Note: Above graph comes from this source and not the paper below. Only the abstract is available. (Note from 2016: The link to the graph died, the image was recovered from the Wayback Machine and an edit made to restore it on Oct 31, 2016)
A new peer-reviewed climate study is presenting a head on challenge to man-made global warming claims. The study by three climate researchers appears in the July 23, 2009 edition of Journal of Geophysical Research. (Link to Abstract)
Full Press Release and Abstract to Study:
July 23, 2009
Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.
The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.
“The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely” says corresponding author de Freitas.
“We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis.”
Climate researchers have long been aware that ENSO events influence global temperature, for example causing a high temperature spike in 1998 and a subsequent fall as conditions moved to La Niña. It is also well known that volcanic activity has a cooling influence, and as is well documented by the effects of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption.
The new paper draws these two strands of climate control together and shows, by demonstrating a strong relationship between the Southern Oscillation and lower-atmospheric temperature, that ENSO has been a major temperature influence since continuous measurement of lower-atmospheric temperature first began in 1958.
According to the three researchers, ENSO-related warming during El Niño conditions is caused by a stronger Hadley Cell circulation moving warm tropical air into the mid-latitudes. During La Niña conditions the Pacific Ocean is cooler and the Walker circulation, west to east in the upper atmosphere along the equator, dominates.
“When climate models failed to retrospectively produce the temperatures since 1950 the modellers added some estimated influences of carbon dioxide to make up the shortfall,” says McLean.
“The IPCC acknowledges in its 4th Assessment Report that ENSO conditions cannot be predicted more than about 12 months ahead, so the output of climate models that could not predict ENSO conditions were being compared to temperatures during a period that was dominated by those influences. It’s no wonder that model outputs have been so inaccurate, and it is clear that future modelling must incorporate the ENSO effect if it is to be meaningful.”
Bob Carter, one of four scientists who has recently questioned the justification for the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme, says that this paper has significant consequences for public climate policy.
“The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.”
“Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS (emission trading scheme) will exert no measurable effect on future climate.”
—
McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (2009), Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
This figure from the McLean et al (2009) research shows that mean monthly global temperature (MSU GTTA) corresponds in general terms with the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) of seven months earlier. The SOI is a rough indicator of general atmospheric circulation and thus global climate change. The possible influence of the Rabaul volcanic eruption is shown.
Excerpted Abstract of the Paper appearing in the Journal of Geophysical Research:
Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and global tropospheric temperature anomalies (GTTA) are compared for the 1958−2008 period. GTTA are represented by data from satellite microwave sensing units (MSU) for the period 1980–2008 and from radiosondes (RATPAC) for 1958–2008. After the removal from the data set of short periods of temperature perturbation that relate to near-equator volcanic eruption, we use derivatives to document the presence of a 5- to 7-month delayed close relationship between SOI and GTTA. Change in SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA for the 29-year-long MSU record and 68% of the variance in GTTA for the longer 50-year RATPAC record. Because El Niño−Southern Oscillation is known to exercise a particularly strong influence in the tropics, we also compared the SOI with tropical temperature anomalies between 20°S and 20°N. The results showed that SOI accounted for 81% of the variance in tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics. Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.
Received 16 December 2008; accepted 14 May 2009; published 23 July 2009.
UPDATE: Kenneth Trenberth of NCAR has posted a rebuttal to this paper. Which you can read here:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/FosteretalJGR09.pdf
Thanks to WUWT reader “Bob” for the email notice. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi Paul.
I have to admit, I tend to look at the main points made and address those. The look at the data is usually cursory. I look at arguments and where I “think” I see a logical inconsistency or a flaw in the support I am suspicious.
I’ve re-read Tamino’s stuff and the paper, and I’m more convinced than before that he’s using in sophistry to discredit something he doesn’t like. I don’t have the maths to prove it, but his argument doesn’t smell right. I’m not saying the paper is correct. I don’t have enough information.
In my first look at your three data sets I notice that the SOI data goes back a long way before the other two. There seems to be 11 to 15 month positive or negative periods in the figures from time to time. There is massive variability in the data. Years 1905 and 1917 stand out on initial glance. It makes me wonder whether this is useful data at all.
The NOAA data is very variable too, still looking at that and the other data set. I’ll post again tomorrow when I’ve looked at it all more.
I suppose that we all have to reinvent the wheel at some point, just to reassure ourselves that the committee came up with the right shape.
Paul Vaughan (14:57:55) :
I watched that video. Ninderthana’s thesis is that the ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) phenomonon is determined by tidal amplitudes. The implication of this is that because tides are 100% predictable centuries out, then so is ENSO. If he could prove himself correct then he would become a very famous man. All he needs to do is create a hind cast model based on his tidal theory, demonstrate that it predicts past events with reasonable fidelity, then use the same model to predict all future events. Bingo, he’s famous and the farmers of the World will hail him as a hero for ever more.
Graig Allen,
Why do you expect everything to be so simple? If science was as easy as you make out, I would be a rich man living a life a luxury just like Al Gore.
Scientist who are in the process of investigating a natural phenomenon feel like they are gropping around in the dark. Even if they
are lucky enough to stumble upon a small piece of the puzzle, they realize that this only partly clarifies a very fuzzy picture of what is actually going on.
All my studies have shown is that varaition in the lunar orbit, caused by Lunar Evection and Lunar Variation, are probably responsible
for the six year variations that are seen in the Earth’s rotation rate. And it
is these six year variations that are probababy driving ( 2.4, 3.6, 4.8 and 6 year) resonances in the Earth/atmosphee/ocean climate system e.g. the ENSO. The tidal influences come into play because sub-multiples of the 18.6 year LNC (6.2, 4.7, and 2.3 years) , almost match the resonances caused by the varations in LOD.
Paul Vaughan (14:57:55) :
Could you elaborate on the plots you have posted? I realize that they may
be proprietary and so I will understand if you want to remain cryptic.
You imply in your talk that you work demonstrates that the collective work of the IPCC contributors is wrong. If only science were “so simple”!
Planetary motion is highly predictable way into the far distant future, and calculable into the far distant past. Whether or not you have clear understanding of what connects this to ENSO, you should be able to undertakes a regression analysis to determine the relationship between aspects of this motion and the ENSO record. If you suspect that the motions of the earth, moons and sun influence ENSO via tides, then do the regression between parameters of tidal motion such as amplitude, which can be calculated into the far distant past. Then if you find any significant relationship, use the results to create a model that allows you to predict ENSO into the future.
I’m not a scientist, but I can see roughly how this can be done. You are a scientist – this first minimal step should be a piece of cake for you.
What is it that you think is ‘resonating’ exactly?
I did a search for studies where fourier analyses have been applied to the ENSO record. Seems that there is no clear periodicity. If so then I don’t see how it can be related to anything as periodic as planetary motion. This paper is a thorough exploration of whether periodicity exists – Kestin et. al (1998, Journal of Climate, Volume 11, Issue 9 ).
As for your Al Gore envy – let it go. If instead of spending so much time these past few decades trying to save the World he had concentrated on making money, he would would no doubt be far wealthier. As it is, all the profits he makes from his climate work, including from his presentations on global warming and the movie, are transparently donated back to the cause. Hardly evidence of a mercenary streak I’d say.
Craig Allen, I suggest having a look at this:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ClDy…27..441R
Ninderthana,
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/1931UniquePhaseHarmonics.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/ChandlerPeriod.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/ChandlerPeriodAgassizBC,CanadaPrecipitationTimePlot.PNG
We can discuss this further moving forward. (There just aren’t enough hours in the day – particularly this one.)
I look forward to collaborating in the near future.
Best Regards,
Paul Vaughan.
Re: Peter (18:31:19)
The long-term goal is to go well-beyond McLean, de Freitas, & Carter (2009). This will require careful planning. The work will be tedious.
In the meantime, I can comment that I can count on one hand the questionable statements in MdFC09. A little more restraint would have made a difference.
As for their analysis methods: The problem is not with the methods used, but rather with the lack of substantiation.
One other note: They didn’t handle the 1976-1978 step change in El Nino frequency & intensity as well as they could have (which means it should be easy to improve on this work).
Freitas’ comment upthread should leave no one in doubt that the paper is examining variability, not trends. Freitas says so himsefl. Twice in that post.
Bewilderingly, the paper contains a few comments that suggest this examination of variability (ENSO) has an impact on long-term temperature trends. This is in no way supported by the analysis. Thus, this comment cited in the top post:
“The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions.”
Is just not supported by the paper. I think it’s fair to update the top post by quoting Freitas’ qualifying comments upthread, lest people be led astray by a news report. It’s the science we’re looking at here, isn’t it – not the media mangling?
Head’s up on distortion (or simply misunderstanding?):
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-not-to-analyze-climate-data.html
Claim: “The filters were arbitrary […]”
Worse-than-false. I suppose it might look that way to someone who does not understand what was being done.
Claim: “An ideal filter will show a 1 for all periods except the ones you’re trying to get rid of, where it will be 0.”
This reflects one paradigm about what constitutes “ideal”, but it seems to completely overlook the desirable harmonic properties of a simple boxcar kernel.
Honesty:
MdFC09 did a lousy job of explaining the processing.
More honesty:
Even if MdFC did a better job justifying the processing, we’d still hear screaming about “smoothing” & “differencing” – as if these operations are “bad” in every context —- this is a function of poor conceptual understanding.
I know career academic statisticians who misunderstand the properties of simple boxcar smoothing. It’s one of those things that very few people investigate carefully.
Re: Adam Grey (00:01:21)
If you read the paper carefully, you will see that the conclusions rest on *2* foundations:
1) the analyses presented.
2) the literature review.
I can count on one hand the number of questionable statements in the paper. A little more restraint would have made a difference. Considering the polarity that exists, the few lapses in judgement (effectively) invited partisanly-zealous scrutiny.
Regardless of how various press-releases have been framed, the mid-70s step-change is a legitimate topic for discussion & research. Now that the dust has settled, this is the elephant in the room. Media-stunts come & go. Serious people will be focused on the elephant, not the jesters.
Ninderthana,
In the plots:
1) |Pr’| is the magnitude of terrestrial polar motion (x,y) vector rate of change. (Effectively, this is an index of radius relative to trend, with a minor phase shift.)
2) r” is the rate of change of the rate of change of the distance between the solar system center of mass and the sun (calculated from NASA Horizons output).
3) LNC = Lunar Nodal Cycle (which I’m sure you figured out easily).
Were you following the earlier threads where I shared other details?
Comment blocked at Tamino’s thread on McLean, de Freitas, & Carter 2009:
=—–
Perhaps it will take some time before everyone settles down enough to discuss the trend issue *objectively*. My impression is that several people here are so angry about the press releases that this is causing them to feel justified in making *false* statements about one **very specific** aspect of the paper. I feel compelled to object in defense of the credibility of the environmental movement. (My background spans ecology, rare plant conservation, soil science, acid rain, zoological research, parks, outdoor recreation, & population genetics of plant species on a fragmented landscape during climate change. I also spent several years teaching, tutoring, & marking statistics. I urge people here not to pre-judge.)
——=
It appears I have been banned at Tamino’s after making my first post there [ever] yesterday.
Here is the last entry that was blocked:
=——
Greetings to All,
–
Gavin’s Pussycat [8:04 am] “And why are you unhappy that organizations handing out the taxpayers’ money would want to see societally relevant research?”
I have not suggested this.
–
Lazar [10:35 am] “where in the paper do they make conclusions about trends with reference to other work?”
One example:
Guilderson, T. P; & Schrag, D. P. (1998). Abrupt shift in subsurface temperatures in the tropical Pacific associated with changes in El Nino. Science 281, 240-243.
They should have used more references. My impression is that they are aware of a lot more literature on the mid-70s climate shift than what they cited. Also, they should have distinguished the mid-70s climate shift from the late-90s one. Increasing frequency & intensity of El Ninos is related to the mid-70s shift, but the late-90s shift appears to involve other complexity – and since I have not (yet) studied the literature on the latter event, I will refrain from speculating at this time.
–
Lazar [10:35 am] “the only statement tamino made with regard to smoothing, is..”
As noted, my concerns stem from reading apparent misunderstandings in comments that have been allowed to persist (while other comments have been attacked aggressively). I am left with the impression that politics is more important than substance. I state this objectively, not maliciously.
–
Lazar [10:35 am] “there are still many unknowns about impacts which need resolving…”
Yes, and as Gavin’s Pussycat has pointed out: “But studying natural climate factors is an essential part of […]!”
–
Lazar [10:35 am] “perhaps it would be more productive to push for more overall funding for climate science…”
Agreed – and less attachment of political strings.
–
Lazar [10:35 am] “distracting from a very real threat is neither sane and perhaps in terms of your funding goals may even be counterproductive…”
I’m not going to resort to lying to get funding, nor am I willing to be coerced.
–
Re: Deech56 [11:46 am]
My interest is in the science (& *fair* judgement of it). It is clear that there is no shortage of people acting as media watchdogs. In contrast, it is also clear that there *is* a shortage of people who understand the nuances of elementary statistics. (I don’t blame them – our education system has plenty of built-in (& formidable) flaws.)
–
Re: TCO [12:01 pm]
Interesting comments.
–
TrueSceptic [12:01 pm] “The controversy is generated by “sceptics” and “deniers””
Your list is incomplete.
–
Re: george [2:09 pm]
Good eye George. I am vehemently opposed to toxic pollution.
–
Ray Ladbury [3:19 pm]
“If you are having trouble getting funding to look at natural climate variability, I suspect that is because ultimate the folks who control funding (e.g the voters) are ignoramuses–and proudly so. PR efforts like that by McdFC do not help you or anyone else in this effort. The risks posed by increased greenhouse forcing are real, and the consequences are still at present unbounded. I call that cause for concern, not obsessive focus. If people don’t understand the need for research into natural factors, the answer is to educate them–to make their concern a teachable moment.”
WISE WORDS RAY, but I would add that GHG-obsession is stealing too much spotlight from other serious environmental issues.
–
dhogaza [5:21 pm] “[…] even though the paper doesn’t look for any trend.”
Thank you for clarifying this. (I entered the discussion because many people here appeared to believe otherwise.)
–
Re: dhogaza [5:34 pm]
I share your concerns about the PR stunts. Carter has made a serious error with the suggestions about CO2. [When I see that, I suspect funding politics. Few researchers are immune to it. One often sees hints about funding in the last few sentences of abstracts & on the last page.]
–
Re: george [6:07 pm]
Your comment reinforces the concerns which caused me to enter the discussion.
–
Tamino,
The pieces you have chosen to block & edit are highly informative. You are the only moderator who has ever blocked or edited my comments in my entire life.
For anyone interested, I have posted the blocked comments here:
Paul Vaughan (13:02:35)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/surge-in-global-temperatures-since-1977-can-be-attributed-to-a-1976-climate-shift-in-the-pacific-ocean/
Paul Vaughan (22:11:08)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/on-climate-comedy-copyrights-and-cinematography/
–
Regards,
Paul Vaughan.
——-=
FYI for those interested, Kenneth trenberth has posted a rebuttal to this paper which you can read here:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/FosteretalJGR09.pdf
h/t to Bob
Two more comments “disappeared” here. WUWT is beginning to resemble Pinochet’s Chile.
Yet within an hour of my posts calling attention to the Trenberth rebuttal, the paper is linked to, so I guess commenting here isn’t a complete waste of time.
FYI for those interested in the truth, a more complete discussion of how the press release in the post above is riddled with errors, is posted at Climate Progress.
Reply: We’ve been hit with a massive amount of spam this week, and I did one purge yesterday not realizing there was a second page where user comments may have been residing. I also deleted one of your posts a few days ago and asked you to resubmit without prohibited language. I find your description of our behavior exaggerated to say the least. It is most likely you continue to post with prohibited language and other moderators have repeated my actions. ~ charles the moderator
Re: wattsupwiththat (22:13:28)
The link has changed:
Foster, G; Annan, J.D.; Jones, P.D.; Mann, M.E.; Renwick, J.; Salinger, J.; Schmidt, G.A.; & Trenberth, K.E. (2009). Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter. Journal of Geophysical Research (submitted Aug. 2009).
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/Foster_et%20alJGR09_formatted.pdf
There are valid points in the critique, but the main premise is pure distortion. I interpret this as a clear signal (a kind of warning shot across the bow) that they perceived the McLean, de Freitas, & Carter (2009) paper [& related press] as sufficiently partisan to warrant a distorted attack.
This should be a lesson for those formally interested in natural climate factors:
1) Leave the political distortion aside.
2) Be careful with interpretations – use appropriate qualifiers.
The biggest mistake possible would be to respond to the critique in a partisan fashion.
The high road for the authors would be to:
A) List the errors in the original paper & in press releases.
B) Issue stern clarifications about the strawman trend issue.
Paul Vaughan (18:36:41):
What is the “main premise” that you consider to be “pure distortion”?
The critique seems very clear and specific to me. The McLean et. al paper has convincingly been eviscerated.
Craig Allen (18:46:41) “What is the “main premise” that you consider to be “pure distortion”? The critique seems very clear and specific to me. The McLean et. al paper has convincingly been eviscerated.”
Clear & specific – yes …& aimed at the strawman trend issue.
Why do you consider that to be a strawman?
In the original paper, to the press release, subsequent statements by the authors, and in the post and comments here at WUWT it has been claimed that the SOI is responsible for the majority of ‘variation’ in temperature data and that C02 could not be having a significant effect. The rebuttal demonstrates that the analysis does not show this and could not have shown it even if it were true. It also points out that it has long been known that shorter term variability is significantly affected by SOI, but the the degree of its influence is artificially inflated by the McLean et. al. analysis, by their methods of filtering out both longer and shorter term variability in the data.
Let my quote Bob Carter, as highlighted at the top of this very post …
“The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.”
That the paper did not do this was shown almost immediately after the paper was published, and is now done so formally in the Foster et. al. reply.
Given all this, what do you think the McLean paper actually tells us?
Re: Craig Allen (19:54:55)
Craig,
Let’s see how the authors respond.
Regards,
Paul.