[Global Weather Oscillations]

Not looking for an El Nino the extent of the 82-83 or 97. More of a moderate event, but it could approach strong...just not very strong like the 2 mentioned.

David, perhaps you have already addressed some of these points, but I didn't see them mentioned...

The consensus seems to be that the Pacific has shifted to its longterm -PDO phase. As I'm sure you know, that favors La Nina develpment and tends to work against El Nino development. In addition, the last ten years have seen an unusual number of El Ninos, with events in 1998, 2002-03, 2004-05, and 2006-07. How do these factors relate to your El Nino forecast, if at all?

I have always felt that the El Chincon and Pinatubo "dust veil" events were over-hyped, these were not very substantial volcanic events and in both cases the weather had cooled off before the volcanoes erupted. In fact I make the same argument about Krakatoa's initial phase, the weather in North America was extremely cold from December 1882 to April 1883, five to nine months before Krakatoa blew up, and not as cold in that same period of 1883-84, although coldish. Then a very cold spell developed and lasted pretty much from 1885 to 1888, so I am never too sure what parts of all that to atttribute to Krakatoa, and what part to natural cycles. For one thing, the lunar declination was at a minimum around 1885, which had always been the timing for colder winters without volcanic dust around. For example, the winters of 1904 and 1905 were very cold as well.

With the case of Pinatubo, at least, I'm afraid you are wrong. Global temperatures were actually running quite warm in 1991 before Pinatubo erupted, and afterwards they plunged mightily. Pinatubo clearly was the cause, as the solar cycle was still high and El Nino conditions existed in the Pacific.

[The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued]

As yet I don't think the evidence shows anything more than a blip, especially as 1998's temperature (1998 being the convenient starting point) was influenced by an exceptional El Nino.

But look at ENSO-corrected temperatures. Still a flat or slightly cooling trend since around 2000. And that's with the GISS temps dominating the picture...if satellite temperatures were used, the trend would most definitely be more downwards.

Again, I ask: what are the strong negative natural forcings that would cause a flat temperature trend the past 8-10 years? Solar activity was only slightly lower with Cycle 23 than the previous two cycles, and the PDO remained mostly positive until 2007.

These are questions that AGWers have not been able to answer. If the AGW signal is so strong, then it should take significant negative natural forcings to cancel it out. And yet we have seen temperatures level off with very little regression of positive natural forcings.

[Arctic ice]

Anybody agree the greatest melting of 2008 now appears to be behind us?

Or will even this simple question be frowned upon?

I definitely agree. The accelerated melting of the past couple weeks was likely due to the rapid melting of the remaining ice in the Hudson and Baffin Bays. Now that that low-latitude ice is gone, the melt rate has slowed considerably. The ice in the actual Arctic Circle continues to melt much slower than last year.

[Global Weather Oscillations]

I'm amazed how conspiracy minded some people are, 'movements', 'may the truth out' - get a grip fellas!

Look, there is no conspiracy to silence people like GWO, such a conspiracy simply couldn't be sustained. But, some people think there is a conspiracy and the more they're told there isn't one, the more evidence there is it isn't, the more they get convinced it is. I find it very odd.

Perhaps it's that when people hear ideas that they think, how can I put it, a bit off field, they try to distance themselves as politely as they can but that is interpreted as them being silenced when it's really them distancing themselves. No? OK, have it you way, it's a conspiracy then

I'm pretty convinced another 10 years of warming wouldn't change some minds one iota. Me, 10 years of cooling that science can't explain and I'm all ears. We'll see.

Well, already 10 years of no warming has not changed a lot of minds...

Aside from the research in my book how does science explain the cooling during the 1940s into the 1970s? Couldn't of come from the AGW side, CO2 was still going up during the period.

1. Aerosols (I think this is complete garbage).

2. The negative phase of the PDO cycle. This matches up quite well, so I believe the correlation. But perhaps you suggest the PDO (and other ocean cycles of course) can be directly attributed to your PFM?

[30 YEARS OF GLOBAL COOLING HAS ALREADY STARTED]

Is CO₂ a ghg?

Of course. I was just stating the observed facts in relation to your comment that temperature and CO2 are rising "in lockstep".

[Global Weather Oscillations]

CB

I also have seen some graphs on solar intensities correlating with global warming. However, they do not go back very far with their correlations.

It is so logical that gravitational cycles would affect long-term cycles. My book also shows the cycles correlating with every El Nino and the rises in ocean temperatures in the Tropical South Pacific.

Am I saying no to solar cycles. Not entirely. Sunspots I say no. Solar intensity likely has a correlation, but not to amplitude and timing of the 5 global warming events during the past 1k yeas, and not to the 5 mega cycles during the past half million years.

So do you think the recent drop in solar activity (not just sunspots) recently plays into the cycles you are citing? And will it contribute to the rather rapid drop in global temperatures you predict?

[30 YEARS OF GLOBAL COOLING HAS ALREADY STARTED]

Odd that the two are in lockstep if CO2 has nothing to do with temperature - no?

I would just like to address this statement. Earth's temperatures have been in an overall rising trend for quite awhile (thousands and thousands of years), and we've only recently been able to accurately track the rise in CO2. In addition, the globe began to rise out of the Little Ice Age in the 1700s, and this rise continued through the 1800s, and then 1900s. CO2 did not start to rise appreciably until the early 1900s. So even in this short time period, a lag can be seen.

[No AGW or normal temperature changes.]

I'm arguing that the ten years is insignificant so the dip at the end is even less so! I think I said it above (or I meant to say it) that if someone wants good statistical evidence for a cool down then they have to be prepared to be in a waiting game. For years. Otherwise a cooldown proposition is simply a prediction.

(EDIT: so claims about a flat climate for the last ten years are verifiable, but not, in my opinion, particularly significant )

That seems reasonable. The only reason I suggest the flat trend might be significant is that 1) it was not expected by AGW proponents (they may tell you otherwise, but it's simply not true), and 2) there is not other flat trend like it since global warming supposedly accelerated after 1977.

But yes...a waiting game it is.

Well, the predictions for the world-class agencies are that we are looking at about a two year flat or dropping climate. If I recall, correctly, that'll be the MetO, too.

In about five years time, I think it'll be worth sitting up and taking notice. In about 10 years time it'll be statistically very significant, and in 20 years time it'll start the debunk of the AGW hypothesis. That's seven years more than the 13 year dry solar cycle. I expect snow at Christmas, in Kent, 'soon' but it still says nothing about AGW either way. It is always a barometer of credibility to those who look for events (say a five year trend) over basic mathematical statistics to prove a theory either way.

I would argue that it would start to debunk the AGW hypothesis much earlier than that. After all, the 2007 IPCC report predicted that at least half of the years between 2009-2015 would be warmer than 1998. Clearly, they expect no prolonged halt in the temperature rise.

[No AGW or normal temperature changes.]

Hi there ... yes, no one, with an ounce of sense, is going to argue that the last ten years shows a flat trend, but the question is, is it a long enough period to look for the much AGW hypothesised signal of 0.2C/10yr (??)

Well, by taking relatively simple mathematics it isn't. Excluding all ENSO, and other factors (not as easy as one might imagine, but I did see a report on real climate recently where you can see how it could be done) the natural variation over a ten year period is highly likely (>99.9%) to be more than 0.2C. If you take such a ten year period, therefore, knowing full well that what you are looking at could simply be a natural signal, you are commenting on noise. Whilst in and off itself it may be significant to, say, solar scientists, it really doesn't say a great deal about the AGW hypothesis in either a positive or a negative way.

Indeed, if you are looking for natural causes, you'd want to rule out any underlying warming trend so that your fourier analysis has a greater chance of returning a 'more useful' frequency analysis! The inverse holds too!!

Let's assume that natural variation is measured at, say 1C over ten years. I have no idea what or if there is such a figure. If you are looking for a signal of 0.2C then you must use a trend of at least 50 years (0.2C * 5 = 1C) to account for the natural variation. Preferably, more; orders of magnitude, more (as you have quite correctly implied, there are more factors than ENSO at work, naturally). I think you'd be able to get a natural variation by looking at paleo records, say, over 200 years, and getting a std dev from it - as a ball park figure. I haven't done it.

The point is - no one is arguing whether or not the last ten years is flat. It clearly is. What the argument is, is whether or not it is significant, and, whether we all like it or not, it's a waiting game, now; we have to wait for the data to come in.

Welcome to the forum :lol:

Hi, Village Plank, thanks for the welcome.

I agree that the longer the flat period persists, the more mathematically certain we can be that it is not just noise within the greater signal.

