A Memo To Hansen and Sato
Guest commentary by Bob Tisdale
Date:August 21, 2011
Subject:A Request About Your El Niño Predictions And A Question About Anthropogenic Global Warming
To: James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato
Dear Makiko and James:
I am writing to you via my weblog with a request and a question. First, the request: Please stop predicting El Niño and Super El Niño events. Your track record is very poor. I, like many people who study ENSO, hope for extreme El Niño events, but when you predict a strong El Niño, a La Niña starts to evolve, and when you predict a “Super El Niño”, a mild El Niño comes to pass. Two examples come to mind:
Your March 27, 2011 mailing Perceptions of Climate Change was published at a number of websites, including Climate Story Tellers and Truthout. It included the following prediction of an El Niño event for the 2011/12 ENSO season:
Sometimes it is interesting to make a bet that looks like it is high risk, but really isn’t. Such a bet can be offered at this point. The NOAA web pages giving weekly ENSO updates predict a return to ENSO–neutral conditions by mid–summer with some models suggesting a modest El Nino to follow. We have been checking these forecasts weekly for the past several years, and have noted that the models almost invariably are biased toward weak changes. Based on subsurface ocean temperatures, the way these have progressed the past several months, and comparisons with development of prior El Niños, we believe that the system is moving toward a strong El Niño starting this summer. It’s not a sure bet, but it is probable.
Summer is well past its midpoint. And weekly NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies for August 10, 2011, based on the Reynolds OI.v2 dataset you use in your GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index, are approaching the threshold of La Niña conditions, Figure 1.
Figure 1
Note also that the NOAA models included in the ENSO updateyou referenced (now dated August 15, 2011) are forecasting La Niña conditions. Refer to Figures 2 and 3.
Figure 2
#####################################
Figure 3
And the majority of the other ENSO models are forecasting ENSO neutral conditions, Figure 4.
Figure 4
Based on the spread of model outputs, ENSO events are apparently difficult to forecast even in mid August, so there’s still a remote possibility that your prediction may come true, but right now, NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature observations are clearly pointing in the opposite direction.
Regarding Super El Niño events, let’s drop back a few years. In the draft of a paper titled Spotlight on Global Temperature dated March 29, 2006, you and a few of your associates predicted a “Super El Niño” for the 2006/07 ENSO season. (Thanks to DeSmogBlog for posting and maintaining the copy of the draft.) To refresh your memory, here’s what you wrote 5 years ago:
SUPER EL NINO IN 2006-2007? We suggest that an El Nino is likely to originate in 2006 and that there is a good chance it will be a ‘super El Niño’, rivaling the 1983 and 1997-1998 El Ninos, which were successively labeled the ‘El Nino of the century’ as they were of unprecedented strength in the previous 100 years (Fig. 1 of Fedorov and Philander 2000). Further, we argue that global warming causes an increase of such ‘super El Ninos’. Our rationale is based on interpretation of dominant mechanisms in the ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) phenomenon, examination of historical SST data, and observed Pacific Ocean SST anomalies in February 2006.
Please refer to Figure 5, which is a longer-term graph of the monthly Reynolds OI.v2-based NINO3.4 SST anomalies. You’ll note that I’ve indicated the 1982/83 and 1997/98 “Super El Niño” events. I’ve also marked the 2006/07 “Not-So-Super” El Niño, and the difference between the two, which results from your Not-So-Super Prediction.
Figure 5
If you’re not aware, there are many people who mistakenly believe that you are using your GISS Model-E General Circulation Models to make these erroneous predictions of strong and super El Niño events. I don’t feel it’s my responsibility to advise them that you are basing your predictions on your observations of climate data, not on your models, which as shown in Animations 1 and 2 do not appear model ENSO very well, if at all. Animations 1 and 2 are gif animations of time-series graphs that compare the observed NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature anomalies, which, as you are aware, are a commonly used index of the frequency and magnitude of ENSO events, to those hindcast by the GISS Model-EH and Model-ER.
Animation 1
#######################################
Animation 2
Your Model-EH and -ER, like other General Circulation models employed as future climate projection tools by the IPCC, do not come close to matching the frequency, magnitude, and duration of ENSO events. All three are very important when attempting to reproduce the instrument temperature record (and when trying to project future climate scenarios), since they dictate when and how much:
– heat is released from the tropical Pacific to the atmosphere, where it alters climate globally,
– warm water is distributed from the tropics toward the poles on the sea surface and below the surface of the oceans,
– warm water is created through coupled decreases in cloud cover and increases in visible sunlight over the tropical Pacific for use in the next ENSO event.
And now for my question: Where’s the Anthropogenic portion of the rise in Global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies during the satellite era? I can’t find it. I have been studying Sea Surface Temperature anomaly data for a number of years, and I cannot find any evidence of an anthropogenic component in Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly data. I’m referring to the satellite-era Reynolds OI.v2 Sea Surface Temperature dataset you use in your GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data. Animation 3 provides a basic introduction to what I have found.
Animation 3
Before you reply, please study two posts I’ve published recently:
ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature,
And:
They will provide a few answers to your initial thoughts.
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but many people outside of the climate science community have basic understandings of the process of ENSO. They realize that the warming and cooling of the central and eastern tropical Pacific during El Niño and La Niña events represent only a small portion of the processes that occasionally distribute vast amounts of heat from the tropics toward the poles, and they understand ENSO not only distributes heat through the atmosphere, but also within and on the surface of the oceans. They understand that the process of ENSO cannot be represented by a number in an ENSO index. Because of that, they understand the erroneous assumptions in the climate studies such as Fyfe et al (2010) “Comparing Variability and Trends in Observed and Modelled Global-Mean Surface Temperature” and Thompson et al (2008) paper Identifying Signatures of Natural Climate Variability in Time Series of Global-Mean Surface Temperature: Methodology and Insights. Those incorrect assumptions are carried over to blog posts such as Global trends and ENSO by your associates over at Real Climate. All portray ENSO as naturally occurring noise within the surface temperature record that can be removed through linear regression or through simple models that use an ENSO index to provide similar results. I have provided detailed explanations, illustrations, and animations in the above linked post (ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature) that illustrate the errors in these efforts.
In fact, as I noted in that post, the recent Compo and Sardeshmukh (2010) paper “Removing ENSO-Related Variations from the Climate Record” appears to be a step in the right direction. They write:
An important question in assessing twentieth-century climate is to what extent have ENSO-related variations contributed to the observed trends. Isolating such contributions is challenging for several reasons, including ambiguities arising from how ENSO is defined. In particular, defining ENSO in terms of a single index and ENSO-related variations in terms of regressions on that index, as done in many previous studies, can lead to wrong conclusions. This paper argues that ENSO is best viewed not as a number but as an evolving dynamical process for this purpose.
But Compo and Sardeshmukh also missed a very important part of ENSO. They overlooked the significance of the huge volume of warm water that is left over from El Niño events and failed to account for its contribution to the rise in global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies.
In closing, I, like you, look forward to the next strong or Super El Niño. I believe, though, we have different interests at heart. You appear to hope for one so that you can continue to piggyback your hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming on its multiyear aftereffects. I hope for a Super El Niño because the ARGO buoys are in now place, and it should be possible now to better track how the oceans distribute the warm water that’s left over from Super El Niño events.
Sincerely,
Bob Tisdale
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
James Hansen does not ever answer questions from mere mortals. He certainly poses them. There is zero possibility of a considered and thoughtful reply (99% confidence limit)
Looking at Figure 5: since 1981, strong heating events have occurred at intervals of 5-4-3-3-5-4-3 years (allowing for some fudging for noise, okay?). So the next warming event will be a big one in 2013, with a top value of 2.8C. The next will then happen in 2018 and have a top value of 1.8C .
Simplistic? Easy to say except for two things. 1: the world’s climate, according to the IPCC IS simple, so simple that the global temperature anomalies be reduced to a linear equation related to CO2 concentration. Natural variability by both assumption and necessary condition for the IPCC meme, IS simple and predictable. 2: pattern recognition is what computers and statistics look for, but in simple systems – if it exists – the correct graph and a good set of eyes can see the pattern.
If natural variability were significant and random, the IPCC meme would fall apart. So I hold that graphs, rulers and eyeballs can see patterns that are NOT perception biases but real. [An argument can be made that data since only 1981 is inadequate for even simple patterns to come through, but if they are simple, and if they are of the 4-year interval, then we have almost 8 cycles to review. Which is enough – if it isn’t enough, then the IPCC analysis of historical vs predicted occurrences doesn’t hold water either. At least to the level of accuracy (and precision) claimed by warmists.]
So here I go: a warm kick in 2013 at 2.8C, and another in 2016 at 1.8C. Call them what you will. A rose by any other name still has thorns, as one might say.
The warmists are looking for Dad to tell them how things will be, and Hansen-Gore-Suzuki want to be those fathers. Fathers who resent sons growing up and figuring things out for themselves.
I thought I had lost one of my gauntlets but now I see it has just been thrown down by Bob.
That is an absolute call-out. Now we’re getting somewhere.
I understand the distaste for Hansen. But, for those of us who do not closely follow all this, could somone post a concise list of failed predictions by Hansen? I think it might be informative. I might add that in fairness, a list of predictions that were accurate would be indicated. Then we can decide about the overall viewpoint.
What percentage (realisticly) do climate/weather forecasts/models have to meet to be deemed a success?
Hansen is not a scientist. He long ago crossed over into the realm of religion – faith. A scientist would examine his failed predictions, determine that his methodology was wrong, acknowledge that it was wrong, and proceed on a new path. Religion operates on faith. Facts don’t matter. Hansen is exactly like the guy walking the streets with a sign predicting the day the world will end. When the date passes with no end to world he simply changes the date and resumes walking the streets with no acknowledgement of past failures. Hansen makes no acknowledgement of failed predictions. It’s not about facts, it’s about faith in Church of Global Warming. “Calling him out” on failed predictions misses the point. Arguing from facts cannot shake the beliefs of another who is arguing from faith.
You have seen this over and over throughout the environmental movement. Nothing is going to change until we can wrestle environmental issues out of the realm of religion and back into the realm of objective science.
This will not be easy to do since like all religious leaders, these new religious leaders are charismatic figures, or people who hold political or economic power, and in some cases, power in the science community.
If you want to call them out, call them out for what they are – religious fundamentalists.
Grab the popcorn and a front row seat, Ladies and Gentlemen!
It’s the Sunday Morning Smack Down, brought to you by WUWT. The undefeated Brilliant Bob Tisdale single handedly takes on the man made temperature tag team of Hansen and Sato!
“Get Ready To Ruuuuuummmmmbbbblllllleeee!!!”
Nice job, Bob. I would not expect a reply anytime until after the next Super El Nino event.
I took the other side of that bet on Intrade, wagering (separately, at varying odds) that temperatures in Aug., Sept., and Oct. will not exceed a GISS anomaly of .65. Here’s the link: https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventClassId=20
If I am reading the charts correctly, we had strong – noticeably strong, though not exptreme – El Nino events in late 2002 and mid-2010.
OK.
Did Hansen, (et al) “predict” either of those events? If not, then he has no track record -> His theories cannot predict any other events – however (slightly more) strong or (significantly) weaker.
I’m as curious as Bob T. is regarding the follow-on heat distribution effects of a new Super El Niño but, then, I don’t live in a place (say the coastal hills of California) where the El Niño, itself, has a high pain index. (I just had to throw that word ‘index’ in someplace!)
I also agree with the first comment of John A. – Hansen and Sato will have moved on and not likely to revisit a failed study. They did write that it wasn’t “a sure bet.”
The point of these predictions is not accuracy. It is alarmism. The alarmist prediction will be reported, the failure of the same never. Thus the meme of dramatically increasing climate change danger continues on.
Why next they will suggest those pesky extraterrestrial aliens will destroy Earth in order to save it.
Oh wait…..
is this one of those deals where the best in the world has a track record of -006.
do any of these folks get any of it right??????
reminds me of a guy that used to post weather predictions on a bullitein board.
they were always a day or two after the weather occurred and always wrong.
C
On those two screen shots of Pacific El Nino Outlook for August 14 and August 15, notice that the value for the observed March anomaly went UP to nearly 0 on the August 15 screenshot. Why? What happened to cause them to warm the previous observations?
“I am writing to you via my weblog with a request and a question. First, the request: Please stop predicting El Niño and Super El Niño events. Your track record is very poor.”
I prefer that Hansen ignore this advise. The more failed predictions the better.
John F. Hultquist wrote:
“They did write that it wasn’t “a sure bet.”
Betting is what these predictions are all about. If or when he is ever right, he can pound his chest in triumph and claim unimpeachable knowledge and powers of scientific divination. Credibility works in only one direction for these guys.
I’m sure the Gate-Keeper McKibben will fill the moat. R Gates for closing?
From a book on Lying.by Sissela Bok
Once revealed, the gap is especially shocking in someone whose profession ideally requires a concern for truth. When judges and scientists are caught in fraud, the sense of betrayal is great. A fraudulent scientist goes against the most fundamental standards of science. Yet he may, paradoxically, act fraudulently in part on behalf of what he takes to be science and truth.
A scientist, for example, may believe a new discovery or theory to be true, but find the available data are as yet inconclusive. confident that future experimentation will bear him out, he may then falsify he data in order to gain support for what he feels sure to be true. He lies, in part, in the service of what he takes to be the truth. Sometimes these initial hunches turn out to be correct; often, they do no. IN the latter case, he may be driven into ever more deceit.
we cannot predict the weather 7 days in advance. otherwise, the daily forecast would be worthless and we’d get the forecast for the coming week every Sunday.
so not being a scientist, but somebody who just observes the world, I can’t understand why these climate “scientists” keep telling me the world is about to end and that billions will die if it heats up a degree or two.
seems to me all the really bad times in history came from it being too cold and good things happened when it was warmer. I can thank the warming for the fact that I enjoy the great lakes, which were carved out of the earth by glaciers that melted thanks to Global warming.
Bob Tisdale writes:
“Those incorrect assumptions are carried over to blog posts such as Global trends and ENSO by your associates over at Real Climate. All portray ENSO as naturally occurring noise within the surface temperature record that can be removed through linear regression or through simple models that use an ENSO index to provide similar results. I have provided detailed explanations, illustrations, and animations in the above linked post (ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature) that illustrate the errors in these efforts.”
Bob Tisdale has drawn a line in the sand. The line has been drawn at the correct place, angle, and time. The Achilles Heel of all the so-called science practiced by the people that Bob identifies has been made as clear as the nose on your face. Their so-called science does not treat ENSO phenomena as natural phenomena but as “naturally occurring noise within the surface temperature record.” And Bob presents major errors in their efforts which follow from failure to represent the process(es) of ENSO.
What I take away from Bob’s article is that he provides powerful evidence that Hansen and “team” are not engaged in physical science, unless by physical science one means what can be described in terms of radiation exchanges and associated temperature numbers. Surely, everyone can recognize that Hansen and “team” have no physical hypotheses of the sort offered by Willis Eschenbach in his posts here on WUWT of the last week. They have no descriptions of natural regularities such as the descriptions offered in Willis’ account of his “homeostatic systems.” That is my claim, not Bob’s. In my humble opinion, Hansen and team are interested in one thing only: creating a record of temperature measurements that will panic people into supporting huge taxes for mitigation of CO2.
All the AGW BS will continue until the research grantsmanship ends. If the climate ‘scientists’ can continue riding that gravy train, they will.
Don’t forget rule one of climate science, if the models and reality differ, its reality that is in error . This leads to know that predictions from this models are always ‘right’ but reality in falling to match them is in fact ‘wrong’ .
Bob Tisdale quotes Compo and Sardeshmukh (2010) as follows:
“An important question in assessing twentieth-century climate is to what extent have ENSO-related variations contributed to the observed trends. Isolating such contributions is challenging for several reasons, including ambiguities arising from how ENSO is defined. In particular, defining ENSO in terms of a single index and ENSO-related variations in terms of regressions on that index, as done in many previous studies, can lead to wrong conclusions. This paper argues that ENSO is best viewed not as a number but as an evolving dynamical process for this purpose.”
This is a call for a move back to physical science. An “Evolving dynamical process” consists of many sub-processes and each of them must be described by physical hypotheses that are discovered through empirical research in the environment.
This is especially interesting to me because I spent a considerable amount of professional time explaining to engineers that computer models are good analytic tools for refining one’s knowledge of natural processes but entirely worthless when they are treated as authoritative sources and the numbers that they generate are confused with reality.
Chuck says:
August 21, 2011 at 10:51 am
“Hansen is not a scientist. He long ago crossed over into the realm of religion – faith. A scientist would examine his failed predictions, determine that his methodology was wrong, acknowledge that it was wrong, and proceed on a new path.”
Very well said. And powerful evidence for your claim is found in the fact that Hansen and “team” studiously avoid discussing their failures but the genuine scientist is no less interested in the failures than in the successes. Someone who has the instincts of a scientist is fascinated by the failures, insists on confronting and explaining them, and will not let them go until there is a satisfactory answer. Thank God for genuine scientists. Most of what science offers us was found in the failures.
Doug Proctor says: “…So I hold that graphs, rulers and eyeballs can see patterns that are NOT perception biases but real.”
Graphs and rulers see nothing. Yes, human eyes can “see” real patterns, with a little help from the brain. We’re designed to pick out predators from shrubbery approaching 100% of the time. To get that level of detection, we also see shrubbery as a predator a significant part of the time, e.g., 10%. “Seeing” a pattern in climate can also be a true or false indication of something there. “Wiggle matching” is not science unless there’s a predetermined criterion for what constitutes a match and a method for calculating statistical significance for the result. ENSO is like a grandfather clock with a boa constrictor for a pendulum. Predicting the swings is impossible.