The journal Nature has published a study from the University of Southampton and the National Oceanographic Centre (NOC) that suggests the the global climate is on the brink of “broad scale change” that could last for a number of decades. This time they are talking of cooling not warming.
The “Hiatus” has been blamed on various factors, most notably the negative PDO in recent years. A recent positive spike, the warm blob and the Elnino that appears to be ramping up was, by some, sold as the begining of the end for this period of doubt about the theory of CAGW. The AMO has only recently been getting sufficient attention, despite clear links to Northern Hemisphere climate.
The University of Southampton describes their study:
The change to the new set of climatic conditions is associated with a cooling of the Atlantic, and is likely to bring drier summers in Britain and Ireland, accelerated sea-level rise along the northeast coast of the United States, and drought in the developing countries of the Sahel region. Since this new climatic phase could be half a degree cooler, it may well offer a brief reprise from the rise of global temperatures, as well as resulting in fewer hurricanes hitting the United States.
The study, published in Nature, proves that ocean circulation is the link between weather and decadal scale climatic change. It is based on observational evidence of the link between ocean circulation and the decadal variability of sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean.
Lead author Dr Gerard McCarthy, from the NOC, said: “Sea-surface temperatures in the Atlantic vary between warm and cold over time-scales of many decades. These variations have been shown to influence temperature, rainfall, drought and even the frequency of hurricanes in many regions of the world. This decadal variability, called the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO), is a notable feature of the Atlantic Ocean and the climate of the regions it influences.”
These climatic phases, referred to as positive or negative AMO’s, are the result of the movement of heat northwards by a system of ocean currents. This movement of heat changes the temperature of the sea surface, which has a profound impact on climate on timescales of 20-30 years. The strength of these currents is determined by the same atmospheric conditions that control the position of the jet stream. Negative AMO’s occur when the currents are weaker and so less heat is carried northwards towards Europe from the tropics.
The strength of ocean currents has been measured by a network of sensors, called the RAPID array, which have been collecting data on the flow rate of the Atlantic meridonal overturning circulation (AMOC) for a decade.
Dr David Smeed, from the NOC and lead scientist of the RAPID project, adds: “The observations of AMOC from the RAPID array, over the past ten years, show that it is declining. As a result, we expect the AMO is moving to a negative phase, which will result in cooler surface waters. This is consistent with observations of temperature in the North Atlantic.”
Since the RAPID array has only been collecting data for last ten years, a longer data set was needed to prove the link between ocean circulation and slow climate variations. Therefore this study instead used 100 years of sea level data, maintained by the National Oceanography Centre’s permanent service for mean sea level. Models of ocean currents based on this data were used to predict how much heat would be transported around the ocean, and the impact this would have on the sea surface temperature in key locations.
Co-author Dr Ivan Haigh, lecturer in coastal oceanography at the University of Southampton, said: “By reconstructing ocean circulation over the last 100 years from tide gauges that measure sea level at the coast, we have been able to show, for the first time, observational evidence of the link between ocean circulation and the AMO.”
The link between AMO & Global temperatures
The Talkshop has discussed the factors surrounding the AMO on numerous occasions including:
NAO forces AMOC/AMO on a 60yr cycle
Much alarmist ado about AMOC and the subpolar gyre collapsing
There is also this paper Simulated lagged response of the NAO to the solar cycle over the period 1960-2009 that looks for evidence for amplification of top down solar related NAO changes via ocean feedback.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
I predict an increasing trend in research that trys to explain the pause by temporary natural causes. What I don’t understand is why the effect of the AMO is news. Has it not been fed into model predictions for the past many years?
Talk about the bleedingly obvious! Did they just take that off a sceptic blog and call it their own?
And I bet it takes them a very long time to realise that the reason the room is cold is because someone opened the door.
Sounds very intriguing.
I hope we continue to gather RAPID data for another 20 to 50 to 80 years.
Direct observations over 30 or 60 years (enough for a full cycle or even two) would be better than relying on models.
Models are ok – it is just that direct observations are better.
I hope we are gathering RAPID type data for all oceans, and not just the atlantic.
El Niño will not last long.
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/to:1850
Ren
The SOI has turned positive (17.6)
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/30daysoivalues/
Roger, could it be that Climate Scientists are looking for a Fall Back position for when the pause stops and it gets colder instead of warmer?
@AC Osborn
Exactly
And yet these facts met a hostile reception at a Vienna conference last month, according to Dr. McCarthy
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/evidence-is-mounting-oceans-make-climate/
Thank you, Andrew.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/index.php
The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) is one measure of the large-scale fluctuations in air pressure occurring between the western and eastern tropical Pacific (i.e., the state of the Southern Oscillation) during El Niño and La Niña episodes. Traditionally, this index has been calculated based on the differences in air pressure anomaly between Tahiti and Darwin, Australia. In general, smoothed time series of the SOI correspond very well with changes in ocean temperatures across the eastern tropical Pacific. The negative phase of the SOI represents below-normal air pressure at Tahiti and above-normal air pressure at Darwin. Prolonged periods of negative SOI values coincide with abnormally warm ocean waters across the eastern tropical Pacific typical of El Niño episodes. Prolonged periods of positive SOI values coincide with abnormally cold ocean waters across the eastern tropical Pacific typical of La Niña episodes.
Hmmm… well, based on historical precedent, it looks like there ought to be another 15-20 years of positive AMO:
http://sealevel.info/Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg
Daveburton
Unfortunately, probably not.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:2010/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:2010
This is empirical evidence from the RAPID Project:
Granted it is 10 years out of a centennial+ cycle, which is why they supplemented with tide guage data.
Daveburton
Unfortunately, probably not.
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:2008/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:2008
Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog.
Since I want to keep getting notices from this thread:
I agree with A C Osborn says:
May 28, 2015 at 4:56 pm
According to MetO in 2014 it is the next generation of GCMs that can handle the AMO (pg. 19 onwards)-
Click to access HCTN_91.pdf
Seems to be some confusion. From the above post-
From 2013 when much was made of the AMO following wet summers etc
So which is it? Top down forcing or vice versa?
🙂
If the AMO (in part) affects hurricanes – what drives the AMO?
Models of the ocean and atmosphere that interact with each other indicate that the AMO cycle involves changes in the south-to-north circulation and overturning of water and heat in the Atlantic Ocean. This is the same circulation that we think weakens during ice ages, but in the case of the AMO the changes in circulation are much more subtle than those of the ice ages. The warm Gulf Stream current off the east coast of the United States is part of the Atlantic overturning circulation. When the overturning circulation decreases, the North Atlantic temperatures become cooler.
Can we predict the AMO?
We are not yet capable of predicting exactly when the AMO will switch, in any deterministic sense. Computer models, such as those that predict El Niño, are far from being able to do this. What is possible to do at present is to calculate the probability that a change in the AMO will occur within a given future time frame. Probabilistic projections of this kind may prove to be very useful for long-term planning in climate sensitive applications, such as water management.
Is the AMO a natural phenomenon, or is it related to global warming?
Instruments have observed AMO cycles only for the last 150 years, not long enough to conclusively answer this question. However, studies of paleoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium. This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation. In the 20th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php
You have to watch the temperature in the North Atlantic and the direction of the Gulf Stream.
ren: When the overturning circulation decreases, the North Atlantic temperatures become cooler.
Are you sure it is not the cooling temperature that decreases the overturning circulation?
Tallbloke circulation during the winter was favorable for the Atlantic and Europe, but since 2010 AMO index falls sharply.
Researchers now think the North Atlantic Oscillation, the atmospheric pattern that controls the jet stream, determines when this ocean temperature flip takes place.
“The North Atlantic Oscillation is really driving these changes in ocean circulation,” said Gerald McCarthy, lead study author and an oceanographer at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom.
In the past 90 years, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation has undergone three major transitions: warming in the 1930s and mid-1990s and cooling in the 1960s. Those shifts can be attributed to the North Atlantic Oscillation, which switched phases just before the AMO did, the study reported.
http://www.livescience.com/50998-jet-stream-controls-atlantic-climate-cycles.html
‘Since this new climatic phase could be half a degree cooler, it may well offer a brief reprise from the rise of global temperatures, as well as resulting in fewer hurricanes hitting the United States.’
The ‘global rise’ fizzled out nearly 20 years ago and hurricanes hitting the US are already at a very low level historically, so what will be new?
In my opinion, AMO and meridional jetstream will cooperate early as this year. We must remember that since February 2015 the sun was active. This is changing. The temperature of the Atlantic may already very quickly fall in October.
Let’s see an increase in the galactic radiation.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=09&startyear=2014&starttime=00%3A00&endday=27&endmonth=05&endyear=2015&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Andrew monsoon arrives already to India.
HOW THE CLIMATE MAY CHANGE
Below I list my low average solar parameters criteria which I think will result in secondary effects being exerted upon the climatic system.
My biggest hurdle I think is not if these low average solar parameters would exert an influence upon the climate but rather will they be reached and if reached for how long a period of time?
I think each of the items I list , both primary and secondary effects due to solar variability if reached are more then enough to bring the global temperatures down by at least .5c in the coming years.
Even a .15 % decrease from just solar irradiance alone is going to bring the average global temperature down by .2c or so all other things being equal. That is 40% of the .5c drop I think can be attained. Never mind the contribution from everything else that is mentioned.
What I am going to do is look into research on sun like stars to try to get some sort of a gage as to how much possible variation might be inherent with the total solar irradiance of the sun. That said we know EUV light varies by much greater amounts, and within the spectrum of total solar irradiance some of it is in anti phase which mask total variability within the spectrum. It makes the total irradiance variation seem less then it is.
I also think the .1% variation that is so acceptable for TSI is on flimsy ground in that measurements for this item are not consistent and the history of measuring this item with instrumentation is just to short to draw these conclusions not to mention I know some sun like stars (which I am going to look into more) have much greater variability of .1%.
I think Milankovich Cycles, the Initial State of the Climate or Mean State of the Climate , State of Earth’s Magnetic Field set the background for long run climate change and how effective given solar variability will be when it changes when combined with those items. Nevertheless I think solar variability within itself will always be able to exert some kind of an influence on the climate regardless if , and that is my hurdle IF the solar variability is great enough in magnitude and duration of time. Sometimes solar variability acting in concert with factors setting the long term climatic trend while at other times acting in opposition.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
If , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
Secondary Effects With Prolonged Minimum Solar Activity. A Brief Overview.
A Greater Meridional Atmospheric Circulation- due to less UV Light Lower Ozone in Lower Stratosphere.
Increase In Low Clouds- due to an increase in Galactic Cosmic Rays.
Greater Snow-Ice Cover- associated with a Meridional Atmospheric Circulation/an Increase In Clouds.
Greater Snow-Ice Cover probably resulting over time to a more Zonal Atmospheric Circulation. This Circulation increasing
the Aridity over the Ice Sheets eventually. Dust probably increasing into the atmosphere over time.
Increase in Volcanic Activity – Since 1600 AD, data shows 85 % approximately of all major Volcanic eruptions have been associated with Prolonged Solar Minimum Conditions. Data from the Space and Science Center headed by Dr. Casey.
Volcanic Activity -acting as a cooling agent for the climate,(SO2) and enhancing Aerosols possibly aiding in greater Cloud formation.
Decrease In Ocean Heat Content/Sea Surface Temperature -due to a decline in Visible Light and Near UV light.
This in turn should diminish the Greenhouse Gas Effect over time, while promoting a slow drying out of the atmosphere over time. This may be part of the reason why Aridity is very common with glacial periods.
In addition sea surface temperature distribution changes should come about ,which probably results in different oceanic current patterns.
The constant mistake in this field is trying to link a one cause and effect to the climate and thus a climatic outcome. It does not work that way . The climate is very complex and has to be looked at from all perspectives to see what may or may not occur with the climate.
This is the approach I have taken trying to tie all of the items that may effect the climate to one another in a process that when they phase, if the phase and degree of magnitude change and duration of time is sufficient enough the climate will gradually change until brought to a threshold at which point in time the climate will change abruptly due to a cascade effect of all these items that exert an influence on the climate phasing .
