Guest post by Joe Bastardi
——————————————————————————————-
One can only marvel at the continued denial of agw proponents of the summers after the pdo flip and the first el nino that followed. In the 50s, that was 1951 a cold summer, more recently 2009, a cold summer.
A look at the Junes and Julys that followed 52-54 and 10-12
If anything 52-54 may have been warmer.. certainly the pdo is colder in this event
How one does not go back and look at this and acknowledge that the cyclical event is for more likely given the same set of large scale physical drivers, is in fact, a denial of the actual data
I have never seen something so close. As if nature is loudly trying to tell us something
1950/1951 Two Solar/Earth Year ‘Wet’/Normal period. (analogous to the period starting now in the US.) 1952/1954 Three Solar/Earth Year ‘Dry’ Cycle.(starting August 2014 in US.) 2009, ‘Wet’/Normal Period. Nothing to do with ENSO, or pdo ‘flips’ Joe!
An updated version of ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ Alex S. Gaddes 1990. (including ‘Dry’ cycle forecasts to 2055,) is available as a free pdf from [email protected]
With all due respect, there’s nothing in the literature to support the notion that ENSO and PDO don’t have an impact. The oceanic cycles play a major role in shaping internal variability.
Don, once again you resort to baseless claims without any evidence to back it up. If you believe “ENSO has nothing to do with it.” Then show us HOW it has nothing to do with it, until then please try to refrain from personal attacks and outrageous, unsupported claims.
How can it be nothing, Do you understand when the pacific turns cold, it means there is less moisture available downstream over the US, Or do we just ignore the fact that cooler water has less energy and moisture. for 25 years of a warm pdo, the US is wet. It flips to cool and it starts drying. Look you might be right I dont know, But I cant believe you havent looked at this . If you drop the tropical pacific temperatures, it leads to less available subtropical moisture, Its not event something to argue about..
I am astounded that at the very least, you cant even see this. From 1980-2007 the US was wetter than normal The pdo flipped, like it did in the late 40s and we see the same thing, we dry out and the far east turns wet. Its like clock work.
No mas, please I even acknowledge your point , but I have never seen anything like the comments you make, which deny changes in the major source of heat to the atmosphere, the tropical pacific, and the physical implications of such, are denied. This is not the wizard of oz
no mas that is the last time I respond to someone this closed minded. Keep in mind its ME THAT ACKNOWLEDGES THE SUN AS THE PRIME DRIVER , BUT IN THE LONGER TERM. I am not the one that is closed minded here
Joe I totally agree, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Kind of off topic a bit, but Joe, when do you think the east coast will face the greatest hurricane threat this year? I was thinking August 15 to September 10th or so.
euro in phase 2 and gfs ensemble is like connie/diane in means. Posting on weatherbell on this daily
Some anger issues Joe?
Yes, cold Pacific water was the cause of widespread US heat in the 1950’s, as it is likely the cause now. Probably the cause in the 1930’s, though I haven’t seen data to support that. How anyone can blame unusually cold water on global warming is beyond me. Weather patterns are complex. Cold somewhere normally means warm somewhere else.
The PDO-AMO have much to do with the drought (a great paper can be found at: http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/julio_pdf/McCabe_ea.pdf). Drought is correlated with higher temperatures. However, all of that natural variability is playing out in the context of a still warming climate.
All things being equal, the warmth should be greater than it was during summers 1952-54, and it has been. The summer temperature rankings for the contiguous United States from NCDC are: 1952: 17th warmest, 1953 29th warmest, and 1954 26th warmest. The current period is ranked as follows: 2010 6th warmest and 2011 2nd warmest. The figures for 2012 aren’t in, but June was the 14th warmest June on record and July will probably be among the 5 warmest on record.
HadCRUT shows no warming for 15 years, but thanks for the fantasy
We all know the NCDC manipulated that data to fit the AGW lie.
The Pacific water was colder from 2010-2012 than it was 1952-1954. So it only stands to reason that the US teleconnection is stronger (hotter) in the 2010-2012 case.
Great post Joe…as usual!!!
The only way NCDC and GISS get a “warming signal” is by manipulating land-based temperature data through constant adjustments (ie. interpolation, homogenization, TOB alterations), while utterly failing to compensate for the urban heat island (UHI) effect.
By the way, as Steve points out, there has been no statistically significant warming since the late 1990s. With the PDO now in the negative phase, along with a very weak solar cycle 24 (similar to solar cycle 5, which led to the frosty Dalton Minimum), temperatures are amost surely headed in the opposite direction of that prophesied by the CO2 alarmists. And, as we know, colder temperatures, unlike a warm climate, are not good for humanity.
We’re not talking about making pancakes here Joe. You acknowledge the Sun as the Prime Driver but in the longer term. You have no idea why or how, you just assume it is temperature related. Let me give you a hint, Temperature is NOT the manufacturer or the ‘driver’ of the ‘Dry’ Cycles.
Read ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ Joe.
There’s a large body of scientific literature that corroborates the role the natural oceanic cycles play in influencing natural variability. To suggest that ENSO and PDO have no impact is inconsistent with the scientific literature. Moreover, the recent scientific literature suggests, at least in the short-term, solar activity is a very minor factor.
Earth regularly takes 12C swings in temperatures called ice ages. What causes that?
Orbital changes play the leading role. Those cycles are not short-term in nature and they are not the same thing as fluctuations in solar irradiance.
Hansen says that orbital changes are a “very weak forcing” Are you arguing with him?
There is no argument or disagreement. Hansen wrote, “Principal slow feedbacks are surface albedo and long-lived GHGs. These feedbacks are the reason huge climate oscillations occur on millennial time scales in response to seemingly minor perturbations of Earth’s orbit that alter the geographical and seasonal distribution of sunlight on Earth.” Notice Hansen’s language, “…in response to seemingly minor perturbations of Earth’s orbit…” and “huge climate oscillations.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf (p.5)
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/illwesleyan_20080219.pdf
Hansen is not suggesting that the orbital changes don’t play a leading role when it comes to ice ages. It’s a weak forcing with a millennial scale feedback that has substantial climatic ramifications.
And from the IPCC:
“Starting with the ice ages that have come and gone in regular cycles for the past nearly three million years, there is strong evidence that these are linked to regular variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, the so-called Milankovitch cycles (Figure 1). These cycles change the amount of solar radiation received at each latitude in each season (but hardly affect the global annual mean), and they can be calculated with astronomical precision. ”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html
So you think this makes sense?
“Chief instigator of climate change was earth orbital change, a very weak forcing.”
The statement is completely irrational and self-contradictory.
Hansen is not contradicting himself in his papers. A weak but long-lasting forcing coupled with feedbacks e.g., increasing albedo, can lead to substantial climatic effects over long time scales.
So if CO2 forcing is so much stronger than orbital forcing, it would be impossible to ever get out of an ice age. Hansen is saying that the feedbacks are larger than the signal.
A number of recent studies have indicated millennial scale cooling of the Arctic that abruptly stopped during the 20th century. That cooling was the result of gradual orbital shifts leading to reduce summer insolation. The reversal of that trend is very likely the result of the growing relative forcing associated with increasing atmospheric CO2.
We now know from the work of Julia Brigham Grette and her colleagues at El’gygytgyn that huge swings in climate prevailed over the last 2.8 million years, including multiple super-interglacials which saw the West Antarctic ice sheet and most of the Greenland ice sheet disappear, only to regrow again during new stadials. We are only left with orbital forcing, solar radiative-magnetic changes and vulcanism( with associated feedback mechanisms) to account for this ( evidence of comet impacts?) as AGW was definitely not involved. Likewise with the Maunder/Dalton minimums with low temperatures, low solar activity and higher volcanic activity. This low solar activity and higher volcanic activity in these periods, is either a coincidence or it is significant. If it was the latter, then we can be assured that the volcanoes were not driving solar activity.
“We are at present living in the last of at least four great ice ages, which have occurred in the past to man’s knowledge. The part we are living in, known as the Pleistocene Epoch, commenced approximately one and three quarter million years ago.
Man has never known what it is to live outside an ice age and probably never will.
Ice ages are extremely rare phenomena on Earth. In fact there have only been ice caps for about one percent of geological time.
Ice ages (the present one anyway) are noted for their peculiar ‘pulsating’ habit; the ‘pulses’ are manifested by the expansion and contraction of glaciers between their extremes, whereby the great ice sheets spread out from a centre of snow accumulation right across continents, only to shrink back to their original boundaries.” (Alex S. Gaddes ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ 1990. pp63 -64)
Quote No.2;”….other processes are at work, including the 2,500 year oscillation [other workers have set the value, variously, at from 2,500 to 2,700] that correlates with the 14C production in the atmosphere, and hence with Solar events, rather than the Milankovitch effect.
” Nevertheless, the variations in summer sunshine, available for melting snow in the Northern Hemisphere, plainly determine the first-order pattern of past glaciations.”
In this paper Dr.J.R. Bray offers much evidence in support of the existence of a solar cycle of 2,400 – 2,700 years. This agrees well with my 2,770 year glacial cycle (see Ratio Cycles, pages 22 -26)
It is significant that Dr. Bray has taken pains to point out that the solar cycle is made up of multiples of other cycles.” (Alex S. Gaddes ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ 1990 (p46)
Okay don, whats the global temp as measured by amsu sats in 2030. My forecast only goes out to then, and says the 3 year running average is the same as it the 3 year average 78-80. So make your forecast. Mine has been out for 5 years, That is the only thing I am concerned with as I laid out my reasons and the since the pdo flip, this is the NCEP cfsr 2 meter temp trend which in line with the downturn I forecasted to start on national tv and got slammed for in 2008
http://www.weatherbellmodels.com/weather/climate/cfsr_t2m_recent.png
such just tell me what your forecast is till then, we can compare how it goes and then you win for the rest of the 2,752 years
Anything can happen and probably will and co2 likely has nothing to do with it. There we can agree on that ( most of us)
The following time frames are for the East Coast of Australia. Subtract Five Months for the East Coast of the US.(thirty degrees longitude/month with the Westward Solar orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic field.) Prevailing weather travels East to West (with axial spin.)
1978 was a ‘Wet’/Normal Year, next occurring in 1996, 2013, 2032, etc.
1979 – 1981.25 was a three Year ‘Dry’ Cycle, occurring again in 1997, 2015, 2033,etc.
As I have already stated Joe, the instigation and duration of these ‘Dry’ Cycles has nothing to do with temperature, though surface temperature measurements will continue to be affected by Precipitation of various types,(or lack of.) ie the path of these ‘Dry’ Cycles.
The above mentioned 2,770 year Glacial Cycle is not a factor in the current ‘Dry’ Cycle ‘hierarchy’, or relevant forecasting ‘mechanism.’
So, once again Joe, my forecast for the next Seven Years (starting now in the US.) is Two Solar/Earth Years ‘Wet’ Normal Period, followed by a severe Five Solar/Earth Year ‘Dry’ Cycle (drought.)
It is important to note that these ‘Dry’ Cycles are instigated in the longitudes due West of Australia (around 110 degrees East of Prime,) (Beijing.) Making Australia one of the last countries affected in their orbit.
Read ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ Joe. What are you afraid of?
Where is the links?