[No AGW or normal temperature changes.]

A trend measures the gradient of a signal. Nothing more nothing less. One method of 'smoothing' the signal is using the least sum of squares which helps one see through noise and establish a trend.

If you talk of trends you are talking of analysis of a signal. If you are talking of signals, then you must also consider noise.

Yes, and I find ten years a long enough time to distinguish between "noise" and "trends". Why? Because there are no prior ten year periods during the warming signal that can be equated with this one. If it is noise, it should appear periodically. Show me another flat ten year trend during a +PDO/+ENSO phase the past 100 years. In addition, there should be some sort of scientific explanation for the "noise"...if there is not, then can we not discount the previous ten year trend (1988-1998) as just noise as well? We must have some faith in the accurracy of global temperature readings, or else there is no way to be certain of any trends.

Welcome Smithers!

One question: what does "ENSO Corrected" mean?

Hi, thank you!

It just means they have removed the ENSO (El Nino or La Nina) signal from the temperature trend. Many people used to accuse skeptics of cherry-picking if they started a graph from 1998 because that year featured a huge El Nino that rapidly warmed the globe. However, when the ENSO signal is removed, the ten year trend is still basically flat.

[30 YEARS OF GLOBAL COOLING HAS ALREADY STARTED]

Seems, may, etc. Weasel words that allow you to suppose an assumption that has no real scientific backing. Pick any point you like and I'll pick another to demonstrate to complete opposite. Neither approach would acheive anything except chasing one another's tail.

We are all familiar with the idea of a 'perfect storm' - a set of factors that combine in such a way to produce a result where overall effect should exceed the sum of each individual factor. We have something of a perfect storm now - Solar, La Nina and PDO (plus a few I've forgotten off the top of my head) and yet we still record temperatures that are in the top 10% of records. We 'should' be having a year without a summer, a winter catastrophe to follow.

If global cooling were really taking place then the arctic should be seeing little melt. Instead we see a likely new record melt for the arctic and temperatures over land continue to be significantly above any measuring stick you are prepared to offer. All this time you look for a natural cause? The truth is that without AGHG the obersvations cannot be modelled.

Well, you have to consider that solar activity is generally believed to have a 1-3 year lag effect (due to the oceans, I believe). Also, the PDO was only proclaimed to have entered its negative phase here in the last few months.

Regardless, the Nina and PDO certainly can't explain the level temperatures over the past 10 years, as both ENSO and PDO were mostly positive during that time.

... and the statistical and non-linear mathematics complete backup this assertion. Indeed, if we are in a cooling we won't 'know' it for another ten years at least - which will put the see-saw about level against warming/cooling, statistically speaking, should the cooling mirror the recent warming.

I am 'Mr Fence Sitter' and I'd love to see cooling, I'd love to see my kids play in six foot snow like I did as a child, but, rationally speaking (and there's a good definition of exactly what that means elsewhere on this site) there's no evidence to support the theory that any cool-down is endemic.

Indeed, any person with even a slight perusal of mathematics is much more likely thinking it's an example of a step-function. One which can corrected at the blink of an eye.

Time will tell.

The shame is another ten years of stuff like this.

Strangely enough, Dr. James Hansen testified before the U.S. Congress in June 1988 that the latest temperature trends were evidence of man-made global warming. How long had temperatures been rising at that time? About ten years (since 1977-78).

[No AGW or normal temperature changes.]

Hello all, I'm a newbie to this forum and I've found it quite informative and entertaining so far.

I think there are several things worth pointing out about this latest temperature drop:

1) Temperatures have returned to the same levels as the last major temperature drop (1999). All previous, non-volcano induced drops of the past 30 years have been warmer than the drops that preceded them.

2) In relation to the first point, the years leading up to this latest drop did not feature a steady upward climb. If you look at every other period between temperature drops, temperatures are climbing.

3) Temperatures dropped faster than any previously recorded drop, including the rapid transistion from strong El Nino to strong La Nina in late 1998/1999 (one would think this drop would be faster).

4) Speaking of ENSO, if one removes the ENSO effects from the temperature trends, it is clear that something changed in the past 10 years.

The question is not whether temperatures have leveled off the past 10 years, it is why? ENSO fluctuations are not the reason, so what could it be? I don't buy that it's just "noise"...there should be some actual scientific explanation for such a trend reversal.