Science, 10th August 2007
News Focus
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Humans and Nature Duel Over the Next Decade's Climate
Richard A. Kerr
Rising greenhouse gases are changing global climate, but during the next few decades natural climate variations will have a say as well, so researchers, including a team reporting on page 796 of this week's issue of Science, are scrambling to factor them in.
Science Magazine
REPORTS
Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model
Doug M. Smith, Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, and James M. Murphy (10 August 2007)
Science 317 (5839), 796. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1139540]
Abstract
Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.
Met office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, Ex1 3PB, UK.
From the BBC website:
Ten-year climate model unveiled
The warmest year 'currently on record' is 1998, helped by a very strong El Nino.
Hat tip to Bob Carter/Walter Starck for the note alerting us to this insightful analysis by the 'American Thinker' entitled Twisting Science to Fit the Global Warming Template.
The global warming crowd does not take kindly to being contradicted, either by critics or data. Of course, critics can be defamed and data can be skewed. But unless the critics can be silenced, they can fight back and expose phony data. When it begins to look like predictions of doom are not turning out sufficiently catastrophic, a full Orwell is called for. The media mobilize their templates to completely re-cast the information.
This process was fully in evidence yesterday when the global news service Reuters spun a report in Science magazine (which has been quietly starting to warn its readership that maybe it would be prudent to come in a bit from the end of the global warming limb) as if it confirmed the seriousness of global warning, when in fact the report contained devastating information of flaws in the doomsters methodology and warned that the disaster has been postponed...........
Slight problem Arnost in that the El Nino phenomenon is seasonal - events form in the late austral autumn and then run for about a year. Their formation also contains the waves of their destruction.
Arnost: IMO Leyborne has not established links between tectonic dynamics and climate despite his intriguing concept of vortex screwing plate motion in the mantel. Neither does hot air above a witch’s cauldron contain much more than a bit of steam above the froth and bubble.
Your climate drivers need to reflect a much more rapid process than even my cauldron.
I lost a post that I spent a couple of hours crafting yesterday. Got the same error message which previously caused a double post – so I assumed it would get through.
The “chicken and egg” question from Gavin and the “what causes internal internal variability” question from Luke are one and the same as far as I’m concerned. I repeat, “I am of the opinion that ocean temperature drives the weather and climate drives the ocean temperatures”. And I agreed with Luke that ultimately all factors have to be considered – and I went into detail assessing the relevance of GHGs, Ozone, Aerosols, surfactant pollution, phytoplankton reduction, and of course the solar irradiance and solar wind factors. Blah Blah Blah. This was the thrust of what I said in my lost post.
However, on reflection, this was a bit shallow and a bit of a cop-out. We really have no idea what drives the ENSO. So saying that climate responds to it is only telling a bit of the story. As far as I can tell the statistically driven ENSO forecast models have better skill than the physical models. And the bottom line is neither can accurately predict whether an El Niño or a La Nina will develop three months prior.
So instead of rehashing the same-old same-old, I want to pick up on Luke’s second half of the question “inbuilt chaotic oscillator - undersea volcanoes - chance - you tell me?”.
Chance? Not likely – there is a cause and effect that drives everything from the beginning of creation. Chaos? But there is order in chaos – did you know the drunkard’s walk is actually the best search pattern possible? That leaves undersea volcanoes. Hmmmm...
I got involved in the climate debate simply because I wanted to do a mind exercise and see if I could find an explanation for El Niño in the planets. I wanted to bring together the work of Theodor Landscheidt, Timo Niroma, Dan Walker, and Bruce Leybourne amongst others and place this in the very heretical idea that the alignment of the sun, moon and the major planets can place stresses on the tectonic plates, thereby precipitating earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Given that the Nazca and Pacific plates is the fastest spreading seafloor on the planet, and it’s right there that El Niño forms… I thought it interesting.
I reckon that there is potential in this space – but I haven’t got there yet…
cheers
http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/revisit.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/DecadalEnso.htm
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html
Dan Walker’s - “Volcano, El Ninos, and the Bellybutton of the Universe” reviewed p 77 here: http://quake.exit.com/copies/Ncgt41.pdf
http://www.geostreamconsulting.com/papers/Global_Warm_Submit2.pdf
http://www.geostreamconsulting.com/papers/Leybourne_Oceans_Fin.pdf
Ahhhh! I see our Arnost is right into chicken and egg scenarios but what Smith is saying IMO of course, is watch out for the ebbs and flows longer term.
Arnost mate; we need the calculus from these new models to see rates of change and the integrals decade by decade
Arnost - I can't see why we can't have ALL factors goings on at once - i.e internal variability, solar influences, and CO2 greenhouse. Even if you're full red under bed AGW devotee - the greenhouse effect only works if you have some solar input to recycle. Any drop off in solar radiation will limit the greenhouse forcing too. It's not magic dust! But the irradiance drops off we should be able to measure it by satellite. Waiting though .. ..
What causes the internal variability - inbuilt chaotic oscillator - undersea volcanoes - chance - you tell me.
But it seems that these internal oscillations can enhance or dampen the underlying forcings.
Thanks for a thoughtful consideration.