I also try to show the regulators of the climate on a very large scale those being Milankovich Cycles, the Initial State of the Climate or Mean State of the Climate , State of Earth’s Magnetic Field which set the background for long run climate change and how effective given solar variability will be when it changes when combined with those items, and the secondary effects associated with this solar variability which give the phasing I am talking about in the above paragraph. Nevertheless I think solar variability within itself will always be able to exert some kind of an influence on the climate, but how much will depend on the solar variability itself and where the regulators of the climate are at in the very large scale picture.
The approach often taken and this article is no exception is to simplistic in that it(they are ) is looking for a one cause /effect thus climate outcome as if all of what they mention is somehow in isolation and it does NOT work that way.
This is why I do not take these kind of articles seriously because they offer but one piece of the larger climate puzzle.
My approach is comprehensive and I would like to send part one again.
Rog, I hope you let it on now that it has been edited in full as part two was which I just sent in my previous post.
Here is what I have concluded. My explanation as to how the climate may change conforms to the historical climatic data record which has led me to this type of an explanation. It does not try to make the historical climatic record conform to my explanation. It is in two parts.
PART ONE
HOW THE CLIMATE MAY CHANGE
Below are my thoughts about how the climatic system may work. It starts with interesting observations made by Don Easterbrook. I then reply and ask some intriguing questions at the end which I hope might generate some feedback responses. I then conclude with my own thoughts to the questions I pose.
From Don Easterbrook – Aside from the statistical analyses, there are very serious problems with the Milankovitch theory. For example, (1) as John Mercer pointed out decades ago, the synchronicity of glaciations in both hemispheres is ‘’a fly in the Malankovitch soup,’ (2) glaciations typically end very abruptly, not slowly, (3) the Dansgaard-Oeschger events are so abrupt that they could not possibility be caused by Milankovitch changes (this is why the YD is so significant), and (4) since the magnitude of the Younger Dryas changes were from full non-glacial to full glacial temperatures for 1000+ years and back to full non-glacial temperatures (20+ degrees in a century), it is clear that something other than Milankovitch cycles can cause full Pleistocene glaciations. Until we more clearly understand abrupt climate changes that are simultaneous in both hemispheres we will not understand the cause of glaciations and climate changes.
. My explanation:
I agree that the data does give rise to the questions/thoughts Don Easterbrook, presents in the above. That data in turn leads me to believe along with the questions I pose at the end of this article, that a climatic variable force which changes often which is superimposed upon the climate trend has to be at play in the changing climatic scheme of things. The most likely candidate for that climatic variable force that comes to mind is solar variability (because I can think of no other force that can change or reverse in a different trend often enough, and quick enough to account for the historical climatic record) and the primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability which I feel are a significant player in glacial/inter-glacial cycles, counter climatic trends when taken into consideration with these factors which are , land/ocean arrangements , mean land elevation ,mean magnetic field strength of the earth(magnetic excursions), the mean state of the climate (average global temperature gradient equator to pole), the initial state of the earth’s climate(how close to interglacial-glacial threshold condition it is/ average global temperature) the state of random terrestrial(violent volcanic eruption, or a random atmospheric circulation/oceanic pattern that feeds upon itself possibly) /extra terrestrial events (super-nova in vicinity of earth or a random impact) along with Milankovitch Cycles.
What I think happens is land /ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean magnetic field strength of the earth, the mean state of the climate, the initial state of the climate, and Milankovitch Cycles, keep the climate of the earth moving in a general trend toward either cooling or warming on a very loose cyclic or semi cyclic beat but get consistently interrupted by solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability, and on occasion from random terrestrial/extra terrestrial events, which brings about at times counter trends in the climate of the earth within the overall trend. While at other times when the factors I have mentioned setting the gradual background for the climate trend for either cooling or warming, those being land/ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean state of the climate, initial state of the climate, Milankovitch Cycles , then drive the climate of the earth gradually into a cooler/warmer trend(unless interrupted by a random terrestrial or extra terrestrial event in which case it would drive the climate to a different state much more rapidly even if the climate initially was far from the glacial /inter-glacial threshold, or whatever general trend it may have been in ) UNTIL it is near that inter- glacial/glacial threshold or climate intersection at which time allows any solar variability and the associated secondary effects no matter how SLIGHT at that point to be enough to not only promote a counter trend to the climate, but cascade the climate into an abrupt climatic change. The back ground for the abrupt climatic change being in the making all along until the threshold glacial/inter-glacial intersection for the climate is reached ,which then gives rise to the abrupt climatic changes that occur and possibly feed upon themselves while the climate is around that glacial/inter-glacial threshold resulting in dramatic semi cyclic constant swings in the climate from glacial to inter-glacial while factors allow such an occurrence to take place.
The climatic back ground factors (those factors being previously mentioned) driving the climate gradually toward or away from the climate intersection or threshold of glacial versus interglacial, however when the climate is at the intersection the climate gets wild and abrupt, while once away from that intersection the climate is more stable. Although random terrestrial events and extra terrestrial events could be involved some times to account for some of the dramatic swings in the climatic history of the earth( perhaps to the tune of 10% ) at any time , while solar variability and the associated secondary effects are superimposed upon the otherwise gradual climatic trend, resulting in counter climatic trends, no matter where the initial state of the climate is although the further from the glacial/inter-glacial threshold the climate is the less dramatic the overall climatic change should be, all other items being equal.
The climate is chaotic, random, and non linear, but in addition it is never in the same mean state or initial state which gives rise to given forcing to the climatic system always resulting in a different climatic out-come although the semi cyclic nature of the climate can still be derived to a degree amongst all the noise and counter trends within the main trend.
QUESTIONS:
Why is it when ever the climate changes the climate does not stray indefinitely from it’s mean in either a positive or negative direction? Why or rather what ALWAYS brings the climate back toward it’s mean value ? Why does the climate never go in the same direction once it heads in that direction?
Along those lines ,why is it that when the ice sheets expand the higher albedo /lower temperature more ice expansion positive feedback cycle does not keep going on once it is set into motion? What causes it not only to stop but reverse?
Vice Versa why is it when the Paleocene – Eocene Thermal Maximum once set into motion, that being an increase in CO2/higher temperature positive feedback cycle did not feed upon itself? Again it did not only stop but reversed?
