Asian Monsoon
The Asian monsoon climate system plays a significant role in large-scale climate variability over much of the globe. Due to its considerable importance to global climate and implications for the worlds population, there is an urgent need for greater understanding of this system, with the ultimate goal being improved prediction on annual to decadal and longer time scales. For the next five years, with the support of an unprecedented NSF award , we are committed to apply the science of dendrochronology to address several key questions regarding the relationship between the Asian monsoon and three large-scale, coupled processes that drive much of its variability: 1) Asian land surface air temperatures, 2) Sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies in the Indian Ocean, and 3) Tropical Pacific SST anomalies associated with the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
I thought it had been on my browser long enough and gave it a quick once over before deciding what to do with it. Now consider this thought process:
I am averse to speculation about the climate (but not averse to climates.) We have them all over the world, I don't deny that. But... "Due to its considerable importance to global climate and implications" there are no implications about any climates that we can affect by utilising the gifts of the carbon cycle whether you believe in creation or not.
Furthermore: "for the worlds population, there is an urgent need for greater understanding of this system" yes there is but not for the following things as reasons:
... with the ultimate goal being improved prediction on annual to decadal and longer time scales." We already have those answers including the one for the Stokes-Navier and the other Millennial Prize question about Singularity.
Rather than developing a fluid flow oscillation the magnitude of fluid flow can transform the fluid effect to what in nature is considered catastophism. (The fluid flow breaks down the containment barriers.)
My quarrel with the article is with the assumption:
"For the next five years, with the support of an unprecedented NSF award , we are committed to apply the science of dendrochronology to..."
They are going to bring a demonstration of some climate trick to their rigged table using loaded dice. The work on gathering logs in order to make data on time-lapses is based on a few score found fallen logs that are presumed to be a certain age.
Then we come into the realm of normalisation in science: Normalising can be considered the equivalent of scratching the surface of a building plot to make the ground level. Making the ground level is part of the building process it help you to keep a run of bricks on the same line as you turn the corners of the walls.
But it doesn't take you down to the foundations.
Nothing alive is older than a few centuries and thus we only have a good idea about what stages of the decades long clime runs have happened to a number of trees because they are still living.
We can take that a little further back with the buildings that are made of timber from huge logs IF we have complete records of what the time lines for gathering the now preserved ancient timber grew in and when and where it was grown/felled/seasoned.
We don't have that from "found" logs. Most of which have been supplied by dendochronologists between themselves from archaeological sites in the Arctic Tundra. Tree growth in the Arctic Circle has special characteristics that are at the apex of the so called decadal climate cycles.
Locations in the Arctic can have periods of flood and drought during such cycles. Also it is known that there are places in the North that can experience extremes of hot and cold on the same day.
How can they be used to carefully apply statistical analysis for use in the argument about anthropomorphic climate change?
>>In different climates.<<
It is just nonsense.
