[Global Change: 3768] The problem with considering climate as an average of weather statistics
24 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert I Ellison
Apr 22, 2010, 6:36:10 AM4/22/10
to globalchange
I uploaded this to demonstrate a point. It is an example of abrupt
climate change involving Australian rainfall.
http://www.earthandocean.robertellison.com.au/page4.html
If rainfall in Australia is averaged over 100 years - the number
obtained will systematically underestimate or overestimate rainfall at
any time. The effect of 20 to 40 year long rainfall regimes has
significant implications for water supply, flooding and urban
planning.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to global...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
climate change involving Australian rainfall.
http://www.earthandocean.robertellison.com.au/page4.html
If rainfall in Australia is averaged over 100 years - the number
obtained will systematically underestimate or overestimate rainfall at
any time. The effect of 20 to 40 year long rainfall regimes has
significant implications for water supply, flooding and urban
planning.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to global...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
Tom Adams
Apr 22, 2010, 10:42:43 AM4/22/10
to globalchange
You are saying that the problem with considering average weather as an
average of weather is that average weather underestimates or
overestitmates the weather at any time.
On Apr 22, 6:36 am, Robert I Ellison <rob...@robertellison.com.au>
wrote:
average of weather is that average weather underestimates or
overestitmates the weather at any time.
On Apr 22, 6:36 am, Robert I Ellison <rob...@robertellison.com.au>
wrote:
Robert I Ellison
Apr 22, 2010, 6:06:17 PM4/22/10
to globalchange
It was the problem of considering climate as an average of weather
where there is abrupt change between different states.
It s a problem because the average either under or over estimates the
reality. For rainfall in Australia - if you calculate water supply
based on the 100 average and there is a 20 to 40 year 'Drought
Dominated Regime' - we risk running out of water. Most cities in
Australia came too close for comfort to this in recent times.
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/globalchange- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
where there is abrupt change between different states.
It s a problem because the average either under or over estimates the
reality. For rainfall in Australia - if you calculate water supply
based on the 100 average and there is a 20 to 40 year 'Drought
Dominated Regime' - we risk running out of water. Most cities in
Australia came too close for comfort to this in recent times.
>
> - Show quoted text -
David B. Benson
Apr 22, 2010, 6:45:17 PM4/22/10
to globalchange
And the problem if one doesn't use at least 30 years for climate:
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/30Years.html
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/30Years.html
Robert I Ellison
Apr 22, 2010, 9:30:37 PM4/22/10
to globalchange
It is more involved than simply averaging over more than 30 years.
This as stated gives the wrong answer. The average for a 20 to 40
year Drought Dominated Regime (DDR) is about 23% less than the 100
year average. Conversely, the average for a Flood Dominated Regime
(FDR)is about 23% higher than the 100 year average. So to calculate
the likely average rainfall over the next ten years - you first have
to determine whether we are in a DDR or FDR.
We have entered a cool phase of the PDO - which is associated with
more intense and frequent La Nina over 20 to 40 years. So Australia
is in a FDR - but there are implications for global hydrology. The
likelihood of more rain in the eastern hemisphere and less in the west
over the next 10 to 30 years.
ENSO of course also has implications for global surface temperature.
I believe it might have something to do with global cloud cover
changes due to changes in Walker and Hadley circulation - and the
location of the intertropical convergence zone - as reinforcing
mechanisms.
I think it might be driven by changes in UV in the 22 year Hale cycle
- feeding into downwelling in the Antarctic vortex - which in turn
drives changes in cold sea surface currents moving up the Antarctic
Penisula to South America. In turn, of course, driving the thermal
evolution of ENSO.
The cold water pool off South America can be seen:
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2010/anomnight.4.22.2010.gif
A discussion of ENSO as a non-linear and non-Gaussian process can be
found here: http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/16/453/2009/npg-16-453-2009.pdf
Regardless - the cool Pacific mode is associated with 20 to 40 years
of a cooling influence on global surface temperatures. The 'cycles'
that Judith Curry was talking about - linked to in the Swedish
thread. It allows for a prediction of sorts - 20 to 40 years of a
surface cooling influence from 2001. A decade of non-warming thus far
not enough?
'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 Nino 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.'
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf
Puting on a serious face - I don't really think it is a good idea to
arbitrarily change the composition of the atmosphere but the lack of
warming has real political consequences. Instead of insisting that it
isn't happening - or is not meaningful as it is only 10 years thus far
- you need to at least entertain the possibility of 20 to 40 years of
cooling.
This as stated gives the wrong answer. The average for a 20 to 40
year Drought Dominated Regime (DDR) is about 23% less than the 100
year average. Conversely, the average for a Flood Dominated Regime
(FDR)is about 23% higher than the 100 year average. So to calculate
the likely average rainfall over the next ten years - you first have
to determine whether we are in a DDR or FDR.
We have entered a cool phase of the PDO - which is associated with
more intense and frequent La Nina over 20 to 40 years. So Australia
is in a FDR - but there are implications for global hydrology. The
likelihood of more rain in the eastern hemisphere and less in the west
over the next 10 to 30 years.
ENSO of course also has implications for global surface temperature.
I believe it might have something to do with global cloud cover
changes due to changes in Walker and Hadley circulation - and the
location of the intertropical convergence zone - as reinforcing
mechanisms.
I think it might be driven by changes in UV in the 22 year Hale cycle
- feeding into downwelling in the Antarctic vortex - which in turn
drives changes in cold sea surface currents moving up the Antarctic
Penisula to South America. In turn, of course, driving the thermal
evolution of ENSO.
The cold water pool off South America can be seen:
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2010/anomnight.4.22.2010.gif
A discussion of ENSO as a non-linear and non-Gaussian process can be
found here: http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/16/453/2009/npg-16-453-2009.pdf
Regardless - the cool Pacific mode is associated with 20 to 40 years
of a cooling influence on global surface temperatures. The 'cycles'
that Judith Curry was talking about - linked to in the Swedish
thread. It allows for a prediction of sorts - 20 to 40 years of a
surface cooling influence from 2001. A decade of non-warming thus far
not enough?
'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 Nino 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.'
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf
Puting on a serious face - I don't really think it is a good idea to
arbitrarily change the composition of the atmosphere but the lack of
warming has real political consequences. Instead of insisting that it
isn't happening - or is not meaningful as it is only 10 years thus far
- you need to at least entertain the possibility of 20 to 40 years of
cooling.
Tom Adams
Apr 23, 2010, 9:38:40 AM4/23/10
to globalchange
On Apr 22, 9:30 pm, Robert I Ellison <rob...@robertellison.com.au>
wrote:
>
> Puting on a serious face - I don't really think it is a good idea to
> arbitrarily change the composition of the atmosphere but the lack of
> warming has real political consequences. Instead of insisting that it
> isn't happening - or is not meaningful as it is only 10 years thus far
> - you need to at least entertain the possibility of 20 to 40 years of
> cooling.
Years of cooling that include 2009, the 5th warmest year on record,
> Puting on a serious face - I don't really think it is a good idea to
> arbitrarily change the composition of the atmosphere but the lack of
> warming has real political consequences. Instead of insisting that it
> isn't happening - or is not meaningful as it is only 10 years thus far
> - you need to at least entertain the possibility of 20 to 40 years of
> cooling.
right?
You need to entertain the possibility that you will have to abandon
this line of argument soon:
"2010 could be the warmest year on record"
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/2010-could-be-warmest-year-on-record-1837856.html
The 2010 first quarter UAH temperature anomaly exceeds that of 1998:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
David B. Benson
Apr 23, 2010, 3:21:15 PM4/23/10
to globalchange
On Apr 22, 6:30 pm, Robert I Ellison <rob...@robertellison.com.au>
wrote:
interest, I suggest correlating whatever interests you
with PDO, ENSO or whatever and see if the correlations are
not only high but Grainger-causal. Then you'll have something
more than musings.
is a peak in a temperature power spectrum for the North Pacific
at 22 years. Again, attempt some correlations.
> Regardless - the cool Pacific mode is associated with 20 to 40 years
> of a cooling influence on global surface temperatures.
I suspect cahnges in MOC rate; attempt a correlation with AMO.
analysis: it'll be hotter.
wrote:
> It is more involved than simply averaging over more than 30 years.
Works well enough for global averages. As for your regional
interest, I suggest correlating whatever interests you
with PDO, ENSO or whatever and see if the correlations are
not only high but Grainger-causal. Then you'll have something
more than musings.
>
> I think it might be driven by changes in UV in the 22 year Hale cycle
> - feeding into downwelling in the Antarctic vortex - which in turn
> drives changes in cold sea surface currents moving up the Antarctic
> Penisula to South America.
On the face of it, this seems implausible, but there certainly
> I think it might be driven by changes in UV in the 22 year Hale cycle
> - feeding into downwelling in the Antarctic vortex - which in turn
> drives changes in cold sea surface currents moving up the Antarctic
> Penisula to South America.
is a peak in a temperature power spectrum for the North Pacific
at 22 years. Again, attempt some correlations.
> Regardless - the cool Pacific mode is associated with 20 to 40 years
> of a cooling influence on global surface temperatures.
> A decade of non-warming thus far
> not enough?
Nope. Need at least two decades.
> not enough?
> - you need to at least entertain the possibility of 20 to 40 years of
> cooling.
See my prediction for the 2010s from the link to my
> cooling.
analysis: it'll be hotter.
Robert I Ellison
Apr 23, 2010, 7:29:59 PM4/23/10
to globalchange
'But the researchers sounded a note of caution, warning that a record
year in 2010 is not a certainty, especially if the current El Nino
declined or there was a large volcanic eruption.'
What a joke - this news story is already out of date.
I quote peer reviewed science - and all I get back is someone saying
to a journalist that we could be warm if we don't get a La Nina or a
volcano? Oh - right. Duh!
You don't need to agree with peer reviewed science - there is such as
thing as scientific scepticism - but you would need to have some
rational criticism of the methods, the data or the conclusions.
Seriously? Peer reviewed literature? Did you read and try to
understand? Or did you simply respond on reflex?
The El Nino is persisting - although diminished from the recent peak.
http://ioc-goos-oopc.org/state_of_the_ocean/sur/pac/nino3.4.php - We
have had in recent months a record global sea surface temperature
anomaly. Global temperature for March is about 0.2 degrees below the
monthly peak in 1998. Every year is different.
A nicer way to compare UAH data - over days to years is here -
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
The idea of abrupt climate change on decadal timescales is important
and hugely relevant.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/2010-could-be...
year in 2010 is not a certainty, especially if the current El Nino
declined or there was a large volcanic eruption.'
What a joke - this news story is already out of date.
I quote peer reviewed science - and all I get back is someone saying
to a journalist that we could be warm if we don't get a La Nina or a
volcano? Oh - right. Duh!
You don't need to agree with peer reviewed science - there is such as
thing as scientific scepticism - but you would need to have some
rational criticism of the methods, the data or the conclusions.
Seriously? Peer reviewed literature? Did you read and try to
understand? Or did you simply respond on reflex?
The El Nino is persisting - although diminished from the recent peak.
http://ioc-goos-oopc.org/state_of_the_ocean/sur/pac/nino3.4.php - We
have had in recent months a record global sea surface temperature
anomaly. Global temperature for March is about 0.2 degrees below the
monthly peak in 1998. Every year is different.
A nicer way to compare UAH data - over days to years is here -
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
The idea of abrupt climate change on decadal timescales is important
and hugely relevant.
>
> The 2010 first quarter UAH temperature anomaly exceeds that of 1998:
>
> http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 8:45 am, "David B. Benson" <dben...@eecs.wsu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > And the problem if one doesn't use at least 30 years for climate:http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/30Years.html
>
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
>
> > > Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
>
> > > To post to this group, send email to global...@googlegroups.com
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange...@googlegroups.com
>
> > > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
>
> > Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
>
> > To post to this group, send email to global...@googlegroups.com
>
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange...@googlegroups.com
>
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
>
> Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
>
> To post to this group, send email to global...@googlegroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange...@googlegroups.com
>
> The 2010 first quarter UAH temperature anomaly exceeds that of 1998:
>
> http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 8:45 am, "David B. Benson" <dben...@eecs.wsu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > And the problem if one doesn't use at least 30 years for climate:http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/30Years.html
>
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
>
> > > Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
>
> > > To post to this group, send email to global...@googlegroups.com
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange...@googlegroups.com
>
> > > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
>
> > Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
>
> > To post to this group, send email to global...@googlegroups.com
>
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange...@googlegroups.com
>
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
>
> Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
>
> To post to this group, send email to global...@googlegroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange...@googlegroups.com
>
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/globalchange- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Eric Swanson
Apr 23, 2010, 9:54:47 PM4/23/10
to globalchange
Robert, your UAH link doesn't work for me.
Besides, the UAH data is flawed (as I've shown in a peer reviewed
report) and John Christy manipulates it to fill in missing data points
over the poles. Is this important? Well, over the Antarctic, the UAH
TLT data has shown a cooling trend. If their data is wrong, then this
cooling trend may not actually be there...
E. S.
----------------------------------
On Apr 23, 7:29 pm, Robert I Ellison <rob...@robertellison.com.au>
wrote:
> The El Nino is persisting - although diminished from the recent peak.http://ioc-goos-oopc.org/state_of_the_ocean/sur/pac/nino3.4.php- We
Besides, the UAH data is flawed (as I've shown in a peer reviewed
report) and John Christy manipulates it to fill in missing data points
over the poles. Is this important? Well, over the Antarctic, the UAH
TLT data has shown a cooling trend. If their data is wrong, then this
cooling trend may not actually be there...
E. S.
----------------------------------
On Apr 23, 7:29 pm, Robert I Ellison <rob...@robertellison.com.au>
wrote:
> The El Nino is persisting - although diminished from the recent peak.http://ioc-goos-oopc.org/state_of_the_ocean/sur/pac/nino3.4.php- We
> have had in recent months a record global sea surface temperature
> anomaly. Global temperature for March is about 0.2 degrees below the
> monthly peak in 1998. Every year is different.
>
> A nicer way to compare UAH data - over days to years is here -http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
> anomaly. Global temperature for March is about 0.2 degrees below the
> monthly peak in 1998. Every year is different.
>
>
> The idea of abrupt climate change on decadal timescales is important
> and hugely relevant.
> The idea of abrupt climate change on decadal timescales is important
> and hugely relevant.
Robert I Ellison
Apr 23, 2010, 11:37:16 PM4/23/10
to globalchange
I quote peer reviewed science - 'here, a new and improved means to
relationship of ENSO dynamics to global temperatures or hydrology?
You obviously have no appreciation of the centrality of ENSO to global
surface temperature variation or to global hydrology. It is much more
central to global temperature variations than the more localised (see
the Lockwood et al study linked to below) north Atlantic variations.
Actually, I am not sure what you are suggesting apart from, via your
'simplified expression', that global surface temperature will increase
between 2000 and 2010 because of increases in carbon dioxide -
something that you continue to confidently assert based on decadal
averages. This decade is warmer than the last - but there was a large
volcanic effect early in the last decade and warming over the decade.
There is no trend to global temperature this decade - either way.
Something that is pretty much accepted as evident - although people
might disagree about the significance. I don't want to overplay the
lack of recent warming - simply to say that it is consistent with the
peer reviewed literature quoted.
To refute the peer reviewed science I quoted you would have to show
that 'a break in the global mean temperature trend' by way of
'synchronized chaos' didn't happen in 2001/2002. You haven't. Nor
have you refuted at all, or shown me a peer reviewed refutation (there
isn't one), these ideas of abrupt (chaotic in the NAS definition)
climate change. Abrupt climate change that happens in the
paleoclimate as well as in the modern record. Abrupt climate change -
climate includes rainfall - on decadal timescales is the point of the
post.
The influence of the 11 year solar cycle on the Artic vortex, as
modulated by the QBO, is well established in the literature over
several decades. Solar intensity peaks in one phase of solar magnetic
reversal in the Hale cycle - although we don't have a sufficient
length of data to be categorical. The UV wavebands are important for
circulation in the atmosphere because of the sprectral adsorption
characteristice of ozone. The influence of the polar votices on
surface Ekmann flows is trivial. But you have to have an opinion on a
minor speculation, that I made clear was 'musing', based apparently on
yout gut feeling (on the face of it, this seems implausible...).
Crooks, S. A., L. J. Gray, 2005: Characterization of the 11-year solar
signal using
a multiple regression analysis of the ERA-40 dataset. J. o. Climate,
18 (7),
996-1015.
Hood, L. L., 2003: Thermal response of the tropical tropopause region
to solar
ultraviolet variations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, No. 23, 2215, doi:
10.1029/2003
GL018364.
Kodera, K., Y. Kuroda, 2002: Dynamical response to the solar cycle. J.
Geophys.
Res., 107, (D24), 4749 doi: 10.1029/2002JD002224.
Labitzke, K., 2005: On the solar cycle - QBO relationship: a summary.
J. Atm.
Sol.-Terr. Phys., 67, 45-54.
Labitzke, K., 2006: Solar variation and stratospheric response,
accepted for publication
in: Solar Variability and Planetary Climates, SSSI 24, L. Gray, J.
Langen,
M. Lockwood, R. M. Bonnet, and Y. Calisesi (eds), Springer; to appear
also as
a special issue of Space Science Reviews.
Bronnimann, S., T. Ewen, T. Griesser, R. Jenne, 2006: Multidecadal
signal of
solar variability in the upper troposphere during the 20th century,
accepted for
publication in: Solar Variability and Planetary Climates, SSSI 24, L.
Gray, J.
Langen, M. Lockwood, R. M. Bonnet, and Y. Calisesi (eds), Springer; to
appear
also as a special issue of Space Science Reviews.
etc. etc.
The influence of the Sun on Earth's climate is of course more complex
and dynamic than simple energy balance models (let alone your
'simplified expressiuon') would suggest. Simple cause and effect does
not apply. See Judith Lean's new study -
'How—indeed whether—the Sun’s variable energy outputs influence
Earth’s climate has engaged scientific curiosity for more than a
century. Early evidence accrued from correlations of assorted solar
and climate indices, and from recognition that cycles near 11, 88 and
205 years are common in both the Sun and climate.1,2 But until
recently, an influence of solar variability on climate, whether
through cycles or trends, was usually dismissed because climate
simulations with (primarily) simple energy balance models indicated
that responses to the decadal solar cycle would be so small as to be
undetectable in observations.3 However,in the past decade modeling
studies have found both resonant responses and positive feedbacks in
the ocean-atmosphere system that may amplify the response
to solar irradiance variations.4,5 Today, solar cycles and trends are
recognized as important components of natural climate variability on
decadal to centennial time scales. Understanding solar-terrestrial
linkages is requisite for the comprehensive understanding of Earth’s
evolving environment. The attribution of present-day climate change,
interpretation of changes prior to the industrial epoch, and forecast
of future decadal climate change necessitate quantitative
understanding of how, when, where, and why natural variability,
including by the Sun, may exceed,obscure or mitigate anthropogenic
changes .
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123222295/PDFSTART
'Resonant responses and positive feedbacks' - characteristics of
chaotic interactions in climate processes.
Localised NH cooling in coming decades as a result of solar modulated
changes in the NAO? Lockwood et a's new study:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/pdf/1748-9326_5_2_024001.pdf
You don't reference any peer reviewed science. You don't bother to
read anything I link to - simply post a response based on your pre-
conceived notions. You even dismiss the IPCC which you say doesn't go
nearly far enough. I quote reputable scientists and all I get back is
no it isn't so based on your gut feeling. It is not a useful
contribution to any reasonable discussion of the scientific issues of
abrupt climate change.
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.'
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson
Yet you are busily denying even such uncontroversial ideas as the
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.'
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson
relationship of ENSO dynamics to global temperatures or hydrology?
You obviously have no appreciation of the centrality of ENSO to global
surface temperature variation or to global hydrology. It is much more
central to global temperature variations than the more localised (see
the Lockwood et al study linked to below) north Atlantic variations.
Actually, I am not sure what you are suggesting apart from, via your
'simplified expression', that global surface temperature will increase
between 2000 and 2010 because of increases in carbon dioxide -
something that you continue to confidently assert based on decadal
averages. This decade is warmer than the last - but there was a large
volcanic effect early in the last decade and warming over the decade.
There is no trend to global temperature this decade - either way.
Something that is pretty much accepted as evident - although people
might disagree about the significance. I don't want to overplay the
lack of recent warming - simply to say that it is consistent with the
peer reviewed literature quoted.
To refute the peer reviewed science I quoted you would have to show
that 'a break in the global mean temperature trend' by way of
'synchronized chaos' didn't happen in 2001/2002. You haven't. Nor
have you refuted at all, or shown me a peer reviewed refutation (there
isn't one), these ideas of abrupt (chaotic in the NAS definition)
climate change. Abrupt climate change that happens in the
paleoclimate as well as in the modern record. Abrupt climate change -
climate includes rainfall - on decadal timescales is the point of the
post.
The influence of the 11 year solar cycle on the Artic vortex, as
modulated by the QBO, is well established in the literature over
several decades. Solar intensity peaks in one phase of solar magnetic
reversal in the Hale cycle - although we don't have a sufficient
length of data to be categorical. The UV wavebands are important for
circulation in the atmosphere because of the sprectral adsorption
characteristice of ozone. The influence of the polar votices on
surface Ekmann flows is trivial. But you have to have an opinion on a
minor speculation, that I made clear was 'musing', based apparently on
yout gut feeling (on the face of it, this seems implausible...).
Crooks, S. A., L. J. Gray, 2005: Characterization of the 11-year solar
signal using
a multiple regression analysis of the ERA-40 dataset. J. o. Climate,
18 (7),
996-1015.
Hood, L. L., 2003: Thermal response of the tropical tropopause region
to solar
ultraviolet variations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, No. 23, 2215, doi:
10.1029/2003
GL018364.
Kodera, K., Y. Kuroda, 2002: Dynamical response to the solar cycle. J.
Geophys.
Res., 107, (D24), 4749 doi: 10.1029/2002JD002224.
Labitzke, K., 2005: On the solar cycle - QBO relationship: a summary.
J. Atm.
Sol.-Terr. Phys., 67, 45-54.
Labitzke, K., 2006: Solar variation and stratospheric response,
accepted for publication
in: Solar Variability and Planetary Climates, SSSI 24, L. Gray, J.
Langen,
M. Lockwood, R. M. Bonnet, and Y. Calisesi (eds), Springer; to appear
also as
a special issue of Space Science Reviews.
Bronnimann, S., T. Ewen, T. Griesser, R. Jenne, 2006: Multidecadal
signal of
solar variability in the upper troposphere during the 20th century,
accepted for
publication in: Solar Variability and Planetary Climates, SSSI 24, L.
Gray, J.
Langen, M. Lockwood, R. M. Bonnet, and Y. Calisesi (eds), Springer; to
appear
also as a special issue of Space Science Reviews.
etc. etc.
The influence of the Sun on Earth's climate is of course more complex
and dynamic than simple energy balance models (let alone your
'simplified expressiuon') would suggest. Simple cause and effect does
not apply. See Judith Lean's new study -
'How—indeed whether—the Sun’s variable energy outputs influence
Earth’s climate has engaged scientific curiosity for more than a
century. Early evidence accrued from correlations of assorted solar
and climate indices, and from recognition that cycles near 11, 88 and
205 years are common in both the Sun and climate.1,2 But until
recently, an influence of solar variability on climate, whether
through cycles or trends, was usually dismissed because climate
simulations with (primarily) simple energy balance models indicated
that responses to the decadal solar cycle would be so small as to be
undetectable in observations.3 However,in the past decade modeling
studies have found both resonant responses and positive feedbacks in
the ocean-atmosphere system that may amplify the response
to solar irradiance variations.4,5 Today, solar cycles and trends are
recognized as important components of natural climate variability on
decadal to centennial time scales. Understanding solar-terrestrial
linkages is requisite for the comprehensive understanding of Earth’s
evolving environment. The attribution of present-day climate change,
interpretation of changes prior to the industrial epoch, and forecast
of future decadal climate change necessitate quantitative
understanding of how, when, where, and why natural variability,
including by the Sun, may exceed,obscure or mitigate anthropogenic
changes .
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123222295/PDFSTART
'Resonant responses and positive feedbacks' - characteristics of
chaotic interactions in climate processes.
Localised NH cooling in coming decades as a result of solar modulated
changes in the NAO? Lockwood et a's new study:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/pdf/1748-9326_5_2_024001.pdf
You don't reference any peer reviewed science. You don't bother to
read anything I link to - simply post a response based on your pre-
conceived notions. You even dismiss the IPCC which you say doesn't go
nearly far enough. I quote reputable scientists and all I get back is
no it isn't so based on your gut feeling. It is not a useful
contribution to any reasonable discussion of the scientific issues of
abrupt climate change.
Robert I Ellison
Apr 24, 2010, 2:45:28 AM4/24/10
to globalchange
Try this one - http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps - and click on
'redraw'
Tom linked to a spreadsheet of UAH data. This is just a nice little
toy for viewing UAH daily averages. Just trying to be helpful - not
making any point. 2010 is tracking higher than any year this century
(go team). Unfortunately 1998 has only partial data. It will be
interesting to see if the unpronouncable Iceland volcano has much
impact.
Proffessor Ole Humlum has good resources - http://www.climate4you.com/
- the first graph (long term HadCRUT3) under 'polar temperature' is
particularly interesting. The site includes UAH, RSS and HadCrut3
data. (I sometimes refer to myself as a hyper-sceptic - I don't take
anything on face value anymore).
Arctic temperature in the 1930's seems to be comparable to recent
temps. This should not be hugely surprising - there are all sorts of
indices with similar periodicities. Many of these are addressed in
Willie Soon's brave but foolhardy attempt at a unified theory of
climate change.
http://www.ileperu.org/pdf/soon_climatechange.pdf
And lest anyone feels tempted to repeat the 'oppositely directed
trends in irradiance and temperature' meme - I suggest they have a
look at Judith Lean's new paper as well.
'redraw'
Tom linked to a spreadsheet of UAH data. This is just a nice little
toy for viewing UAH daily averages. Just trying to be helpful - not
making any point. 2010 is tracking higher than any year this century
(go team). Unfortunately 1998 has only partial data. It will be
interesting to see if the unpronouncable Iceland volcano has much
impact.
Proffessor Ole Humlum has good resources - http://www.climate4you.com/
- the first graph (long term HadCRUT3) under 'polar temperature' is
particularly interesting. The site includes UAH, RSS and HadCrut3
data. (I sometimes refer to myself as a hyper-sceptic - I don't take
anything on face value anymore).
Arctic temperature in the 1930's seems to be comparable to recent
temps. This should not be hugely surprising - there are all sorts of
indices with similar periodicities. Many of these are addressed in
Willie Soon's brave but foolhardy attempt at a unified theory of
climate change.
http://www.ileperu.org/pdf/soon_climatechange.pdf
And lest anyone feels tempted to repeat the 'oppositely directed
trends in irradiance and temperature' meme - I suggest they have a
look at Judith Lean's new paper as well.
David B. Benson
Apr 24, 2010, 3:43:27 PM4/24/10
to globalchange
On Apr 23, 8:37 pm, Robert I Ellison <rob...@robertellison.com.au>
wrote:
> (A great deal and then) You even dismiss the IPCC which you say doesn't go
> nearly far enough.
Wasn't me.
The UV influence on climate was new to me, thank you.
If you have substantive criticisms of my simple climate model, post on
that thread, please.
wrote:
> (A great deal and then) You even dismiss the IPCC which you say doesn't go
> nearly far enough.
Wasn't me.
The UV influence on climate was new to me, thank you.
If you have substantive criticisms of my simple climate model, post on
that thread, please.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages