Natural Cause Found for Warming Previously Thought to Be Man-Made
Poof, it was gone.
Just like that, the human fingerprints on a century-long warming trend in Northwestern United States were erased and replaced instead by the telltale signs of natural variability.
That is the conclusion of new research published last week by a pair of scientists from the University of Washington. James Johnstone and Nathan Mantua published their paper titled “Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change 1900-2012” in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
So as not to be accused of putting words in their mouth, here, in full, are the contents of a box labeled “Significance” from their paper:
Northeast Pacific coastal warming since 1900 is often ascribed to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, whereas multidecadal temperature changes are widely interpreted in the framework of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which responds to regional atmospheric dynamics. This study uses several independent data sources to demonstrate that century-long warming around the northeast Pacific margins, like multidecadal variability, can be primarily attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation. It presents a significant reinterpretation of the region’s recent climate change origins, showing that atmospheric conditions have changed substantially over the last century, that these changes are not likely related to historical anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing, and that dynamical mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also apply to observed century-long trends.
Translation: Natural variability in the atmosphere/ocean dynamics of the northern Pacific Ocean rather than human-caused global warming can largely explain the century-long rise in temperature in the Pacific Northwest.
Burn the heretics.
Maybe someone can get Michael Mann to sue these guys for some frivolous theory or other.
Speaking of Mann, Mark Balien and the other folks at Baker Hostetler recently filed an excellent brief (.pdf) showing what an utter hypocrite he is. Turns out the guy who sued over being labeled a “fraud” loves to use that word, and similar over-the-top invective, to describe others:
Balien is representing some of the defendants in Brett Kimberlin’s frivolous use of RICO in a vain attempt to shut up his critics. Balien has a great way of revealing the thin skins of those who would fight speech with thuggery.
Ding.
Patterico (9c670f) — 10/1/2014 @ 7:30 am“Now, we’ll be among the first to admit that PNAS does not have the reputation of publishing the most robust of studies”
Is this a polite way of saying “Mostly bullshit” or simply that they’re not as stringent as they could be?
JWB (c1c08f) — 10/1/2014 @ 8:04 am“Now, we’ll be among the first to admit that PNAS does not have the reputation of publishing the most robust of studies”
Is this a polite way of saying “Mostly bs” or simply that they’re not as stringent as they could be?
JWB (c1c08f) — 10/1/2014 @ 8:04 amThere was some similarly impressive anti AGW stuff down by professionals over at PowerLine yesterday.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 10/1/2014 @ 8:14 amBut, but, the 97 percent.
Tanny O'Haley (066e8f) — 10/1/2014 @ 8:31 amCareful, Patterico, or Robert F. Kennedy Jr will be placing you under arrest.
JVW (638245) — 10/1/2014 @ 8:40 amGreetings:
Finally, the science is settled. When do we start tearing down those ugly-ass wind turbines that are desecrating God’s green earth.
11B40 (844d04) — 10/1/2014 @ 8:47 amI’m fascinated to know who it is who is financing Michael Mann’s litigiousness. Mark Steyn has reported that the preliminaries of defending against the suit in DC courts amounted to a half million in legal fees, and Mann is a party to other suits. That’s not sofa change for a college teacher (though it is for George Soros. Hmmm.).
By the way, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is a top journal and indicative of the scientific establishment. This paper is an admission against interest.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 10/1/2014 @ 8:49 amGlobal Warming Enthusiasts won’t ever be swayed. They think the way to prove man-made global warming is to show any warming at all. It’s not about being correct, its about calling other people stupid and winning.
Dejectedhead (a094a6) — 10/1/2014 @ 8:51 am#7. I believe Mann is legally funded by the Universities that hired him.
Dejectedhead (a094a6) — 10/1/2014 @ 8:52 amStop the spewing of hot carbon dioxide into the atmosphere! Tape Al Gore’s mouth shut!
C. S. P. Schofield (848299) — 10/1/2014 @ 9:22 amThis is very good news. I’m very interested in seeing the article. Johnstone and Mantua appear to be the embodiment of the kind of people who underlie our support for the concept of academic freedom. They must be experiencing some interesting times on campus. By the way, the UW volleyball is having another great year. They’re hosting USC tonight.
bobathome (5ccbd8) — 10/1/2014 @ 9:54 amcalifornia banned clean sterile plastic bags this week in favor of germy nasty ones you use over and over again like a smack addict uses a needle
they did this just as ebola begins coursing through the veins of america to where pretty soon america will start sweating like olivia newton john in that one video and bleeding in gross places
these people are so stupid and I can’t help them
so I made pasta
happyfeet (a785d5) — 10/1/2014 @ 10:14 am#12, Feets: I’m guessing that California’s drought is probably a consequence of this NE Pacific atmospheric circulation phenomena. In any case, the actions taken by your keepers are all about power and control, and they need not fix anything. The worst thing is that since they haven’t been thrown out of office, they are encouraged to view the failure of their present policies as grounds for doubling down. More rules, more wasted expenditures, more bird killing windmills and solar farms: they are all justified by the electorate’s support.
Living on the outskirts of Seattle, we are still allowed to use plastic grocery bags, and I am grateful. I often think how beneficial a bit of plastic can be. Two grams of a plastic sandwich bag can help keep several hundred grams of lunch fresh in a cooler, and the five grams in my used plastic grocery bags help us keep our neighborhood clean when we walk our dogs. I’d say that California’s sidewalks will pay a heavy price for the absence of suitable cleanup gear. No doubt the authorities will solve the problem in the usual way, by increasing fines. In Seattle, the fine for simply walking your dog on Alki Beach is $410, no mess required.
bobathome (5ccbd8) — 10/1/2014 @ 10:41 amI believe Mann is legally funded by the Universities that hired him.
Were Mann a defendant in a labor law action brought by a research assistant, the institution I would wager would be bearing much of the cost. Mann is a plaintiff in a discretionary suit demanding damages for libel. When you work in higher education, your employer does not pay for your divorce proceedings or extramural tort suits.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 10/1/2014 @ 10:51 ami got a big box of a thousand “t-shirt” plastic bags from amazon for me and gave boxes to a couple friends as well so that’s been super-helpful to have
one bagger at ghetto noho Ralph’s on magnolia gave me attitude she was all like “do you have any *other* bags?”
I didn’t say anything I just looked at her like she was a momo
i really hate that store it’s probably ground zero for ebola I bet
happyfeet (a785d5) — 10/1/2014 @ 10:56 amGlobal Warming Enthusiasts won’t ever be swayed.
If they lose the funding pipeline, it won’t matter much.
A great deal of this has been driven by academic fashion and public funding. That does not mean there’s nothing to it. However, you’ve seen a good deal of effort to exact social discipline on dissenters by corrupting the peer review process and out and out smear (against Willie Soon, for example). Little doubt there has been research not pursued and publications not submitted because it would mean tenure denied, grants denied. If this article has been summarized correctly, this could be early warning that the science establishment is moving to a referee’s position, which should allow potential dissenters more breathing room.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 10/1/2014 @ 10:56 amThe abstract leaves the door open a crack, but it’s a small crack.
htom (412a17) — 10/1/2014 @ 11:12 amCow farts!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/1/2014 @ 11:13 amOf course the LA Times version of the article had a pull quote from the final paragraph of its story wherein a “scientist” who (a) did not participate in the study and (b) had not read the study debunked the study because it relied on early 20th century temperature measurements that are notoriously inaccurate.
I suspect that the very same “scientist” wholeheartedly defends the accuracy of 3 tree rings from Siberia as the foundation for determining we are on the fast path to doom. Because that’s how REAL SCIENCE that wins “97% global scientific approval” is done.
in_awe (7c859a) — 10/1/2014 @ 11:19 am#14. I see what you were asking, I meant for the lawsuits when he was the defendant.
#16. If they lose the funding, it won’t matter, but funding is international. I don’t see the UN stopping the funding any time soon.
The Climategate emails were devastating, but it didn’t stop broad support or excuse making for CRU. Media failed to cover it, and despite the documented undermining of the peer review process…peer review was still used as a talking point to shut down criticism. I don’t hold out much hope that this Climate Change hysteria will ever go away. It is too intertwined with the Green religion at this point.
Dejectedhead (a094a6) — 10/1/2014 @ 11:28 amI don’t mean to get everyone’s hopes up, but reading the full paper and even the shorten version that has been published all over in the mainstream media, the authors specifically have a section for climate deniers. That they say the evidence they found doesn’t disprove man made climate disruption/change/cooling/warming. Nor does it reduce it from the 99% reason just that this evidence shows the initial models are wrong as submitted by the IPCC and needed to be changed to incorporate the new data models. Which will show that we have been warming off the “baseline” (whatever that means) and that the humans are destroying Gaia via carbon. The authors have also been hitting the big S science circuit saying that people are not reading thier paper accurately nor is science media reporting it accurately to the little people who have been lied to about the lack of warming.