My conclusion is the climate system is always in a general gradual trend toward a warmer or cooler climate in a semi cyclic fashion which at times brings the climate system toward thresholds which make it subject to dramatic change with the slightest change of force superimposed upon the general trend and applied to it. While at other times the climate is subject to randomness being brought about from terrestrial /extra terrestrial events which can set up a rapid counter trend within the general slow moving climatic trend.
.
Despite this ,if enough time goes by (much time) the same factors that drive the climate toward a general gradual warming trend or cooling trend will prevail bringing the climate away from glacial/inter-glacial threshold conditions it had once brought the climate toward ending abrupt climatic change periods eventually, or reversing over time dramatic climate changes from randomness.
NOTE 1- Thermohaline Circulation Changes are more likely in my opinion when the climate is near the glacial/ inter-glacial threshold probably due to greater sources of fresh water input into the North Atlantic.
I said:
Hmmm… well, based on historical precedent, it looks like there ought to be another 15-20 years of positive AMO:
http://sealevel.info/Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg
ren replied, Daveburton
Unfortunately, probably not.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:2010/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:2010
and:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:2008/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:2008
You might be right, ren, but…
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1980
Daveburton;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1980/to:2010/trend:1980/plot/esrl-amo/from:2010/trend:2010/plot/esrl-amo/from:1980
One spot on the sun.
Region Number of
sunspots Class
Magn. Class
Spot
2356 1 α HAX
“These climatic phases, referred to as positive or negative AMO’s, are the result of the movement of heat northwards by a system of ocean currents. […] The strength of these currents is determined by the same atmospheric conditions that control the position of the jet stream.”
They understand that wind is the primary driver of ocean currents.
Un-f**king-believable (!!!!!!) that someone actually gets this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe there is hope……….
“From Don Easterbrook – […] there are very serious problems with the Milankovitch theory. For example […] the synchronicity of glaciations in both hemispheres is ‘’a fly in the Malankovitch soup,’”
That’s a serious misconception.
It’s tropical monsoons that alternate across the equator, not polar glaciations.
@daveburton says:
May 29, 2015 at 12:43 am: Working peak to trough especially Dave, can’t see your point. Back to the subject: when the Icoads wind data was applied, here I think some while ago, it demonstrated that vital lever effect noted again recently re ocean currents. Another ‘aha’ moment of how forces interact in real physics and real life. Anyone can see it by blowing on a cup of tea. The same goes for the power of the gas laws in the Solar System, where applicable pressures exist. Also the quiet work of high frequency sunlight above us, etcetera etc. no doubt. Science can be thankful for the Talkshop and similar, true old-fashioned moots or parliaments with all their rambunctiousness. Brett
@Paul Vaughan says:
May 29, 2015 at 7:39 am: I rise joyfully to second that motion Paul…….Brett
Paul Vaughan says: May 29, 2015 at 7:39 am
“They understand that wind is the primary driver of ocean currents.
Un-f**king-believable (!!!!!!) that someone actually gets this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe there is hope……….”
Saw the same misconception on this very site:
““Ocean Currents are horizontally driven by tropical/ polar temperatures.”
Ocean SURFACE currents are wind driven.”
Surprises me every day what nonsense is going around about basic meteorology.
It isn’t a “hiatus” or a pause. It is a halt until it moves again (and then it is most likely to be a reversal to cooling). Do not let the loons control the language.
BTW, tide forces cause as much currents and overturning as wind. Do not forget the sun and moon…
When Europe gets cold, Florida warms as the current cycles. Also cites a paper showing stability when warm but instability greater during glacial periods:
also note that the southern ocean has a cylical bulge the cycles arround Antartica with a harmonic of the lunar cycle.
It is simply impossible to ignore lunar tidal cycling and get right answers.
http://m.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full
Yes, on the 178 to 206 year scale solar changes things as our current grand minimum is starting to show, but on 9, 18, and 54 to 60 year scales, the moon and tides mix the oceans, then on 1200 to 1500 year scales, more extream lunar motions cause larger excursions.
Hi everyone
I came a bit late here.
Thanks Roger and Andrew for mentioning my paper, I’ve just posted following on WUWT:
McCarthy et al. (2015) as far as I understand, failed to analyse the total lack of AMO-NAO correlation before 1920; that failure casts shadow over their conclusions.
I did similar analysis about 4 years ago than discussed results with Dr. Judith Curry
She responded:
Curry, Judith A Sep 7, 2011
to vukcevic
“hi, looks good! my main suggestion is to go back prior to 1920; 1850 if possible (the data in north atlantic should be good enough). when you publish this let me know so i can highlight it at climate etc. Judy”
I did follow Dr. Curry’s advice the result is here with full analysis of the total lack of AMO-NAO correlation before 1920
Click to access AMO-NAO-relationship.pdf
Paper was published here:
Click to access NorthAtlanticOscillations-I.pdf
The hal.archives subsequently redesigned their web-archives and I was informed that a non-standard PDF file format is used, I am required to resubmit the paper in the up to date format, for the paper to be made available on line again by Le C.I.N.E.S. (Centre Informatique National de l’Enseignement Supérieur).
Will do sometime in future, but in view of number of other stuff related to the AMO and NAO I came across during the last 4 years might rewrite whole article, and that is time and patience consuming process.
Southampton University is always welcome to visit my web page again at any time.
.
E.M Smith this is similar to my approach which I submitted over this site yesterday.
This is how climate science needs to be approached in my opinion. Excellent article.
I would advise those still naively believing NAO = AMO (as if!!!) to take vukcevic’s lesson on Reykjavik July-August pressure.
E.M.Smith (May 29, 2015 at 1:31 pm) wrote:
“tide forces cause as much currents and overturning as wind. Do not forget the sun and moon…”
Sun:
Insolation gradients drive wind and their shape determines ice margin erosion and hence THC location.
moon:
It’s much easier to aggregate sensibly across lunar components since lunar cycles are stationary. Oldschool conventional spectral analysis methods (like standard Fourier) can’t deal with solar cyclic volatility.
The lunar timing framework is like a set of strings. The sun strums like a writhing snake. It’s the mere intersection of lines. The lunar lines are straight. The solar lines snake.
