# SkepticalScience Needs to Update their Escalator

The SkepticalScience animation The Escalator has been around for a couple of years, and it has appeared in dozens of their posts and in blog posts by other carbon dioxide-obsessed alarmists. Their intent with The Escalator animation was to show that the instrument temperature record includes many short-term absences of global warming, while, in their minds, manmade greenhouse gases caused the long-term trend of global warming. With Kevin Trenberth now saying strong El Niño events caused global warming to occur in steps, SkepticalScience needs to revise their escalator animation. The steps are not only how skeptics view global warming…one of the leading ENSO and global warming researchers is now presenting global warming in El Niño-caused big jumps, and he also has written in at least two peer-reviewed papers that El Niños are fueled by sunlight.

So here’s my suggested replacement for SkepticalScience’s The Escalator. For lack of a better title, we’ll call it…

THE TRENBERTH GLOBAL WARMING STAIRCASE

Feel free to link it anywhere you like…especially where the CO2-obsessed have presented the SkepticalScience animation “The Escalator”.

For more information about Kevin Trenberth’s discussion of the how the warming of global surface temperatures occurred “instead of having a gradual trend going up, maybe the way to think of it is we have a series of steps, like a staircase” or in “big jumps” see the following posts. The first post also includes quotes from and links to the papers where Trenberth states that sunlight provides the warm water for El Niños:

If this topic is new to you, see the free illustrated essay The Manmade Global Warming Challenge (42MB). And if you’d like more information, my ebook Who Turned on the Heat? is available. It goes into a tremendous amount of detail to explain El Niño and La Niña processes and the long-term aftereffects of strong El Niño events. Who Turned on the Heat? weighs in at a whopping 550+ pages, about 110,000+ words. It contains somewhere in the neighborhood of 380 color illustrations. In pdf form, it’s about 23MB. It includes links to more than a dozen animations, which allow the reader to view ENSO processes and the interactions between variables.

I’ve lowered the price of Who Turned on the Heat? from U.S.$8.00 to U.S.$5.00. Some readers spend more on a cup of coffee. Please buy a copy. You might even learn something. A free preview in pdf format is here. The preview includes the Table of Contents, the Introduction, the first half of section 1 (which was provided complete in the post here), a discussion of the cover, and the Closing. Take a run through the Table of Contents. It is a very-detailed and well-illustrated book—using data from the real world, not models of a virtual world. Who Turned on the Heat? is only available in pdf format…and will only be available in that format. Click here to purchase a copy. Thanks. Book sales and tips will hopefully allow me to return to blogging full-time once again.

## 94 thoughts on “SkepticalScience Needs to Update their Escalator”

1. I’m not sure why Trenberth muddied the waters of AGW with his stairway to global warming, or if was his intent to muddy them, but he definitely muddied them.

2. Jimmy Haigh. says:

Trenberth disappoints. (gavin)

3. Cream Bourbon says:

This does not add any understanding. It has been noted for years that El Nino spills out heat every few years.

• @Pointman – I dropped a link to it as well over at Joanne Nova’s site. He is haunting her right now.

4. TedM says:

If I’m permitted to advertise here: I bought Bob’s ebook “Who Turned on the Heat”, one of the best decisions I ever made. Buy it, you have nothing to lose other than your ignorance. I particularly recommend it to Rob Painting and David Appell.

5. MikeUK says:

At first I thought that Trenberth was preparing a fall-back position for when the shit hits the fan on the failed CO2 hypothesis, but then I saw someone (sorry, forgot who) suggesting that he was just trying to suggest that pauses were expected, because look, they’ve happened before in a warming world.

Whatever, there may be step changes in global temperature for reasons unknown.

6. Aussiebear says:

Again, so much for the “settled science”. More evidence that 97% of climate scientist agree is bogus. The real question is: WHAT DO THEY AGREE ON??

7. As long as they continue to use a conclusion to chase data, they will miss the most interesting data.

8. TedM says: “If I’m permitted to advertise here….”

Thank you.

9. RH says:

I personally love watching that stupid, condescending, staircase animation. It might have seemed like a clever idea to the ironically named Skeptical Science people when they first did it, but now, as that top line gets longer and longer, and starts to tilt downward it is mocking them.

10. norah4you says:

Some people like the article author never ever learn basic Theories of Science. First of all:
Fallacie nr 1 above: Argumentum ab auctoritate
Fallacie nr 2 above: Appeal to fear
Fallacie nr 3 above: Fallacies of Assumtion
not to mention: Fallacy from usage of insound premisses and Ad Hoc

How is it possible for anyone passing beyond Groundlevel at University anywhere not to have learn what it takes to present valid arguments that can lead up to a sound conclussion?

11. Bob Tisdale says:
May 29, 2014 at 4:23 am

Anthony, here’s something really curious. Kevin Trenberth’s media page at the NCAR website includes links to WUWT posts, under a special heading no less:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/media.html

More curious than that – Only the first link goes to WUWT (…/2014/01/31/open-letter-to-kevin-trenberth-ncar/), the remaining 10 all go to various pages at bobtisdale.wordpress.com.

Congratulations seem to be in order.

12. Gary Pearse says:

Bob, the staircase is, however, going up. When does it go down? For those who don’t care where the heat is coming from, could we reach thermageddon just with El NINOS? Something is wrong with this model. If GHG are relatively small in effect, we would have to appeal to the sun to take us to our final end with El NINOS and why would it do that when it appears to even be quieting down or, according to some experts, it is relatively unchanging. How does it come down – that is the missing half of all your stuff. Maybe heating up after the LIA we can expect an equiibrium when sea “catches up”.

13. Stephen Richards says:

How does it come down ?

Cold PDO ?

14. evanmjones says:

As long as they continue to use a conclusion to chase data, they will miss the most interesting data.

Sometimes you can make skillful use homogenization to make a true signal simply disappear.

15. Dave says:

Personally, I would listen more to what you say if you would discontinue the infomercials advertising your book.

16. evanmjones says:

Bob, the staircase is, however, going up. When does it go down?

During negative PDO. But with upward pressure form CO2, there is constant mild thumb under the scale, so positive PDO shows double warming and negative PDO is flat.

Net result is about where Otto and Idso put it: a notch over +1.1C per doubling.

17. Walt S says:

Given a certain number of years between “stairsteps” (say 15) between “Super El Niños”, how much rise needs to happen during each Super El Niño to make the IPCC prediction for the year 2100, and what would that stairstep graph look like?
Would they have to be Super _Duper_ El Niños?

18. Anthony, here’s something really curious. Kevin Trenberth’s media page at the NCAR website includes links to WUWT posts, under a special heading no less:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/media.html

Actually, this is a sign (one among many) that Trenberth is a pretty reasonable guy. He actually reads what “the opposition” has to say (at least about him and his work) and is obviously willing to consider entirely new paradigms. At the very least he is unafraid of bucking the prevailing worldview of the mainstream CAGW/CACC group, and as chairman of GEWEX he has some serious influence. Finding the “missing heat” in the ocean is like asserting that it has all simply gone away never to trouble us again.

http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly_mt/T-dC-w0-2000m.dat

It is apparently the annual ocean heat content delta for the NH, SH and the globe for my lifetime (1955-present). It is enormously interesting. Two features I pointed out and will point out again:

a) The error bars are impossible. They are basically unchanged from 1955 to the present at ~0.003-ish (on the scale of the chart, which isn’t given). The assertion that we knew these numbers in 1955 at the same resolution that we know them today is laughable — somewhere in there ARGO came online, and back in the 1950’s we had only the most cursory and enormously, unbelievably sparsely sampled knowledge of the temperature across the depth of the entire water column. Today, with ARGO this is still true, but there is no way that the addition of literally thousands of sampling stations would not reduce the error bars. In fact, reduce them by a factor of (wait for it) order $\sqrt{1000} \approx 31$ if the gods of statistics have not lost their power and charm. Since there are “thousands” of buoys (the number keeps increasing) error estimates in the present ought to be at least one, more likely two orders of magnitude smaller in the present, assuming that they might have had 50 stations sampling the entire planet back in 1955 and through much of the reported interval. Indeed, there should have been a rapid (nearly discrete) jump in precision when ARGO came online. It’s not there, so I doubt it.

b) OK, so error reporting sucks, but that is the rule, not the exception, in climate science. At least we can hope that the data themselves are accurate within some precision, or reflect some observed trend. And how very interesting a pattern it is!

From 1955 to 1974, ocean heat content rockets up — I eyeball an “average” annual increase of order 0.15-0.2 (in whatever the units are, again, not given in the 0-2000m data panel itself). In 1975, it is like a switch is thrown, and the rate of increase plummets to be nearly indistinguishable from noise (same order as the error bar) except for 1982/1983 (remember this for a moment). In 1994/1995 the switch flips again, and the ocean’s heat rockets up at the former rate until 2002 when it more than doubles and is still on a slow increasing trend.

Compare that to:

and it is almost scary. The intervals of flat atmospheric temperatures correspond to periods when the ocean was absorbing heat (which almost invisibly increases its temperature). The intervals of rising atmospheric temperatures almost perfectly correspond to periods when the ocean’s heat content was nearly flat. The recent weak cooling trend in the atmosphere corresponds to a time when oceanic heat absorption is gradually increasing. Even the “bobble” in ocean heat content delta in 1982-1983 corresponds almost exactly with a similar “antibobble” in global average temperature in HADCRUT4 (offset by around a year).

It would be very, very interesting to look at the correlation of the two data sets (with atmospheric temperature presented as an annual delta to correspond to the delta in oceanic heat) in a scatter plot. I predict that they will produce two distinct regimes — one where the ocean is warming and the atmosphere is neutral to cooling, and one where the ocean is neutral to cooling and the atmosphere is warming with almost nothing in between. Well, with a tiny bit more structure — the post 2000 behavior almost forms a third regime splitting off from the 1955-1974 behavior.

