• Home
  • /
  • Blog
  • /
  • Cooling: The Human Climate Signal? A Note from 'Cohenite'
Uncategorized

Cooling: The Human Climate Signal? A Note from 'Cohenite'

By jennifer
August 5, 2008

Malcolm Hill alerted me to Cohenite's comments that are worthy of a new thread:

I'm just a middle man connecting the points first raised by John McLean and Thomas Quirk in their paper, ' Australian Temperature Variations - An Alternative View:'

http://mclean.ch/climate/Aust_temps_alt_view.pdf

And Bob Tisdales work with Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

I agree with Malcolm that this is a crucial issue because if there has been no temperature increase then AGW is shot to bits.

A starting point would be a graph of PDO phase shifts over the 20th Century;

pdo_monthly.png

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/pdo_monthly.png

There were 3 PDO's during the 20thC; a warm and dry +ve PDO from 1905-46; a cool and wet -ve PDO from 1946-76; and another +ve PDO from 1976-2006.

A typical temperature chart of the 20th Century is as follows;

2s01m5y.jpg

http://i32.tinypic.com/2s01m5y.jpg

The 2 upward trends at the beginning and end of the 20th Century are typical because they are similar +ve PDO's with similar temperature regimes; if one looks at the slope and amplitude for the temperature increase at the beginning, it is identical to the one from 1977 onwards; the only difference is that the one at the beginning of the 20th Century starts from a lower base. The reason for this is not because the temperatures were lower, but because of base period bias. HadCrut uses a base period of 1961-90. This period covers the end of the middle -ve PDO and the beginning of the 2nd +PDO; an average of the 30 years of this base will cause temperatures in the 2nd +PDO period to be anomalously higher because these temperatures will not have the impact of the cooler temperatures of the base period dragging them down as occurred in the averaging process; conversely, the temperatures in the -ve PDO from 1946 onwards will be anomalously cooler because they do not have the averaging benefit of the +ve PDO temperatures; there will be, therefore a step-up in temperature after 1977 and a step-down before 1946. The base period weighting for Hadcrut is 0.15C, which would drag the temperatures of the 2nd +ve PDO back down slightly; but the weighting doesn't prevent the step-up at 1977 or the step-down at 1946.

What Bob Tisdale has done is to remove the base period bias; he does this by the simple method of annual variance; Tn+1-Tn over the full range of the HadCrut data; the result is this;

e6zj0l.jpg

http://i25.tinypic.com/e6zj0l.jpg

This shows only variance within the PDO climate; if there was a seperate anthropogenic signal based on increasing CO2 increases it would show as an increasing trend; there is no seperate upward temperature trend, so there is no CO2 caused temperature increase; a comparison between the 2 temperature histories is here;

2hmpw6r.jpg

http://i26.tinypic.com/2hmpw6r.jpg

It is interesting that Lucia has undertaken something similar, but from an opposite direction, when she removed the ENSO signal from all temperature indices in the post 2000 period;

ipcc-falsifies-gavin.gif

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ipcc-falsifies-gavin.gif

That Lucia shows a cooling trend would tend to suggest that if there is an anthropogenic signal, it is a cooling one.

Good Causes

Comments

  1. >By the way you write under a pseudonym as well

    Louis, I have told you before, my name IS Travis. If I posted my full name it would mean buckleys to you lot, so get over it and stop finding excuses.

    >And accusing me of not playing the ball - well, well, well, dish it out but it comes back you complain.

    The last paragraph was more of a general comment Louis, but you can own it.

    Thank you Luke for providing some of the threats. There was a recent one by Mott, I think to Bernard J. Try https://climatelab.com.au/blog/archives/003068.html#comments

    Mott has made some nice treats to me too, not to mention the stuff he has written about my family.

    >Empirically we will assume Luke is Travis.

    LOL! Yup, that about sums up your 'scientific' method!!!

    >Travis never came up with evidence, only anecdotes, no url's for checking.

    and

    >You have not supported your allegations as of this time.

    Louis, Travis never came up with any anecdotes or URLs. He has only revisited this site now, as he had more pleasant and worthwhile things to do in the last 24 hours. LOL! Unlike you Louis, I have a life outside of this cesspit.

  2. Well clearly you don't care - that's the point of irresponsibility. You should care. Mercenaries get pay rises too - doesn't count for credibility though does it?

  3. And a reasonable reader would not automatically assume you wrote those comments. Indeed you did not, except we assume, the blogosphere one. Travis's post was a general comment on standards.

  4. Luke, Medusa,

    Travis never came up with evidence, only anecdotes, no url's for checking.

    And no Medusa, you are not Travis, you are Luke, but here your are, good grief, Luke.

    Why Luke, welcome back, had a good holiday, purged youself of all the evil thoughts permeating your flesh?

    Luke, I care not what people think about my comments, only on the amount they pay - and I got a payrise.

  5. Oh for heavens sake.

    You asked for evidence - above comment from Travis - you got it - now that you have it, you've done your nana when confronted!

    Indeed you are the fervent religious zealot. YOU have politicised the issue not me. And Louis - fantasise on - I AM NOT Travis.

    Mistake II Louis - assume you have enough importance than anyone really cares what you think. Don't kid yourself.

  6. Luke

    Oft suggested arson, Yakusa etc?

    Googling are we, writing falsehoods to ensure that when someone Googles my name all this crap comes up in the database retrieval?

    I am that a serious threat to your religion that you need to use the time honored methods of the Inquisition and its successors?

    Well, two can play at this game - and my replies to your slurs here will focus on this factor.

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *