I quote peer reviewed science - 'here, a new and improved means to quantify the coupling between climate modes confirms that another synchronization of these modes, followed by an increase in coupling occurred in 2001/02. This suggests that a break in the global mean temperature trend from the consistent warming over the 1976/77–2001/02 period may have occurred.'
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson Yet you are busily denying even such uncontroversial ideas as the relationship of ENSO dynamics to global temperatures or hydrology? You obviously have no appreciation of the centrality of ENSO to global surface temperature variation or to global hydrology. It is much more central to global temperature variations than the more localised (see the Lockwood et al study linked to below) north Atlantic variations. Actually, I am not sure what you are suggesting apart from, via your 'simplified expression', that global surface temperature will increase between 2000 and 2010 because of increases in carbon dioxide - something that you continue to confidently assert based on decadal averages. This decade is warmer than the last - but there was a large volcanic effect early in the last decade and warming over the decade. There is no trend to global temperature this decade - either way. Something that is pretty much accepted as evident - although people might disagree about the significance. I don't want to overplay the lack of recent warming - simply to say that it is consistent with the peer reviewed literature quoted. To refute the peer reviewed science I quoted you would have to show that 'a break in the global mean temperature trend' by way of 'synchronized chaos' didn't happen in 2001/2002. You haven't. Nor have you refuted at all, or shown me a peer reviewed refutation (there isn't one), these ideas of abrupt (chaotic in the NAS definition) climate change. Abrupt climate change that happens in the paleoclimate as well as in the modern record. Abrupt climate change - climate includes rainfall - on decadal timescales is the point of the post. The influence of the 11 year solar cycle on the Artic vortex, as modulated by the QBO, is well established in the literature over several decades. Solar intensity peaks in one phase of solar magnetic reversal in the Hale cycle - although we don't have a sufficient length of data to be categorical. The UV wavebands are important for circulation in the atmosphere because of the sprectral adsorption characteristice of ozone. The influence of the polar votices on surface Ekmann flows is trivial. But you have to have an opinion on a minor speculation, that I made clear was 'musing', based apparently on yout gut feeling (on the face of it, this seems implausible...). Crooks, S. A., L. J. Gray, 2005: Characterization of the 11-year solar signal using a multiple regression analysis of the ERA-40 dataset. J. o. Climate, 18 (7), 996-1015. Hood, L. L., 2003: Thermal response of the tropical tropopause region to solar ultraviolet variations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, No. 23, 2215, doi: 10.1029/2003 GL018364. Kodera, K., Y. Kuroda, 2002: Dynamical response to the solar cycle. J. Geophys. Res., 107, (D24), 4749 doi: 10.1029/2002JD002224. Labitzke, K., 2005: On the solar cycle - QBO relationship: a summary. J. Atm. Sol.-Terr. Phys., 67, 45-54. Labitzke, K., 2006: Solar variation and stratospheric response, accepted for publication in: Solar Variability and Planetary Climates, SSSI 24, L. Gray, J. Langen, M. Lockwood, R. M. Bonnet, and Y. Calisesi (eds), Springer; to appear also as a special issue of Space Science Reviews. Bronnimann, S., T. Ewen, T. Griesser, R. Jenne, 2006: Multidecadal signal of solar variability in the upper troposphere during the 20th century, accepted for publication in: Solar Variability and Planetary Climates, SSSI 24, L. Gray, J. Langen, M. Lockwood, R. M. Bonnet, and Y. Calisesi (eds), Springer; to appear also as a special issue of Space Science Reviews. etc. etc. The influence of the Sun on Earth's climate is of course more complex and dynamic than simple energy balance models (let alone your 'simplified expressiuon') would suggest. Simple cause and effect does not apply. See Judith Lean's new study - 'How—indeed whether—the Sun’s variable energy outputs influence Earth’s climate has engaged scientific curiosity for more than a century. Early evidence accrued from correlations of assorted solar and climate indices, and from recognition that cycles near 11, 88 and 205 years are common in both the Sun and climate.1,2 But until recently, an influence of solar variability on climate, whether through cycles or trends, was usually dismissed because climate simulations with (primarily) simple energy balance models indicated that responses to the decadal solar cycle would be so small as to be undetectable in observations.3 However,in the past decade modeling studies have found both resonant responses and positive feedbacks in the ocean-atmosphere system that may amplify the response to solar irradiance variations.4,5 Today, solar cycles and trends are recognized as important components of natural climate variability on decadal to centennial time scales. Understanding solar-terrestrial linkages is requisite for the comprehensive understanding of Earth’s evolving environment. The attribution of present-day climate change, interpretation of changes prior to the industrial epoch, and forecast of future decadal climate change necessitate quantitative understanding of how, when, where, and why natural variability, including by the Sun, may exceed,obscure or mitigate anthropogenic changes . http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123222295/PDFSTART 'Resonant responses and positive feedbacks' - characteristics of chaotic interactions in climate processes. Localised NH cooling in coming decades as a result of solar modulated changes in the NAO? Lockwood et a's new study: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/pdf/1748-9326_5_2_024001.pdf You don't reference any peer reviewed science. You don't bother to read anything I link to - simply post a response based on your pre- conceived notions. You even dismiss the IPCC which you say doesn't go nearly far enough. I quote reputable scientists and all I get back is no it isn't so based on your gut feeling. It is not a useful contribution to any reasonable discussion of the scientific issues of abrupt climate change. On Apr 24, 5:21 am, "David B. Benson" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 22, 6:30 pm, Robert I Ellison <[email protected]> > wrote:> It is more involved than simply averaging over more than 30 years. > > Works well enough for global averages. As for your regional > interest, I suggest correlating whatever interests you > with PDO, ENSO or whatever and see if the correlations are > not only high but Grainger-causal. Then you'll have something > more than musings. > > > I think it might be driven by changes in UV in the 22 year Hale cycle > > - feeding into downwelling in the Antarctic vortex - which in turn > > drives changes in cold sea surface currents moving up the Antarctic > > Penisula to South America. > > On the face of it, this seems implausible, but there certainly > is a peak in a temperature power spectrum for the North Pacific > at 22 years. Again, attempt some correlations. > > > Regardless - the cool Pacific mode is associated with 20 to 40 years > > of a cooling influence on global surface temperatures. > > I suspect cahnges in MOC rate; attempt a correlation with AMO.> A decade of > non-warming thus far > > not enough? > > Nope. Need at least two decades.> - you need to at least entertain the > possibility of 20 to 40 years of > > cooling. > > See my prediction for the 2010s from the link to my > analysis: it'll be hotter. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, > moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy > dimensions of global environmental change. > > Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the > submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not > gratuitously rude. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
