Analysis: How The Recent El Nino Saved Climate Models

How The Recent El Nino Saved Climate Models

http://www.thegwpf.com/how-the-recent-el-nino-saved-climate-models/

The message one is trying to get across when communicating science can depend much on what one doesn’t say. Leaving something vital out can make all the difference and when it’s done it can make scientists look like politicians, although not sophisticated ones. As an example of what I mean consider the El Nino phenomenon – a short-term oceanographic weather event. The El Nino can be used to make computer climate models look better than they are, for a short time at least. It is obvious that computer models are running hotter than the observations over the past 30 years, but add the recent 2015-6 El Nino and things look much better. Let me show you an example of this. Recently a group of academics kindly produced a graph intended to “help” journalists. They labeled it, “selflessly helping the Mail Online to improve their science coverage.” It shows how the HadCRUT4 global surface temperature data is “still rising” which is laid over climate models showing how accurately the models simulate the data. It is a classic example of misinformation by omission, or in other words how to enlist the short-term 2015-6 El Nino weather event to rescue long-term computer models. It is a prime example of bad science communication. Also shown is how this trick can be applied to satellite data. Let’s see what it looks like when the unmarked El Nino on the graph starts to come down, as it has done. Another variation of this technique can be seen in a recent TV interview of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientist Ben Santer by Seth Myres. Guest and presenter took aim at Senator Ted Cruz’ comments that satellite data show no warming in 17 years. SANTER: Listen to what he said. Satellite data. So satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature show no significant warming over the last 17 years, and we tested it. We looked at all of the satellite data in the world, from all groups, and wanted to see, was he right or not? And he was wrong. Even if you focus on a small segment of the now 38-year satellite temperature record — the last 17 years — he was demonstrably wrong. More importantly, if you look at the entire record it shows strong evidence of a human effect on climate. Warming of the lower atmosphere. Cooling of …

WaPo Warmist Cherry Blossom Claims Refuted: ‘Nothing But Lies And Statistical Manipulations’

Reader David Reich left a comment in response to Kenneth Richard’s post on grape harvests and climate . I’ve decided to upgrade it as a post below. Both stories show that today’s climate is well within the range of our climate’s natural variability over the past 100 and 1000 years, and that today’s weather events aren’t unusual.

Source: WaPo Cherry Blossom Claims Refuted: “Nothing But Lies And Statistical Manipulations”!

Historical Grape Harvest Dates Show Modern Temperatures No Warmer Now Than Most Of The Last 1,000 Years

Historical Grape Harvest Dates Show Modern Temperatures No Warmer Now Than Most Of The Last 1,000 Years

http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/06/historical-grape-harvest-dates-show-modern-temperatures-no-warmer-now-than-most-of-the-last-1000-years/

Grape Harvest Date Evidence: No Significant Modern Warmth Source In a late February (2017) interview on a U.S. news program, mechanical engineer Bill Nye claimed that the settled science says humans have been warming the planet at a rate that is unnaturally and “catastrophically” fast since the year 1750 . “It’s a settled question. The speed that climate change is happening is caused by humans. Instead of climate change happening on timescales of millions of years or 15,000 years, it’s happening on the timescale of decades, and now years. … Humans are causing it [climate change] to happen catastrophically fast. [Without human activity], the climate would be like it was in 1750.” When pressed to identify the signature change affirming this rapid human-caused acceleration, Nye immediately cited viticulture evidence, or grape-growing practices in England and France. “Britain would not be very well suited to growing grapes as it is today [if not for human activity]. French winemakers would not be buying land to the north, as they are now [if not for human activity].” Apparently Bill Nye believes it is quite unusual to grow grapes in England. Or maybe he believes that this has never happened before given his perceptions of the unprecedentedly fast pace of climate change since 1750. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that grape vineyards have been growing in England for thousands of years, or that grape harvesting occurred 100s of kilometers further north than it does today as recently as during the latter stages of the Medieval Warm Period (~1100 to 1300 A.D). Considering how very sensitive grapes are to climate conditions, and that grapes can only be harvested successfully after ripening in climates that average a specified number of warm days per year, the use of grape harvest dating as a proxy for temperature has long been thought to be both promising and reliable. Unfortunately for Bill Nye and those who believe modern warmth is exceptional, or that the climate has changed at a catastrophically fast pace since 1750, scientists who use grape harvest dates to reconstruct historical temperatures have not found that modern warmth is either unusual or unprecedented. In fact, grape harvest date evidence suggests the opposite conclusion reached by Bill Nye is more accurate: there is nothing unusual about the modern climate and its “well-suitedness” to …

20 New Papers Affirm Modern Climate Is In Phase With Natural Variability

20 New Papers Affirm Modern Climate Is In Phase With Natural Variability

Natural Variability Dominates Climate



Last week, the newly published Gagné et al. (2017) paper received some attention  because the authors pointed out that Arctic sea ice grew substantially between 1950 and 1975, consistent with the in-phase cooling trend during that period.

Gagné et al., 2017     Updated observational datasets without climatological infilling show that there was an increase in sea ice concentration in the Eastern Arctic between 1950 and 1975, contrary to earlier climatology in-filled observational datasets that show weak inter-annual variations during that time period.”

The AARI [Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute] and Walsh & Chapman sea ice data sets used in the paper (see graph above) included exclusively observational evidence  — “climatological infilling were not included … we only used observed data”.   Both observational data sets indicated that Arctic sea ice concentration anomalies were as low or lower in the early 1950s than they have been during recent decades.

During the early 1950s, CO2 concentrations hovered between 310 and 315 ppm.  Today, atmospheric CO2 has reached 400 ppm.  And yet early 1950s sea ice extent was similar to or lower than today.   This would imply that the Arctic sea ice recession observed in recent decades is well within the range of natural variability, or within the range of what has occurred without human interference or high rates of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

In the recently published scientific literature, distinguishing between a presumably human-caused influence on climatic trends and natural or internal variability (or “noise”) has not only become more and more difficult, scientists are increasingly pointing out that an anthropogenic signal in climate trends “has yet to be detected above the level of natural climate variability.”

In addition to the more than 20 new scientific papers affirming a robust connection between solar forcing and climate already published in 2017, there are another new 20 scientific papers that indicate natural variability and/or natural oceanic/atmospheric oscillations (ENSO, NAO, PDO) dominate as modulators of precipitation, temperature/climate, and sea level/flooding.


Natural Variability, Ocean Cycles Dominate And Modulate Precipitation Patterns


1.  Lachniet et al., 2017     [M]onsoon dynamics appear to be linked to low-frequency variability in the ENSO and NAO, suggesting that ocean-atmosphere processes in the tropical oceans drive rainfall in Mesoamerica. … Climate model output suggests decreasing

Listen Now: Morano: NOAA RESEARCHERS VIOLATED AGENCIES DATA QUALITY

MARC MORANO: NOAA RESEARCHERS VIOLATED THE AGENCIES DATA QUALITY AND STORAGE STANDARDS

FEBRUARY 21, 2017

Decorated National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research scientist John Bates has become a whistleblower, disclosing NOAA scientist violated agency protocols in a rush to publish unverified research for political reasons.

Marc Morano publisher of Climate Depot discusses the growing scandal surrounding newly retired decorated National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research scientist John Bates decision to become a whistleblower and disclose how NOAA scientist violated agency protocols in a rush to publish unverified research that purported to show there had been no 18 year long pause in rising temperatures as every other temperature data set in the world recorded, rather temperatures had risen at an alarming rate. The scientists violated the agency’s rules, rushing to publication data which had yet to be tested and confirmed in order to influence the outcome of the Paris climate negotiations in 2015. In a second breach of agency protocol, the scientists failed to properly archive and store their datasets. Subsequently, some of the original data sets were lost when the computer used to process the data suffered a complete failure.

Morano says the NOAA researchers learned nothing from the Climategate scandal of 2009, ignoring the need for transparency and accountability bringing climate science into further disrepute and public mistrust.

Sign the Petition: Investigate NOAA impartially – No Warmist Whitewash!

Petition: Investigate NOAA impartially
No Whitewash!

Friend,

Did government researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tamper with temperature data to boost the global warming campaign?

Dr. John Bates, a climate scientist and former official with NOAA, says they did.

This needs to be fully investigated, but we must not allow climate campaigners to turn this investigation into an exercise in whitewashing.

CFACT is petitioning President Trump to ensure the people investigating NOAA are genuine, impartial outsiders. 

Please sign this important petition today and forward it to as many friends as possible.

The climate campaign will use its influence to whitewash improper practices at NOAA, but only if we let them.

Sign the petition and tell the President to find out what’s really been going on at NOAA.
For nature and people too,

Craig Rucker
Executive Director &
Co-Founder

20 New Scientific Papers Link Modern Climate Trends To Solar Forcing

20 New Scientific Papers Link Modern Climate Trends To Solar Forcing

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/20/20-new-scientific-papers-link-modern-climate-trends-to-solar-forcing/

A Robust Sun-Climate Connection Increasingly Affirmed By Scientists “The emerging causal effects from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperatures], especially for recent decades, are overwhelmingly proved” — Huang et al., 2017 (1) Yndestad and Solheim, 2017 “Periods with few sunspots are associated with low solar activity and cold climate periods. Periods with many sunspots are associated with high solar activity and warm climate periods. … Studies that employ cosmogenic isotope data and sunspot data indicate that we are currently leaving a grand activity maximum, which began in approximately 1940 and is now declining (Usoskin et al., 2003; Solanki et al., 2004; Abreu et al., 2008). Because grand maxima and minima occur on centennial or millennial timescales, they can only be investigated using proxy data, i.e., solar activity reconstructed from 10Be and 14C time-calibrated data. The conclusion is that the activity level of the Modern Maximum (1940–2000) is a relatively rare event, with the previous similarly high levels of solar activity observed 4 and 8 millennia ago (Usoskin et al., 2003). Nineteen grand maxima have been identified by Usoskin et al. (2007) in an 11,000-yr series.” Below, the trends in Total Solar Irradiance for 1700-2013, which comes from the Yndestad and Solheim (2017) paper cited above, are shown to closely correspond to the temperature trends for the Northern Hemisphere (NH, derived from “the mean of 22 regional reconstructions of instrumental JJA [June-August] temperatures“) as shown in Stoffel et al., 2015. (2) Rydval et al., 2017 “[T]he recent summer-time warming in Scotland is likely not unique when compared to multi-decadal warm periods observed in the 1300s, 1500s, and 1730s … All six [Northern Hemisphere] records show a warmer interval in the period leading up to the 1950s, although it is less distinct in the CEU reconstruction. [E]xtreme cold (and warm) years observed in NCAIRN appear more related to internal forcing of the summer North Atlantic Oscillation. … There is reasonable agreement in general between the records regarding protracted cold periods which occur during the LIA and specifically around the Maunder solar minimum centred on the second half of the seventeenth century and to some extent also around the latter part of the fifteenth century coinciding with part of the Spörer minimum (Usoskin et al. 2007).” . (3) Huang et al., 2017 (full paper) “Various scientific studies have investigated the causal link between solar …

A Climate Scientist Is Smeared for Blowing the Whistle on ‘Corrected’ Data

by JULIE KELLY February 15, 2017 5:18 PM The scandal is growing, as Congress investigates and NOAA brings in outside experts to review a key study. Less than 72 hours after a federal whistleblower exposed shocking misconduct at a key U.S. climate agency, the CEO of the nation’s top scientific group was already dismissing the matter as no biggie. On February 7, Rush Holt, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), told a congressional committee that allegations made by a high-level climate scientist were simply an “internal dispute between two factions” and insisted that the matter was “not the making of a big scandal.” (This was moments after Holt lectured the committee that science is “a set of principles dedicated to discovery,” and that it requires “humility in the face of evidence.” Who knew?) Three days earlier, on February 4, John Bates, a former official with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — he was in charge of that agency’s climate-data archive — posted a lengthy account detailing how a 2015 report on global warming was mishandled. In the blog Climate Etc., Bates wrote a specific and carefully sourced 4,100-word exposé that accuses Tom Karl, his ex-colleague at NOAA, of influencing the results and release of a crucial paper that purports to refute the pause in global warming. Karl’s study was published in Science in June 2015, just a few months before world leaders would meet in Paris to agree on a costly climate change pact; the international media and climate activists cheered Karl’s report as the final word disproving the global-warming pause. But Bates, an acclaimed expert in atmospheric sciences who left NOAA last year, says there’s a lot more to the story. He reveals that “in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets, . . . we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming.” Karl’s report was “an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.” Agency protocol to properly archive data was not followed, and the computer that processed the data had suffered a “complete failure,” according to Bates. In a lengthy interview published in the Daily Mail the next day, Bates said: They had good data from buoys. …

Analysis: Climate data has been altered for decades to promote ‘global warming’ fears

In 1990, Tom Karl and the IPCC showed that Earth was much warmer 900 years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP.)

1990 IPCC Report

But by 1995, climate scientists had made the decision to get rid of the inconvenient MWP.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

By 2001, Michael Mann and the IPCC followed up on their plans, and eliminated the MWP.

IPCC Third Assessment Report – Climate Change 2001

The 1990 IPCC report also had detailed Arctic sea ice satellite data from NOAA, which showed that Arctic sea ice extent was much lower in 1973 than in 1979.

1990 IPCC Report

Government scientists also knew in 1985 that Arctic sea ice extent was much lower in the 1940’s and 1950’s than it was in 1973.

Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect

The pre-1979 Arctic sea ice data was extremely inconvenient, so NOAA simply made it disappear. They now start their graphs right at the peak year in 1979. I have been trying to obtain the pre-1979 IPCC satellite data from NOAA for over six months, and they have been “unable to locate it.”

ftp://ftp.oar.noaa.gov/arctic/documents/ArcticReportCard_full_report2016.pdf

In the 1950’s scientists were well aware that the “thin crust” of Arctic sea ice was disappearing, and predicted an ice-free Arctic within a generation.

The Changing Face of the Arctic; The Changing Face of the Arctic – The New York Times

Scientists were also aware that by 1970 Arctic sea ice was getting much thicker and more extensive.

U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic – The New York Times

This prior warmth and subsequent cooling in the Arctic was inconvenient, so NOAA and NASA made it disappear.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

In 1985 Phil Jones At CRU showed a large global warming spike around 1940, followed by about 0.5C cooling.

Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect

The 1940’s spike was inconvenient for Phil Jones and the rest of his cohorts, so they discussed how to get rid of it.

di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

And that they did. They have completely eliminated the 1940’s blip and subsequent cooling. It no longer exists in the temperature record.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png

NASA has also removed the inconvenient 1940’s warmth and subsequent cooling, just as scientists discussed doing.

1981 version2017 version

In