Ordinarily I tend to suspect things like this, because numerology is not science and post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy, but OTOH I “do” statistics, and this sort of (anti)correlation almost always signals either a confounding connection — one variable really is some sort of approximate transform of the other variable — or a really, really serious causal connection (which is confounding, no doubt, but in a good way). I would come dangerously close to believing an assertion like “The ocean and atmosphere countervary in temperature/heat content in steps” even without a mechanism.

But I think that the mechanism itself may be pretty simple. Air pressure alone may be the cause. High pressure systems cool the atmosphere via pressure broadening of the GHGs and reduction of humidity, but let sunlight penetrate into the ocean. Low pressure systems can warm the atmosphere but tend to reflect sunlight and prevent it from penetrating the ocean. The decadal oscillations tend to alter the distribution of high vs low pressure centers both spatially and temporally (but do so in a more or less chaotic fashion, a la ENSO and polar vortices, with decade-scale trends that suddenly jump to a different regime but don’t necessarily repeat in duration or strength or distribution).

Note that GHGs play a role in both warming and cooling in this scenario — the wings in the lower atmosphere have been known to be mostly cooling since the 1950s. Water vapor is complex and works both ways — albedo and as a GHG and as a latent heat transport agent.

rgb

19. Brilliant.

Of course atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising! That is caused by Global Warming and Henry’s Law, a law of physics IPCC has actively concealed and left unrecognized in its tomes. Global Warming is caused by the Sun. IPCC claims not because the Sun doesn’t vary enough for its radiative forcing models. IPCC missed the effect because clouds are a positive feedback to TSI, and IPCC does not know how to model clouds dynamically. IPCC covered up this amplifier, dismissing it in AR4.

The claim above that the rise on the escalator matches man’s emissions is one of IPCC’s fingerprints. That claim is a forgery committed by IPCC’s Chart Junk, as shown in my Journal.
These climatologist know a little about a small branch of science without grasping overarching scientific principles. Causation, the existence of Cause & Effect, requires Causality, the property of science that a Cause must precede its Effects. Even if the rise on the escalator were to match man’s emissions that would not mean that man’s emission were the cause of the separate rise in temperature. (The reverse is a Law of physics.) The climatologists’ claim to that proposition is an active example of the fallacy that correlation establishes cause, a fact known even to laymen. IPCC needs to show the lead-lag relationship between its conjectures about causes and effects, but never manages to do so. The whole shebang of warmists is scientifically challenged.

20. Gary Pearse says: “Bob, the staircase is, however, going up. When does it go down?”

I report after the fact. I make no predictions.

21. evanmjones says: “During negative PDO [the staircase goes down?] But with upward pressure form CO2, there is constant mild thumb under the scale, so positive PDO shows double warming and negative PDO is flat.”

Please show me with data that the staircase goes down. Also please show me with data what you’re talking about with “upward pressure form CO2″. What upward pressure?

22. Bernd Palmer says:

When does it go down? It has been going up since the Little Ice Age.
What made it go up? Good question …

23. Leo G says:

Next year has the lunar standstill, which apparently has been associated with transient climate disturbance as far back as the Neolithic. Any predictions for the effect of any such 2015 disturbance?

24. Olaf Koenders says:

Gary Pearse, the staircase went down between 1945 and 1975. Don’t panic.

25. urederra says:

And what about the cooling in the seventies? I cannot see it in the escalator.

26. michael hart says:

Well someone has to do it, so it may as well be me.

27. J says:

urederra…

That decline was hidden (hide the decline !), or “adjusted” away.l

28. mpainter says:

There have been El Ninos in the past. If El Ninos mean stepwise warming, then we should have had such stepwise warming in the past. But, no, we do not see such. Something different is happening today (that is, the last forty years or so). El Ninos do not explain the circa 1977-97 warming trend, despite the apparent coupling of step-warming with ENSO events.

However, insolation can explain it. The question is whence the increase of insolation? Answer this and we will know the cause of the late warming trend and whether this will resume in the future. CO2 can be eliminated from consideration as a factor in climate.

29. Anthony Watts says:

Thank you Bob

30. Latitude says:

so, what’s the Atlantic doing?

31. Gras Albert says:

Bob has seen my escalator before, I can’t remember if Anthony has, whatever, feel free to use as your discretion, you might like to display it in the post (depending on browser, you may need to refresh the image).

Albert’s Escalator

Illustrating why escalator’s are embarrassing to climate science, especially if, like Tim Yeo & John Gummer, you think the last decade having record temperatures means anything at all

32. Matthew R Marler says:

Robert Brown: The intervals of flat atmospheric temperatures correspond to periods when the ocean was absorbing heat (which almost invisibly increases its temperature). The intervals of rising atmospheric temperatures almost perfectly correspond to periods when the ocean’s heat content was nearly flat. The recent weak cooling trend in the atmosphere corresponds to a time when oceanic heat absorption is gradually increasing. Even the “bobble” in ocean heat content delta in 1982-1983 corresponds almost exactly with a similar “antibobble” in global average temperature in HADCRUT4 (offset by around a year).

