Guest post by Bob Tisdale
The first part of this post, Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1, should be read prior to this the second part. Part 1 gives an overview of the datasets used in the following, illustrates the processes that take place during an El Nino event, and discusses the primary reasons for the step changes in global SST anomalies that result from significant El Nino events–those El Nino events that are not influenced by volcanic eruptions.
In the following, the periods from January 1981 to December 1995 and from January 1976 to December 1981 are examined.
THE STEP CHANGE FROM 1981 TO 1995
As noted in the introduction (Part 1), the volcanic eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Mount Pinatubo in 1991 interrupted the normal heat distribution processes of the El Nino events that occurred at or near the same time. Figure 14 illustrates the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies, scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies, and scaled (inverted) Sato Index data for the period of January 1981 to December 1995. (This is another graph you may wish to open in a separate window to keep you from having to scroll back and forth.) Again, the Sato Index and NINO3.4 SST anomaly data are not scaled to any specific level; they are provided for timing purposes only. The volcanic eruptions show up as the two depressions in the Sato Index data (green curve). The smoothing rounds off the start time of the Sato data, making it appear as though the Mean Optical thickness reacted prior to the eruption, but because the SST data is smoothed as well the impact on the discussion is nil.
http://i41.tinypic.com/20a8okz.jpg
Figure 14
The 1982/83 El Nino was the ENSO event with the second highest NINO3.4 SST anomaly of the 20th Century, yet there was little to no response by the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies to it. The El Chichon eruption effectively suppressed the heat distribution of that El Nino to the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans. In fact, the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies reacted quite sharply to the El Chichon eruption; they dropped quickly. Then as the volcanic aerosols subsided, East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies rebounded to approximately the same level they had been at before the eruption. Considering the lags in the response of the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies to El Nino events, part of that rebound from mid-1982 to mid-1983 may be attributable to the 1982/83 El Nino. Then, from mid-1983 to mid-1986, East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies modulated slightly until being swept up by the 1986/87/88 El Nino, lagging by approximately 7 months. While the SST anomalies of the 1986/87/88 El Nino did not peak as high as the 1982/83 El Nino, the 1986/87/88 El Nino lasted through the summer of 1987, making it a substantial ENSO event. The response of the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies was similar to that of the 1997/98 El Nino inasmuch as East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies shifted significantly (eyeballing it, more than 0.12 deg C at the lowest level after the 1986/87/88 El Nino). East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies then rose slightly as NINO3.4 SST anomalies rebounded from the 1988/89 La Nina. Note that, like the response to the 1998/99/2000 La Nina, there was little to no response of the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies to the 1988/89 La Nina. Then in 1991 two events, the Mount Pinatubo eruption and the beginning of a multiyear El Nino, occurred at the same time. Due to the magnitude of the Mount Pinatubo eruption, and likely its location in the West Pacific, East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies dropped almost 0.25 deg C over approximately two years. When East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies finally did rebound, possibly due to the ongoing multiyear El Nino, they did not return to their pre-1991 elevated levels.
In Figure 15, the SST anomaly data for the East Pacific, Atlantic, and West Indian Oceans (red curve) were added to the comparative graph. East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies rise and fall from 1981 to 1991, mimicking the variations in NINO3.4 SST anomalies. There was no visible response by the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies to the El Chichon eruption in 1982.
http://i43.tinypic.com/s5jrkl.jpg
Figure 15
A step change in East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies occurs during that period as well. Following the 1986/87/88 El Nino, East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies react to the subsequent 1988/89 La Nina. Then the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies (red curve) rise in response to the rebound in NINO3.4 SST anomalies until they nearly match the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies (black curve), and they remain at that elevated level. That is, prior to the 1986/87/88 El Nino, the mean of the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies (peak to trough) was approximately 0.05 deg C, but after it, the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies remained almost 0.1 deg C higher, with some minor fluctuations. A final note, the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies did not drop in response to the Mount Pinatubo eruption, but it appears Mount Pinatubo limited the rise of the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies to the El Nino. The minor rise in East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies (red curve) countered the significant decrease in the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies (black curve), each responding to different natural events and making it appear that there was little reaction in the global SST anomalies to the Mount Pinatubo eruption or the El Nino at that time.
In summary, referring to Figure 16, which is the same graph as Figure 3 (Part 1), the step change in global SST anomalies between 1981 and 1995 was in response to the 1986/87/88 El Nino. The volcanic eruptions of 1982 and 1991 suppressed the normal step response to El Nino events at those times.
http://i43.tinypic.com/i74utd.jpg
Figure 16
THE STEP CHANGES FROM 1976 TO 1981
Note: I changed the smoothing to a 5-month running-average filter for this period.
The East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies and scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies for the period of January 1976 to December 1981 are illustrated in Figure 17. There was no volcanic activity during the period, so I deleted the Sato Index data. East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies rose first (eyeballing it, approximately 0.1 deg C) in a lagged response to the first half of the 1976/77/78 El Nino, then rose again (approximately another 0.03 to 0.04 deg C), responding to the second half of that El Nino.
http://i40.tinypic.com/ors18w.jpg
Figure 17
Then the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies respond in a way that was in no way typical of their reaction to all other El Nino events. It may not be unusual if we take a closer look at the 1979/80 El Nino, which was unusual on its own. Refer to Figure 18, which is the raw and smoothed NINO3.4 SST anomaly data for the period of January 1976 to November 2008. The 1979/80 El Nino was not a significant El Nino; its NINO3.4 SST anomalies barely rose above the threshold of 0.5 deg C for a few months. It is so minor it does not register as an El Nino event on the ONI Index. It peaked at approximately 0.7 deg C. It also appears as a gradual rise and fall of NINO3.4 SST anomalies, not a sudden spike typical of other El Ninos.
http://i43.tinypic.com/a31ap0.jpg
Figure 18
In Figure 19, the SST anomaly data for the East Pacific, Atlantic, and West Indian Oceans (red curve) were added to the graph. The East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies again mimic NINO3.4 SST anomalies, making a specific point at which they acquire an upward step difficult to determine. Note, however, that there are underlying steps in the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies that show themselves in the values at the minimums of its cycles in 1976, 1978, and 1980. In other respects it appears that the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies (red curve) are simply following a “baseline” established by the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies (black curve). This could be accomplished by natural ocean-atmospheric heat transfer processes and ocean currents.
http://i39.tinypic.com/mufjth.jpg
Figure 19
Note: The 1976 Pacific Climate Shift also occurred at the start of that period. I illustrated the changes in various SST subsets in that post and the possible influence of the Southern Ocean on the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift.
Figure 20 is a simple recap of the cause of the step change in SST anomalies from 1976 to 1981. It was due primarily to the shift of the SST anomalies in East Indian and West Pacific Oceans in response to the 1976/77/78 El Nino.
http://i41.tinypic.com/2mi0umx.jpg
Figure 20
A CONFIRMING PHENOMENON?
Two of my first three posts on this blog (Is There A Cumulative ENSO Climate Forcing? & Is There a Cumulative ENSO Forcing? Part 2) dealt with a phenomenon I had discovered in the long-term NINO3.4 SST anomalies provided as part of a Trenberth and Stepaniak study. The appropriate citations are included in the posts linked above. That NINO3.4 SST anomaly data is in fact HADSST data and uses 1950 to 1979 as base years. The dataset and base years are critical for the following. One question I can’t answer is why Trenberth and Stepaniak chose 1950 to 1979 as base years, but using those base years helped to create a unique response when a running total of that NINO3.4 SST anomaly data is graphed. Note the shape of the curve in Figure 21.
http://i35.tinypic.com/166wxnk.jpg
Figure 21
(I’ll update that running total graph as soon as I get a chance.) The curve mimics the curve of global temperature anomaly time-series data. The scale is wrong, but the proper coefficient would account for that.
