Andrew W
Guest
Andrew W
Andrew W
Guest
Andrew W

So now that you agree I might actually have a clue about the divergence problem

You’re funny.
You can’t intelligently talk about the divergence problem without mentioning that it pertains only to tree ring proxies.

I didn’t actually use any source before. I was using my own words.

some people call that “making it up as you go along”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The CMIP5 vs Obs is the up-to-date situation for AR5

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/christy-fig.jpg?w=808&h=622

All on the wrong trajectory.

If that’s the best that state-of-the-art CO2-forced models can achieve then they’re irrelevant (as are the forcing expressions they employ) and we have to look at other models that do mimic observations e.g. Scafetta’s Empirical Model.

Andy
Guest
Andy

So remind me Andrew, when you said I didn’t “have a clue” about the divergence problem, which statement of mine did you specifically have a problem with?

Andrew W
Guest
Andrew W

“The CMIP5 vs Obs is the up-to-date situation for AR5

you are so far out at sea it’s risible.

Andy
Guest
Andy

NASA have produced a nice visualisation showing the cyclone that broke the Arctic sea ice up in August

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“…you are so far out at sea it’s risible”

Really?

CMIP5 – Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 – Overview

It is expected that some of the scientific questions that arose during preparation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) will through CMIP5 be addressed in time for evaluation in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, scheduled for publication in late 2013). The IPCC/CMIP5 schedule (pdf ) is now available and the three key dates are as follows:

* Februrary 2011: First model output is expected to be available for analysis,
* July 31, 2012: By this date papers must be submitted for publication to be eligible for assesment by WG1,
* March 15, 2013: By this date papers cited by WG1 must be published or accepted.

The IPCC’s AR5 is scheduled to be published in September 2013

http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/

34 of the latest CMIP5 climate model simulations of global temperature that will be used in the upcoming IPCC AR5 assessment on climate change are now accessible via KNMI Climate Explorer as per the Christy plot.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

BH succinct as always:-

Arctic ice loss was hyped

There’s a terrible sense of deja vu about this story (via Climate Depot):

In a September 18 video posted by NASA on its website, they admit that the Arctic cyclone, which began on August 5, “wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover” by “breaking up sea ice.”

This is exactly what happened in 2007, when weeks of hype was followed by a quiet admission that the root cause of the loss of ice was winds and ocean currents.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Barrow has turned into an interesting exercise. Barrow WSO Airport for which I extracted a series from the Western Regional Climate Center website up-thread is a station from NCDC Station Historical Listing for NWS Cooperative Network but GISTEMP seems to use a different site:-

500546-9 BARROW WSO AIRPORT [Lat] 7118 [Lon] 15647

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?akbarr

700260000 BARROW/W. POS lat,lon (.1deg) 713 -1568

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/station_list.txt

Both however are urban, hence:-

THE URBAN HEAT ISLAND IN WINTER AT BARROW, ALASKA

KENNETH M. HINKEL,a,* FREDERICK E. NELSON,b ANNA E. KLENEc and JULIANNE H. BELLa

2003

5. CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of winter temperatures yields the following preliminary conclusions:
1. Based on spatial averages for the period 1 December 2001 to 31 March 2002, the urban area is 2.2 °C warmer than the rural area.

http://www.cas.umt.edu/geography/documents/Hinkel_etal_2003_winter_UHI.pdf

When just Arctic rural (isolated) sites are considered, the temperature as measured at stations isolated from any UHI is simply tracking the AMO:-

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/AMO-and-Isolated-Stations.jpg

From ‘Arctic isolated versus “urban” stations show differing trends’

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/22/arctic-isolated-versus-urban-stations-show-differing-trends/

Barrow WSO Airport last decade:-

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/g1sod.pl?500546+20021001+20120925+0+50+0+-20+80+0000100000+12

Barrow WSO Airport last 30 yrs:-

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/g1sod.pl?500546+19821001+20120925+0+50+0+-20+80+0000100000+12

From this website:-

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/coop-inventory/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“When just Arctic rural (isolated) sites are considered, the temperature as measured at stations isolated from any UHI is simply tracking the AMO”

From Wikipedia (sorry Andy):-

Periodicity and prediction of AMO shifts

Assuming that the AMO continues with its quasi-cycle of roughly 70 years, the peak of the current warm phase would be expected in c. 2020,[13] or based on its 50–90 year quasi-cycle, between 2000 and 2040 (after peaks in c. 1880 and c. 1950).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

Andrew W
Guest
Andrew W

Richard C (NZ) says:
September 25, 2012 at 6:40 pm

I suspect I’ve worked it out already, but please tell, what are you waffling on about this time?