Doesn’t that first sentence express what Trenberth is saying is happening now?

Is it possible for that to be happening if the CO2 in the atmosphere is what is driving the overall increase that has occurred?

33. Steven Mosher says:

“I’m not sure why Trenberth muddied the waters of AGW with his stairway to global warming, or if was his intent to muddy them, but he definitely muddied them.”

actually it helps to disabuse people of the notion that warming (of the ATMOSPHERE and upper ocean) will occur in a monotonically increasing fashion.

El nino is a pattern. it does not cause warming it is how the energy imbalance manfests.

34. rgbatduke says:

Illustrating why escalator’s are embarrassing to climate science, especially if, like Tim Yeo & John Gummer, you think the last decade having record temperatures means anything at all

Well, it means that the last decade had a number of record temperatures (record over the thermometric era, probably not records over the Holocene and certainly not record temperatures outside of the Holocene).

However, another point that is being missed in the discussion is this. If one takes a peek at Figure 9.8a from AR5:

and try to discern all of the little pastel-colored lines that make up the results presented for each of the CMIP5 models, how many of these exhibit a stair-step behavior? Would that be zero? How many of them exhibit the same range of temperature fluctuation around their “smoothed mean” behavior as is observed in the real climate? Would that also be zero? That’s a real question, as one cannot see most of the behavior of individual models in this obfuscating figure, but it is quite certain that MOST of the models have a variance that is between 2 and 3 times the variance observed in the actual climate (with absolutely zero individual models that exhibit “fifteen year intervals without temperature increase”). Would this obvious problem with the variance be a small fraction of the actual problem, because these pastel curves are themselves averages over many perturbed parameter runs for each model and hence the variance is already reduced by a statistical factor from the average variance for the individual runs? It would.

The models presented in figure 9.8a of AR5:

* Spend close some 8 or 9x as much time above the HADCRUT4 GAST estimate as they do equal to or below that estimate (outside of the reference interval — in fact let’s exclude the reference interval from all of the remarks in this list).

* In the rare intervals that the MultiModel Ensemble Mean (and don’t get me started on this statistical abomination) does go below HADCRUT4, it goes barely below. When it is above, it goes way above. To the extent that this mean reflects the general behavior of the already internally averaged underlying models, we can conclude on the basis of these two observations that:

* The p-value for the null-hypothesis “The [number of] models of CMIP5 [that] correctly compute the physics and solve the problem they are attempting to solve is absurdly small. That is, the probability of correct models producing this behavior by random chance is very small (easily less than 0.01), basically zero. There is no reasonable possibility that the climate models presented in figure 9.8a of AR5 or their MME mean are correct and that the deviation between the models and the actual climate outside of the reference interval is due to random chance.

* The individual, already averaged models contributing to the MME mean have variances 2-3 times too large. Since they are already averaged, it is probable that individual model runs exhibit global temperature fluctuations as much as an order of magnitude too large around whatever one imagines constitutes their “mean behavior”. IMO this is strong evidence that they accomplish their forced fit across the reference interval by incorrectly balancing competing dynamics — taking a large warming effect and partially cancelling it with a large cooling effect to produce a much smaller warming effect. Instead of damping temperature fluctuations with dynamic feedback, this effectively amplifies fluctuations by causing much weaker dynamics feedback damping mechanisms to be heavily overdriven and lagged before they can respond.

* And then, yeah, they no not exhibit anything like Hurst-Kolmogorov behavior, a.k.a. “stair stepping”, or the “escalator”. That is, they have a dynamic signature that is completely inconsistent with the actual data. They aren’t even qualititatively correct.

Sadly, I could go on. I sometimes wonder if anybody actually looks at anything but the SPM in the Assessment Reports. I don’t understand how any scientist who looked at this figure would not go “whoa, that’s not right” long before they got around to looking at the right hand end of it, where the model predictions are actively diverging from the observed temperatures, precisely as one would expect if the fit in the reference interval were being extrapolated out of its range of partial validity where the large cancelling terms no longer cancelled.

rgb

35. rgbatduke says:

Doesn’t that first sentence express what Trenberth is saying is happening now?

Sure. As I said (up above) I think Trenberth is actually a pretty reasonable guy, unafraid to depart from the “party line”. The problem with his assertion is that it doesn’t address whether CO_2 is or isn’t an important factor in the overall warming, it reflect ex post facto explanation of what has happened, it isn’t a prediction for what will happen, yet. Trenberth has basically said that all of the models that neglect this process are badly wrong even if that isn’t exactly how he has framed it.

Note well that this is still a hypothesis. It is by no means a proven fact. The data is very strongly suggestive and convincing, but the hypothesis itself is not quantitatively rigorous. It still doesn’t properly explain how the atmosphere steadily heats when the ocean does not, or how the ocean steadily heats when the atmosphere does not, and AFAIK no models exhibit this particular counterintuitive countervariance but the data does.

This is in fact still more direct statistical evidence that the models have the physics wrong, deeply wrong.

But that also means that I cannot answer your second question about how important CO_2 is in the actual climate or this process. Nobody can, not yet. It is possible, even probable, that it has an overall warming effect and is in fact contributing some step height to the escalator, but the escalator was walking up (and rarely down) long before CO_2 started to increase and existing models cannot and do not predict any of this (as one can easily see from:

36. rgbatduke says:

OK, I’ve tried to post the graphic from AR5 twice inline twice and it hasn’t worked. Here is a URL:

Enjoy.

REPLY: I’ve converted to image for you. – Anthony

37. >Dave says: May 29, 2014 at 5:48 am
>Personally, I would listen more to what you say if you would discontinue the infomercials >advertising your book.

38. Latitude says:

Steven Mosher says:
May 29, 2014 at 10:50 am
actually it helps to disabuse people of the notion that warming (of the ATMOSPHERE and upper ocean) will occur in a monotonically increasing fashion.
El nino is a pattern. it does not cause warming it is how the energy imbalance manfests.
======
you mean exactly the same way cooling does……

39. rgbatduke says:

How is it possible for anyone passing beyond Groundlevel at University anywhere not to have learn what it takes to present valid arguments that can lead up to a sound conclusion?

Or, play Logical Fallacy Bingo. It’s a lot more fun than reading a dry textbook… (the information included in each card will tell you what they are, as will a mouse hover over the space). I play all the time with postings. Since pointing out the fallacies never seems to affect the probability that the same person will commit them a second time, or third, or fourth, playing bingo is also every bit as useful…:-)

40. lgl says: “Roy Spencer can explain this to you, it’s not difficult.”

Thanks for you suggestion, lgl. But you’re overlooking the fact that we’ve document with data that the recharge-discharge processes associated with ENSO created the upward steps.

Have a good day.

41. Steven Mosher says: “El nino is a pattern. it does not cause warming it is how the energy imbalance manfests.”

Wrong. El Nino is part of a chaotic, naturally occurring sunlight-fueled recharge-discharge process that can and does contribute to the long-term warming of the planet:

Thank you once again for your drive-by comment. You’ve once again shown a complete misunderstanding of a very basic process through which the planet regulates it temperatures.

42. Gras Albert, thanks for your escalator…

43. mpainter says: “There have been El Ninos in the past. If El Ninos mean stepwise warming, then we should have had such stepwise warming in the past…..”

There’s evidence that they occurred in response to the 1918/19/20 El Nino and the 1939/40/41/42 El Nino.

44. rgbatduke, once again, thanks for your insightful comments on this thread. Regarding the interrelationship between ocean heat content and surface temperatures, I would suggest investigating the unadjusted UKMO EN3 ocean heat content data as well as the much-adjusted NODC ocean heat content data.

Regards

45. My sincere thanks to all those who purchased copies of “Who Turned on the Heat?” in response to this blog post.

Cheers

46. holts7 says:

I always come back to the same thoughts when reading your pieces Bob, if El Ninos cause the temp to go up and La Ninas don’t bring it down, and the temp is going up step-wise always!!!
What is your point?! How is it ever going down?! And why is that any different than saying that
CO2 extra warming(which I disagree with, except for the nominal amount that basic science says) is causing the step rises through the El Ninos?! You offer. it seems, no explanation as to where
the extra heat comes from in the El Nino steps(solar?) and how it will ever come down. Your method means that the temp will never come down and only rise it appears to me!?

47. Harold says:

“How is it possible for anyone passing beyond Groundlevel at University anywhere not to have learn what it takes to present valid arguments that can lead up to a sound conclussion?”

Lol.

48. Latitude says:

Bob Tisdale says:
May 29, 2014 at 3:19 pm
…but it too has not warmed for about a decade. It will be interesting to see how the North Atlantic responds to the upcoming El Nino.
====
Thanks Bob

49. angech says:

What Mosher is saying, and I agree with, is that El Niño is descriptive of a weather pattern and not a cause (as in a new heat source) for global warming. The fact that it occurs and that the surface temperatures go up globally on average are automatic.
Bob is describing the mechanism of heat transfer that occurs during this process (not new heat creation).
Both are right and both views are helpful in looking at the the weather pattern.
Mosher believes the CO2 influence is causing an upwards inevitable rise in temperatures without regard to the checks and counterbalances present in the earth’s climate stability ie that rising CO2 may lead tofeedbacks in clouds etc that restore a balance albeit with more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Hence he cannot a accept that the temperature rise has stalled and is reversing.
Hence his comment.
He did not disagree with you.
Bob as soon as I get over my aversion to credit cards on line and develop some internet skills I will buy a copy. You should send one to Mosher gratis but he may already have bought it.
Ps no El NIno yet is there ?

50. SAMURAI says:

The 30-yr PDO warm/cool cycles explain some of the staircase rise of global temps since the end of the Little Ice Age, as there is a 100% correlation between PDO warm/cool cycles over the past 163 years and 30-yr PDO warm/cool cycles:

I think a fairly good case (though far from perfect) could be made that the general 163-yr upward trend can be attributed to simple LIA recovery (1280~1850–the coldest climatic event in 10,000 years) and the strongest 63-year string (1933~1996) of solar cycles in 11,400 years (Solanki et al), with perhaps around 0.2C of the total 0.75C of global warming since 1850 attributable to CO2 forcing (Lindzen Choi et al).

It’s interesting to note that the RSS global warming temp trend ended the same year the 63-yr string of strong solar cycles ended. I know the logic fallacy dangers of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, however, there is also pretty good correlation/causal hypotheses/experiments (Svensmark et al/CERN’s CLOUD experiment) that suggest the four Grand Solar Minima of the Little Ice Age (Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton) contributed to the severity/duration of the LIA, and the current 18-yr “Pause” (TM) experienced since the end of the 63-year strong solar cycles.

With the collapse of the Umbral Magnetic Field, there is good reason to believe that the next solar cycle could well be the start of a new Grand Solar Minimum.

If there is a Grand Solar Minimum from 2020 as some suggestand global temps continue to fall, despite record CO2 emissions, I think the CAGW hypothesis will end up in the shredder.

There will be a natural spike in global temps during the coming El Nino, however, if the subsequent 2016/17 La Nina leads the resumption of the flat/falling global temp trend from 1996, it will be over 20 years with little to no global warming trend, the CAGW projections will be well outside 2 standard deviations from reality, the projections will be well outside CAGW’ 95% confidence parameters and this stupid CAGW scam can, for all intents and purposes, be tossed in garbage bin.

“May you live in interesting times” (famous Confucian curse…)

51. SAMURAI says:

Ooops. First paragraph should read, “…100% correlation between 30-yr PDO warm/cool cycles over the past 163 years and global warm/cool temp trends.”

Sorry for not proof reading my posts.

52. lgl says:

Bob

So you still do not understand that ENSO can’t work just one way, up up up, when there is no long term trend in ENSO.

53. Londo says:

Robert Brown says:
“but there is no way that the addition of literally thousands of sampling stations would not reduce the error bars. In fact, reduce them by a factor of (wait for it) order \sqrt{1000} \approx 31 ”

I generally like your posts but if you add a drum roll to a statement, give it just one more proof read.

Adding whatever number of sampling points will not reduce anything by a __factor__. Simple example, you have 1000 noisy data points and you “add” another 1000. The noise is not reduced by a __factor__ of sqrt(1000) but by sqrt(2) or the gods of statistics would shit themselves.
You have to increase the number of points by a _factor_ to get the reduction of noise by the \sqrt factor.

54. angech says: “Bob is describing the mechanism of heat transfer that occurs during this process (not new heat creation).”

Nope. Bob has not only described but he’s documented new heat generated by ENSO. Additionally, did you read the quote from Trenberth and Fasullo in the animation above.

55. holts7 says: “You offer. it seems, no explanation as to where the extra heat comes from in the El Nino steps(solar?) and how it will ever come down.”

Actually, I have explained many times the processes through which La Nina events permit more sunlight than normal to enter and warm the tropical Pacific, recharging (replenishing) the heat released and redistributed by ENSO. In fact, it was even mentioned in the animation above in the quote from Trenberth and Fasullo and further discussed in a post about 2 weeks ago:

Regarding coming down, I present data. If and when ENSO shifts to an unknown mode so that global surface temperatures step down in response to it, I’ll be happy to present it.

56. norah4you says: “Some people like the article author never ever learn basic Theories of Science…”

I’m sure you’re aware that climate science in general is filled with fallacies of logic.

Additionally, his was a simple blog post to present an animation, nothing more, nothing less.

57. lgl says: “So you still do not understand that ENSO can’t work just one way, up up up, when there is no long term trend in ENSO.”

You’re trying the “no long term trend in ENSO” argument, lgl? How boring for a troll like you! What part of ENSO acting as a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, recharge-discharge oscillator can’t you grasp? I’ve documented that fact a multitude of times here.

Have a good day.

58. Trenberth et al., are making it up as they go along.

59. On a slightly O/T but related point, something occurred to me a few days ago that some of the more technical people here might be able to answer.

Has anyone (or could anyone) run climate models uder the following conditions:

With natural variability calibrated so that [i]with current anthropogenic forcing estimates[i] they accurately produce current conditions Then, using the same calibration, with no antropogentic forcing.

In other words, given current temps, what do the models say the world would be like if we never had burnt all that fossil fuel? No idea if it would even be possible but, if it was, then could we find ourselves faced with a choice between “the models are obviously faulty” or “without CO2 we’d be headed to extreme cold”?

60. rgbatduke says:

You have to increase the number of points by a _factor_ to get the reduction of noise by the \sqrt factor.

I’m aware of that and I’m sorry I wasn’t sufficiently clear. I was assuming — possibly incorrectly — that there were only a handful of contributing measurements back in 1955 (as in literally — perhaps 4 or 5, maybe 10 or 20). Hence my statement about ORDER of $\sqrt{1000}$. There are other reasons it might have been more or less than this number, as well — if they had 50 “sites” in 1955, but they consisted of 50 sites at only 5 locations, spread out within a few hundred miles of one another, the sites are hardly independent or randomly selected and might constitute only 5 “iid” samples as far as stats are concerned. Of course the same thing can be true (and is, to at least some extent) with the ARGO floats — they aren’t either uniformly distributed or randomly distributed, so even 4000 floats might not make up 4000 iid samples.

None of which should detract from the central point, which is that even if the number of “independent” sampling sites only went up by a factor of 100 (and it is my strong recollection that for most of the pre-Argo period, N was indeed never much greater than 50, with a lot of site correlation) there should be at least an order of magnitude reduction in the error bar between 1955 and the present. Its absence makes me wonder how they compute the error in what is supposedly a 3D kriging of sparse samples.

At that point we could go a step further and note that measurements of heat content can only be derived quantities from measurements of ocean temperature in depth (0 to 2000 meters according to the figure title). The entire data set including ARGO thus suffers from my incomprehension of how they can krige temperature in planetary oceans to that depth from only a 4000 — let alone 40 — sites to five or six significant digits absolute, using instrumentation that is likely not accurate to more than 3 or 4 digits on a good day with a tail wind for the first (pre-transistor) half of the record. How exactly did they measure the ocean temperature at 1 km of depth back in 1955? With a mercury thermometer (who read it)? With a thermocouple (who adjusted and normalized it, how were the results transmitted and tube-amplified, how did they handle the heat generated by the tube-driven apparatus)?

Remember, in 1955 electronics was still at the green screen radar level and kids were still listening to The Shadow on radio for electronic entertainment. It’s not that they couldn’t make precise measurements — oh, wait, yes it is. At least not without enormous expenditure. And who was funding this, way back then? So add in instrumental error to the error that ought to be reduced and I suspect you can easily find an additional order of magnitude — Ask Anthony about the error levels in MODERN WEATHER STATION apparatus using solid state electronics, and whether it suffices to measure something to 5 significant digits. Now re-ask the same question in 1955, concerning a piece of apparatus that has to be backed into a cylinder and then lowered to 200 atmospheres of pressure, from a ship that has junketed a small group of scientists to particular locations that, um, have just the right “scientific appeal”.

rgb

61. lgl says:

Bob
chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, recharge-discharge oscillator

There is no trend in the output of an oscillator either, it goes up for a while but then down again.
And your recharge-discharge oscillator mantra is also wrong. The tropical ocean warms during rising ENSO. The correlation between ENSO and Pacific ocean heat (energy) is positive, not negative.

62. Bernd Palmer says:

@lgl: “The tropical ocean warms during rising ENSO.” Where does the energy come from? CO2?

63. why then is temperature only going up, and not going down after the El Nino provided relief?

64. Bernd Palmer says:

@Martin van Etten: “why then is temperature only going up, and not going down” What exactly should/could remove the excess energy from the planet?

65. ren says:

In this way the temperature changes in different layers of the stratosphere above the equator. Please check historical data.

66. ren says:
67. lgl says:

Bernd
It’s the clouds of course. http://virakkraft.com/MEI-tropical-clouds.png
More clouds with falling ENSO, 05 and 07. Less clouds with rising ENSO, 06, 08 and 09

But ENSO can’t drive temp only up up up. Evaporation and LW radiation back to space should increase to restore equilibrium, more ghgs slow down the cooling so it does not happen.

68. Paul Linsay says:

“You have to increase the number of points by a _factor_ to get the reduction of noise by the \sqrt factor.”

This is true for a physics experiment with an apparatus that has a carefully measured error resolution and is measuring the same quantity over and over, for example, the charge of an electron.

I don’t think that’s true for the type of measurement that is done in climate science. Consider the case of a weather station where the thermometer is read to the nearest degree at noon every day. The measured temperature is T +- 0.5 degrees. Suppose we have the data for noon May 30 for the last one hundred years (keep wishing), what is the correct error? It’s not 0.5/10 = 0.05 degrees. Other than the fact that it’s late spring, the temperature in 1947 has no necessary connection to the temperature in 2014 because the weather fluctuates. The fluctuations have to be taken into account when computing an error. The correct way to compute the error is to make a probability distribution of the temperatures and use, say, the full-width at half maximum of the distribution for the error.

69. henrythethird says:

The one thing I wish SkS (or someone else) would show is their two charts superimposed (their straightline over the escalator).

Then ask them why the “observed” top step has’t been following the line (it’s been under the straight line for a few years now).

If I was paying someone to install the steps on that staircase, I’d wonder why a new step hasn’t been added for the past 17 years…

70. ren says:

Us see the waves that arise in the stratosphere as a result of blockade of the southern polar vortex. The temperature in the stratosphere is highly dependent solar activity, which very decreases (increases GCR).