Charles (0fb073) — 10/1/2014 @ 12:54 pmwarming is a good thing it makes things a little warmer is all and plants get a big kick out of it
happyfeet (a785d5) — 10/1/2014 @ 1:19 pmThe authors have also been hitting the big S science circuit saying that people are not reading thier paper accurately nor is science media reporting it accurately to the little people who have been lied to about the lack of warming.
[chuckles]. Popular science media is in the hands of characters like Sharon Begley and the editors of New Scientist. These people cannot do the career damage someone like Michael Mann can. They are, however, extensions of establishments and do not regard their beat with a critical distance (see Begley’s treatment of Dr. Richard Lindzen). The critique of this for non-specialist audiences is not being undertaken by the starf****** who work the popular science beat, but by Anthony Watts (a weather journalist) and Steve McIntyre (retired from the mining industry).
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 10/1/2014 @ 1:24 pmThat they say the evidence they found doesn’t disprove man made climate disruption/change/cooling/warming.
They do not want the cooties. They’ve got mortgage payments. You cannot read statements like this on issues like this at face value. The face value could be true, but it can also be true that they’re just trying to maintain their street cred with the other high school kids. Academics are very other-directed and commonly malicious. People who step off the reservation on certain issues are subject to whatever their enemies can bring to bear. The cases of Paul Cameron, Richard Sternberg, and William Dembski, and Mark Regnerus come to mind.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 10/1/2014 @ 1:30 pm#21, Charles: That’s sad to hear. I checked out the article and the NSF charges $10 for a 2 day view, $25 for 7 days that includes other articles, and $235 for a personal subscription. I was tempted to give the $10 option a try, but for now I’ll wait. A good place to get an informed view of this article might be McIntyre’s ClimateAudit, but there’s nothing posted as I write this. And don’t be put off by McIntyre’s background in the mining industry. He has been working in an environment where there are severe consequences for fumbling an analysis, and he is very careful with his data and his statistics. Exposing Mann et al has become almost an obession with him, way beyond a hobby. I have a suspicion he is outraged that such shoddy work can command such support. I think he is also a proficient athlete, perhaps in racquet ball.
bobathome (5ccbd8) — 10/1/2014 @ 1:42 pmMake that National Academy of Sciences, not NSF. And re:Art#25, I suspect most academics would be considered uncommonly malicious compared to 500 people drawn at random from the Yakima voter’s list.
bobathome (5ccbd8) — 10/1/2014 @ 1:52 pmHot Air is reporting that Julia Pierson has resigned from the Secret Service.
askeptic (efcf22) — 10/1/2014 @ 2:21 pmHere is a comparison by a careful archivist of the “official” sunspot record.
The comparative magnetic strength of the Sun over the period can be estimated from the graphs and thereby some sense of the energetic input to the Earth.
Don’t expect warmening.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 10/1/2014 @ 2:32 pmOoops:
http://solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 10/1/2014 @ 2:33 pm27. War on wimmin.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 10/1/2014 @ 2:33 pm#27 Seppuku would be appropriate.
Rodney King's Spirit (8b9b5a) — 10/1/2014 @ 2:36 pm#29, Gary: Nice graph! For one theory on the connection of solar activity and our weather, I found this book to be of interest: here. Svensmark makes a lot more sense than Mann and his hockey stick.
bobathome (5ccbd8) — 10/1/2014 @ 3:39 pmOpps! The “here” is “The Chilling Stars” … basically the solar erruptions of charged particles create a magnetic field that deflects incoming cosmic rays away from our solar system. These cosmic rays have been shown to be effective in creating condensation nucleii … So more cosmic rays translates into more clouds … and clouds can both retain heat and reflect sunlight. It is the reflection that results in more cooling.
bobathome (5ccbd8) — 10/1/2014 @ 3:44 pm33. Indeed, a complex system of inputs and feedbacks Climate Science is unable to conceive.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 10/1/2014 @ 6:56 pmhttp://pnwcirc.org/comments-on-atmospheric-controls-on-northeast-pacific-temperature-variability-and-change-1900-2012-by-johnstone-and-mantua/
carlitos (c24ed5) — 10/2/2014 @ 8:22 am36. I’d just like to point out that Mantua, who first described the PDO in the 90s is a giant and the commenters collective insects in their field.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 10/2/2014 @ 8:54 am