It has been an interesting couple of days. Today yet another scientist has come forward with a press release saying that not only did their audit of IPCC forecasting procedures and found that they “violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting”, but that “The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose.” This organization should know, they certify forecasters for many disciplines and in conjunction with John Hopkins University if Washington, DC, offer a Certificate of Forecasting Practice. The story below originally appeared in the blog of Australian Dr. Jennifer Marohasy. It is reprinted below, with with some pictures and links added for WUWT readers. – Anthony
J. Scott Armstrong, founder of the International Journal of Forecasting
Guest post by Jennifer Marohasy
YESTERDAY, a former chief at NASA, Dr John S. Theon, slammed the computer models used to determine future climate claiming they are not scientific in part because the modellers have “resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists”. [1]
Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. [2]
What these two authorities, Drs Theon and Armstrong, are independently and explicitly stating is that the computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions concerned with global warming, including Australia’s CSIRO, are fundamentally flawed.
In today’s statement, made with economist Kesten Green, Dr Armstrong provides the following eight reasons as to why the current IPCC computer models lack a scientific basis:
1. No scientific forecasts of the changes in the Earth’s climate.
Currently, the only forecasts are those based on the opinions of some scientists. Computer modeling was used to create scenarios (i.e., stories) to represent the scientists’ opinions about what might happen. The models were not intended as forecasting models (Trenberth 2007) and they have not been validated for that purpose. Since the publication of our paper, no one has provided evidence to refute our claim that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming.
We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting (Green and Armstrong 2008). (No justification was provided for any of these violations.) For important forecasts, we can see no reason why any principle should be violated. We draw analogies to flying an aircraft or building a bridge or performing heart surgery—given the potential cost of errors, it is not permissible to violate principles.
2. Improper peer review process.
To our knowledge, papers claiming to forecast global warming have not been subject to peer review by experts in scientific forecasting.
3. Complexity and uncertainty of climate render expert opinions invalid for forecasting.
Expert opinions are an inappropriate forecasting method in situations that involve high complexity and high uncertainty. This conclusion is based on over eight decades of research. Armstrong (1978) provided a review of the evidence and this was supported by Tetlock’s (2005) study that involved 82,361 forecasts by 284 experts over two decades.
Long-term climate changes are highly complex due to the many factors that affect climate and to their interactions. Uncertainty about long-term climate changes is high due to a lack of good knowledge about such things as:
a) causes of climate change,
b) direction, lag time, and effect size of causal factors related to climate change,
c) effects of changing temperatures, and
d) costs and benefits of alternative actions to deal with climate changes (e.g., CO2 markets).
Given these conditions, expert opinions are not appropriate for long-term climate predictions.
4. Forecasts are needed for the effects of climate change.
Even if it were possible to forecast climate changes, it would still be necessary to forecast the effects of climate changes. In other words, in what ways might the effects be beneficial or harmful? Here again, we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts—as opposed to speculation—despite our appeals for such studies.
We addressed this issue with respect to studies involving the possible classification of polar bears as threatened or endangered (Armstrong, Green, and Soon 2008). In our audits of two key papers to support the polar bear listing, 41 principles were clearly violated by the authors of one paper and 61 by the authors of the other. It is not proper from a scientific or from a practical viewpoint to violate any principles. Again, there was no sign that the forecasters realized that they were making mistakes.
5. Forecasts are needed of the costs and benefits of alternative actions that might be taken to combat climate change.
Assuming that climate change could be accurately forecast, it would be necessary to forecast the costs and benefits of actions taken to reduce harmful effects, and to compare the net benefit with other feasible policies including taking no action. Here again we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts despite our appeals for such studies.
6. To justify using a climate forecasting model, one would need to test it against a relevant naïve model.
We used the Forecasting Method Selection Tree to help determine which method is most appropriate for forecasting long-term climate change. A copy of the Tree is attached as Appendix 1. It is drawn from comparative empirical studies from all areas of forecasting. It suggests that extrapolation is appropriate, and we chose a naïve (no change) model as an appropriate benchmark. A forecasting model should not be used unless it can be shown to provide forecasts that are more accurate than those from this naïve model, as it would otherwise increase error. In Green, Armstrong and Soon (2008), we show that the mean absolute error of 108 naïve forecasts for 50 years in the future was 0.24°C.
7. The climate system is stable.
To assess stability, we examined the errors from naïve forecasts for up to 100 years into the future. Using the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre’s data, we started with 1850 and used that year’s average temperature as our forecast for the next 100 years. We then calculated the errors for each forecast horizon from 1 to 100. We repeated the process using the average temperature in 1851 as our naïve forecast for the next 100 years, and so on. This “successive updating” continued until year 2006, when we forecasted a single year ahead. This provided 157 one-year-ahead forecasts, 156 two-year-ahead and so on to 58 100-year-ahead forecasts.
We then examined how many forecasts were further than 0.5°C from the observed value. Fewer than 13% of forecasts of up to 65-years-ahead had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. For longer horizons, fewer than 33% had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. Given the remarkable stability of global mean temperature, it is unlikely that there would be any practical benefits from a forecasting method that provided more accurate forecasts.
8. Be conservative and avoid the precautionary principle.
One of the primary scientific principles in forecasting is to be conservative in the darkness of uncertainty. This principle also argues for the use of the naive no-change extrapolation. Some have argued for the precautionary principle as a way to be conservative. It is a political, not a scientific principle. As we explain in our essay in Appendix 2, it is actually an anti-scientific principle in that it attempts to make decisions without using rational analyses. Instead, cost/benefit analyses are appropriate given the available evidence which suggests that temperature is just as likely to go up as down. However, these analyses should be supported by scientific forecasts.
The reach of these models is extraordinary, for example, the CSIRO models are currently being used in Australia to determine water allocations for farmers and to justify the need for an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) – the most far-reaching of possible economic interventions. Yet, according to Dr Armstrong, these same models violate 72 scientific principles.
********************
1. Marc Morano, James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic, January 27,2009. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320
2. “Analysis of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gases”, Drs. J. Scott Armstrong and Kesten C. Green a statement prepared for US Senator Inhofe for an analysis of the US EPA’s proposed policies for greenhouse gases. http://theclimatebet.com
Sponsored IT training links:
Get guaranteed success in 312-50 exam in first try using incredible 642-374 dumps and other 310-200 training resources prepared by experts.
Sekerob: “Brendan H, and Flanagan, thanks for your language analysis and contributions, which are right on.”
Thanks for the encouraging words and keep up the good fight. While some of us can only grasp the basis of the science, it doesn’t take a climate scientist to spot verbal trickery.
“…on a blog dating back to May 2008, where mention is made of Armstrong and his position on the IPCC “forecasting”.”
A good deal of the current excitement is over the self-created meme that increasing numbers of scientists are coming out of the woodwork to speak their doubts about global warming, thus creating an apparent deluge. In fact, many of these people had never been in the woodwork, it’s just that nobody had noticed them before.
The same procedure occurred with the Inhofe 400 (now numbering 650), which was introduced by Morano with: “Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to…global warming.”
Well yes, they had “recently voiced” because Inhofe’s staff had been busy cutting and pasting from mainly media reports over the previous year or so. But viewing the list, one sees many of the usual suspects. So “recently voiced” is clearly a semantic fudge to promote the impression of scientists jumping ship.
And it works with suitably sympathetic mainstream journalists, as in this comment in an article from the UK’s Spectator magazine:
“…650 prominent climate scientists were recorded by a US Senate Minority Report dissenting from man-made global warming theory, with more and more prominent scientists joining their ranks virtually every week.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/melaniephillips/3302471/a-cooling-ardour.thtml
Inhofe’s list of scientists and others has now morphed into “prominent climate scientists”, and at the attrition rate of “more and more” “virtually every week” I guess AGW will be all over by Christmas.
foinavon (16:04:36) :
I looked at your references.
Though interesting exercises they do not add to the simple logical argument: If sensitivity to extra heating is such that catastrophic predictions arise, catastrophe would have arrived long before anybody was born to study it, as “forcings” have been happening all through the last million years or so . They just add levels of mathematical manipulation, a different sort of proxy, to try and explain the unexplainable.
Ayrdale…thanks for the semi-kudos. I don’t actually think humans WILL f*ck things up, or that we are by nature a negative influence. Again, you’re assuming a positive or negative aspect to nature. There is no positive or negative, only influence. If we influence something in some way, it will react in a equal way. Recycling isn’t positive or negative, only different than the other options. If we never have a negative reaction to throwing away bath water, there will never be any reason to recycle it.
I believe in human nature to overcome obstacles. The problem is, we wait for the obstacles to occur before we take action. It takes traffic accidents before we fix an intersection. We wait for black lung disease before we wear masks in coal mines. People died of lung congestion in the 50’s in England, apparently. I doubt those people appreciated the capacity to overcome obstacles — a bit too late.
What you posit is that humanity will overcome the ecologic problems as soon as enough people start dying from it. While I believe this is certainly true, I believe it is also more intelligent to use what mental power we have to predict future problems and redirect our efforts toward avoiding those issues. Solar, wind, hydrogen…all are relatively low-cost solutions to major potential problems (including war, disease, pollution and more). I don’t see any downside to investing in them reasonably.
I haven’t elicited Al Gore or any Global Warming issues (I don’t particulary follow the alarmist mentality). But “The planet is in good shape and getting better” might be a nice thing to say until we find out that we SHOULD have done something else to save 1000’s of people’s lives or to retain an ecosystem that used to serve a vital function. I’d rather keep looking into these things to avoid whatever future issues we can.
I’m not for spending money haphasardly, but to ignore the effects of billions of humans’ pollution because not enough people are dying yet (or we simply don’t know we’re getting sick from it yet) is a silly premise. We have to use our collective intelligence to use our resources for the best output (whether strength, money, natural resources…)
Again, it’s just a matter of balance. Best input for best output. Letting people die first is a cost like anything else. Were the deaths in the 50’s in England worth the changes made later instead of before, or could we have done something different which cost less as a sum total? I have no opinion here. Haven’t studied it.
Although the “classical example” of chaos theory is that of a butterfly caused turbulence resulting in a weather change in a far away place, I don’t think there is any evidence that chaos theory applies to weather or climate. Note that chaos is a fundamental, qualitative shift, not just “extremely complex.” Certainly the best and maybe only way to detect chaos is show that an appropriate model gives a “chaotic” output.
The discrete logistic equation (population model) is a simple model that give chaotic dynamics at high population growth rates. The continuous version of the logistic population growth equation (calculus based) gives completely predicable dynamics at the same growth rates. The discrete logistic equation is used to ilustrate chaos in population ecology classes. As far as I know, thee is no clear evidence that it applies to any natural populations, although there have been tests with forest insects that show annual breeding and wild swings in abundance.
Climate is very complicated, which means that short-term and/or regional effects are very difficult to predict or forecast. However, once the basics are understood (CO2, sun, etc.) providing useful predictions over decades and centuries is well within the capacity of current science. The idea that global climate or ecosystems or other complex nature systems are too complicated for humans to understand is a copout that runs contrary to scientific evidence.
Quite wrong. The rate was zero 1850-1930 as per the data link I gave above and it certainly didn’t climb 2C over the following twenty years – in fact only 0.2C.
Except that it has been flat for the last decade which isn’t consistent with any CO2 climate sensitivity at all.
To add to anna v’s comments on forcings, I have never understood why the same mechanisms which control runaway water vapour forcings should not also control CO2 forcing which supposedly is amplified by water vapour forcing.
Otherwise the very marked warming of the last 30 years, and the overall warming in the “industrial era” (from the mid-late 19th century) is consistent with expectations from greenhouse-induced warming and a climate sensitivity near 3 oC.
The rate of warming in 1915-44 is similar to the post 1975 warming. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were vastly different in the 2 periods. How is that consistent. The cooling and subsequent non-warming from 1945 to 1975 happened when CO2 concentrations were higher than in the 1915-44 period – how ‘s that consistent? The IPCC say they have conducted “detection and attribution” studies which they claim show that it is only by including GHGs they are able to explain the post-1975 warming. However, it’s now clear that the “other factors” used to produce the 20th century reconstruction are based on little more than guesswork. e.g. solar, aerosols. Is this part of the “consistent” theme.
So, we have no idea what the contribution CO2 has made to 20th century warming, but even if we assume the whole 0.7 deg, you still can’t get a warming of 3 deg per CO2 doubling. The CO2 forcing since pre-industrial times is ~1.6 w/m2 which gives a sensitivity of less than 2 deg per 2xCO2.
In anticipation of your responses to this, i.e. ocean inertia or thermal lag or whatever. Could you a) also apply the argument to the 1915-44 warming and b) explain how thermal emissions from the atmosphere heat the world’s oceans.
“I’m not for spending money haphasardly, but to ignore the effects of billions of humans’ pollution because not enough people are dying yet (or we simply don’t know we’re getting sick from it yet) is a silly premise. We have to use our collective intelligence to use our resources for the best output (whether strength, money, natural resources…)
Again, it’s just a matter of balance. Best input for best output. Letting people die first is a cost like anything else. Were the deaths in the 50’s in England worth the changes made later instead of before, or could we have done something different which cost less as a sum total? I have no opinion here. Haven’t studied it.”
@ur momisugly salutwineco, Like WoW, are you sure you haven’t studied this?
You’ve reduced humans as but a interference to be sacrificed for advancement of capital or whatever the elite deem as expendable.
I’m totally floored at the acceptance you have in your heart for such a idea?!
salutwineco (13:12:40) :
“Spending Trillions” is always relative… You have to assume the option is to spend $Trillions less.
You’re right about one point…we shouldn’t spend $Trillions simply to mitigate CO2 gas. Hoever, we will spend money regardless, and it will eventually reach $Trillions. Logically we can all agree we should do it in a way that produces the least affect on the environment for the greatest return in productivity. it’s a curve…no “YES” or “NO” answer, so we’ll have to decide the best course through agreement of the many sides of the argument.
The one absolute is that to not affect the current balance will guarantee the status quo, in which humanity is currently thriving. To proceed with no concern for the effect of humanity on the environment, because we believe we understand that CO2 won’t be a factor, is the height of hubris and the complete disregard for the complexities of the system.
Here’s my side of the argument FWIW.
If mankind is currently thriving, then altering the status quo requires that present evidence has conclusively established that grave consequences will result from current energy usage, since that is really the crux of the issue. Skeptics argue there is no definitive evidence indicating that continuing current policies is propelling mankind to impending doom, aka. tipping points or points of no return which lead to mass extinction. I have not detected any viable alternatives to agricultural fossil fuel consumption that would not result in highly significant decreases in global edible commodities. Logically then, any policy negatively impacting modern agricultural productivity will cause global death. Considering these tenets then, the question really becomes which scenario has the highest probability of occurrence, fossil fuel energy consumption induced environmental damage which kills millions, or governmental policies inhibiting food production which kills millions? Do you truly believe the evidence for CO2 induced extinction is greater than the probability that misguided government remedies will hinder agricultural production?
IMHO, the height of hubris is trusting flimsy data and/or the fools in government to make intelligent decisions.
John W. (12:33:57) :
Superb post, John W.
Non multiplicanda entia! (aka, Occam’s razor).
And that includes conceptual entities invented to blunt rational rational criticism by creating the pretense that your critic does not understand what he is talking about when it is your own model that is flawed.
Obviously, AGW science is too sophisticated and modern for that hirstute ignoramus, Occam.
I find “big oil” among the aspersions posted in these comments, but not “big government” or “big bureaucracy”. Big oil must sell its product; big government ultimately uses force.
For your information, consider this:
Toward An Economic Justice Agenda
http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/eja_may2008.pdf
Sourced from the Democratic Left website (Democratic Socialists of America),
“Page 11. “The challenge of climate change is an economic, scientific, and labor issue much more than a traditional environmental issue.
“Therefore, we advocate that the labor movement take the lead in pushing Congress to enact a massive program of public investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy, as proposed by the Apollo Alliance, which sees clean energy and more jobs as reinforcing each other.
“Fresh water and biodiversity are also renewable but finite resources being exploited unsustainably. The privatization of water, another essential public good, is a critical issue in much of the world and needs to be resisted and reversed.
“In short, we need a global Marshall Plan for sustainable development to reverse the race to the bottom in wages, taxation, health, and environmental regulation. It can be funded by a global punitive “Tobin tax” on speculative transfers of funds and currency in and out of the financial and stock markets of developing nations.”
I hope this is still available, and has not been erased as has Carol Browner’s contribution to the XXIII Congress of the Socialist International, Athens; Global Solidarity. Carol Browner is apparently to be Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change.
The above is not intended as ad-hominum, but rather as a caution to “consider the source”.
There are statements in the comments that imply that Validity of Climate Change Forecasting for Public Policy Decision Making (Green, Armstron & Soon) are a forecast, prediction and / or used the wrong data.
http://kestencgreen.com/naiveclimate.pdf
E.g.,
“[Dr. Armstrong’s forecasting methods] would provide no scientific understanding of how populations are likely to respond to ongoing or future changes in their environment.”
It is not a forecast, prediction, et cetera. It is a Proof of Concept (or demonstration) that a model claiming skill should give better results than a “naive” (bau) model. They used reasonably-good data (i.e., untampered) in their demonstration.
From the abstract:
“Policymakers need to know whether prediction is possible and if so whether any proposed forecasting method will provide forecasts that are substantively more accurate than those from the relevant benchmark method. … In such a situation, a “no change” extrapolation is an appropriate benchmark forecasting method. We used the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre’s annual average thermometer data from 1850 through 2007 to examine the performance of the benchmark method.”
Alan Wilkinson (23:59:24) :
That simply isn’t true. Well-informed policymakers aren’t going to fall for that sort of misrepresentation of reality! It was particularly hot in 1998 as a result of the strongest El Nino of the entire 20th century. So 1998 was boosted around 0.2 oC above the long term trend. Now we’re achieving close to those temperatures without the boost of a strong El Nino.
The notion that a regular and systematic enhancement of the CO2 concentration is accompanied by a regular and systematic rise in temperature is simply fallacious. 2008 which had a substantial La Nina episode, substantially negative PDO index values, and we’re smack at the bottom of the solar cycle, was still in the top 10 warmest years. It’s getting warmer, and no doubt will continue to do so, even if the temperature goes up and down from year to year…
To add to anna v’s comments on forcings, I have never understood why the same mechanisms which control runaway water vapour forcings should not also control CO2 forcing which supposedly is amplified by water vapour forcing.
I don’t understand your point. In particular the words “control” and “runaway” don’t seem compatible. Do you mean “control against a runaway…”
Flanagan (03:50:48) : couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw your post… Complete disinformation! You’re talking about effects which are supposed to appear in a century, then you reject AGW because it hasn’t happened yet? Waw!
Hehe sorry, my Tarot cards say your crystal ball is bogus:P
anna v (21:10:08) :
Oh well… They’re “interesting exercises” but don’t “add to the simple logical argument”. And so the science can be cast aside without a second thought! That’s not very scientific anna.
Brendan H (20:46:18) :
Sekerob: “Brendan H, and Flanagan, thanks for your language analysis and contributions, which are right on.”
Thanks for the encouraging words and keep up the good fight. While some of us can only grasp the basis of the science, it doesn’t take a climate scientist to spot verbal trickery.”
Yay, we have a consensus! We are saved!
@ur momisugly Lance about @ur momisugly salutwineco, “Like WoW, are you sure you haven’t studied this?
You’ve reduced humans as but a interference to be sacrificed for advancement of capital or whatever the elite deem as expendable. I’m totally floored at the acceptance you have in your heart for such a idea?!”
You’ve missed my point. I’m not heartless, just providing the reality. If we know $50 Billion will save 1 life, the collective of humanity will allow death. It happens daily at insurance companies. If we know $1 will save 10,000 lives, the collective of humanity will demand action. Somewhere in-between lies the goal & reality. And no, I haven’t studied the lung diseases of 1950’s England. I defer to others.
@ur momisuglyTim Clark re “If mankind is currently thriving, then altering the status quo requires that present evidence has conclusively established that grave consequences will result from current energy usage, since that is really the crux of the issue.”
I don’t agree with the premise…that “grave consequences” are required to give reason to deviate from the status quo, nor that the consequences need to be “conclusively established”. It’s these superlatives that cloud reason. Unfortunately, that means the rest of your post doesn’t apply to what I’m trying to say.
For example, if a kid doesn’t tell his parents he does not like Cheerios, he accepts the status quo…he’s no more or less likely to get Cheerios. Alternately, he can throw a tantrum if he gets them next time and nearly assure that he will never get Cheerios again, or he can just quietly tell Dad but not Mom, reducing the chances. Either way, the consequences or return on effort need not be conclusive, established, grave, or otherwise. Small efforts toward improvement are perfectly acceptable if expected returns will bring larger value, including with the environment.
We simply need to decide what we are willing to pay (in money, lives, disease, effort) to change the status quo, in an effort to change another part of the equation (which may still be money, lives, disease, effort…). Is it worth switching to hydrogen cars more quickly in order to not just reduce a chance of AGW, but to reduce our reliance on unstable governments, reduce pollution, or decrease vehicle usage costs? There are a chaotic number of factors other than CO2, and there aren’t many absolutes involved.
I haven’t stated any support for either side. I think you maybe attribute my willingness to debate the topic as an afront to your decided stance. I simply believe there is plenty of middle ground, which is likely where we’ll end up. And I never even mentioned any agriculture or food sources in my points. Not sure where that entered into it.
You (and others) seem to disparage the use of solar, wind and hydrogen power sources because alarmists desire to use it to stop AGW. But these two topics need not be tied together.
David Gray (13:39:35)
I think you maybe attribute my willingness to debate the topic as an afront to your decided stance.
You do not know my decided stance, futhermore, even if I have one.
And I never even mentioned any agriculture or food sources in my points. Not sure where that entered into it.
I don’t know if you changed your screen name or not, but I responded to:
salutwineco (13:12:40) :
Logically we can all agree we should do it in a way that produces the least affect on the environment for the greatest return in productivity. it’s a curve…no “YES” or “NO” answer, so we’ll have to decide the best course through agreement of the many sides of the argument.</i.
You stated we have to decide the best course through agreement between sides. Therefore, my "side of the argument", using what I know and can be found, as I did, in peer-reviewed literature (Agronomy Journal for a start) is we know the consequences of eliminating fossil fuel energy (however derived) usage in agriculture production, as there are currently no viable alternatives to large horsepower tractors. My assertion is we don’t know with a similar level of certainty, the consequences of increasing temperature, or how much it will continue to increase. We do know that increasing temperatures are associated with increasing crop production in the USA. The superlatives are from the IPCC. Cheerios are made from an agricultural commodity.
David Gray 13.39.35, solar, wind and hydrogen power, not to mention geothermal, tidal and hydroelectric power generation no doubt all have their place. Here in NZ, hydoelectric and geothermal generation are (our) big players…however, we in NZ have (and you don’t include it as an option) an anti-nuclear phobia.
Surely the phony environmentalists should move on and give nuclear power generation its due…
Sorry ’bout the name change. Just a system function, not intended.
Tim, I see. Agriculture production isn’t really a factor for my views…I don’t believe totally eliminating the use of fossil fuels is either necessary nor likely. Certainly we must increase production of the new Banana Nut Cheerios, however. I just find many reasons to switch a good portion of our energy production to renewables, and very few reasons not to do so. Eventually, many advancing technologies could produce energy at a net credit cost, overcoming dollar cost objections.
I find biofuels to be total folly. I believe nuclear power to be an option. Thanks for the interesting replies! I need to move on. Be kind, rewind.
El Nino is a weather event, not a heat source. It is a symptom, not a cause.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
1997 0.355
1998 0.515
1999 0.262
2000 0.238
2001 0.4
2002 0.455
2003 0.457
2004 0.432
2005 0.479
2006 0.422
2007 0.403
2008 0.312
It is fatuous to claim that that data line is anything but flat. It is crystal clear it shows no impact from CO2 forcing let alone amplification by water vapour.
The argument for amplification is that increased temperatures caused by CO2 create greater atmospheric water content. But anything that raises temperatures momentarily (even your mythical El Nino energy source) should cause the same effect. Obviously that is controlled naturally (eg by precipitation, clouds, circulation patterns). I see no good reason why CO2 forcing would not have at least its water vapour amplification, if not the CO2 forcing itself, controlled by exactly the same natural mechanisms,
TonyB (05:34:46) :
@E M Smith
Thanks for the interesting link regarding the great panic of 33AD.
Glad you liked it! It’s one of my favorites … Liked your quote a lot too…
juan (07:13:48) : To TonyB and E.M.Smith: I think we share an interest in pursuing historical sources, and perhaps taking them more seriously.
Yes, we do… Fascinating story. I would expect maybe Dalton as modified by some lag induced by the oceans? I’ll certainly be watch for “southwesters” now 😉
“I’m here, I’m digging into it, and I’m not letting go of this bone until it’s chewed down to dust and coming out the other end to be rapidly buried. Clear?”
Awesome. I love you man.
Alan Wilkinson (00:42:48)
El Nino is a cause of transiently enhanced surface warmth, much in the same way as La Nina is a cause of transiently reduced surface warmth.
That’s very straightforward. During an El Nino event there is a suppression of cold water upwelling off the Western South American coast and warm surface waters spread across the Pacific towards the coast of S. America. The surface of the earth (and troposphere) is warmed for a while until the ocean/wind currents return to their “normal” state. During La Nina events there is enhanced cold water upwelling and the warm Pacific waters are not spread across the Pacific…they remain more focussed in West. The surface of the earth (and tropsophere) cools transiently.
So El Nino is a temporary source of heat which temporarily raises the temperature at the surface (and troposphere).
Nothing “mythical” about El Nino and its temporary contribution to surface warming Alan! Otherwise you’re right. Anything that causes the troposphere to warm will result in a water vapour feedback. It doesn’t have to be an enhanced greenhouse effect. And there’s no particular evidence that this is “controlled”. After all, as we enhance the greenhouse efeect so the Earth’s surface and troposphere warm to. Likewise with enhanced solar irradiation we get warming. Essentially the Earth’s surface tends towards an equilibrium temperature “set” by the summation of all the forcings acting to alter the temperature…
foinavon (09:22:32) :
‘Likewise with enhanced solar irradiation we get warming. Essentially the Earth’s surface tends towards an equilibrium temperature “set” by the summation of all the forcings acting to alter the temperature…’
Would that equilibrium temperature be the adverage temperature from the bottom of the last ice age to the top of our present warm period?