It occurred to me that part of the reason no one gives a hoot about global warming is that the whole idea of “global mean surface temperature” is meaningless collectivist garbage. We don’t live in the “globe” we live in individual places. So I found the following bits particularly interesting on Roger Pielke Sr’s website’s “Main Conclusions” page:
“Global and zonally-averaged surface temperature trend assessments, besides having major difficulties in terms of how this metric is diagnosed and analyzed, do not provide significant information on climate change and variability on the regional and local scales.”
“In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change.”
“Global and regional climate models have not demonstrated skill at predicting regional and local climate change and variability on multi-decadal time scales.”
“Attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose.”
And several others. Roger has one of the most nuanced and sophisticated perspectives on climate science and I encourage you to read some of the papers on his site:
I want to tell you what I take from these quotes, more than anything else. That is, their is a lack of attention paid to regional and local climate change, which in the end is what people actually care about. As should be obvious from my past posts, looking at temperature trends in the US and UK, I am interested in regional climate change more than global, becuase it actually affects people. I want to give you my thoughts on some regional issues.
First of all: I think that in many places, ocean circulation patterns are more important than Greenhouse Gases. Infinitely so, in fact. A case in point: Alaska. As you know from my Klimacht Essay, El Niños mean warm Alaskan winters, and in 1976, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation switched phases from cool, meaning more La Ninas, to warm, meaning more El Niños. Unsurprisingly, Temperatures in Alaska “jumped” at the same time. Read Joe D’Aleo’s essay on the “great pacific climate shift” and other oceanic influences here:
Derek of the Global Warming Skeptics Forum describes this phenomenon as a hot steamy tub making a bathroom…Hot and steamy. Not hard to understand. Kristen Byrnes of Ponder the Maunder has put forth the theory that the cool phase of the PDO actually caused the midcentury cool period that scared so many people in the seventies. Which is interesting, but off the present topic, which is about regional climate shifts. How about the US? Joe D’Aleo noted (as you can see above) that if you combine the PDO with the AMO you get an excellent correlation with US Temperatures and Arctic temperatures. Now surely if the Oceans are more important in the US, we have no reason to worry about CO2. And of course if the same is true of the Arctic, then there is a perfectly natural, cyclic explanation for the melting ice, which presumably also happened in the 30 too, after all it was especially warm then.
And over at Gust of Hot Air, John Lowe has found he can account for a lot of Australian warming recently can be explained with Sunshine duration:
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/ (scroll down)
I posted earlier that temperatures in Armagh are highly inversely correlated with Sunspot cycle length. Once again:
This kind of regional focus, I think, can resonate with people, becuase they give a hoot about it. Advantage skeptics.