Avoiding misunderstandings/misinterpretations:
It’s not suggested that moon plays no role. Rather it’s putting focus first (sequence matters) on the weakest lukewarmist conceptual link (operating efficiently on the Pareto Principle). Until people see the writhing solar snake, they’ll always misinterpret the strummed lunar instrument.
Blindfolded they are…..
…..and in the case of lukewarmists, voluntarily so …chained up in a sick CO2 role-play fantasy.
There’s a reason their policing agents go to extremes to make sure methods more generalized than standard Fourier (…which is comically only a single, special-case setting of an infinitely adjustable perceptual instrument…) are not admitted to discussion at blogs located more centrally in the network of The Aggressively Domineering Church of Malicious Western Lukewarmist Deception.
The architects of Lukewarmism designed it with a particular POLITICAL MIDPOINT in mind. They set up 2 false poles with 1 desired midpoint and then engineered a fantasy based on political desires.
1 poles is based on false assumptions about nature and the other on false assumptions about CO2. Interpolating between polar wrong & polar wrong gives coldly calculated lukwarmist political right. It’s a democratic strategy.
The deception is artificially defended by aggressively excluding microscopes that reveal it.
The solution to the climate problem is to engineer alliances on another axis. Look east.
The west’s weakness is straight lines. The snaking lines of the topologically superior east are going to play the west like a passive instrument if the west doesn’t smarten up.
Just remember that topologically everything is straight, so the geometry is simple ….We’re in the realm of mathematical PROOF, not conjecture.
Math education systems in the west: the weak link that broke……..
…..and hence the revival of western religion (…..where else to turn in democratically-blindfolded political prayer……?)
– _global_wind_insolation_integral_
– _regional_multidecadal_wind_shape_ (it can’t be anything else – see topological proof) (The regional heat flux fire-hose snakes systematically in time & space. Duh! It’s hilarious that some people still can’t see this!!)
– _topological_proof_ (want to suggest violation of geometric axioms & laws (of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum)?? ….go ahead and volunteer to look oh-so-sensible!)
– _convenient_western_blindfold_comically_elevated_to_religious_pedestal!_ (it’s funny watching naive discussion hinge on it)
BTW vukcevic’s icelandic pressure lesson can be found more generally in integrals of global wind field components. Look and SEE…
Cheers!
clarification: vukcevic’s summer icelandic pressure lesson (hint, hint, hint … watch the shape of that ice margin change…. and oh, look at how the location of the THC moves with it… who would have thought?…. duh!)
…and enthusiastically in case some shy beginners, looking to shed their shameful naivety, are quietly lurking, awaiting invitation to join the jaded ranks of seasoned experience:
Did you know that pressure & wind are related??? (ooooh!!!…… who would have thought!??…)
illustrations: pages 8 to 11 – (including links to multivariate animations on p.11)
Grad Student Tip:
97% of scientists know not to admit they know this on grant applications. Land the money and use it to do real research. At the last minute write a computer program forecasting CO2 = death. It doesn’t have to be a good program. It just has to convey the right message.
Paul Vaughan:
Did you know that pressure & wind are related??? (ooooh!!!…… who would have thought!??…)
Andrew:
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/30daysoivalues/
It may be noted that high solar activity does not cause waves in the stratosphere. I do not understand those people who believe that strong waves in the stratosphere created on the ground.
agree ren, hehe… but they think it’s the stratosphere, so let them think that as it motivates them to keep exploring until they discover otherwise:
there i ask a question (let’s clean up NAO-AMO confusion….)
let’s blow the lid off “internal chaos” BS with some heavy explosives (i.e. ENSO variance — see lower in that thread)
geometric axioms violated jc?
yeah …ok!
what’s that you also suggest jc?
laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum violated?
sure! why not?
core angular momentum anyone?….
Paul Vaughan
Cycle of 60 years is not directly depends on solar activity, but the cycle of the polar vortex and is consistent with it.
Abstract.
In this work we continue studying possible reasons for the temporal variability of longterm
effects of solar activity (SA) and galactic cosmic ray (GCR) variations on the lower
atmosphere circulation. It was revealed that the detected earlier ~60-year oscillations of the
amplitude and sign of SA/GCR effects on the troposphere pressure at high and middle latitudes are
closely related to the state of a cyclonic vortex forming in the polar stratosphere. A roughly 60-
year periodicity was found in the vortex strength affecting the evolution of the large-scale
atmospheric circulation and the character of SA/GCR effects. It was shown that the sign reversals
of the correlations between tropospheric pressure and SA/GCR variations coincide well with the
transitions between the different states of the vortex. Most pronounced SA/GCR influence on the
development of extratropical baric systems is observed when the vortex is strong. The results
obtained suggest that the evolution of the stratospheric polar vortex plays an important part in the
mechanism of solar-atmospheric links.
Click to access Veretenenko_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf
There is a relative harmony between the AMO and the summer CET before
1950, this may be true relationship or result of the SST data corrections.
After 1950 the AMO lags the summer CET between 9 and 12 years,
eventually dropping to about 3 years around 1980s and since remained there.
The summer CET follows closely, with no delay the Reykjavik pressure
during the cooling periods, before 1900 and again 1940 –-1960, in a way
reminiscent of the winter’s CET – RPA relationship. This may suggests that cooling
CET summer phase is consequence of the Icelandic Low not moving enough far
north for the CET to break away from the winter’s direct teleconnection.
During the summer’s warming phases (1910-1940 and post 1980) the
Icelandic Low moves further north, following the Arctic ice retreat, the winter’s
direct atmospheric teleconnection breaks down and is replaced by the indirect
teleconnection, with some delay between the CET and the Reykjavic pressure.
The warming periods the delay indicates that the ensuing summer
teleconnection falls back onto the ocean currents induction.
it appears that cooling / warming phase onset is predetermined by some
independent factor. Although the CET does not resolve the AMO–RPA delay
dilema, it does reveal a new and important relationships.
Click to access AMO-NAO-relationship.pdf
“The warming periods the delay indicates that the ensuing summer
teleconnection falls back onto the ocean currents induction.
it appears that cooling / warming phase onset is predetermined by some
independent factor.”
Can see this after the sudden change in the AMO in 2010.
“Thus, the data in Fig.2 suggest a ~60-year periodicity in SA/GCR effects on tropospheric pressure, as
well as in the vortex development, the transitions between its different states occurring in the 1950s, 1980s
and apparently near the 2010s. These transitions coincide with those between cold and warm epochs in the
Arctic detected in surface temperatures [Gudkovich et al., 2009]. As Fig.2 shows, the sign reversals of
SA/GCR effects coincide well with the transitions between the different states of the vortex. When the vortex
is strong (~1980-2010) meridional processes in the troposphere intensify and GCR increase is accompanied
by an enhancement both of cyclonic activity at middle latitudes and anticyclone formation at polar ones.
When the vortex is weak (~1950-1980) the meridional circulation weakens and GCR effects change the sign.
Thus, the ~60-year variation of the amplitude and sign of SA/GCR effects on troposphere pressure seem to
be closely related to the vortex state and the corresponding changes in the evolution of the large-scale
atmospheric circulation. ”
Click to access Veretenenko_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf
I think they nicked it from me:
“Before it is safe to attribute a global warming or a global cooling effect to any other factor (CO2 in particular) it is necessary to disentangle the simultaneous overlapping positive and negative effects of solar variation, PDO/ENSO and the other oceanic cycles. Sometimes they work in unison, sometimes they work against each other and until a formula has been developed to work in a majority of situations all our guesses about climate change must come to nought.”
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-real-link-between-solar-energy-ocean-cycles-and-global-temperature/
May 21st 2008
Circulation during the winter was favorable for the Atlantic and Europe, but since 2010 AMO index falls sharply.
Stephen Wilde
In my opinion El Niño directly responds to solar activity.
It was revealed that the detected earlier ~60-year oscillations of the
amplitude and sign of SA/GCR effects on the troposphere pressure at high and middle latitudes are
closely related to the state of a cyclonic vortex forming in the polar stratosphere
Ren , data has shown the state of the cyclonic vortex is related to prolonged periods of solar maximum(strong vortex) and solar minimum (weak vortex).
This in turn sheds a different light on the situation in contrast to what this article contends my opinion.
Salvatore Del Prete
It looks like a very regular cycle. The question of how to link it with the solar cycles.
Here you can see the solar activity.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/#loadings
That is why El Niño will soon weaken.
Salvatore Del Prete
NAO is directly dependent on solar activity by waves in the stratosphere, which cause changes in pressure over the polar circle.
These are anomalies in pressure in the last winter.
ren: Leroux agrees with you about the AO and NAO preceding changes in the temperate zones. But I think now that solar cycle 24 has started declining steeply, we will see El Nino strengthen, not weaken.
Look at the way El nino has strengthened in the past after the peak of the solar cycle:
When solar energy going into the ocean decreases, the ocean has the chance to release energy. The biggest El Ninos happen soon after solar minimum. Smaller El Nino’s occur after the solar cycle starts to fall from the peak of the cycle. This is happening now.
Also, the Moon’s line of Apse is coming into alignment between the Earth and Sun soon. That also signals El nino, as Ian Wilson has predicted.
ren (May 30, 2015 at 8:31 pm) suggested:
“Cycle of 60 years is not directly depends on solar activity, but the cycle of the polar vortex and is consistent with it.”
The nonstationary “60 year cycle” (makes me cringe to call it that since it’s misleading) is caused by solar cycle deceleration (solar cycle frequency shift).
If you don’t accept the proof, then we have fatally intractable philosophical differences and the only sensible avenue available is for us to agree to fundamentally disagree harmoniously.
In other words, I see someone trying to tell me that 2+2=5 and I smile at them and stop arguing with them forever.
[ :
ren says “The question of how to link it [ENSO] with the solar cycles.”
Done. Did that during the winter, based on the knowledge of what threshold of solar activity causes warming/cooling. That amount of solar activity is based on F10.7cm flux of ~120 sfu.
It was going to be a surprise for all of you with the opening of my website. Plenty of surprises in store for all….
The good news is that the Sun is quieting down sooner than the SWPC had forecasted earlier this year. May is coming in at 120.1 sfu/day average. June is forecasted by the USAF as of today to average 105 sfu/day. This means the Earth is headed for SST cooling as of this summer. Many northern climes have already felt the effect of lower solar activity this year. The only thing I haven’t completely figured out is how long it takes SSTs to cool under 120 sfu, so I’ve been monitoring it.
I started this line of research a year ago April, realized how it worked in last May, calculated the 120 mark, then made the connection to ENSO, and since then have been monitoring it, waiting patiently to reveal all of this when the conditions were upon us, as they are now.
The global climate is on the verge of changing, and the warmists have no idea of what’s coming…
So ren, I agree with you that this El Nino is going to fizzle out sooner than later, barring a major solar uptick, which doesn’t appear likely under present and near future solar conditions. Hope we’re right!
**************************************************************************
I should inform you all that I was the victim of a cyber attack on Earth day, April 22. Someone infiltrated my computer and literally deleted information off of my website under construction. All of my science data/images, other info, and many science pdfs were encrypted, and a message was placed in each directory that was encrypted telling me where to go to pay to unlock my data.
The computer stopped working that day. I got another one, and was able to copy a lot off of the tampered drive, until it stopped reading data altogether. So at this point I’m six weeks behind….
Unfortunately other projects around our property here that were previously scheduled have taken much of my time since our snow melted, and as such I am hoping to be up and running in June.
“When solar energy going into the ocean decreases, the ocean has the chance to release energy. The biggest El Ninos happen soon after solar minimum. Smaller El Nino’s occur after the solar cycle starts to fall from the peak of the cycle. This is happening now.”
This I also found and agree with Tallbloke, but the important thing is how much solar energy was deposited.
Bob, F10.7 doesn’t go back far enough to diagnose the 2nd & 3rd order effects omitted with that 1st order approach. You’ll need a proxy! I can recommend — get this (!) — sunspot numbers!!
Of course Paul, SSNs, as if I didn’t know… 😉
F10.7cm radio flux goes back to 1947, and is a very precise measurement.
My original analysis indicated an F10.7cm range of 119-125 sfu/day. Other information indicates a closer range of 120-122 sfu/day for the threshold of warming/cooling. It matters as cumulative effects derived from these values result in overall cooling to start either this year or as late as the end of 2017. I think we’re already cooling.
Considering the political situation this year, I want to nail it.
Any value of F10.7cm flux can derive from a range of SSNs, so I think using the best SSNs pre-1947 is the way to go. I’ll be going back to the Maunder Minimum with SSNs to explain temps wrt solar activity.
I’ve been waiting patiently for Svalgaard to finish his new SSNs to back tune my model, as precision in monthly numbers is necessary. SIDC is supposedly too high for a recent period and too low for a past period. He changed the publishing date several times already, and I’ve just had to be patient, and the last date he gave for that was August. In fact I’d rather not say much of anything until then, but the Sun is beating us to the punch.
Winds are definitely important and solar driven as you say, but overall, Earth’s temperature is driven by the available solar energy input, which clearly varies as you certainly know. It would help me to have the copy of “Wind Driven Climate” that I thought I’d have by now. I was going to read that first before getting into your suggested reading, ie, Rial, etal.
Of course SST data are dominated by tropical temps, and the implication of my work is that at higher latitudes the warm/cold threshold in F10.7cm is actually a higher value than 120 sfu. As you say, ‘insolation gradients’. Much evidence is already available that shows cooling is underway at higher latitudes.
F10.7cm has averaged only 98.7 sfu/day since Jan 1, 2004. That is the cause of the ‘pause’.
Bob Weber (May 31, 2015 at 2:52 am) suggested:
“Winds are definitely important and solar driven as you say, but overall, Earth’s temperature is driven by the available solar energy input […]”
No “but”.
They’re both driven by one-and-the-same thing. (Remember Joe Fletcher?)
PC1 is the accumulated energy input, but so long as people don’t think in anomalies they know more goes to the equator than the poles …so there’s an equator-pole gradient associated with PC1 (the accumulated energy input). (Again: Remember Joe Fletcher?)
Then there are 2 scrambling factors.
One is ENSO variance.
The other is solar cycle frequency shift.
I hammer those 2 items a lot because people don’t understand them, not because they’re higher amplitude than the sunspot integral …because they most certainly are NOT.
Hopefully it starts to make sense if I put it that way.
SCD has nailed shut the coffin of mainstream ignorance &/or deception about the multidecadal wave.
Over on OB’s jupiter-venus-mercury “why phi?” thread I’ve dropped the other multidecadal-centennial bomb that Bill Illis raised as an issue quite a long while ago. Have a look.
I’ve already determined that the only way the mainstream can attempt to evade this one is with circular reasoning. They can argue that it comes from infilling the Southern Ocean, but of course any such infilling HAS AN ORIGIN NEARER THE EQUATOR (!!) …and we ARE talking about an ENSO variance envelope here …hehe
[ :
They’re hooped Bob. They can’t evade this one. This is their beloved “butterfly effect”. They’re going to hate it so much when I tear down their chaos narrative with the “butterfly effect”…..
Just to be clear, the current lukewarmist narrative DEMANDS:
a) violation of geometric axioms.
and /or
b) violation of laws (of large numbers &/or conservation of angular momentum).
Earth orientation parameter records literally COULD NOT BE WHAT THEY ARE if the lukewarmist narrative was true. The Lukewarmist narrative IS A POLITICAL FANTASY. It wasn’t engineered for truth. It was engineered for political expedience.
Those people are a bunch of shady con artists and their leaders have a choice:
Look really stupid for taking fatally flawed advice …or fire the corrupt b*st*rds and look extremely good taking the dirty sons-of-b*tch*s down.
Cheers!
Kinetic Energy is related to the size of the Warm Pool?
Who would have thought?……..
(Joe Fletcher …for one example.)
Thanks Paul for mentioning Fletcher, as I hadn’t heard of him before. Info here at http://sharpgary.org/FletcherForecast.html – I’ll check out his cited lecture tomorrow.
– – – – – – –
Joe (Joseph) (J.O.) Fletcher’s Vision:
=
We are left, however, with a big question. How long can the size of the warm pool and the circulation strength continue to increase while the global ocean is losing heat? It cannot continue indefinitely. Ocean transport of heat into the warm pool is necessary to maintain its large and increasing size and this must deplete heat storage at higher latitudes. […] I suggest that forecasting the end of the present increasing trend [edit: remember that this is a 1990s perspective], with its regional climate changes, is the pressing challenge facing the climate research program.
Forecasting the size of the warm pool and strength of the circulation is the heart of the problem.
=
quoted from:
The Importance of COADS Winds for Understanding Climate Change
Click to access Kiel.Fletcher.pdf
Shamefully no one took Joe’s advice. (I find this compellingly sobering.)
– – – – – – –
^ words I shared on the original Talkshop Sun-Wind thread ^
That’s the sunspot integral.
The kinetic energy of the planet (think poleward advection) is related to accumulated equatorial heat.
Fletcher talks about SCD too, but like Volker Doorman he doesn’t call it that.
_ _
NAO vs. AMO at multidecadal-centennial timescale — be aware…
NAO is sensitive to stratospheric volcanic aerosols. Realizing this should help folks think an order of magnitude more clearly about the impact of solar cycle frequency shift on the poleward North Atlantic heat pump.
Near Greenland there’s a pattern anti-phased with The Southern Ocean / core angular momentum (CAM) / stratospheric volcanic aerosol (SAOT) / ENSO variance envelope pattern I’ve illustrated (see the “why phi?” J-V-Me thread for more details).
NAO is bitten by both SCD & ENSO variance, so it isn’t just like AMO, which is bitten primarily only by SCD …which constrains the integral of ENSO’s mean …not to be confused with ENSO’s variance envelope (a fundamentally different statistical property of the same index).
I realize that’s maybe (hopefully not) a little too mathematical for some …but I’m simply reporting how it is ….and it _ is _ what _ it _ is.
For any serious academics, let’s clarify the nature of the constraints identified:
a) ENSO variance is a superposition of 2 types of cyclic volatility.
b) ENSO integral is bounded by the frequency anomaly of nonstationary cyclic volatility.