Do the step changes illustrated in this post provide a mechanism for this phenomenon? And does the running total confirm that El Nino events are the primary driver of global temperature?
NON-NINO EVENTS
Figure 22 is a graph of NINO3.4 SST anomaly data from 1976 to 2008 in which I’ve noted El Nino events that were impacted by volcanic eruptions. The questions that came to mind were: What would have happened if El Chichon eruption had NOT been disturbed the heat distribution process of the 1982/83 El Nino? Would the equatorial Pacific have needed all of the additional El Ninos to distribute heat to higher latitudes? The same questions apply to the Mount Pinatubo eruption since it delayed the distribution of equatorial heat another few years.
http://i44.tinypic.com/3442jo9.jpg
Figure 22
HADSST
To check my earlier graphs and to assure that the step changes illustrated in the preceding were not resident in the ERSST.v2 data alone, I plotted the four major datasets again, but this time using HADSST2 data available through the KNMI website. Refer to Figure 23. The same step changes and responses to volcanic eruptions appear in the HADSST data.
http://i43.tinypic.com/24zivjt.jpg
Figure 23
GLOBAL SST
There will be those who will note that I used the word “Global” in numerous graphs in this post when in fact I had used data within the coordinates of 60S to 65N, 180W to 180E, excluding the Arctic and Southern Oceans.
It just seemed more appropriate to me to illustrate datasets within the same longitudes.
And there will be those who believe I was misrepresenting the data or hiding additional warming in the areas I excluded.
Nothing could be more from the truth. But to prove the longitudes had little effect on this discussion, Figure 24 is a comparative graph of the two primary datasets used throughout this post, the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies (black curve) and the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies (red curve), compared to GLOBAL [90S to 90N, 180W to 180E] SST anomalies.
http://i44.tinypic.com/65tisz.jpg
Figure 24
CLOSING
In summary, step changes in global SST (and global surface temperature) result from El Nino events because warm water that was once below the surface of the Pacific Warm Pool (and not part of the instrument temperature record) is driven to the surface and eventually returned to the surface of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans (making it a significant part of the instrument temperature record). The other major point of this post was that the heat distribution associated with El Nino events did not occur for all of El Ninos since 1976. The El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo explosive volcanic eruptions suppressed the heat distribution of the 1982/83, the 1991/92, the 1993, and possibly the 1994/95 ENSO events.
SOURCES
Smith and Reynolds Extended Reconstructed SST Sea Surface Temperature Data (ERSST.v2) is available through the NOAA National Operational Model Archive & Distribution System (NOMADS).
http://nomads.ncdc.noaa.gov/#climatencdc
It is also available through the KNMI webpage listed below.
The Sato Index Data is available from GISS at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/
Specifically:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau_line.txt
The HADSST data is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer website. http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Where do you plan on publishing this?
about the Pacific warm pool thermocline :
is it as simple ( i know that sounds funny ) as a net increase in cold water in the entire basin that gives the up push or does one have to consider the sea floor topo to locate sources of cold water being channeled from a ‘cold’ location ( perhaps the antartic ) ?
which would lead me to believe that there is a pumping action going on in the pacific cold pool below this thermocline . I would guess that the water temp below the thermocline varies little in temp as you pass down thru to the ocean floor. we all know that water pretty much does not compress, so where is the pumping coming from ?
Perhaps your article should be re-titled ?
The two parts form a great article. Although very detailed and very much supported by data, it was the graph 21 (a confirming phenomenon) that convinces me.
These two posting are certainly a positive contribution to (my) the understaning of long term SST behavior.
Whatever El Nino did and La Nina and PDO do, it’s not impressing the Arctic too much. Substantial shortfall on SIA continues.
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
OT…but not sure where else to post it…
Looks like there’s a small shift in rhetoric regarding climate events. Is this because the AGW train is running out of funding steam?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478024,00.html
“Powerful Solar Storm Could Shut Down U.S. for Months”
One of the highlights…
“Rush to prepare”
“The race is on for better forecasting abilities, as the next peak in solar activity is expected to come around 2012.
While the sun is in a lull now, activity can flare up at any moment, and severe space weather — how severe, nobody knows — will ramp up a year or two before the peak.
Some scientists expect the next peak to bring more severe events than other recent peaks.”
From the headline…I guess the rest of the world is safe from the impending solar crisis in 2012, as it apparently will only shut down the U.S.
JimB
BigRed, you wrote, “Where do you plan on publishing this?”
I’m a blogger, not a scientist. This and my website are as far as it goes. Having Anthony agree to post them is the big leagues for me.
Bob,
It looks like you found out where the heat was hiding. When is it going back into hiding again? Does the warm pool grow smaller when global temperatures rise? Is the size of the warm pool measured regularly?
As regards the matter of three ’steps’ between 1976 and 2005 there were three solar cycles numbered 21 22 and 23 all of which were more active than normal.
I have suggested elsewhere that if three such cycles are more active than average they may well have a cumulative effect notwithstanding that the average activity across the three cycles is steady.
Coincidence or something more ?
Weather event;
‘Killer’ cold snap hits tropical Thailand
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24908326-23109,00.html
Excellent work, Bob! Thank you. (You will forever be banned from posting comments at Real Climate. Does anyone read that blog anymore?)
Stephen Wilde: Could it be that the modern solar maximum was the cause? Since no one dares mention it’s name, solar maximum, it falls from view. And it may have ended with a bang in 2005?
My opinion — It’s interesting to contemplate that the oceans provide a background ‘stirring of the Earth’s temperature’ taking temperature up and down in reaction to stored heat and circulation overturn, this may very well be quite true. But the source driver of it all, what makes it all run … It’s not clear to me that things like the sun’s state, the Milankovich cycles, and other in and out of solar system drivers are not the real driving sources.
For instance, ice ages alternating between glaciation and interglacial warm periods started up slowly about five million years ago, to ravage the Earth. Why? How? Was it orbital, a major sun shift?
It is to naive to think Earth just sits quietly in a benign ‘constant’ sun solar system, just a bystander to the goings on in the Milky Way galaxy, and along for the ride in the universe. How could Earth not be influenced by these massive things, we are like gnats traveling a speck of dust in space, and can be done wiped out in an instant.
One final out of context point, CO2 is not a pollutant, it is the stuff of life itself to carbon life forms, like man. I’m just saying…
OT, but it looks like CO2 and increased temperatures are not as bad for coral and calcifying organisms as we’ve been told (well surprise, surprise!)…
CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs
Prospects for the Future
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/corals/toc.php
of course, it’s not really all that surprising considering corals first appeared when temperatures and CO2 concentrations were much higher…
by the way, it looks like there’s a push for that other “science” blog going on at the polls…vote now!
http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog/
Sdk, your comment began with, “about the Pacific warm pool thermocline…”
I have no reference data to support or refute your comment.
Sekerob, you wrote, “Whatever El Nino did and La Nina and PDO do, it’s not impressing the Arctic too much. Substantial shortfall on SIA continues.”
BUT you provided a link to an NCEP polar view of Arctic SST anomalies. How do you equate Sea Ice Anomalies from that illustration? In the right-hand links of this webpage is a graph of Arctic Sea Ice Extent. Click on it or use the link below. So far this year there’s more sea ice than 2005, 2006 and 2007 at the same time.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
Additionally, take a look at a post I did a few weeks ago that compared NINO3.4 SST anomalies and volcanic aerosols to the Arctic Lower Troposphere Temperatures (TLT).
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/enso-and-volcanic-aerosols-explain-most.html
It appears that ENSO and volcanic aerosols are the primary drivers of Arctic TLT anomalies, too.
Mike Bryant, you wrote, “It looks like you found out where the heat was hiding. When is it going back into hiding again? Does the warm pool grow smaller when global temperatures rise? Is the size of the warm pool measured regularly?”
There’s a discussion on the PWP here:
http://www.crces.org/presentations/dmv_ipwp/
With an illustration of Indian Ocean (IO) and West Pacific (WP) areas and SSTs.
http://www.crces.org/presentations/dmv_ipwp/images/figure1.gif
And there are links to Equatorial Pacific Warm Water Volume at this post.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/equatorial-pacific-warm-water-volume.html
Here’s a comparative graph of West and East Equatorial Pacific Warm Water Volume. The east correlates reasonably well with NINO3.4, and the West counters it. Also, an increase in volume in the West doesn’t mean there’s an El Nino on the way.
http://i35.tinypic.com/dh7diq.jpg
Stephen Wilde, You wrote, “As regards the matter of three ’steps’ between 1976 and 2005 there were three solar cycles numbered 21 22 and 23 all of which were more active than normal.
“I have suggested elsewhere that if three such cycles are more active than average they may well have a cumulative effect notwithstanding that the average activity across the three cycles is steady.
“Coincidence or something more?”
You missed the theme of this post. The steps were due to the effects of significant ENSO events on the East Indian and West Pacific SST anomalies, but with a qualification; the ENSO events could not be impacted by volcanic eruptions. Had there not been the volcanic eruptions, and assuming the number of ENSO event remained the same, there would have been five or more steps. How then would 5 steps have equated to 3 solar cycles? And I’m not showing you theory or hypothesis; I’m illustrating the effects that are contained within measured data. Of course, it’s my take on what the data says, but your comment above does not convince me otherwise.
Bob Tisdale (01:12:54) wrote : I’m a blogger, not a scientist. This and my website are as far as it goes. Having Anthony agree to post them is the big leagues for me.”
Bob, you’re far more than a blogger – you’re a researcher par excellence. You have risen far above many claiming to be a scientist. Because a person has a degree (including a PhD) in a science, they are no more a scientist than I’m a mechanic because I learned to put air in my tires!
As I understand the term “scientist,” it is a person who practices the “Scientific Method.” Hansen and friends have demonstrated they don’t practice the “Scientific Method.” Folks like Lief, Fred Singer, Svensgard, and hundreds of other dedicated individuals who adhere to the “Scientific Method” are the true scientists.
As far as your feeling of being placed in the “big leagues” of sorts because Anthony posted your research, you should be proud. Whether Anthony knows what he’s created or not, WUWT has become somewhat of a down to earth, de facto “peer review” channel for scientists and researchers.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
tarpon,
That is what I would say but there is still a circle to square off.
The sun is the biggest factor long term but as Leif says the observed variations appear very small despite changes in the apparent level of activity.
Consequently I’m inclined to say the sun is the most influential influence in the longer term (over 100 years) but in the short to medium term (up to 100 years) the most noticeable driver from a human lifetime perspective is the oceans.
Bob’s work on this is invaluable because it does far more than I could ever do myself to produce supporting evidence by getting a better correlation between ocean changes and temperature changes.
As I’ve said to Leif I’d be content to see a mere 10% of contribution to atmospheric temperature changes from solar activity (though I suspect more) with a substantial amplifying effect from oceanic variation alternating with suppressing effects depending on whether the oceans are net absorbers or net emitters of energy at any particular time.
Thus I think longer term increasing solar input has been providing a slow background warming since 1600 and in the shorter term the oceans impose their own variability.
Often solar and oceanic inputs are offsetting each other ( and often the cycles in different oceans act against one another) but from time to time they come into phase and much more rapid temperature changes occur.
From 1976 to 2000 or so both solar and oceanic influences were positive.
Now solar and PDO influences are negative with the other oceans falling into line.
What surprises me from current observations and from Bob’s work is that the atmospheric temperature effect seems rather more rapid and larger than I was expecting.
Those three steps are virtually coincident with the peaks and troughs of three solar cycles and the consistent high level of activity APPEARS to provide the cumulative effect.
There is no place in all this for human CO2. The natural elements are bigger by orders of magnitude.
SDK:”is it as simple ( i know that sounds funny ) as a net increase in cold water in the entire basin that gives the up push or does one have to consider the sea floor topo to locate sources of cold water being channeled from a ‘cold’ location ( perhaps the antartic ) ?”
That source of cold water goes from the Antartic along the coast of south america (Chile and Peru) and it is called the “humboldt current”, after his discoverer.
“There is no place in all this for human CO2. The natural elements are bigger by orders of magnitude.”
Indeed. Heh.
May I ask some (maybe stupid) questions ? Why does the El Nino induced increased temperature not go back the last 15 years ? And why did it return to the “normal” temperature in the previous periods ?
Is there any possibility that the increased (sea)temperatures do influnence (reinforce) the El Nino events ? Or with other words is there a self reinforcing relationship between temperature and El Nino intensity ?
The increased arctic and north Russia temperatures are not explained by these El Nino events ? Are there any (cyclic ?) natural phenomena that could explain these warmings ?
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age
11.01.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-0/
“Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.”
REPLY: Consider the source. – Anthony
The non-economic “alternative,” “sustainable,” “renewable” energy sources need a stimulus.
————————————————————-
Alternative energy producers seek stimulus funds
http://thehill.com/business–lobby/alternative-energy-producers-seek-stimulus-funds-2009-01-09.html
“Solar and wind executives are arguing that they need help from the upcoming stimulus measure in order to meet President-elect Obama’s goal of doubling alternative energy production in three years.”
Does Nature’s Thermostat Exist? A Global Warming Debate Challenge
January 13th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/does-nature%e2%80%99s-thermostat-exist-a-global-warming-debate-challenge/
“In popular political parlance, most climate researchers do not appreciate the nuanced details of how one estimates feedbacks in nature, and therefore they are not qualified to pass judgment on this issue. Therefore, any claims about how many thousands of scientists agree with the IPCC’s official position on global warming are meaningless.”
“And I’m particularly interested to see whether anyone can respond to this challenge without using phrases like “this issue is settled”, “the cloud claim is bogus”, or without ad hominem attacks.”
Obama climate czar has socialist ties
Group sees ‘global governance’ as solution
http://www.iceagenow.com/Obama_climate_czar_has_socialist_ties.htm
12 Jan 09 – Until last week, Obama’s pick as global warming czar, Carol Browner, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
SUPPLEMENTAL GRAPHS
Bill Illis wrote in Part 1, “…dampen down the smoothing and filters so that one can be sure the smoothing is not causing an artifact…”
To assure that no one thinks 5- and 12-month filtering misrepresents the data in the comparative graphs, I’ve added the raw SST anomaly data for the four primary graphs in this post. Note that the vertical scaling is different due to the additional range of the data being plotted.
http://i41.tinypic.com/6ypou9.jpg
Figure 14
http://i41.tinypic.com/1z2eq2f.jpg
Figure 15
http://i44.tinypic.com/fy0uhd.jpg
Figure 17
http://i42.tinypic.com/15rcewg.jpg
Figure 19
Regards
Joe Friday: Just the facts on global warming, ma’am.
————————————————————-
Environmental terrorism
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Memo_3308_Environmental_terrorism.pdf
“I believe that global warming is the biggest scientific scam ever. There is no evidence to prove that the current climate variations are not a natural cycle.”
“These alarmist predictions have backfired. Environmental extremism, and now plain terrorism, is causing tremendous damage to the image of science. It is exacerbated by the failure of conscientious scientists to raise the alarm. Remaining silent is a deliberate decision for which they can be held accountable.”
“The best that they can do is to produce model projections of unverifiable and therefore unchallengeable consequences. This is also why it has to resort to terrorist approaches based on mathematical models instead of an analysis of real world observations.”
“I have no more faith in global climate model (GCM) predictions than I have in all those emails from Nigeria advising me that I have won the Lotto, or those proposals from rich widows in Dubai who have just lost their husbands, or from the less frequent emails from my bank asking for details of my banking account.”
“There was a time in my life when spreading alarm and despondency was a punishable offence. Cowardice in the face of the enemy could result in facing a firing squad. I swore an oath of allegiance to my country. Today there are no such legal or moral standards.”