'Western Pacific hydroclimate linked to global climate variability over the past two millennia'

'Interdecadal modes of tropical Pacific ocean-atmosphere circulation have a strong influence on global temperature, yet the extent to which these phenomena influence global climate on multicentury timescales is still poorly known. Here we present a 2,000-year, multiproxy reconstruction of western Pacific hydroclimate from two speleothem records for southeastern Indonesia. The composite record shows pronounced shifts in monsoon rainfall that are antiphased with precipitation records for East Asia and the central-eastern equatorial Pacific. These meridional and zonal patterns are best explained by a poleward expansion of the Australasian Intertropical Convergence Zone and weakening of the Pacific Walker circulation (PWC) between ~1000 and 1500 CE Conversely, an equatorward contraction of the Intertropical Convergence Zone and strengthened PWC occurred between ~1500 and 1900 CE. Our findings, together with climate model simulations, highlight the likelihood that century-scale variations in tropical Pacific climate modes can significantly modulate radiatively forced shifts in global temperature.'

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160608/ncomms11719/full/ncomms11719.html

From Australian National University, home of Will Steffen.

Very feasible, makes lots of sense.

Scientists have found past El Niño oscillations in the Pacific Ocean may have amplified global climate fluctuations for hundreds of years at a time.

The team uncovered century-scale patterns in Pacific rainfall and temperature, and linked them with global climate changes in the past 2000 years.

For example, northern hemisphere warming and droughts between the years 950 and 1250 corresponded to an El Niño-like state in the Pacific, which switched to a La Niña-like pattern during a cold period between 1350 and 1900.

The new data will help scientists build more accurate models of future climate, said member of the research team, Alena Kimbrough, from The Australian National University.

"In the past decade or so the rise in global temperature had a brief reprieve, the so-called warming hiatus, which can be partly attributed to a persistent La Niña pattern over that period," Ms Kimbrough said.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160609115117.htm

After all the nee-nos we hear from TV news and weather people, it is refreshing to note the tilde here.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 11^th, 2016 at 11:25am:

"In the past decade or so the rise in global temperature had a brief reprieve, the so-called warming hiatus, which can be partly attributed to a persistent La Niña pattern over that period," Ms Kimbrough said. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160609115117.htm

But if you listen to Tom Karl et la and their Sea Surface Temperature Adjustments, there was no hiatus. But on the back of his work they have adjusted global temperatures.

It is almost funny.

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2016 at 7:25pm:

But if you listen to Tom Karl et la and their Sea Surface Temperature Adjustments, there was no hiatus. But on the back of his work they have adjusted global temperatures. It is almost funny.

What is even funnier is you trying to discredit air temperatures by using sea surface temperatures.

But what amuses me the most is that every denialist cherry picks there data to start from the last big el nino event in 1997-98 but when shown that 2014 and 2015 have set new global records all of a sudden it doesn't count because its an el nino year.  ;D

I found this graph interesting.

It indicates that hiatuses are quite normal and indeed are to be expected. It seems that big el nino events like the one we have just had in 2015 - 16 elevate the global temperature to a new level where it remains until the next big el nino event

https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/part-1-comments-on-the-ukmo-report-about-the-recent-pause-in-global-warming/

---

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 12^th, 2016 at 11:29am:

I found this graph interesting. It indicates that hiatuses are quite normal and indeed are to be expected. It seems that big el nino events like the one we have just had in 2015 - 16 elevate the global temperature to a new level where it remains until the next big el nino event https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/part-1-comments-on-the-ukmo-report-about-the-recent-pause-in-global-warming/

You're problem fork tongue is that,

1. The IPCC computer models never predicted or showed a hiatus as we are experiencing now......???!!!

2. You cannot prove that CO2 is responsible for the current warming. Anymore than you can explain the warming in the 1930's.

http://i64.tinypic.com/o03tbd.jpg

http://i63.tinypic.com/1zptwt0.jpg

Bob Teasdale address the following assertions below,

http://i68.tinypic.com/2zgdgzd.jpg

Answers here

https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/part-1-comments-on-the-ukmo-report-about-the-recent-pause-in-global-warming/

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 12^th, 2016 at 11:25am:

What is even funnier is you trying to discredit air temperatures by using sea surface temperatures.

You do know that SST's are used in global average temperatures and anomalies don't you?

Does that tell you anything about the "hottest year evah"? it is on the back of adjusted SSTt's and Air temperatures added together.

'Land      +1.33 ± 0.18      +2.39 ± 0.32      Warmest      1st      2015      +1.33      +2.39 Coolest      136th      1884      -0.61      -1.10
Ocean      +0.74 ± 0.01      +1.33 ± 0.02      Warmest      1st      2015      +0.74      +1.33
Coolest      136th      1909      -0.45      -0.81
Land and Ocean      +0.90 ± 0.08      +1.62 ± 0.14      Warmest      1st      2015      +0.90      +1.'

'the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)' (58.62°F)

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

And don't forget 1997 "The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 "

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713

So a ginormpus global warming of minus 3.83°F. Which makes the likelihood of 2015 or 16 being hottest ever, highly unlikely.

Ajax wrote on Jun 12^th, 2016 at 1:10pm:

1. The IPCC computer models never predicted or showed a hiatus as we are experiencing now......???!!!

Correction, as we experienced from 1998 to 2013. The hiatus is over, and given that it only lasted 15 years its not considered climatically significant. Climate requires data over at least 30 years, less than that and natural variation skews the figures.


Ajax wrote on Jun 12^th, 2016 at 1:10pm:

2. You cannot prove that CO2 is responsible for the current warming. Anymore than you can explain the warming in the 1930's.

There is ample evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In fact any gas molecule that contains more than 2 atoms is a greenhouse gas. (Please don't ruin another thread by spamming us with your bogus and discredited graphs again)

You conceded in another thread that the globe is warming. So please enlighten me, if CO2 isn't causing the warming then what is?

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 13^th, 2016 at 10:51am:

You conceded in another thread that the globe is warming. So please enlighten me, if CO2 isn't causing the warming then what is?

The "Science" according to The_Barnacle if we can't think of anything else it must be CO2. It couldn't possibly be anything else? That was the thinking during the warming, it kind of lost credence through the no readmitted hiatus. Where CO2 was climbing and temperatures weren't climbing in lockstep as hypothesised. 

Perhaps Natural Variation?

lee wrote on Jun 13^th, 2016 at 11:19am:

Perhaps Natural Variation?

That's a cop out.
Natural variation can explain the "noise" in the short term (which is why the warming hasn't happened in a geometrically straight line) but it can't be used as an excuse for the long term warming trend.

The Earth has been warming for over 100 years. That is a statistically significant length of time. Something must be causing it.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 13^th, 2016 at 12:15pm:

The Earth has been warming for over 100 years. That is a statistically significant length of time. Something must be causing it.

And yet the IPCC says CO2 is only responsible for the warming since the 50's. How does that marry up with early 20th century warming, which has a similar rate of change?

The earth has been warming since the LIA, not just the last 100 years.

If you look at global temperatures, it is all down in the noise.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 13^th, 2016 at 10:51am:

Ajax wrote on Jun 12th, 2016 at 1:10pm: 1. The IPCC computer models never predicted or showed a hiatus as we are experiencing now......???!!! Correction, as we experienced from 1998 to 2013. The hiatus is over, and given that it only lasted 15 years its not considered climatically significant. Climate requires data over at least 30 years, less than that and natural variation skews the figures. Ajax wrote on Jun 12th, 2016 at 1:10pm: 2. You cannot prove that CO2 is responsible for the current warming. Anymore than you can explain the warming in the 1930's. There is ample evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In fact any gas molecule that contains more than 2 atoms is a greenhouse gas. (Please don't ruin another thread by spamming us with your bogus and discredited graphs again) You conceded in another thread that the globe is warming. So please enlighten me, if CO2 isn't causing the warming then what is?

Yes the earth has warmed, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

BUT there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature as our history shows.

Now what caused the warming in the 1930's, cause it wasn't CO2.

The Earth heats up and cools down like history has shown us, it has nothing to do with CO2, never has and probably never will.

http://i66.tinypic.com/ng6jk8.jpg http://i63.tinypic.com/1skrd3.jpg

lee wrote on Jun 13^th, 2016 at 2:22pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 13th, 2016 at 12:15pm: The Earth has been warming for over 100 years. That is a statistically significant length of time. Something must be causing it. And yet the IPCC says CO2 is only responsible for the warming since the 50's. How does that marry up with early 20th century warming, which has a similar rate of change?

No they didn't. That is a dishonest misrepresentation of what they actually said.
The IPCC said that scientists are:

Quote:

95% certain that humans are the "dominant cause" of global warming since the 1950s.

They did not say that humans had no effect on the warming prior to 1950.

Ajax wrote on Jun 14^th, 2016 at 10:22pm:

Yes the earth has warmed, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. BUT there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature

Funniest thing I have read in a long time  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

There is no reason why CO2 isn't at least partially responsible for the warming in the 1930s, after all we have been emitting it since the industrial revolution.

You concede that the earth is warming. Something must be causing that warming. If it isn't the demonstrably increasing CO2 concentrations then what is causing it?

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 16^th, 2016 at 9:45pm:

There is no reason why CO2 isn't at least partially responsible for the warming in the 1930s, after all we have been emitting it since the industrial revolution. You concede that the earth is warming. Something must be causing that warming. If it isn't the demonstrably increasing CO2 concentrations then what is causing it?

But the IPCC and the "Science" say it was undetectable until the second half of the 20th century. Now 1930 is in the first half of the 20th century.

So you must have some proof that they don't.

What caused the other warm periods? Fred Flinstone and his SUV? Elephant farts across the Alps with Alexander?

lee wrote on Jun 16^th, 2016 at 10:29pm:

But the IPCC and the "Science" say it was undetectable until the second half of the 20th century.

link?

Funny. ;D

'Climate models only reproduce the observed 20th-century global mean surface warming when both anthropogenic and natural forcings are included (Figure 9.5). No model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global mean warming trend or the continental mean warming trends in all individual continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century. '

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html

For those who believe in the infallibility of the models. The ones that don't work forward or back.

' The late 20th century has been unusually warm. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest 50-year period in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1300 years.'

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-9-2.html

Oops, the MWP was warmer? Be still my beating heart.

lee wrote on Jun 16^th, 2016 at 11:04pm:

Funny. ;D 'Climate models only reproduce the observed 20th-century global mean surface warming when both anthropogenic and natural forcings are included (Figure 9.5). No model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global mean warming trend or the continental mean warming trends in all individual continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century. ' https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html

No lee, that quote and link doesn't back up your claim at all.
You might as well admit that it was another blatant attempt by you to misrepresent what the IPCC said.

And then realising you have been caught out you try and change the subject.

too funny  ;D ;D ;D

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 16^th, 2016 at 9:45pm:

Ajax wrote on Jun 14th, 2016 at 10:22pm: Yes the earth has warmed, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. BUT there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature Funniest thing I have read in a long time  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D There is no reason why CO2 isn't at least partially responsible for the warming in the 1930s, after all we have been emitting it since the industrial revolution. You concede that the earth is warming. Something must be causing that warming. If it isn't the demonstrably increasing CO2 concentrations then what is causing it?

The jokes on you barnacle, its your own fault for listening to fraudsters who claim they have the science but in fact only have misconceived theories produced by computer models that don't stack up to empirical evidence.

Now please explain the warming that occurred in the 1930's




Quote:

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [90 percent confidence] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html

Quote:

"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." http://www.climatechange2013.org/

http://i65.tinypic.com/263bkhl.jpg

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 18^th, 2016 at 11:03am:

No lee, that quote and link doesn't back up your claim at all. You might as well admit that it was another blatant attempt by you to misrepresent what the IPCC said. And then realising you have been caught out you try and change the subject. too funny  Grin Grin Grin

So you disagree. That is your prerogative.

Change the subject? No. it is the alarmists who tell us this is the warmest "evah". Mann (1998) tried to make the MWP disappear. It is back. So the warming is NOT unprecedented.

Ajax wrote on Jun 18^th, 2016 at 12:42pm:

Quote: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [90 percent confidence] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html [quote] "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." http://www.climatechange2013.org/

[/quote]

Those quotes are only talking about after 1950. You are making the same mistake that Lee did. Just because those quotes don't mention pre 1950, that doesn't mean they are saying there was no AGW prior to 1950.


Ajax wrote on Jun 18^th, 2016 at 12:42pm:

Now please explain the warming that occurred in the 1930's

You AGW deniers do love to cherry pick your data. But I guess that is the only way you can make your arguments sound scientific.

The warming in the 1930s was a mixture of AGW, natural variation and a reduction in dust pollution due to the great depression.
Remember that data has to be for at least a 30 year interval before it is considered climate. So to cherry pick the 1930s is as equally dishonest as those who cherry pick the 1998 - 2014 hiatus. 

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 11:07am:

Those quotes are only talking about after 1950. You are making the same mistake that Lee did. Just because those quotes don't mention pre 1950, that doesn't mean they are saying there was no AGW prior to 1950.

They clearly suggest that Anthropogenic global warming started in 1950. Its in black and white what else is there to say.

Just like the medieval warm period and all other warm periods in our history they conveniently leave them out so they don't have to explain them.


Quote:

You AGW deniers do love to cherry pick your data. But I guess that is the only way you can make your arguments sound scientific. The warming in the 1930s was a mixture of AGW, natural variation and a reduction in dust pollution due to the great depression. Remember that data has to be for at least a 30 year interval before it is considered climate. So to cherry pick the 1930s is as equally dishonest as those who cherry pick the 1998 - 2014 hiatus.

The science these computer models are based on is so flawed it leaves you poor saps who have become believers of the faith even having to defend what they have written as a doctrine to this religion.

Look at the graph the warming in the 1930's certainly lasted 3 decades enough to constitute climate change.

http://i65.tinypic.com/263bkhl.jpg http://i64.tinypic.com/2ezl4ee.jpg

Ajax wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 11:59am:

The science these computer models are based on is so flawed it leaves you poor saps who have become believers of the faith even having to defend what they have written as a doctrine to this religion.

The models are not science. There are so many "forcings" underpinning the output, that a change of just one. would vary the output significantly. And that is why all the models vary so widely.  The closest to reality is the Russian model and we don't know if that is a mere fluke. By taking a mean of the models all they are doing is bringing the higher ones down.

lee wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 12:30pm:

Ajax wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 11:59am: The science these computer models are based on is so flawed it leaves you poor saps who have become believers of the faith even having to defend what they have written as a doctrine to this religion. The models are not science. There are so many "forcings" underpinning the output, that a change of just one. would vary the output significantly. And that is why all the models vary so widely.  The closest to reality is the Russian model and we don't know if that is a mere fluke. By taking a mean of the models all they are doing is bringing the higher ones down.

I agree, I should have said a misconstrued hypothesis.

Ajax wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 11:59am:

They clearly suggest that Anthropogenic global warming started in 1950. Its in black and white what else is there to say.

No they don't.
The quotes you have stated make no mention of anything prior to 1950. You have simply made an assumption which is quite clearly wrong.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 1:07pm:

Ajax wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 11:59am: They clearly suggest that Anthropogenic global warming started in 1950. Its in black and white what else is there to say. No they don't. The quotes you have stated make no mention of anything prior to 1950. You have simply made an assumption which is quite clearly wrong.

They have nothing prior to 1950, if they have they must have kept it secret from the rest of the world.

CO2 started increasing around the 1950 mark and that's what they attribute all the warming since then.

So I'm listening what caused the warming in the 1930s.

http://i64.tinypic.com/2ezl4ee.jpg

A new paper -

'Abstract The project presented here so ought to determine whether changes in anthropogenic ther rmal emission can have a measurable effect on temperature at the national level, taking Japan & Great Britain as type examples. Using energy consumption as a proxy for thermal emission, strong correlations (mean r 2 = 0.90 & 0.89 respectively) are a found between national equivalent heat output HO and temperature above background levels ∆t t averaged over 5 to 8 year periods between 1965 and 2013, as opposed to weaker correlations for CMIP5 model temperatures above background levels ∆mt t (mean r 2 = 0.52 & 0.10). It is clear that the fluctuations in ∆t are better explained by energy consumption than by present climate models, and that energy consumption can contribute to climate change at the national level on these timescales.'

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000352/pdf

lee wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 1:24pm:

A new paper - 'Abstract The project presented here so ought to determine whether changes in anthropogenic ther rmal emission can have a measurable effect on temperature at the national level, taking Japan & Great Britain as type examples. Using energy consumption as a proxy for thermal emission, strong correlations (mean r 2 = 0.90 & 0.89 respectively) are a found between national equivalent heat output HO and temperature above background levels ∆t t averaged over 5 to 8 year periods between 1965 and 2013, as opposed to weaker correlations for CMIP5 model temperatures above background levels ∆mt t (mean r 2 = 0.52 & 0.10). It is clear that the fluctuations in ∆t are better explained by energy consumption than by present climate models, and that energy consumption can contribute to climate change at the national level on these timescales.' http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000352/pdf

Sounds feasible, heat rises so the upper atmosphere might experience some warming, but the Earth also vents heat to space.

2nd law of thermodynamics heat flows from a hot body to a cold body naturally.

If it does have an effect on global temperatures my guess would be that it wouldn't be a strong forcing at all.

If that is the case what about all the heat from about 1,500,000 active volcanoes under the sea...???

Ajax wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 1:24pm:

They have nothing prior to 1950, if they have they must have kept it secret from the rest of the world. CO2 started increasing around the 1950 mark and that's what they attribute all the warming since then. So I'm listening what caused the warming in the 1930s.

I've already answered


The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 11:07am:

The warming in the 1930s was a mixture of AGW, natural variation and a reduction in dust pollution due to the great depression.

They only started measuring CO2 at Mauna Loa in 1956. Thats why your graph starts in the 1950s.

CO2 started rising well before 1950


So now you can stop avoiding my question.
You have conceded that the earth is warming. If it's not CO2 then what is causing the warming?

---

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 21^st, 2016 at 6:22pm:

CO2 started rising well before 1950

How many measurement and where were they taken back in 1900? Remember, despite all the hype, CO2 is not a well mixed gas.


The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 21^st, 2016 at 6:22pm:

If it's not CO2 then what is causing the warming?

So you still haven't told us what caused the MWP. It obviously wasn’t CO2 according to Scripps.

lee wrote on Jun 21^st, 2016 at 6:52pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 21st, 2016 at 6:22pm: CO2 started rising well before 1950 How many measurement and where were they taken back in 1900?

Find it out yourself, I'm not your servant.



lee wrote on Jun 21^st, 2016 at 6:52pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 21st, 2016 at 6:22pm: If it's not CO2 then what is causing the warming? So you still haven't told us what caused the MWP. It obviously wasn’t CO2 according to Scripps.

Once again Lee uses his tried and true tactic of changing the subject.

Ajax. You still haven't answered my question


The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 16^th, 2016 at 9:45pm:

You concede that the earth is warming. Something must be causing that warming. If it isn't the demonstrably increasing CO2 concentrations then what is causing it?

(crickets chirping)

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 25^th, 2016 at 11:48am:

Find it out yourself, I'm not your servant.

'‘Physiography: An Introduction to the Study of Nature’ by T H Huxley published in 1885, where typical values converted to ppm are generally from 327 to 380. The measurements were carried out by Angus Smith and are originally given in his book ‘Air and Rain’ published in 1872. (The 327ppm recording was taken on top of Ben Nevis, Britain’s highest mountain at some 4000 feet). (This latter book is still available for free loan from the UK library service) '

'CO2 readings from 1790 to 1820 should be considered interesting (and possibly approximately correct) but it is from 1820 onwards that the level of reliability increased enough for us to consider a meaningful proportion of them as a useful record of their time and place. In examining a few of the measurements taken at the time later in this article, it should be borne in mind that they are a fraction of many hundreds of thousands of independent readings taken by many scientists-several of them Nobel winners-from around 1830 to the advent of readings at Mauna Loa in 1957 by Charles Keeling. '

https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/

And of course the ice cores show temperatures lead CO2.  ;)


Quote:

Once again Lee uses his tried and true tactic of changing the subject.

But if Co2 causes the warming where was it. Deflection doesn't help your cause.