Yorkshiresnows

Great post mate, Exactly the sort of non-biased factual posting we need on this forum. Please post more. Y.S

Indeed CC, This is a view I also hold. But let the fanatical melt people have their sway ..... soon be moving into the arctic re-freeze season and then perhaps the multitude of pointless posts may slow somewhat and folks can enter a reasoned debate (without the usual crowd jumping all over them !!). Y.S

I think we agree to disagree. Y.S

An excellent post ..... says its all really. Y.S

Yes it was .... it provided a clear means to show that past climate was pretty flat until most likely human derived greenhouse gas emissions forced an unprecedented rise in temps. The whole IPCC third summary report centered its arguments around this issue ...... and that graph. Its not the be all and end all, I agree, but it was made an important issue in selling the whole greenhouse gas derived global warming issue to the general public. But, if there were past periods where similar temperature changes had occureed on a global scale, this then opens the possibility that natural cyclical events / drivers have a role to play. Surely to god at least that point isn't up for debate ?

But, It is not the hottest year on record .... still 1998 ..... though it certainly is warm (no arguments here ... although lets see how the whole year pans out !!): Interesting discussion over on Roy Spencers site (underlined my emphasis): http://www.drroyspencer.com/ "I’m getting more and more questions about the daily global temperature updates we provide at the NASA Discover website. I suppose this is because 2010 is still in the running to beat 1998 as the warmest year in our satellite data record (since 1979). But also we have made a couple of significant changes recently, and there continue to be some misunderstandings of the data that are posted there. The bottom line is this: You can rely ONLY upon two channels at the Discover “Temperature Trends†page: (1) the “Aqua ch.5 v2†channel for global-average mid-tropospheric temperatures, from the AMSU on NASA’s Aqua satellite, and (2) the “Sea Surface†temperatures, which are averaged over the global ice-free oceans (60N to 60S), from the AMSR-E instrument on Aqua. Do not trust any of the other channels for temperature trend monitoring. This is because, while the Aqua satellite equatorial crossing time is kept very near 1:30 am and pm with periodic orbit maneuvers, the rest of the channels come from the NOAA-15 satellite whose equatorial crossing time has now drifted from its original 7:30 am/pm value in late 1998 to about 4:30 am/pm now" This orbital drift makes the NOAA-15 channels (4 and 6) unusually warm, and is why those of you who have been monitoring channel 4 and 6 at the Discover site are seeing such warm temperatures. Going back to sea surface temperatures and earlier posts: "Because of AMSR-E’s through-cloud sensing, it provides a more accurate global average SSTs on short time scales compared to the traditional infrared measurements. We download the binary gridded SST data from the RSS website once a day and compute global area averages, which are labeled “Sea Surface†in the channel list on the Discover Temperature Trends page": Y.S

Hi GW, You might want to qualify the above statement in bold. Hotest period from where to where ..... and perhaps it might be wise to state that this is for the Northern Hemisphere ........ not globally. Cheers Y.S

SSS Its the overwhelming weight of evidence against the 'Hockey-stick' papers, along with other non-tree ring proxy series that makes the argument. Not everybody who is critical can be wrong. Independant panel conclusions also back this up and please stop insulting Wegman. You Cherry pick your arguments. Deep climate or Climate audit whatever. The Hockey stick is dead, the maths used mined the data and the tree ring proxy series used (which appears in all the Mann Papers) have been highly questioned as being unsuitable. This latest report is just another nail in the coffin. I have posted previous papers than use non-tree ring proxy data and which have shown no hockey stick. Known history would add weight to a medieval warm period and little ice age (certain for the Northern hemisphere) ..... the only thing that does not stack up is those ridiculous hockey stick papers. Its a joke and always has been. Yet we are all to believe its okay and all the other folks are not 'proper scientists' or have somehow misunderstood the mighty Mann ..... come off it. Y.S

SSS I'm just posting what are the latest charts and illustrate the oncoming La Nina quite well. They are taken from satellite measurements The cloud feedback issue is not something that has been debunked. It is a theory that may well have a role. The IPCC admit as much with statements in the fourth summary report of to the effect of cloud feedbacks being of some uncertainty. The data shown is interesting to me. If you wish to ignore it then that's fine. Its a free world but I have every as much right to post on here as you do. Y.S

What a ridiculous post. I simply cannot believe anybody could so miss the key points of this so superbly well as you do. Stunning So every statatician who has looked at and then critisised the Mann papers .... are competely wrong ........ ?!!!! Absolutely priceless, please please enlighten me. What exactly is incorrect in all the independant summations. What is incorrect in the Wegman and NAS reports, the studies carried out by Mkintyre and now Blakeley and McShane that has got it so completely wrong. They all come up with broadly the same key points ...... must be a 'conspiracy' !! Love your quote in bold ....... couldn't apply to you could it. You continuously rubbish one set of work over another ...... because it serves your view point. Sorry this does not wash with me, or should it with anybody else. If you cannot see that this recent paper finds serious flaws and backs up what others have already indicated in regards to the use of temperature proxies ... even when using the same proxy series as used in Mann 2008 and for which it is known there are the usual suspects in there (Bristlecone pine series and the Tilanjer Lake sediments) and still shows that you could just as easily have come up with an opposite answer ..... then well...... no need to go any further. Why don't you read the paper. I have and I am no statatician, but you can clearly see the general thrust of what they attempted and concluded. Have a look at section 3.3 titled 'Validation Against Pseudo-proxies and then section 3.5 Variable selection: True proxies versus Pseudo-Proxies page 15 on up to the graph on page 30. This graph shows three back-casts of the data. One showing and replicating what Mann reported, the other two, more or less the opposite .... Only the one using regression of a single principal component provides the 'hockey stick' ...... when they used regression on ten proxy prinicpal componets and a separate two-stage modal ....... no hockey-stick. Read the conclusions on page 41. Here's a nice comical look at it all: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2773 Y.S

Hi Folks, Latest on the Ocean SST'S and the continuing drop into La Nina: The following plot shows the global average SSTs continue to cool, while the Nino34 region of the tropical east Pacific remains well below normal, consistent with La Nina conditions. Also see the below taken from Roy Spencers blog on the oceanic cloud cover. - http://www.drroyspencer.com/ Anomalously High Oceanic Cloud Cover "The following plot shows an AMSR-E estimate of anomalies in reflected shortwave (SW, sunlight) corresponding to the blue (Global) SST curve in the previous figure. I have estimated the reflected SW anomaly from AMSR-E vertically integrated cloud water contents, based upon regressions against Aqua CERES data. The high values in recent months (shown by the circle) suggests either (1) the ocean cooling is being driven by decreased sunlight, or (2) negative feedback in response to anomalously warm conditions, or (3) some combination of (1) and (2). Note that negative low-cloud feedback would conflict with all of the IPCC climate models, which exhibit various levels of positive cloud feedback". Y.S

Hi V.P, The point in all this was that Mann refused to show how he worked the data. Information was asked for repeatedly but he would not release it in regards to the 98/99 papers. You can see some of what went on here: http://www.uoguelph....APEC-hockey.pdf Or check out the climate audit site which has a ton of information. There was no disclosure in either paper to the verification (correlation) statistics that couteracted his choice (his team had used a single measure that showed a correlation where other more obvious measures had not). No discussion of this, or to what this could mean to the outcome was discussed. If any paper is demonstrating something as important and controversial as what the Mann papers were (basically re-writing climatic history), you'd think that the Journal would endeavour to see how the data was used to generate the results. Yes, agree with your last point, for papers that are heavily reliant on statistical manipulations of the data, stataticians and computer programmers should be included on the review pannel ....... which is where the NAS, Wegman reports as well as Mcintyre's work all comes in. Y.S

SSS Oh so now real climate is a site to visit when climate audit is not ....... . Complete claptrap ... but I expected no less. You proclaim garbage for one report against another ......yet they both undermine the Mann Papers principal workings .... don't you get it !!! That the NAS critisised the statistical measures but then came away with that the results were 'probably correct' was based on the available other study data at the time which used the same flawed sets of proxy data that Mann had used. Have a look at the correspondance that was undertaken by McIntyre at the time (its available at climate audit). All reports have heavily critisised the techniques used ...... its taken nearly 10 years for the whole thing to be uncovered and undone, when this should have been obvious much sooner. The whole point was that the techniques were flawed and actually mined the data for 'hockey stick' shapes weighting those few proxy series that showed what they were looking for above all others using the discredited tree-ring proxies. That was the point then, and that is the point now. This recent paper just shows once again what a complete load of tosh it was. Here is a reminder of what exactly was going on with the data: http://www.uoguelph....APEC-hockey.pdf Y.S

Hi Dev, The whole point and relevance ... that was taken up by the IPCC of the Mann Hockey stick papers was that they 'smoothed out' past temperature variations .... what else could you possibly take from it ? That there were serious flaws not picked up at review, that Mann refused to allow release of the computer code and mathematical techniques actually used on the proxy data, and the whole McIntyre saga of uncovering the truth, is there in the public domain for all to see. Nobody is saying anything about a conspiracy, only that the paleoclimatic processes of data submittance and review have in the past been too lapse. That the IPCC jumped all over the 'Hockey-stick' paper and graph (appearing on multiple pages of the third assessment report), when there was other data available at the time suggesting that this was at least controversial.... is for others to make up their own minds. But we've been through all this before and I have illustrated my points throughout the various threads in this regards and provided references and other papers. Others have quite fairly added their own views and beliefs to the opposite. This latest paper is to my mind further vindication of McIntyre and McIndricks critique (as well as the Wegman and NAS reports). Y.S