Andy
Guest
Andy

The latest propaganda video from Peter Sinclair managed to mention the large storm that broke up the ice plus the AO ,and then “fades to grey” with some scary words of content free wisdom from a scientist called Jennifer Francis

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“GISTEMP seems to use a different site”

No, the metadata coordinates are dodgy but looks like Barrow airport is the same for both GISTEMP and NCDC.

Search for NCDC BARROW WSO AIRPORT (Wiley Post Will Rogers Memorial Airport) using 71.18, -156.47 returns a point “Unknown Rd” about 15 kms SE of the airport.

Search for GISTEMP Barrow/W. Pos (Wiley Post Will Rogers Memorial Airport) using 71.3, -156.8 returns a point in the ocean about 2 kms NW of the airport.

Search for Wiley Post Will Rogers Memorial Airport using 71.2856, -156.7661 returns a point next to the airport runway.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Just focus on this part if you’re lost Andrew:-

When just Arctic rural (isolated) sites are considered, the temperature as measured at stations isolated from any UHI is simply tracking the AMO:-

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/AMO-and-Isolated-Stations.jpg

And going by the Wiki link ‘Periodicity and prediction of AMO shifts’, expect current Arctic temperature conditions to continue until c. 2020.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Jennifer Francis: Linking weird weather to rapid warming of the Arctic

http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/jennifer-francis-linking-weird-weather.html

“Jennifer Francis is a research professor at the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University, where she studies Arctic climate change and the link between Arctic and global climates. She has authored more than 40 peer-reviewed publications on these topics.”

40 papers but missed the AMO-temperature correlation and cycle.

The article’s quite good though, including “it’s difficult to point the finger at Arctic amplification in causing any of these weather events”. Quite right, just look up “What are the impacts of the AMO?” for that

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php#faq_3

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C,
Can you provide attribution for your figure please.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

Shows a rather good match between model predictions and observed data so I’m trying to figure out how the data you have provided was derived.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“40 papers but missed the AMO-temperature correlation and cycle”

These guys didn’t:-

# Odd Helge Otterå,1, 2, 3
# Mats Bentsen,1, 2, 3
# Helge Drange1, 2, 4
# & Lingling Suo

‘External forcing as a metronome for Atlantic multidecadal variability’

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n10/fig_tab/ngeo955_F1.html

Figure 1: Observed and simulated northern hemisphere temperature and Atlantic multidecadal oscillation.

Figure 1c, AMO correlation with HadCrut3v (global) R = 0.90.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“Can you provide attribution for your figure please”

Sure:-

Written Statement of John R. Christy
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Committee on Environment and Public Works
1 August 2012

2. RECENT CLIMATE MODEL SIMULATIONS (page 12)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=66585975-a507-4d81-b750-def3ec74913d

The RC article is AR4 plotted against land stations, the Christy plot is CMIP5 for AR5 (supersedes AR4 simulations) plotted against UAH and RSS. Christy has since added land series but it doesn’t help the model cause a great deal.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Storms of a similar magnitude and timing have occurred 8 times over the 34 year satellite record but none have resulted in sea ice extent as low as it is this year.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-storm.html

How does this storm which is unusual but not unprecedented explain the downward trend of sea ice extent over the last 30 years?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“Christy has since added land series”

Written Statement of John R. Christy
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Subcommittee Energy and Power, U.S. House of Representatives
20 Sep 2012

2. RECENT CLIMATE MODEL SIMULATIONS (page 17)

Figure 2.1 Global CMIP5 RCP45 38 Models (page 19)

http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/Hearings/EP/20120920/HHRG-112-IF03-WState-ChristyJ-20120920.pdf

He has added 4 more models since the EPW testimony, one of which (37, an outlier) looks like it might be on the right trajectory. I’m curious as to which model that is and what they’re doing differently to the rest but 1 out of 38 is not a good ratio of success.

BTW, CMIP3 was the AR4 ensemble.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“How does this storm which is unusual but not unprecedented explain the downward trend of sea ice extent over the last 30 years?”