After 32 years of marriage I still don’t know what my wife is thinking, so I am fully convinced that ESP is a myth, and I *never* accept it when person “A” tries to tell me what person “B” is thinking. The AGW alarmists are always trying to do this – misrepresenting ‘deniers’ – and it always comes down to a straw-man argument.
They are also always applying simple linear regression (without variance calculations!) to raw data to produce illusory ‘trend lines’ which only delude them into believing they have discovered something profound. Their comprehension of statistics compares to that of a freshman business major – they barely know what a ‘mean’ or a ‘slope’ is, let alone their significane (if any).

After 32 years of marriage I still don’t know what my wife is thinking, so I am fully convinced that ESP is a myth, and I *never* accept it when person “A” tries to tell me what person “B” is thinking. The AGW alarmists are always trying to do this – misrepresenting ‘deniers’ – and it always comes down to a straw-man argument.
They are also always applying simple linear regression (without variance calculations!) to raw data to produce illusory ‘trend lines’ which only delude them into believing they have discovered something profound. Their comprehension of statistics compares to that of a freshman business major – they barely know what a ‘mean’ or a ‘slope’ is, let alone their significance (if any).

73. Aaron Luke says:

It comes down, in the next several hundred years, into a very very funny thing called a glaciation period where the world cools down to it’s more default,
general-purpose

icebox
condition.
You’re gonna love it, there’ll be lots of youtube vids of ‘people drive so crazy in the ice age’ .

All this “wheat and corn and oats” and “trees growing for lumber” “cotton growing for clothing,” along with “hay growing for beef and horses and goats and camels,” that’s got everyone so annoyed, is gonna finally be over!

And oh, what a relief, all that “perpetual Northern Minnesota”, is gonna be from these sweltering days at the river, and beach, farming outside, fishing, fighting the horrendous insect infestations and doggone turtles, frogs, birds, snakes; those bees clogging everything up’s gonna finally get what it had coming to them, too, by jove!

I can not see how
anyone could possibly

warm weather!

Am I channeling [sarc]? You betchas.
Really.
You’re gonna love it lol.

Don’t take any wooden catastrophic weather stories kids, you don’t really have to send Al Gore money because you use fire, he’s just mad because he blew the presidential election, and he figures since everybody didn’t do enough for him,

they can do it now by giving their liberty, and sending their livelihoods, to his political friends worldwide.

Who’d have thought the less insane power hungry ego-maniac guy won between Bush and Gore LoL !

Gary Pearse says:
May 29, 2014 at 5:11 am
Bob, the staircase is, however, going up. When does it go down? For those who don’t care where the heat is coming from, could we reach thermageddon just with El NINOS? Something is wrong with this model. If GHG are relatively small in effect, we would have to appeal to the sun to take us to our final end with El NINOS and why would it do that when it appears to even be quieting down or, according to some experts, it is relatively unchanging. How does it come down – that is the missing half of all your stuff. Maybe heating up after the LIA we can expect an equiibrium when sea “catches up”.

74. urederra says:

Bernd Palmer says:
May 30, 2014 at 5:12 am

@Martin van Etten: “why then is temperature only going up, and not going down” What exactly should/could remove the excess energy from the planet?

Global temperature does not equate to energy of the planet. You can relate the temperature of a glass of water with its energy content because it is a homogeneous system, the planet is not.

75. urederra says:

Sorry, I should have said homogeneous system in equilibrium

76. lgl says: “It’s the clouds of course. http://virakkraft.com/MEI-tropical-clouds.png
More clouds with falling ENSO, 05 and 07. Less clouds with rising ENSO, 06, 08 and 09″

Once again, you illustrate that you can’t read graphs. Cloud amount over the tropical Pacific increased during El Nino events and decreased during La Nina events. You’ve just confirmed one portion of Trenberth’s presentation of how La Nina events recharge the heat discharged during El Ninos.

Thanks.

77. Aaron Luke says: “For those who don’t care where the heat is coming from, could we reach thermageddon just with El NINOS? Something is wrong with this model.”

Thermageddon?

Also, I haven’t presented a model. I present data…after the fact. In fact, my understandings of ENSO are supported by sea surface temperature data, ocean heat content data, cloud amount data, downward shortwave radiation data, downward longwave radiation data, trade wind data, lower troposphere temperature data, precipitation data, ocean current data, depth-averaged temperature data and warm water volume data for the equatorial Pacific, and sea level data.

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/category/el-nino-la-nina-processes/

Aaron Luke says: “How does it come down – that is the missing half of all your stuff.”

The only reason it’s missing, it hasn’t happened in the past three-plus decades. As soon as it does, I’ll be happy to write a blog post about it.

78. lgl says:

Bob
The funniest part of your inverted world is that if Ninos give a net loss of energy, the globe (and pacific) would have cooled between 1980 and 2000, but that was when it warmed the most.

79. Ninos neither add nor detract from the earths climate system, as the only energy coming into the system is from the sun’s rays, and the only energy departing the system is infrared thermal radiation from earth to space. Ninos are just weather events driven by the movement of energy within the Earth’s system.