Hi Dev and all, Good points made by V.P . The whole thrust of the paper (which I have read) is to state that the temperature proxies can be really little more use than complete guess work for reconstructing past temperature. Don't forget than Mann used a predominance of tree-ring proxy data for the 98/99 and indeed the 2008 papers. These have been heavily critisised by the likes of McIntyre and others as not being suitable markers for temperature change. All prxy data has its flaws, but tree-ring data more than most. What we know (and lets be honest has been pretty obvious) is that the Northern hemisphere has gone through recent warm and cool cycles ..... The Mann papers were an attempt to get rid of the medieval warm period and little ice age ... thereby allowing a greater weight of argument to be given for the role of AGW to the 20th century warming. Handle of hockey stick and sharp upturn of the blade. That's why the IPCC stuck that silly graph all over the IPCC third assessment report in 2001 (without the data being given proper review). What we have seen from more recent work (most importantly using non-tree ring proxy data), is that these studies by Mann were flawed and that the medieval and little ice age periods were likely global events (prior to the 'hockey-stick' papers that was assumed as correct in any case from a whole number of historical records). Non of this is proof that AGW is not happening (so please don't all shoot me down), but it does allow the possibility that natural cycles can / could have had at least a part to play in the recent warming that we have witnessed. This is relevant to current discussions on the role of the PDO / AMO / Solar cycles etc. In any event, having read a massive amount on the hockey stick issue, I am really pleased that there is now further data available to show it was a complete mess. More importantly (and I wholeheartedly agree with V.P), where conclusions are made in scientific papers that use complicated mathematical techniques to obtain the relevant endpoints, how this was done and with what data should be made readily available for relevant reviewers to assess. That this was not done for the initial 98/99 Mann papers was a disgrace (in my opinion). Y.S

Hi Folks, Not sure if anybody has already posted this but ... there is a new publication due to be issued on temperature proxy reconstructions (McShane and Wyner 2010) submitted into the "Annals of Applied Statistics" listed to be published in the next issue. This paper is a direct rebuttal to the proxy reconstructions of Mann. Instead of trying to attack the proxy data quality issues, they assumed the proxy data was accurate for their purpose, then created a bayesian backcast method. Then, using the proxy data, they demonstrate it fails to reproduce the sharp 20th century uptick: Here's the famous chart before ....... And now after ........... The 'after' chart backs up multiple non-tree ring proxy studies (as well as the multiple criticisms by McIntyre, McKitrick and others) Here is the submitted paper: http://www.e-publica...onfirm=63ebfddf Here is the abstract: "We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago". Y.S

Hi Dev, Agree with most of the above. Co2 is a greenhouse gas ...... but, by the IPCC own's data, then doubling the Co2 concentration from pre-industrial to around 480-540 ppm would on its own only increase global temperatures by 0.6 to 1.0 degrees C. Its the whole feedback system that is currently poorly understood and modelled in just one way (positive), relying on an associated increase in water vapour content of the atmosphere to generate the really scary projections. Should any of this be incorrect, or there is an associated increase in low cloud formation, then you would get a much reduced effect due to reduced absorbance of solar energy into the ocean layers. None of these possibilities along with solar input or cyclical PDO / AMO conditions form part of the IPCC climate modelling work (or at least up until 2007 when the last assessment report was published). A change in global cloud cover of just 1% could account on its own most of the warming seen in the past 1-200 years. We've gone round the houses several times on this so I will not re-open old arguments, but just exactly how sensitive the climate is to greenhouse gas emissions is the controversial bit of the argument. Could be very sensitive .... and we should all worry ....... or not. Y.S

Hi CC, I agree with the above. Whether the arctic increases in ice extent over the next few years will reamin to be seen, but with La Nina conditions for this winter and early spring and the PDO set to negative there will be much more favourable conditions for a healthier Ice pack. Y.S

SSS We are at a higher base rate ... are we not !!!!! Therefore of course there is always going to be the chance of extreme events ..... why is that so very odd, if we are at a warmer state than 20-30 years ago, why would there not be the chance of one extreme event or another breaking a record. They were being broken throughout the 90's Every waning El-Nino pumps heat into Europe during the summer months ...... thats a given.... http://www.accuweather.com/video/524147818001/1998-still-beating-2010-by-objective-standards.asp Y.S

Hi V.P, Just been looking at some information posted over on Roy Spencer's blog in regards to downward radiation flow ..... he's conducted some 'backyard Experiments' : http://www.drroyspencer.com/ See what you think? Y.S

Hi Pete, You misunderstand the point I was trying to make. I know that Co2 is a greenhouse gas ...... its just a very weak one ...... water vapour is the key. The IPCC rely on this feedback and assume its all positive to calculate and get their models to show the impacts of ..... greenhouse gas emissions. Folks often go on about Northern hemisphere extremes and I agree that we are a warmer world than 20-30 years ago ... thats a given. Its just that there are too many people (and the usual suspects) who will jump on any given event and cry AGW. There is big heat in Eastern Europe, there is big cold in the Antarctic and Southern Hemisphere ... there's even been one of the coldest summers in the Arctic since the 1950's ........... but no .... we concentrate on the big heat and folks shout ..... see .... more proof of the effects of greenhouse gases. That's all. Y.S

G.W Please can you quit quoting the Russia heatwave as evidence of anything ...... you know that this pattern of weather is predicable, has happened before (2003) and is often associated with decaying Nino summers, its not particularly unusual at all (the pattern of weather that is). Check it out for yourself: http://www.accuweath...hannel=vbbastaj It was also forecast back in the winter: Here's the latest thoughts on this from Joe laminate floori: "What is going on in Russia is similar to what went on in France in 2003 and is being caused by the same overall pattern. The headlines scream.. worst in 1000 years... heck lets make it a million years.. cause if we know its a 1000 then we can assume what ever we want. This is the constant battle cry of people who wont explain before hand why a specific event is going to happen ( we are boiling here in the states, yet NOAA had a cool summer) but then run to the all encompassing climate change as the reason.. It is despicable, and deceitful. If you cant see your hand in front of your face, how can you tell me you know what lays beyond. Simply look at the analogs of the reversing el nino, a warm AMO and a warm mediterranean and you get your forecast. The extremes we are seeing in one place can be argued counterweight the cold that is being in the southern hemisphere, not as widespread, because there is not nearly as much land to feedback to expand the area of extremes. But its there. And the idea it would be a very warm summer lends itself to such extremes. But Los Angeles Cal, is having one of their coldest summers on record. No screams about that. Remember back after winter. I (Joe laminate floori) made a forecast for a warm summer for europe overall, and while I wanted to score my points with the main subject of the blog, I said the further east and south you go, the more it would be hot. But I said that this is the summer, at least in the scoring point for my forecast, London, that would be the barbecue summer. Well London has had 33 PERCENT OF NORMAL PRECIP and is 4.2 above normal. Last year it was 3 above normal and 104% of normal precip, but wet and cooler northwest. Point is, its a hotter, drier summer. And the other point is that when you have a reversing Nino during a warm AMO with a warm mediterranean you are likely to have alot of heat in europe in the summer into Russia. In 03, it set up further west, the blend of all the year is west east and right into Russia. But not letting people know that such things are in the ballpark given the pattern, and then trying to play it up as something that cant happen and is, is simply feeding off the reliance of the ignorance of people not to look and understand" Y.S

Hi SSS There may be a human element, (that would be a more accurate statement, ..... or clarify that this is a personnal viewpoint) ..... quite how much and whether it is sufficient to impact is still questionable. (I am assuming your are referring to climate change rather than de-forestation or populating natural flood plain areas) If in future years we see that natural cycles caused the majority of the warming currently seen to date (20th century), then the 'human' bit will be wrong. Though I agree that with the global system warmer now than in recent history, extremes of weather are more likely to happen. I guess that the near record breaking low temperatures this summer in California, the near record Ice extent in the Antarctic and very low summer Arctic temperatures are all additional symptons consistent with your line of thought. Y.S This is a great post. Y.S

Hello All, Just caught my eye the piece on whether we can call the extreme heatwave of Russia, as evidence of anything. Clearly not to my mind. If you look at the analogues of El Nino Years on the wane (sorry, at work and do not have the data to hand) you can clearly see that for the last 5 El-Nino events, there has been hot dry summers in Europe ... particularly to the East. There's a nice video link that dicusses this very point. http://www.accuweath...hannel=vbbastaj What we are seeing are just patterns of weather than can be more or less predicted (though this summers weather was predicted to be cool from the climate models !). Sure, as we are warmer now than 30 years ago, the chances that these patterns of weather will deliver hotter or more extreme periods than previously would seem right ... I'd agree with that. Its been a pretty brutal winter in the Southern hemisphere, but of course there are less areas of population close to the antarctic regions and hence we see less news reports concerning this as opposed to heat in Europe .... or indeed cold and snow as per this past winter. Its still been one of the coldest summers in the high arctic for many a year ...... you have to go back to 1958 for something similar. With LA Nina now looking to be a strong event, cooling off would seem a dead cert for the latter part of this year and into next. Quite where we will end up next year will be very interesting to see. Y.S