It doesn’t. It explains the 2012 extent relative to recent levels and to the 2007 level especially because the same thing happened then.

Re “the downward trend of sea ice extent over the last 30 years?” see:-

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/09/the-unstoppable-mwp/#comment-119377

And down-thread but specifically this:-

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/AMO-and-Isolated-Stations.jpg

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Rob Taylor,

So, in denier fairyland, this all balances out, somehow? Let’s see – crippling drought in one place, horrendous floods in another simply shows that all is hunky-dory?

Crippling drought, horrendous floods – you accuse us of approving of these things? And to follow up with something truly insane, you suggest we can prevent them? The bloody weather? Mr Taylor, take a deep breath because your mind has become unhinged from reality.

These weather events are not hunky-dory, because a lot of people could be miserable, homeless or dead. Who could approve of them, you twit? But this is Mother Nature. This is God’s will. There’s nothing new here – not for thousands of years. This is life. This is how it goes.

We can only adapt. Or at least, the wise ones adapt, and they manage it without crippling each other with guilt over their evil deeds.

Andrew W
Guest
Andrew W

But this is Mother Nature. This is God’s will. There’s nothing new here – not for thousands of years. This is life. This is how it goes.

Reminds me of a story Sir Bob Jones recounts in his book Travelling:

“I..struck up a conversation with my seat companion, a … pilot [whose] job included training Arab pilots. He [said] they were first-class – but only so long as nothing went wrong.
On two separate occasions, then in a supervisory role with these pilots, something had gone wrong eliciting an identical response from the Arab trainees. Both had leapt from their seats, crouched on the floor and prayed to Allah. That’s a fair enough policy for Moslems convinced of the eternal heaven awaiting them, but less satisfying to the atheistic western mind.”

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

I agree, Andrew, fundamentalism comes in many guises, and is a great way of avoiding individual responsibility for one’s choices in life.

In particular, the choice to remain ignorant and gullible…

Simon
Guest
Simon

A nice study looking at lake sediments in Svalbad:
“We find that the summer warmth of the past 50 yr recorded in both the instrumental and alkenone records was unmatched in West Spitsbergen in the course of the past 1800 yr, including during the Medieval Climate Anomaly, and that summers during the Little Ice Age (LIA) of the 18th and 19th centuries on Svalbard were not particularly cold, even though glaciers occupied their maximum Holocene extent.”
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2012/09/18/G33365.1.abstract?sid=97d2d392-b80d-4c0f-
9eb2-6277b09b779c

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)
Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Careful, Simon, you’ll fall foul of Andrew W if you’re not careful. He had a lot to say about people cherry-picking single studies:

…those minority of data sets won’t give a proxy reconstruction of high confidence, especially if the people putting together that reconstruct are seeking data sets that support their preconceptions.

Andy
Guest
Andy

The interesting thing about this paper is that is claims to be the first use of Tephrochronology to lake sediments in the area.

This is based on 210Pb, plutonium activity

Tephrochronology is based on events from volcanic eruptions, and has been used mostly in Iceland, which of course is a volcanic country

It does seem quite a stretch to make these statements about temperature reconstructions in Svalbard based on this rather untested concept.

But hey – this is cutting edge research

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

An interesting paper dealing just with the NH, using 120 proxies including 49 with annual resolutions:
Ljungqvist et al. (2012) “Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries”

Nick
Guest
Nick

If the modern instrumental record has been removed (and the x axis edited to hide the fact) how can these graph say anything about the MWP in comparison with today?

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C,
As the Real Climate link shows the current temperatures are within the bounds of model uncertainties. Christy’s graphs do not show the model uncertainties so do not tell us anything about how successful the models have been.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard T,
“this is Mother Nature. This is God’s will” is that really what you believe? I had been conducting these discussions on the assumption everyone accepted that science rather than divine intervention could explain the weather. Please correct me if my assumption is false.

Does anyone else here think that any changes in the climate are “Gods will”? It would be helpful to understand the roots of peoples perspective on these issues.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Replying to Nick. Do you think that it is an appropriate scientific practice to splice instrumental records onto proxy data in the same graph?

Nick
Guest
Nick

Sure Andy, so long as it is labeled as such. Do you think it is OK to remove such data and then modify the x axis hide the fact that the data has been removed?

Post Navigation