Craig,

Let’s see how the authors respond.

Regards,
Paul.

In the original paper, to the press release, subsequent statements by the authors, and in the post and comments here at WUWT it has been claimed that the SOI is responsible for the majority of ‘variation’ in temperature data and that C02 could not be having a significant effect. The rebuttal demonstrates that the analysis does not show this and could not have shown it even if it were true. It also points out that it has long been known that shorter term variability is significantly affected by SOI, but the the degree of its influence is artificially inflated by the McLean et. al. analysis, by their methods of filtering out both longer and shorter term variability in the data.

Let my quote Bob Carter, as highlighted at the top of this very post …

“The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.”

That the paper did not do this was shown almost immediately after the paper was published, and is now done so formally in the Foster et. al. reply.

Given all this, what do you think the McLean paper actually tells us?

Clear & specific – yes …& aimed at the strawman trend issue.

What is the “main premise” that you consider to be “pure distortion”?

The critique seems very clear and specific to me. The McLean et. al paper has convincingly been eviscerated.

The link has changed:

Foster, G; Annan, J.D.; Jones, P.D.; Mann, M.E.; Renwick, J.; Salinger, J.; Schmidt, G.A.; & Trenberth, K.E. (2009). Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter. Journal of Geophysical Research (submitted Aug. 2009).
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/Foster_et%20alJGR09_formatted.pdf

There are valid points in the critique, but the main premise is pure distortion. I interpret this as a clear signal (a kind of warning shot across the bow) that they perceived the McLean, de Freitas, & Carter (2009) paper [& related press] as sufficiently partisan to warrant a distorted attack.

This should be a lesson for those formally interested in natural climate factors:
1) Leave the political distortion aside.
2) Be careful with interpretations – use appropriate qualifiers.

The biggest mistake possible would be to respond to the critique in a partisan fashion.

The high road for the authors would be to:
A) List the errors in the original paper & in press releases.
B) Issue stern clarifications about the strawman trend issue.

Yet within an hour of my posts calling attention to the Trenberth rebuttal, the paper is linked to, so I guess commenting here isn’t a complete waste of time.

FYI for those interested in the truth, a more complete discussion of how the press release in the post above is riddled with errors, is posted at Climate Progress.

Reply: We’ve been hit with a massive amount of spam this week, and I did one purge yesterday not realizing there was a second page where user comments may have been residing. I also deleted one of your posts a few days ago and asked you to resubmit without prohibited language. I find your description of our behavior exaggerated to say the least. It is most likely you continue to post with prohibited language and other moderators have repeated my actions. ~ charles the moderator

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/FosteretalJGR09.pdf

h/t to Bob

Here is the last entry that was blocked:

=——
Greetings to All,

-
Gavin’s Pussycat [8:04 am] “And why are you unhappy that organizations handing out the taxpayers’ money would want to see societally relevant research?”

I have not suggested this.

-
Lazar [10:35 am] “where in the paper do they make conclusions about trends with reference to other work?”

One example:
Guilderson, T. P; & Schrag, D. P. (1998). Abrupt shift in subsurface temperatures in the tropical Pacific associated with changes in El Nino. Science 281, 240-243.

They should have used more references. My impression is that they are aware of a lot more literature on the mid-70s climate shift than what they cited. Also, they should have distinguished the mid-70s climate shift from the late-90s one. Increasing frequency & intensity of El Ninos is related to the mid-70s shift, but the late-90s shift appears to involve other complexity – and since I have not (yet) studied the literature on the latter event, I will refrain from speculating at this time.

-
Lazar [10:35 am] “the only statement tamino made with regard to smoothing, is..”

As noted, my concerns stem from reading apparent misunderstandings in comments that have been allowed to persist (while other comments have been attacked aggressively). I am left with the impression that politics is more important than substance. I state this objectively, not maliciously.

-
Lazar [10:35 am] “there are still many unknowns about impacts which need resolving…”

Yes, and as Gavin’s Pussycat has pointed out: “But studying natural climate factors is an essential part of [...]!”

-
Lazar [10:35 am] “perhaps it would be more productive to push for more overall funding for climate science…”

Agreed – and less attachment of political strings.

-
Lazar [10:35 am] “distracting from a very real threat is neither sane and perhaps in terms of your funding goals may even be counterproductive…”

I’m not going to resort to lying to get funding, nor am I willing to be coerced.

-
Re: Deech56 [11:46 am]
My interest is in the science (& *fair* judgement of it). It is clear that there is no shortage of people acting as media watchdogs. In contrast, it is also clear that there *is* a shortage of people who understand the nuances of elementary statistics. (I don’t blame them – our education system has plenty of built-in (& formidable) flaws.)

-
Re: TCO [12:01 pm]
Interesting comments.

-
TrueSceptic [12:01 pm] “The controversy is generated by “sceptics” and “deniers””

Your list is incomplete.

-
Re: george [2:09 pm]
Good eye George. I am vehemently opposed to toxic pollution.

-
Ray Ladbury [3:19 pm]
“If you are having trouble getting funding to look at natural climate variability, I suspect that is because ultimate the folks who control funding (e.g the voters) are ignoramuses–and proudly so. PR efforts like that by McdFC do not help you or anyone else in this effort. The risks posed by increased greenhouse forcing are real, and the consequences are still at present unbounded. I call that cause for concern, not obsessive focus. If people don’t understand the need for research into natural factors, the answer is to educate them–to make their concern a teachable moment.”

WISE WORDS RAY, but I would add that GHG-obsession is stealing too much spotlight from other serious environmental issues.

-
dhogaza [5:21 pm] “[...] even though the paper doesn’t look for any trend.”

Thank you for clarifying this. (I entered the discussion because many people here appeared to believe otherwise.)

-
Re: dhogaza [5:34 pm]
I share your concerns about the PR stunts. Carter has made a serious error with the suggestions about CO2. [When I see that, I suspect funding politics. Few researchers are immune to it. One often sees hints about funding in the last few sentences of abstracts & on the last page.]

-
Re: george [6:07 pm]
Your comment reinforces the concerns which caused me to enter the discussion.

-

Tamino,
The pieces you have chosen to block & edit are highly informative. You are the only moderator who has ever blocked or edited my comments in my entire life.

For anyone interested, I have posted the blocked comments here:

Paul Vaughan (13:02:35)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/surge-in-global-temperatures-since-1977-can-be-attributed-to-a-1976-climate-shift-in-the-pacific-ocean/

Paul Vaughan (22:11:08)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/on-climate-comedy-copyrights-and-cinematography/

-
Regards,
Paul Vaughan.
——-=

=—–
Perhaps it will take some time before everyone settles down enough to discuss the trend issue *objectively*. My impression is that several people here are so angry about the press releases that this is causing them to feel justified in making *false* statements about one **very specific** aspect of the paper. I feel compelled to object in defense of the credibility of the environmental movement. (My background spans ecology, rare plant conservation, soil science, acid rain, zoological research, parks, outdoor recreation, & population genetics of plant species on a fragmented landscape during climate change. I also spent several years teaching, tutoring, & marking statistics. I urge people here not to pre-judge.)
——=

In the plots:
1) |Pr’| is the magnitude of terrestrial polar motion (x,y) vector rate of change. (Effectively, this is an index of radius relative to trend, with a minor phase shift.)
2) r” is the rate of change of the rate of change of the distance between the solar system center of mass and the sun (calculated from NASA Horizons output).
3) LNC = Lunar Nodal Cycle (which I’m sure you figured out easily).

Were you following the earlier threads where I shared other details?

I can count on one hand the number of questionable statements in the paper. A little more restraint would have made a difference. Considering the polarity that exists, the few lapses in judgement (effectively) invited partisanly-zealous scrutiny.

Regardless of how various press-releases have been framed, the mid-70s step-change is a legitimate topic for discussion & research. Now that the dust has settled, this is the elephant in the room. Media-stunts come & go. Serious people will be focused on the elephant, not the jesters.

http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-not-to-analyze-climate-data.html

Claim: “The filters were arbitrary [...]“

Worse-than-false. I suppose it might look that way to someone who does not understand what was being done.

Claim: “An ideal filter will show a 1 for all periods except the ones you’re trying to get rid of, where it will be 0.”

This reflects one paradigm about what constitutes “ideal”, but it seems to completely overlook the desirable harmonic properties of a simple boxcar kernel.

Honesty:
MdFC09 did a lousy job of explaining the processing.

More honesty:
Even if MdFC did a better job justifying the processing, we’d still hear screaming about “smoothing” & “differencing” – as if these operations are “bad” in every context —- this is a function of poor conceptual understanding.

I know career academic statisticians who misunderstand the properties of simple boxcar smoothing. It’s one of those things that very few people investigate carefully.

Bewilderingly, the paper contains a few comments that suggest this examination of variability (ENSO) has an impact on long-term temperature trends. This is in no way supported by the analysis. Thus, this comment cited in the top post:

“The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions.”

Is just not supported by the paper. I think it’s fair to update the top post by quoting Freitas’ qualifying comments upthread, lest people be led astray by a news report. It’s the science we’re looking at here, isn’t it – not the media mangling?

The long-term goal is to go well-beyond McLean, de Freitas, & Carter (2009). This will require careful planning. The work will be tedious.

In the meantime, I can comment that I can count on one hand the questionable statements in MdFC09. A little more restraint would have made a difference.

As for their analysis methods: The problem is not with the methods used, but rather with the lack of substantiation.

One other note: They didn’t handle the 1976-1978 step change in El Nino frequency & intensity as well as they could have (which means it should be easy to improve on this work).

http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/1931UniquePhaseHarmonics.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/ChandlerPeriod.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/ChandlerPeriodAgassizBC,CanadaPrecipitationTimePlot.PNG

We can discuss this further moving forward. (There just aren’t enough hours in the day – particularly this one.)

I look forward to collaborating in the near future.

Best Regards,
Paul Vaughan.