Skip to content
Tags

North Atlantic Oscillation – UEA CRU Emails Are Interesting

January 4, 2010

Interesting page from the UEA Climate Research units own site about North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO):

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/nao/

“Looking further ahead, there is the possibility that climate change may induce a change in the state or behaviour of the NAO. Unfortunately, the global climate models that are used to study anthropogenic climate change do not yet give unequivocal predictions for the future of the NAO, linked to the fact that the NAO is related to the tracks of Atlantic storms, and predictions of storminess changes are also currently uncertain.”

So basically in laymans terms, they are not sure how to model one of the most fundamental influences on northern hemisphere climate.  Everyone got that?

.

Look at how the NAO was positive from 1900-1945ish (when the scientists talked about gaciers melting, try this from NOAA’s own archives http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf), then went negative in the 70’s (when the scientists famously started telling us we could be on the brink of another ice age), then positive again (the current AGW scare).

Positive NAO = warmer, wetter winters with higher winds.

Negative  NAO = the opposite.

Phil Jones and the other UEA climategate scientists discussed the 1940’s “blip” in the climategate emails:

“It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with “why the blip”.”

Note in the full email, there is not a single mention of the NAO being positive at that time, only how they can minimise the “blip”.  This is surely a clear example of the people at the heart of climate science ignoring a major influencing factor because it would tie in a natural pattern to something they are intent on blaming on human activity?

Going further, they completely dismiss solar activity as a possible cause for warming, and therefore the glacial retreat in the 1940’s:

“The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar.”

Yet here we have other work saying it was hugely influential in the 1940’s alpine glacial declines:

http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_articles/091214_gletscherschwund_su/index_EN

So, to be clear, the UEA CRU wanted to minimise the “blip” of the 1940’s, ignored the influence of North Atlantic Oscillation  within the conversation, and dismissed out of hand the possibility of solar influence. Come on now boys, even Harvard acknowledge the influence of the NAO on rapid climate change!

Note the referenced climategate email is from September 2009, so this is the CRU’s current thinking on solar influence in the 1940’s, and cannot be dismissed by people such as Al Gore as something that was said ten years ago.  Sorry Al, not this time.

————————————————-

For a full account of the NAO, and its recent trends, this page tells you all you need to know, including these:

“A remarkable feature of the NAO is its trend toward a more positive phase over the past 30 years, with a magnitude that seems to be unprecedented in the observational record (2). Some of the most pronounced anomalies have occurred since the winter of 1989, when record positive values of the NAO index have been documented (Fig. 1 Lower). Moreover, the trend in the NAO accounts for a myriad of remarkable changes in the climate over the middle and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, as well as in marine and terrestrial ecosystems.”

“The remarkable behavior of the NAO in recent decades and, more generally, its pronounced low-frequency behavior over the longer record have added to the debate over our ability to detect and distinguish between natural and anthropogenic climate change. Hurrell (14) has shown that the recent upward trend in the NAO accounts for much of the observed regional surface warming over Europe and Asia. Because global average temperatures are dominated by temperature variability over the northern land masses, a significant fraction of the recent warming trend in global surface temperatures can be explained as a response to observed changes in atmospheric circulation.”

The science is still, apparently settled though.  We are all doomed and its our fault.

Advertisements

From → ClimateGate

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: