Rahmstorf’s new heat wave cherry twisty

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. says exactly what I thought: this new paper from Rahmstorf is untrustworthy.

He writes:
Here is another good example why I have come to view parts of the climate science research enterprise with a considerable degree of distrust.

A paper was released yesterday by PNAS, by Stefan Rahmstorf and Dim Coumou, which asserts that the 2010 Russian summer heat wave was, with 80% probability, the result of a background warming trend. But if you take a look at the actual paper you see that they made some arbitrary choices (which are at least unexplained from a scientific standpoint) that bias the results in a particular direction.

Look at the annotated figure above, which originally comes from an EGU poster by Dole et al. (programme here in PDF).

It shows surface temperature anomalies in Russia dating back to 1880.  I added in the green line which shows the date from which Rahmsdorf and Coumou decided to begin their analysis — 1911, immediately after an extended warm period and at the start of an extended cool period.

Nyet…more here

Here’s the abstract:

Increase of extreme events in a warming world

  1. Stefan Rahmstorf1 and
  2. Dim Coumou

+ Author Affiliations


  1. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PO Box 601203, 14412 Potsdam, Germany
  1. Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved September 27, 2011 (received for review February 2, 2011)

Abstract

We develop a theoretical approach to quantify the effect of long-term trends on the expected number of extremes in generic time series, using analytical solutions and Monte Carlo simulations. We apply our method to study the effect of warming trends on heat records. We find that the number of record-breaking events increases approximately in proportion to the ratio of warming trend to short-term standard deviation. Short-term variability thus decreases the number of heat extremes, whereas a climatic warming increases it. For extremes exceeding a predefined threshold, the dependence on the warming trend is highly nonlinear. We further find that the sum of warm plus cold extremes increases with any climate change, whether warming or cooling. We estimate that climatic warming has increased the number of new global-mean temperature records expected in the last decade from 0.1 to 2.8. For July temperature in Moscow, we estimate that the local warming trend has increased the number of records expected in the past decade fivefold, which implies an approximate 80% probability that the 2010 July heat record would not have occurred without climate warming.

=============================================================

Compare that to what NOAA says about it here

About these ads
This entry was posted in heat wave, Weather and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Rahmstorf’s new heat wave cherry twisty

  1. Jeff D says:

    Yeah! This one is not a ” What If Study “. But alas another cherry picked Hockey Stick… :(

  2. Kev-in-Uk says:

    I realise that graph shown is of temp anomaly but even so, by simple eyeballing, the areas of +ve anomalies is roughly equal to the areas of -ve anomalies. On a simple analysis, would that not suggest that ‘overall’ – there has been no statistical warming in Russia? Especially if you consider that the 30′s warming was certainly higher in magnitude……

  3. Ken Harvey says:

    Diametrically opposed climate study conclusions. Does that have a human thumbprint or is it just a matter of natural variability?

  4. KnR says:

    The point of the paper was to call for more research and tap into the AGW bucket , so it was a ‘success’ quality had bugger all to do with its about letting others know the authors are ‘on side ‘

  5. Smokey says:

    The planet has been warming naturally along the same trend line since the LIA. The warming trend is not accelerating [green line]. In fact, nothing unusual is happening; there have been droughts somewhere on the planet for as long as history has been recorded. This is just more cherry-picked grant trolling by Rahmstorf.

  6. jjm gommers says:

    In the summer of 2010 I traveled to Russia(by car from the Netherlands up and down over 11000 km) and stayed there for almost 3 months. In South Russia the view of the sky was limited at night (hazy-smog or water?) in comparison with other years, it didn’t cool off as usual. When I arrived in may in Moscow it was clear but when I returned early august it was unbearable of the smog caused by the forest fires over a vast area, from Voronezh up to Moscow. The situation lasted over this period of time. I wonder if they investigated this unusal situation in their study.

  7. p gosselin says:

    Rahmstorf is becoming an asset!

  8. Ron Cram says:

    I am reminded that Eduardo Zorita proposed Rahmstorf to be banned from future participation in IPCC assessments. See http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/357/

    Banning Mann and Jones is perfectly reasonable. I didn’t know why Zorita wanted to ban Rahmstorf also, but he must have a reason!

  9. As McIntyre often says, “You have to keep your eye on the pea” with the climate gang. My eyeball regression gives a cooling trend of -0.1 degrees if you start from 1890 (but R^2 < 0.01), in accord with Dole's no significant trend since 1890. But alas if you start from 1910, you get a 0.4 deg warming.

    Always keep your eye on the pea. The shell game continues.

  10. Garrett says:

    I really don’t think you get how science works. Rahmstorf’s paper is a criticism of Dole’s paper (the NOAA paper you linked to). Dole found that the Russian heat wave could in no way be linked to global warming. Rahmstorf found otherwise and pointed out a flaw in Dole’s analysis. There may or may not be a flaw in how Rahmstorf crunched his numbers, but in science we go back and forth through the peer-review process until it’s sorted out. The fact that the Rahmstorf paper doesn’t agree with your pre-conceived convictions is no reason to call it “untrustworthy”. What sort of scientist are you?

  11. And yet, in this peer-reviewed paper (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL046582.shtml), this statement was made in the abstract:

    “…Analysis of observations indicate that this heat wave was mainly due to internal atmospheric dynamical processes that produced and maintained a strong and long-lived blocking event, and that similar atmospheric patterns have occurred with prior heat waves in this region. We conclude that the intense 2010 Russian heat wave was mainly due to natural internal atmospheric variability…”

    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L06702, 5 PP., 2011
    doi:10.1029/2010GL046582

    Oh, well. Let the battle begin…

  12. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Thanks for your pointing this out, Dr. P., and for your analysis.

    Gosh … I guess that means that Rahmstorf has proven the globe is warming.

    Didn’t he realize that BEST beat him to the punch?

    However, I don’t get it. He says that when numbers of extremes go up “in proportion to the ratio of the warming trend to short-term standard deviation.”

    Without the paper, I don’t have a clue what the second one means, what is “short-term” standard deviation (SD), what is the length of the term, and why use that rather than regular old standard deviation.

    In addition, I don’t understand the units of the ratio. SD is in degrees. Trend is in degrees per year, or per decade, or per century. So Trend (degrees/year) divided by SD (degrees) leaves us with units of ? per year … that always makes me nervous.

    One method to investigate such a claim is to look at the extremes. For example, if there is no trend, then the ratio Trend/SD is zero, and the relationship would indicate that there would be no extremes at all … which makes no sense. So at least that much of their claim is in doubt.

    More to the point, however, I don’t see how that adds to our store of knowledge. The only people who find heat records surprising in a generally warming world are AGW supporters. They’re the ones who are always on about how “seven of the warmest years are in the last decade” and like that, as though it were a surprise. The rest of us know what Rahmstorf has so laboriously established. In a warming trend, you’ll get more heat records, particularly in recent years … duh.

    So yes, R&C have succeeded in verifying the blatently obvious. What I don’t understand is why anyone would either be surprised, or would care. It’s like the BEST results that verify that the world is generally warming … so what, we all knew that.

    In the same way, the R&C results verify that in a warming world, we’d expect to see more high temperature records broken … so what, we all knew that.* It would be interesting if that didn’t happen … but since it did, including in Russia, it’s banal.

    w.

    * Well, except for the AGW supporters who are in a lather about the number of top-ten years in the recent decade. They didn’t know that. Maybe the paper is written for them.

  13. Richard Saumarez says:

    80% probability? p=0.2?

    What an incredible abuse of statistics.

  14. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Richard Saumarez says:
    October 26, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    80% probability? p=0.2?

    What an incredible abuse of statistics.

    You heard about the “New Math” that swept our schools in the 1970′s?

    This is the “New Statistics”, that swept the mainstream AGW scientists in the 1990′s.

    All the best,

    w.

  15. Allanj says:

    Re Garrett says: 12:28….What sort of scientist are you?

    Actually it was Dr. Roger Pielke Jr, who used the term “untrustworthy”. You ask what kind of scientist are you? (Pielke or Watts?) You seem to suggest we should all remain quiet while this disagreement is sorted out in the peer review process.

    But that is not how science oriented blogs work. We are all free to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of any published paper, whether we are scientists to your liking or not. That is, in my mind, a wonderfully enlightening and refreshing way to participate in science,

    Dr. Pielke, Jr says there are flaws in the Rahmstorf paper. You say there may or may not be flaws in it. What don’t you address the issue that Dr Pielke raised? Try it, I think you will find it’s rewarding. Certainly more rewarding than suggesting Dr. Pielke and we have no right to comment.

  16. DaveS says:

    jjm gommers says:
    October 26, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    “In the summer of 2010 I traveled to Russia(by car from the Netherlands up and down over 11000 km) and stayed there for almost 3 months. In South Russia the view of the sky was limited at night (hazy-smog or water?) in comparison with other years, it didn’t cool off as usual. When I arrived in may in Moscow it was clear but when I returned early august it was unbearable of the smog caused by the forest fires over a vast area, from Voronezh up to Moscow. The situation lasted over this period of time. I wonder if they investigated this unusal situation in their study.”

    You musn’t muddy their ‘theoretical approach’ with mere observations!

  17. Jit says:

    5% would be a normal threshold. 2.5% if the test is two-tailed. “80% chance” is the same as saying non-significant, isn’t it?

    If looking at trend/stdev over the short term, then if there’s no variability, each year is a record, so long as there’s a trend (imagine a straight slope). On the other hand, if there’s a trend hidden in a big bucket of variability, there aren’t so many records. Bit of what you might call a “no-brainer”.

  18. Ric Werme says:

    We further find that the sum of warm plus cold extremes increases with any climate change, whether warming or cooling.

    I need to think about this. I guess they’re not referring to summing the actual extreme temperatures, but mean the actual events, i.e. “the count of warm and cold extreme events…”. Call it a language issue.

    If that count goes up or down with warming or cooling, that implies we are neither warm nor cool now, or at the very least extreme events leave the trend in the noise.

    Given that we are near the peak global temps, I don’t see how that fits. Perhaps the paper makes it more clear.

  19. John A says:

    In addition, I don’t understand the units of the ratio. SD is in degrees. Trend is in degrees per year, or per decade, or per century. So Trend (degrees/year) divided by SD (degrees) leaves us with units of ? per year … that always makes me nervous.

    I believe this is called frequency, measured in Hertz.

    No, I have no idea what Rahmsdorf is talking about either. It’s startling that these sort of papers pass peer review while critical papers get the full abuse treatment.

  20. Louis says:

    Does the same reasoning work for an extreme cold weather event? If the 2010 Russian summer heat wave indicates a high probability of “a background warming trend”, wouldn’t a winter cold wave indicate a high probability of a background cooling trend? (Silly me. I forgot that extreme heat and extreme cold are both indicative of a warming trend.)

  21. Ursus Augustus says:

    Yup. Clear evidence of a warming phase after a long cool phase following a warm phase following a cool phase following a warm phase etc. Incontravertible. The author’s have won me (V Sarc).

    You can get an uptrend ( or a down trend if it suits your purpose) out of a sine wave if you start your linear fit at a down ( or up) phase and finish it at an up ( or down) phase. Only someone with no idea of the actual mechanism at work and no idea generally would use a linear fit to clearly oscillating data . Or a fraudster.

    I have a paper on sea level rise that basically does this ( The Sea Level at Port Arthur, Tasmania, from 1841 to the Present, J. Hunter et al, GRL, Vol. 30, No. 7, 1401, Apr. 2003 ) and it sits along side the hockey schtick in my pantheon of nonsense as the gold standard for the cretinous behaviour of some warmistas. I think I have found a third icon for my altar for the adulation of the ridiculous.
    Why don’t these turkey’s just stand on their heads or go about naked when they want attention?

  22. Krishna Gans says:

    They never heard from jet-streams slowed down by less sun activity and missing UV-radiation heating normaly the upper athmosphaere.
    Rahmstorf a scientist ? far away…

  23. TomRude says:

    Amazingly these papers are published and these authors are still enjoying a career…

  24. Brian H says:

    Ursu’s Augustu’s;
    It’s an opening shot in debasing the test for significance from a risible 95% to an outrageous 80%.
    ___
    Grammarnasty/ Abandon the use of all apostrophes. You have no clue. /Grammarnasty

  25. JPeden says:

    It looks like Pielke Jr. has Rahmstorf over a barrel at his blog and at RC. One commenter at Pielke’s found that McIntyre had already dissected the padding-smoothing issue of another of Rahmstorf “non-linear-linear-trend” thingy’s, which it looks like R. might have to come back with to try to explain why he didn’t include the 1880-1910 data, “because it’s not linear” or “there is no trend back then”, or something:

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/03/the-secret-of-the-rahmstorf-non-linear-trend/

    I’m getting the idea that in regard to the method the “science” of mainstream Climate Scientists employs, its stats are just about equivalent in value to its verbiage: anything goes and it always proves “or else we’re all gonna die!” Unprecedently!

    sigh…”So much to shovel, so little funding remains…cursed Teapartiers!”

  26. Wil says:

    Here’s what’s appearing on the CBC website today: Polar bear campaign seeks ‘last ice’ Arctic preserve. The plight of the polar bear is so dire due to the shrinking of sea ice crucial to its habitat that some scientists are musing about moving them to a “last ice area” in the high Arctic.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/26/pol-environment-polar-bears-relocation.html

  27. Richard Keen says:

    Careful selection of a starting point for trends is what IPCC types are trained to do. An NCAR group did the same thing to “prove” an increase in record max vs. min temps in the US, and here’s the response on WUWT:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/16/why-ncars-meehl-paper-on-highlow-temperature-records-is-bunk/
    Starting their trend after the Dust Bowl was over was very clever.
    Keep in mind the IPCC’s charter is not to scientifically discover if AGW is happening or not, but to document that it is happening so the policy dudes can transfer wealth in its name.

  28. We develop a theoretical approach to quantify … using analytical solutions and Monte Carlo simulations… We find that the number of record-breaking events increases approximately in proportion to the ratio of warming trend to short-term standard deviation… For extremes exceeding a predefined threshold, the dependence on the warming trend is highly nonlinear. We further find that the sum of warm plus cold extremes increases with any climate change, whether warming or cooling.

    That last sentence looks like self-proven nonsense. So much theory-play they cannot see it?

    Well, now, let’s look at real Russian temperatures. Here’s Ilarionov part one and part two; and here’s my own virtual visits to Yamal page one and page three.

    These don’t show anything outside natural fluctuations linkable to solar variations modulated by ocean oscillations. Importantly, the Salehard seasonal temperatures on my Yamal page 3, supplied by Ford Prefect, show up the UHI with magnificent clarity.

  29. Manfred says:

    I really feel sad about “science” coming from my home country.

    Ramstorf 2007 still hasn’t been retracted, though it is still quoted to justifiy gigantic financial expenses.

  30. DirkH says:

    Ron Cram says:
    October 26, 2011 at 12:27 pm
    “Banning Mann and Jones is perfectly reasonable. I didn’t know why Zorita wanted to ban Rahmstorf also, but he must have a reason!”

    Rahmstorf is the sidekick of Schellnhuber, the boss of the PIK in Potsdam. PIK means Potsdam Institute for Assessment of the Consequences of Climate Change; they are the German equivalent to Hansen and Gavin Schmidt – Rahmstorf is also running his own blog and contributes to RC. Schellnhuber doesn’t have to get himself arrested, though, as he is 100% in line with government policies.

    Their mission is political and the results predetermined by the mission statement of the institute – torture numbers and make them confess; or, in German, vee haf vays to make you hand over your wallet.

  31. Philip Finck says:

    Interesting,

    However, there were a lot of `heat waves’ around and pre-1900 in the graph, (Time series of July near surface temperature anomalies averaged over the area 50-60N and 35-55E. Anomalies are calculated relative to the period 1880-2009) in the NOAA paper. Maybe not quite as big but more frequent over a longer period of time.
    Dr. P., What would happen if the experiment was turned around to see if there was a relationship between heat waves going back to 1880 and cooling? . There are actually quite a few hot years at either end of the figure and around 1940. Just visually, it almost looks like if you cut off the data set at 2000 and then used the series to 1880 (the exact opposite of what Rh did), you would get a strong relationship between cooling and heat waves.

    Looks like the data set is dominated at either end by a bunch of extremes, a peak in the middle. Just looking at it that, to me suggests a cyclical event. Or even more reasonably, given the bunching of the highs at either end of the data, seems to me that one cannot draw any reasonable conclusion without at the very minimum another 50 years of data. I also note in the NOAA paper that they say there is no warming trend in this part of Russia. So the heat waves will be more frequent and larger due to warming but there is no warming????

  32. feliksch says:

    The 2010 summer heat-wave in Russia was hot air from Africa (Sahara?), which flowed from there for an unusual long time.

  33. james says:

    We clearly fail to reject the null hypothesis that the russian heat wave was induced by AGW.

    James

  34. Ron House says:

    Another incomprehensible point: The Russian heatwave temperatures are what we call here a hot but normal summer day. People migrate here (Queensland) from down south because they like these temperatures. If the Russians get fewer of those killer blizzards conditioning them to the cold they might come to like it too

  35. Gail Combs says:

    Wil says:
    October 26, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    Here’s what’s appearing on the CBC website today: Polar bear campaign seeks ‘last ice’ Arctic preserve. The plight of the polar bear is so dire due to the shrinking of sea ice crucial to its habitat that some scientists are musing about moving them to a “last ice area” in the high Arctic.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/26/pol-environment-polar-bears-relocation.html
    ______________________________________

    Those bears are going to be totally P.O.ed at being moved from their readily available food source – GARBAGE DUMPS.

  36. Lawrie Ayres says:

    Louis @ 1.25 pm,
    Does the same reasoning work for an extreme cold weather event? If the 2010 Russian summer heat wave indicates a high probability of “a background warming trend”, wouldn’t a winter cold wave indicate a high probability of a background cooling trend? (Silly me. I forgot that extreme heat and extreme cold are both indicative of a warming trend.)

    I’m with you Louis. If heat waves = AGW then cold snaps = the opposite. Or maybe it just means all is normal and we should concern ourselves with real problems like feeding 8 to 9 billion in the next 30 years.

  37. Gary Hladik says:

    Willis Eschenbach says (October 26, 2011 at 12:35 pm): “In the same way, the R&C results verify that in a warming world, we’d expect to see more high temperature records broken … so what, we all knew that.”

    But…but…NINE of the ten warmest years in history occurred in the last five years!

  38. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Gary Hladik says:
    October 26, 2011 at 7:08 pm

    Willis Eschenbach says (October 26, 2011 at 12:35 pm): “In the same way, the R&C results verify that in a warming world, we’d expect to see more high temperature records broken … so what, we all knew that.”

    But…but…NINE of the ten warmest years in history occurred in the last five years!

    Dang, Gary, you’ve got to stop that, you just missed my coffee again, but I can’t stay lucky forever. OK, maybe I can, I have so far, but …

    w.

  39. King of Cool says:

    I note a warning by the said professor on Arctic ice melt is also currently being used by the ABC Drum which has been going gangbusters to try and reverse public opinion on the Australian carbon tax:

    “Already at the end of this century, sea level could well be one metre higher than it is now, unless we act rapidly and decisively to curb our greenhouse gas emissions.

    This is why we ignore the silent meltdown in the North at our own peril. It is a sign of global warming – and a grave warning sign for us all.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3601942.htm

  40. I like how Rahmstorf et al used, as they say “…unadjusted station data (i.e. the “GISS combined Moskva” data)…”

    Can you actually use the terms “unadjusted” and “GISS data” in the same sentence?

  41. Allanj said
    “Actually it was Dr. Roger Pielke Jr, who used the term “untrustworthy”.
    No, Anthony said that Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. says exactly what he thought, i.e. untrustworthy. Dr. Pielke does not use the word “untrustworthy” in his post, though he does insinuate it.

    “You seem to suggest we should all remain quiet while this disagreement is sorted out in the peer review process.”
    No, I don’t think you should all remain quite. I think that Watts and Pielke Jr. should not be so quick to draw conclusions and call a paper untrustworthy. Why are they so quick to refer with zeal to Dole’s paper, which Rahmstorf showed to have a significant flaw in it (using annual average urban heat island correction for individual months)? Flaws don’t make a paper untrustworthy, they make them open to improvement.

    “But that is not how science oriented blogs work. We are all free to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of any published paper, whether we are scientists to your liking or not. That is, in my mind, a wonderfully enlightening and refreshing way to participate in science”
    Scientific blogs are indeed very refreshing. However, Pielke has now indicated on his blog that he will be using the RC11 paper in his “graduate seminar next term as an example of cherry picking in science”. He’s bringing his own personal convictions into the classroom, which I feel is not very ethical.

    “Why don’t you address the issue that Dr Pielke raised?”
    Because I wanted to comment on his way of raising an issue, rather than the subject matter of his issue. Also, I’m not a climate scientist, so I’m not sure I could bring much to the table. I’ve quickly scanned over the RC11 paper and my first impression is that it’s quite complicated and somewhat out of reach of non-specialists. However, I can say this much. It’s divided in to two parts: the statistical model and the applictions. Pielke did not raise any issues with the statistical method, which forms the core science of the article. His criticsm lies with the Moscow data inserted into that analysis in the latter part of the paper. The choice of 1911 is simple: it allowed for a 100 year time period for the initial analysis. In the Moscow application, results are given for the following periods: 1911-2010, 1910-2009, and 1880-2009. So the entire GISS dataset was used. There was no cherry-picking. For some reason, Pielke still thinks that the 1880-2009 data was not used for the Moscow figures, but the RC11 paper explicitly states that it was.

    Cheers

  42. Ulric Lyons says:

    “Short-term variability thus decreases the number of heat extremes..”

    Without short term variation there would be no extremes !

    “..which implies an approximate 80% probability that the 2010 July heat record would not have occurred without climate warming.”

    With 100% certainty it would not have occurred without the right short term solar factors, and no doubt temperatures were exacerbated by forest fire smoke.

  43. DirkH says:

    Rahmstorf has used ssatrend for his nonlinear trend (see his RC post); he seems to be a big fan of that, having used it already in Rahmstorf 2007 (a paper about sea level rise); he got it from Aslak Grinsted. Aslak showed up here recently in a Willis Eschenbach thread about a paper by Aslak that projects sea level rise to the year 2500 (two thousand five hundred, that is.)
    http://nierenbergclimate.blogspot.com/2009/04/duplicating-rahmstorf-2007.html

    Without knowing more about ssatrend (and I know nothing about it) it is impossible to say whether any data before an arbitrary date in the past actually has any influence on the present value of the trend. Rahmstorf himself says it makes nearly no difference whether he starts his analysis in 1880 or 1910.

    (This implies that the big warm extreme in 1890 is simply swept under the rug. Ein Schelm, der böses dabei denkt.)

  44. dh7fb says:

    Ramstorf argues here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/the-moscow-warming-hole/#more-9247 that the UHI corrections within the GISS data overcompensate the maximum-summer-temps and so the result of this paper http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2011/2011-10.shtml is not valid.
    I tested this statement by using the data of a meteorological series without any UHI-correction: http://eca.knmi.nl/download/ensembles/ensembles.php and investigated the seasonal data of the location 55…56N, 36…37O ( around Moscow) (Data: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iensembles_025_tx_37-38E_55-56N_n_mean12_mean4.dat ).
    This is the result: http://www.dh7fb.de/reko/moskau.gif
    All the available Data of the series 1951…2009 before the Russian Heatwave show no trend at all during summer (JJA, in red).
    The daily maximum summer-temperatures for 1951…2009 of E-OBS 5.0 ( 0,25 deg resolution) have an average of 22.44 deg. C with standard deviation +- 1,44 deg. C. With application of 2-sigma condition for outliners we find two of this on the upper side: 1972 ( 26.53 deg. C ) and 2010 ( 27.96 deg. C ) .
    With application of the meteorological series E-OBS 5.0 we find, that there is no trend in summer-max.-temps before the heatwave and the heatwave during summer 2010 itself was an statistical outliner as it was written here: http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2011/2011-10.shtml .
    What’s wrong with that?

  45. Arno Arrak says:

    The title of Rahmsdorf & Coumou’s PNAS article is “Increase of extreme events in a warming world.“ Since we demonstrably do not live in a warming world this reduces it to an exercise in numerology. In fairness to those who are unfamiliar with the arguments for lack of warming I will give a brief outline below. Most of it is based on my book “What Warming“ with some updates. First and foremost we must establish a valid temperature curve. Unfortunately global temperature curves from NASA, NOAA, and the Met Office cannot be believed because of obvious falsifications they contain. The most serious of these is fabrication of a non-existent “late twentieth century warming“ in the eighties and nineties. It is shown as a steady rise in temperature that satellites simply cannot see (see figure 24 in my book). What satellites do see in the eighties and nineties is not warming but a temperature oscillation, up and down by half a degree for twenty years. This oscillation is caused by the ENSO phenomenon in the Pacific that has global climate influence. According to the satellite data the only global warming within the last 31 years was a short spurt that started with the super El Nino of 1998, in four years raised temperature by a third of a degree, and then stopped. It is responsible for the very warm first decade of our century. It was oceanic, not greenhouse in nature. Any phenomena like wildlife migrations etc that are attributed to global greenhouse warming are consequences of this step warming. This still leaves Arctic warming for us to explain which is very real. Opening of the Northwest Passage, reduction of summer sea ice, permafrost melting, Greenland glaciers breaking up and polar bears in trouble are all attributed to Arctic warming. And collectively they are said to prove the existence of the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. Unfortunately Arctic warming has nothing whatsoever to do with the greenhouse effect. It began suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century, paused from 1940 to 1970, then resumed, and is still going strong. Before this warming started there was nothing but two thousand years of slow cooling. It is impossible for the greenhouse effect to be its cause because there was no concurrent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The absorptivity of carbon dioxide in the infrared is a physical property of the gas and cannot be changed. If you want to start greenhouse warming you must put more carbon dioxide in the air and this did not happen. The true cause of Arctic warming has turned out to be warm water brought into the Arctic Ocean by currents. It started with a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the century. Proof of this will appear in a paper in press, scheduled for release in December. Direct measurement of Atlantic water temperature reaching the Arctic Ocean shows that it exceeds anything seen within the last two thousand years. Because Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming it follows that no observations of Arctic warming can be used as proof that carbon dioxide greenhouse effect exists. This eliminates greenhouse warming from the last 31 years but the remainder of the past century still needs to be considered. Twentieth century warming happened in two parts of which the step warming of 1998 was the second part. The first part of twentieth century warming started in 1910 and ended with the beginning of World War Two. A good case can be made that its cause was solar activity. During the fifty years between these two phases of warming global temperature stood still while carbon dioxide relentlessly increased. Anyone wishing to claim the reality of greenhouse warming will first have to explain this non-warming interval. And don’t try aerosols, they are innocent.

  46. Caleb says:

    RE: jjm gommers says:
    October 26, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Did you travel out east, in Russia? My understanding is that the same blocking pattern that made it so warm in the west, around Moscow, made it much colder than normal as you drew near the Pacific coast of Russia.

    But, of course, there is no bar graph for temperatures in Eastern Russia. Extremes tend to balance out, but balance spoils all the fun of cherry picking.

Comments are closed.