Using existing records it appears feasible to test the 3 possibilities outlined for the ~80 year variance wave. Specifically: There’s a simple test for internal vs. external excitation.
Keep in mind that for the polar motion envelope to lengthen, the Chandler wobble period has to shorten. Testing can leverage this diagnostically convenient fact.
Bob W: ” It would help me to have the copy of “Wind Driven Climate” that I thought I’d have by now. “
A thousand more apologies Bob, this got lost again in the pre-election madness. Ill dig out your address from my paypal history and get it on its way to you when I go to the post office tomorrow with some ebay camera part sales I’ve made.
“what threshold of solar activity causes warming/cooling. That amount of solar activity is based on F10.7cm flux of ~120 sfu.”
I think you’ll find that to be somewhere near equivalent to a monthly sunspot number of 40SSN, which also happens to be the long term average SSN since 1749. I determined it by looking at SSN’s and SST’s during periods when the ocean neither warmed nor cooled much for periods of a decade or more.
“I’ve been waiting patiently for Svalgaard to finish his new SSNs to back tune my model”
Beware researchers with agendas. Svalgaard’s aim is to iron the trend as flat as possible; just like he did with Ap records. He may be right that Waldmeier overcounted by 10-15% postwar, but he has no strong evidence for his ‘adjustments’ to early geomag data and sunspot numbers.
@Paul Vaughan says:
May 31, 2015 at 7:30 am : “NAO vs. AMO at multidecadal-centennial timescale — be aware…
NAO is sensitive to stratospheric volcanic aerosols. Realizing this should help folks think an order of magnitude more clearly about the impact of solar cycle frequency shift on the poleward North Atlantic heat pump.
Near Greenland there’s a pattern anti-phased with The Southern Ocean / core angular momentum (CAM) / stratospheric volcanic aerosol (SAOT) / ENSO variance envelope pattern I’ve illustrated (see the “why phi?” J-V-Me thread for more details).
NAO is bitten by both SCD & ENSO variance, so it isn’t just like AMO, which is bitten primarily only by SCD …which constrains the integral of ENSO’s mean …not to be confused with ENSO’s variance envelope (a fundamentally different statistical property of the same index).”
Thanks, it may be getting through to me slowly. Should I get the impression that the integral of SCD describes changes in solar surface energy delivery, which cause both SCD and Ren’s “Thus, the ~60-year variation of the amplitude and sign of SA/GCR effects on troposphere pressure seem to
be closely related to the vortex state and the corresponding changes in the evolution of the large-scale
atmospheric circulation. ” etc.?
PV: ‘Kinetic Energy is related to the size of the Warm Pool?
Who would have thought?’
From 2009: ‘A new 2,000-year-long reconstruction of sea surface temperatures (SST) from the Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP) suggests that temperatures in the region may have been as warm during the Medieval Warm Period as they are today.’
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=39136&tid=3622&cid=59106
“Our results for this time period are really in stark contrast to the Northern Hemisphere reconstructions.”
So much for MWP being regional i.e. northern hemisphere only as warmists like to claim?
Tim Cullen: ‘In 2003 21st Century magazine published an article entitled The Ice Age is Coming by Zbigniew Jaworowski which provides plenty of food for thought and some delicious references for those interested in Climate Data Morphology.’
Appreciate it much Tallbloke. I hadn’t heard of the Ap records wrt Svalgaard. What’s up with that? Of course the whole reconstruction thing is fraught with suspicion all around, as you noted.
So far I’ve given him the benefit of the doubt as to the validity of it all, for a couple reasons, a) they’re going to do it anyway whether we like it or not, b) they might get accepted and become the new standard numbers, and c) it’s not going to change the overall situation that much.
Vuk had an interesting point about Leif’s reconstruction method of using the diurnal change in the y geomagnetic component brought about by the regular daily high atmospheric UV ionization that tracks daily solar radiative activity very well. IIRC, Vuk questioned whether that took into account any potential changes in the y-component brought about by the solar wind’s geomagnetic influence [I would add solar flare induced ionization too]. It could’ve been taken into account, who knows. It’s up to Vuk to prove this point one way or the other. I hope I characterized his objections accurately.
Ever since Vuk brought that up, Leif has been very aggressively and openly dismissive of Vuk over at the other place, moreso than usual, so maybe he felt threatened by it. I’ve found it’s best to be prepared with facts before questioning Leif over anything.
At any rate, the F10.7 method works really well IMO, and ultimately nature will provide empirical verification of when the timing of the expected cooling happens anyway soon enough, so in the long run, my method should be workable far into the future regardless of whatever SSNs are being used. The SSN at an F10.7 flux of 120 can range from 40 to ~75, so it makes me nervous assigning a particular SSN as a threshold. Maybe that’s an overblown concern…
Bob W: c) it’s not going to change the overall situation that much.
I told Svalgaard several years ago that so long as he didn’t actually reduce the trend to zero, my hypothesis was safe. So he reduced it to zero. 🙂
Find that 1860-1873 surge a little unlikely?
Me too.
Here’s the version he did in 2010
And here’s SSN averaged at 100 months overlaid on that 2010 plot
I asked Josh the cartoonist to do me a characiture of Svalgaard with a pinny on flattening the data on an ironing board.
He demurred. 🙂
the butterfly effect (see lower panel)
With a wing flap that butterfly can change political, financial, & medical fortunes on a 4 year timescale …so we’re stuck with obsessive attention being hinged to it ……..but in the long run its statistical properties (both variance & mean) are bounded.
TB that’s very interesting, I’d guess the many inconsistencies are keeping him busy, and perhaps that’s why their work is taking longer. We’ll see what happens.
tallbloke says:
May 31, 2015 at 12:21 pm
I told Svalgaard several years ago that so long as he didn’t actually reduce the trend to zero, my hypothesis was safe. So he reduced it to zero.
He IS a piece of work innit he?
It’s so obvious what they are up to. The global warming they predicted is just not happening and we are heading for a cold spell. They have to make excuses to keep global warming alive and their reputations intact.
The problem for modern scientists is that never before have sceptics been able to get their point across as they can with the internet. The old scientific protective barrier of ignore the doubters does not work any more.