Multiple Wrongs Don’t Make A Right on ENSO Impacts

2wrongs

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

Multiple Wrongs Don’t Make A Right, Especially When It Comes To Determining The Impacts Of ENSO

The 2009 Foster et al paper (In Press) “Comment on ‘Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature’ by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter” was written by a who’s who of climate scientists. The authors include G. Foster, J. D. Annan, P. D. Jones, M. E. Mann, B. Mullan, J. Renwick, J. Salinger, G. A. Schmidt, and K. E. Trenberth. Their comment is summarized by a sentence in the abstract: “Their [McLean, Freitas, and Carter’s] analysis is incorrect in a number of ways, and greatly overstates the influence of ENSO on the climate system.”
Link to Preprint (The Google link to the pdf version of the preprint is no longer operational):
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:0hqurMRrw2UJ:www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/FosteretalJGR09.pdf+Comment+on+%E2%80%9CInfluence+of+the+Southern+Oscillation+on+tropospheric+temperature%E2%80%9D+by+J.+D.+McLean,+C.+R.+de+Freitas,+and+R.+M.+Carter+(Foster+et+al+2009)&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

This post does not discuss the analysis by Carter et al nor does it examine the methods used by Foster et al to critique it. This post lists the papers cited by Foster et al that determine “the connection between ENSO and large-scale temperature variability, particularly with regard to the role of ENSO in any long-term warming trends, that has been carried out over the past two decades,” and discusses the errors that are common to those papers.

THE PAPERS CITED BY FOSTER ET AL

Jones, P.D., (1989), The influence of ENSO on global temperatures, Climate Monitor, 17, 80–89.
(I have not found a link to this paper. Since I haven’t read it, I can’t comment about it. It is, therefore, excluded from my post.)

Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen, J.E., Jones, P.D., Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, S., and Taylor K.E. (2001), Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 28033–28059.
Link:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Santer_etal.pdf

Thompson, D. W. J., J. J. Kennedy, J. M. Wallace, and P. D. Jones (2008), A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature, Nature, 453, 646–650, doi:10.1038/nature06982.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/abs/nature06982.html

Trenberth, K.E., J.M.Caron, D.P.Stepaniak, and S.Worley, (2002), Evolution of El Nino-Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures, J. Geophys. Res., 107 (D8), 4065, doi:10.1029/2000JD000298
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf

Wigley, T. M. L. (2000), ENSO, volcanoes, and record-breaking temperatures, Geophysical Res. Lett., 27, 4101–4104.ENSO, volcanoes and record‐breaking temperatures
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2000/2000GL012159.shtml

COMMON ERRORS IN PAPERS CITED BY FOSTER ET AL

The authors of the papers used different statistical tools and ENSO indices to remove the ENSO signal from Global Temperature and TLT records, and they all failed to account for the multiyear aftereffects of significant El Nino events. This was discussed in detail in my post “Regression Analyses Do Not Capture The Multiyear Aftereffects Of Significant El Nino Events”. That post also appeared at WattsUpWithThat as “Why regression analysis fails to capture the aftereffects of El Nino events.” The post included a detailed discussion of the processes that take place before, during, and after significant El Nino events under the heading “EL NINO OVERVIEW”.

That overview was supplemented by my post “La Nina Events Are Not The Opposite Of El Nino Events.” Briefly, a La Nina event is an exaggeration of ENSO-neutral conditions that occurs when the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes attempt to return to “normal” after a traditional El Nino.

The statistical techniques used in the papers cited by Foster et al also do not address the differences between traditional El Nino events and El Nino Modoki. El Nino Modoki events were discussed in my posts “There Is Nothing New About The El Nino Modoki” and “Comparison of El Nino Modoki Index and NINO3.4 SST Anomalies.”

And the papers that Foster et al cite do not account for “The Reemergence Mechanism,” which should integrate the effects of ENSO events.

ALSO IN PREPRINT RELEASE: THOMPSON ET AL (2009) REPEATS THE ERROR

The 2009 Thompson et al paper “Identifying signatures of natural climate variability in time series of global-mean surface temperature: Methodology and Insights” has been accepted for publication by the Journal of Climate. In it, Thompson et al repeat the errors made by Thompson et al 2008.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI3089.1
Preprint Version:
http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/TWJK_JClimate2009_revised.pdf

Thompson et al were kind enough to post the data that resulted from their analyses for those who like to review findings:
http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet/ThompsonWallaceJonesKennedy/

CLOSING

As long as climate scientists continue to neglect the multiyear aftereffects of significant El Nino events, they will continue to incorrectly conclude, as Foster et al concludes, “the general rise in temperatures over the 2nd half of the 20th century is very likely predominantly due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.”

Advertisements

127 thoughts on “Multiple Wrongs Don’t Make A Right on ENSO Impacts

  1. “…was written by a who’s who of climate scientists. The authors include G. Foster, J. D. Annan, P. D. Jones, M. E. Mann, B. Mullan, J. Renwick, J. Salinger, G. A. Schmidt, and K. E. Trenberth.”

    Circling the waggons?…

  2. So, a ‘la nina’ event will not take us from neutral to cool because it can only take us from warm to neutral?

  3. Bob Tisdale- Could you please provide a list of published papers that support the hypothesis you raised in your previous post, and discussed again in this post?

    I am troubled by the heat balance considerations of the hypothetical ENSO causation of planetary heating.

    Where is the additional heat coming from? We know heated the oceans heated over the last 30 years (as evidenced by sea level rise due to thermal expansion). And over the same period the atmosphere heated and ice sheets melted, albeit using less heat input than ocean heating. So where did all this heat come from?

  4. Thanks, Bob T.
    The rapid response times by you and others on these sorts of papers is extremely helpful.
    Over the past several months links have been given to the video of Richard Feynman talking about how an honest scientist would list all the issues that were contrary to her or his current theory. In the current instances these authors should know about “the multiyear aftereffects of significant El Nino events” and either they don’t know or are ignoring this information.

    The “wrongs” just keep piling up.

  5. Jimmy Haigh, if you read the comments, you will see that they demolished the McClain, de Freitas, and Carter paper conclusions. After reading the rebuttal by these nine climate scientists, then please read the MF&C press release (available right here on another post on WUWT), in light of the rebuttal.

    You will see MF&C managed to get a paper published that reached unsupported conclusions, then hyped the results even further in the press release. It really is a very sad story of how a paper (that made mistakes evident to even first year calculus students) got published in a peer reviewed journal. The evidence seems to be that the fix was in (the referees may have been selected by the authors).

    You can read about serious problems with the paper at Deep Climate, Real Climate, Tamino, Open Mind, Climate Progress and many other sites on the net.

    REPLY: Meanwhile they all ignore the trainwreck that is Steig Et al

  6. If El Ninos do have after effects, I have to doubt that the best way to capture them is integration over an ever growing time span. Bob, it seems you model assumes that the El Nino’s back in the beginning of the time series have as much importance as recent El Nino’s-that seems far fetched to me. It might make more sense to have a function which slowly fades the influence of past El Ninos out of the sum.

    And another thing-you have to be very careful that you have the anomalies properly centered. Otherwise you can get spurious long term trends. The methodology you are using just seems rather odd to me and I don’t fully understand what you did-I suspect that it may be partly me being clueless. However it still strikes me as a very silly bit of bad math.

  7. If that’s the case, it’s up to other forces to take us out of warp heat. It has been warmer and colder in past ages, and man wasn’t around to blame.
    Perhaps the dinosaurs ate too much vegetation and doomed themselves, like man is supposed to be overheating the Earth.
    We could manage to nuke ourselves out, invent diseases that destroy all but insects and bacteria, but what’s the chance of us overheating the Entire planet with fossilized vegetation that partly captured the stored carbon from a hundred million years ago?
    How much carbon dioxide is there available for us to release? Could we get within half of the highest previous total?
    When we run out of fossil fuels, it’s back to the Stone Age.

  8. Let’s see how quickly the journal publishes a comment on the comment. Actually, isn’t it usual for the author of a paper being critiqued to be invited to respond to a comment so they can be published together?

  9. Totally agree…You have to ignore the oceans cancellation of the solar activity increase from 1945-1960, in order to make the temp increase since 1980 anthropogenic…

    Just keep moving…eyes in front…good little sheep. Just buy into our new deficit reduction program…there you go…green jobs for all.

  10. Thanks for this clarification, I have long suspected that the Greenstrife and Fiends of the Earth ‘science’ is flawed and biased to provide the answers they want to maintain the hysteria they feed on in public ignorance.

    I’m no statistician, but I am all too aware of just how easily they can misrepresent data if taken in solation or, as in the climate debate, used selectively and excluding (And sometimes suppressing) any which do not support the argument being advanced.

    Now that it has become a political agenda of course, we may expect to see the sort of bullying tactics deployed against anyone who dares to attempt to break ranks and raise the issues which counter the newspeak “truth” that politicians seem to specialise in.

  11. Y.H. Zhou, D.W. Zheng, & X.H. Liao (2001). Wavelet analysis of interannual LOD, AAM, and ENSO: 1997-98 El Nino and 1998-99 La Nina signals. Journal of Geodesy 75, 164-168.
    http://www.shao.ac.cn/yhzhou/ZhouYH_2001JG_LOD_ENSO_wavelet.pdf
    alt:
    http://202.127.29.4/yhzhou/ZhouYH_2001JG_LOD_ENSO_wavelet.pdf

    Monahan, A.H.; & Dai, A. (2004). The spatial and temporal structure of ENSO nonlinearity. Journal of Climate 17, 3026-3036.
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf

  12. par5: You wrote, “So, a ‘la nina’ event will not take us from neutral to cool because it can only take us from warm to neutral?”

    Not even close to a rewording of what I wrote. My sentence about La Ninas in the post , “a La Nina event is an exaggeration of ENSO-neutral conditions that occurs when the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes attempt to return to ‘normal’ after a traditional El Nino,” pertained to trade winds, currents, etc., in the tropical Pacific, not the impact of a La Nina on global temperature. It is explained in detail in the linked post. Here’s the link again:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/08/la-nina-events-are-not-opposite-of-el.html

    Regards

  13. Yes but Foster et al basically recanted their results here and elsewhere when they admitted that their paper did not study temperature trends, only variability.

    You’re beating a dead horse.

  14. Steve McIntyre has just written up posts about faulty papers by Steig and Rahmstorf. I get the feeling these papers intentionally bend data to get the results and headlines they want. John Hultquist is correct in saying these papers be reviwed and corrected as quickly as possible.

  15. By the way, lest we’ve all forgotten, it is hurricane season. It really is, though you may not have noticed.
    Any chance of getting a post about this year’s hurricane season?

  16. The 2009 Foster et al paper (In Press) “Comment on ‘Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature’ by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter” was written by a who’s who of climate scientists. The authors include G. Foster, J. D. Annan, P. D. Jones, M. E. Mann, B. Mullan, J. Renwick, J. Salinger, G. A. Schmidt, and K. E. Trenberth. Their comment is summarized by a sentence in the abstract: “Their [McLean, Freitas, and Carter’s] analysis is incorrect in a number of ways, and greatly overstates the influence of ENSO on the climate system.”

    **************************************

    Thanks to those who continue to read and comment on these reports.

    I can no longer be bothered to read anything by Jones, Mann, Schmidt or Trenberth.

    As Steve McIntyre has demonstrated, you can burn an incredible amount of time uncovering the flaws in their analyses.

    For me, these people have lost all credibility and I no longer waste any time on them.

    Sorry to be so negative, but time is irreplaceable.

  17. “Briefly, a La Nina event is an exaggeration of ENSO-neutral conditions that occurs when the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes attempt to return to “normal” after a traditional El Nino.”

    I’m not in disagreement with the overall opinion presented here. However, this comment appears to me to be strange. Is there some reason to express La Nina this way vs. giving the situation more weight? As long as it can be defined what’s the problem with calling it a unique event?

  18. As an amateur, I could ‘sense’ a ‘multi-year delayed after-effect’ of high solar output in the apparent temperature records since 1800.

    That’s not science, that’s a hunch.

    Is there any scientific confirmation/refutation of that possibility out there?

  19. Bob, I think this kind of critique of the critique should also be sent in quickly to counter the who’s-who of climate science’s piling on in this fashion. Just their names alone are sufficient for a pass by the peerage and there won’t be any consideration of content and the wider audience will just accept it most likely.

  20. Bob Tisdale

    I have done a very quick analysis of the impact of El Ninos and La Ninas on global temperature anomalies . I have not read all the papers that you quoted but are they saying that this type of analysis is not valid?

    PERIOD JAN/1977- DEC/2008
    Temperature increases

    Number of El Nino events 9
    Sum of all temperature anomaly increases during El Ninos 0.990 C
    Number of solar maximums 3 [2000, 1989, 1979]
    Sum of all temperature anomaly increases around solar max 0.318C

    Total temperature anomaly increases 0.990+ 0.318= 1.308 C

    NOTE
    1] There have been temperature anomaly increases immediately after a solar maximum for 8 0f the last 11 solar maximums]
    2] Mount Pinatubo effect is included here [- 0.193C] for 1991-1992 El Nino.
    3] 2005 -2006 El Nino also [-0.060 C]

    Temperature decreases

    Number of La Nina events 5
    Sum of all temperature anomaly decreases during to La Ninas 0.500C
    Sum of other temperature anomaly decreases due other causes 0.233C
    [1981-1982, 1977-1978, 1990-1991]

    Total temperature anomaly decreases 0.500 +0.233= 0 .733C

    NET CHANGE 1.308- 0.733 = 0.575C

    EXPECTED ANOMALY -0.254 + 0.575= 0.321C
    [1976 anomaly plus net changes]

    ACTUAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALY 2008 0.325C [OK]

    I used hadcrut3 global annual temperature anomalies for the analysis

  21. “Pierre Gosselin (03:40:54) :

    By the way, lest we’ve all forgotten, it is hurricane season. It really is, though you may not have noticed.
    Any chance of getting a post about this year’s hurricane season?”

    According to Gore and every other alarmist I’ve spoken to says it’ll be worse than 2005 (And 2006 and 2007 and 2008) and Katrina. Of course, these people forget, or don’t know, the region Katrina struck is a flood plain, New Orleans is placed in a “flood” basin and is “proptected” from floods from the Mississippi by levees, poorly made as it turns out. But, AGW is the cause and the blame.

    I wonder when Naples being swamped by Vesuvious, like Pompei, will be blamed on AWG?

    Reply: there was one a few days ago, search for ACE is search box or look at hurricane tag category

  22. AnonyMoose (22:47:10) :
    “Let’s see how quickly the journal publishes a comment on the comment. Actually, isn’t it usual for the author of a paper being critiqued to be invited to respond to a comment so they can be published together?”

    What about Bob? If his writeups are as significant as he says then it seems to me they should either be submitted as comment to this or better yet as articles by their own right.

    Bob – any plans on submitting your work for publication?

  23. Off topic, but for all you AGW skeptics, here is incontrovertible proof that “climate change” is a very costly problem.

    From: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124967502810515267.html

    Lawmakers’ Global-Warming Trip Hit Tourist Hot Spots

    When 10 members of Congress wanted to study climate change, they did more than just dip their toes into the subject: They went diving and snorkeling at the Great Barrier Reef. They also rode a cable car through the Australian rain forest, visited a penguin rookery and flew to the South Pole. …

    … The 11-day trip — with six spouses traveling along as well — took place over New Year’s 2008. …

    … Flight costs would lift the total tab to more than $500,000 …

  24. Paul K (22:10:30) :

    “…how a paper …got published in a peer reviewed journal. ”

    Isn’t peer review one of the bastions of AGW? I’m thinking about hockey sticks – just as an example…

    “…(the referees may have been selected by the authors).”

    And this is rich!

    The sad fact is that academic science is not what it used to be. They don’t make peers like they used to…

  25. “Patrick Davis (07:14:31) :

    “Pierre Gosselin (03:40:54) :

    By the way, lest we’ve all forgotten, it is hurricane season. It really is, though you may not have noticed.
    Any chance of getting a post about this year’s hurricane season?”

    According to Gore and every other alarmist I’ve spoken to says it’ll be worse than 2005 (And 2006 and 2007 and 2008) and Katrina. Of course, these people forget, or don’t know, the region Katrina struck is a flood plain, New Orleans is placed in a “flood” basin and is “proptected” from floods from the Mississippi by levees, poorly made as it turns out. But, AGW is the cause and the blame.

    I wonder when Naples being swamped by Vesuvious, like Pompei, will be blamed on AWG?

    Reply: there was one a few days ago, search for ACE is search box or look at hurricane tag category”

    Thanks for that. It clearly wasn’t AGW “significant” enough as it was not reported in Aus news, or even SBS news here, which reports stuff more interesting than sports bloopers, unlike the rest.

  26. M Jeff
    Of course, it’s outrageous. It’s milking the taxpayer to holiday cruise under the guise of important government business. Throw the bums out. Make ’em pay it back!

  27. These papers are frauds whose sole purpose is to produce press releases to generate blaring headlines. Later the papers end up exposed for what they are, but the media ignore.

  28. I understood the exaggeration comment perfectly as it directed me to the underlying mechanisms of a La Nina SST condition or event or an oscillation. The mechanisms return to neutral and sometimes over-shoot to cold. Kind of like another on/not on mechanism we love to talk about here. This reminds me of the Sun’s coiled magnetic ropes (which lead to more spots) that sometimes uncoil to neutral and even over-shoot to lax (which leads to no spots). La Nina is a re-setting of an overly energized system filled with heat that cannot take any more heat.

    Question: Why isn’t the cold condition the energized chaotic one that is frantically loosing heat, and when it relaxes the mechanisms return to neutral and start absorbing heat again, sometimes being so lazy that more than enough heat is absorbed?

  29. Paul K: You wrote, “Bob Tisdale- Could you please provide a list of published papers that support the hypothesis you raised in your previous post, and discussed again in this post?”

    There are none. The findings of my multiple posts on this subject have not been addressed by any paper to date. Apparently no one bothered to analyze SST data with their eyes. They’ve used all sorts of statistical devices to determine the year-to-year global and regional effects of El Nino events, but they’ve missed a few things that are very obvious once you know they’re there. Also, the fact that my findings are not supported by GCMs is not surprising since GCMs do not model the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that take place before, during, and after ENSO events with any degree of accuracy.

    You wrote, “I am troubled by the heat balance considerations of the hypothetical ENSO causation of planetary heating.”

    I’m in the process of writing a post about the effects on OHC of ENSO events, but I’m trying to finish another post or two before it. Give me a couple of weeks to finish the one on ENSO and OHC. Then I’ll be happy to address your concerns.

    Regards

  30. “M. Jeff (07:26:39) :

    Off topic, but for all you AGW skeptics, here is incontrovertible proof that “climate change” is a very costly problem.

    From: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124967502810515267.html

    Lawmakers’ Global-Warming Trip Hit Tourist Hot Spots

    When 10 members of Congress wanted to study climate change, they did more than just dip their toes into the subject: They went diving and snorkeling at the Great Barrier Reef. They also rode a cable car through the Australian rain forest, visited a penguin rookery and flew to the South Pole. …

    … The 11-day trip — with six spouses traveling along as well — took place over New Year’s 2008. …

    … Flight costs would lift the total tab to more than $500,000 …”

    Our “carbon taxes” will offset that “climate study exepnse”, and what I state “carbon taxes” to be, I mean my carbon taxes on my income, because I work. My carbon taxes on my consumption, because I consume. My carbon taxes because I breathe. My carbon taxes because I use public transport (PT). My carbon taxes because I don’t use PT, sometimes, as well as paying my taxes for owning and registering a car for road use (Which, of course will attract “carbon taxes” because the “authorities” use power in their computer administrative (tax) systems). And this (Tax) will be popagated to council rates and rents acorss the board.

    Nice little earner, if you are in with the “in crowd”.

  31. bigcitylib: You wrote, “Yes but Foster et al basically recanted their results here and elsewhere when they admitted that their paper did not study temperature trends, only variability.

    “You’re beating a dead horse.”

    My post is a critque of the papers cited by Foster et al, not a critique of Foster et al. Apparently you missed that I wrote, “This post does not discuss the analysis by Carter et al nor does it examine the methods used by Foster et al to critique it. This post lists the papers cited by Foster et al that determine ‘the connection between ENSO and large-scale temperature variability, particularly with regard to the role of ENSO in any long-term warming trends, that has been carried out over the past two decades,’ and discusses the errors that are common to those papers.”

    No dead horse beating on my part.

  32. Pierre Gosselin (03:40:54) : a post about this year’s hurricane season?

    Sure, why not? Here it is. The Atlantic Ocean has no tropical storms. The Eastern Pacific Ocean has just had a named depression, now almost gone, and one dying hurricane. But still, run for the hills, it’s worse than previously thought.

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/index.shtml

  33. Once again, if you add two sources of heat to the globe, are they directly and simply additive? If heat from El Nino’s end up raising global temperatures, and then you add anthropogenic greenhouse heating, is it additive to the El Nino heat or buried by it with no additive affect at the temperature gauge?

  34. Bob Tisdale, thank you for your terrific analysis. Contrary ro conventional wisdom, when i look at ENSO 3.4 anomalies over the last 25 years, what jumps out at me is the very deep, prolonged La Nina of JJA 1998 thru JFM 2001. IMHO, that event is very significant. TLT temps also bottomed at that time, and have not cooled beyond those levels. Apparently i am the only person on the planet that sees that string of 35 months of continuous negative anomalies as significant.

  35. Timetochooseagain: You wrote, “If El Ninos do have after effects…”

    Significant El Nino events do have aftereffects. No if is required in your statement. Significant El Nino events cause lingering upward step changes in SST anomalies of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans. These were discussed in detail in my posts “Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976?” Parts 1 and 2:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html

    The remainder of your comment appears to deal with the comparison of global temperature anomalies to a scaled running total of NINO3.4 SST anomalies that I included in my post on “The Reemergence Mechanism”:

    That graph is from an earlier post. In it, I illustrated that global temperature anomalies can be reproduced using natural variables:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html

    And I explained in detail the process I used to recreate the global temperature anomaly curve: multipliers, base years for anomalies, etc.

    Regards.

  36. Paul K. I think the collusion of certain journals with the AGW scientism is real as demonstrated by the Steig et al. episode.

    Therefore, the publishing of a lighting rod such as the M. de F. C paper serves their purpose in more than one way:
    – they can counter that they are open to the other side
    – they can claim publishing the best the other side has to offer…

    As I pointed out in my single post on this paper, the reference to Walker cells raised a red flag to this reader of Marcel Leroux.

  37. So these “whos who” of climate scientists have basically pulled together a load of research papers that use different statistical tools and methods in order to write a refutation of another paper. And this is science how, exactly?

    I mean, this any 3rd year undergraduate could do already.

  38. Good God! Please! NO! No Post on Hurricanes (or the lack, thereof.) I have Family on the Coast.

    Have you forgot about the “Watts Effect?”

  39. Richard111: You wrote, “The current La Nina seems to have peaked June/July and is now dropping.

    “See page 10 of PDF below:

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

    Richard, at present eastern equatorial Pacific SST anomalies are in El Nino ranges, not La Nina. These can be seen in a graph of NINO3.4 SST anomalies. The one that follows includes preliminary July 2009 data.

    It’s from this post:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/very-very-preliminary-july-2009-sst.html

    Also the graph you’ve referred to on page 10 is the average subsurface temperature for the eastern equatorial Pacific that they title “Central & Eastern Pacific Upper-Ocean (0-300 m) Weekly Heat Content Anomalies.” It’s not a measure of El Nino or La Nina status.

  40. Jimmy Haigh (07:27:28) :

    Paul K (22:10:30) :

    “…(the referees may have been selected by the authors).”

    And this is rich!

    The sad fact is that academic science is not what it used to be. They don’t make peers like they used to…

    If you are not writing for a “leader” scientific magazine, it’s preferable to send your papers to an associated university and let the board to decide who the reviewers would be. It has a price tag, but it is highly valuable. You’ll never know who examined your paper.

  41. I repeat this often but it seems that the statistically uninitiated continue to believe that the trendline is measuring something different than the data is. The data is basically this: historical comparisons of “by month” weather pattern variations, not climate, from a selected average span of “by month” weather pattern variations (which some say is climate). The trend is nothing more than a simple statistical mathematical manipulation of that very same data and can be nonlinear or linear, based on the algorithm. Therefore the trendline does not and cannot measure something that is a more exclusive mechanism than the whole of weather pattern variation.

    In addition, the average line on a graph should include SD shading from the average so that again the uninitiated public can see whether or not any one + or – anomaly is significantly different from the selected average. The National Weather Service now does this in graph form with daily local station temperature day high to night low:

    http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/climate/temp_graphs.php?stn=KPDT&wfo=pdt

    Note the shaded area of normal temperature. It is not a thin line, but a relatively broad band of normal. This should be done with the average line on temperature graphs. It is nothing more than a spin not to include SD bars for the average statistic on a graph, regardless of its cherry picking nature.

  42. M. Jeff (07:26:39) :

    And that $500,000 will cost us $1.5T when they get done writing the bill over correcting a natural variance. The South Pole is uninhabitable and Coral Reef just grow in new places if the Sea Level rises, which as far as I can tell has not budged in 50 years. Historical photos compared to today don’t show it.
    And this latest spiel on CNN: “South Cascade glacier in Washington and the Wolverine and Gulcana glaciers in Alaska. The three glaciers are considered “benchmarks” for the conditions of thousands of other glaciers because they’re in different climate zones and at various elevations.”

    and…

    “So we feel it’s definitely something going on, probably on a global scale, ”

    Probably. There’s a $500 billion dollar word. Probably.
    PolyScience want a Probably “faster than predicted” Glacier-Melt Cracker?
    They will probably tack on another $500 billion in taxes, even though we have cleaned up our act but certain nations pollute & spill like they’re on a mission. So we are to pay for thier profit.

  43. Why in the world all these new age scientists want to have everything controlled by their “global warming” video game?
    Nevertheless, the same UN of the IPCC, through FAO, in these 12 pdf files:
    ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/
    succesfully uses the LOD to forecast anchovy catches in the pacific, which re-surface whith the Humboldt´s current cold waters, so implicitly forecasting the presence of a el Nino or a La Nina.

  44. Rhys Jaggar (05:17:49) :

    “Is there any scientific confirmation/refutation of that possibility out there?”

    To start with, the laws of thermodynamics and other basic physical laws mandate that you will see reactions and echo wavelets following significant thermal change events in any fluid system. This is such basic science that for the warmists to refuse to recognise it alone makes their arguments IMHO quack pseudoscience.

  45. Paul K (22:10:30) : REPLY: Meanwhile they all ignore the trainwreck that is Steig Et al

    The entry title says it all!!!!
    Multiple Wrongs Don’t Make A Right

  46. JImmy Haigh wonders why peer reviewed paper can be criticized. Well, peer review usually will filter the really bad papers, and leave the substantial papers for the broad scientific community to consider. Occasionally papers that make mistakes in their work slip through. But rarely do papers that are so mistake ridden and easily debunked as the MF&C paper.

    Look at the big conclusion in the MF&C paper, that 72% of variation in the global temperature anomaly (as measured by UAH TLT) is due to SOI (the metric they choose to represent the ENSO)… To put this in lay terms that anyone should understand, they are claiming that 72% of the changes in global temperatures can be explained by the El Nino cycle.

    Well, if the math was done correctly, the actual impact of SOI on global temperature variation is less than 4%. Very big oops, that!
    (Of course Bob Tisdale’s post above attempts to go beyond the methodology of MF&C to show a larger ENSO impact, but this isn’t in the MF&C paper.)

    For those interested, the analysis is here, with an excerpt below:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/influence-of-the-southern-oscillation-on-tropospheric-temperature/

    Yet in their recent paper, McLean et al. (2009) did exactly that. They removed the influence of volcanoes by simply removing data which they suspected coincided with the influence of volcanoes. They suppressed random noise by taking 12-month moving averages. And they eliminated man-made global warming by taking differences between values 12 months apart, which not only completely eliminates all influence of trends, it strongly suppresses all low-frequency variation. It’s like estimating the influence of color on the sales of a new car, but first eliminating the influence of gas mileage, passenger comfort, reliability, and price! No wonder they’re able to claim that SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA as represented by UAH TLT — they got rid of the other influences first.

    So what is the actual influence of SOI on GTTA? Let’s look at just the global data from UAH TLT (used by McLean et al.), for which they claim that SOI accounts for 72% of the variance. …

    …the correlation is negative (and not very big), and the squared correlation is a mere 0.036, so SOI accounts for a mere 3.6% of the variance in GTTA (as represented by UAH TLT). Not 72%.

  47. Paul K (21:57:35) :

    ……Where is the additional heat coming from? We know heated the oceans heated over the last 30 years (as evidenced by sea level rise due to thermal expansion). And over the same period the atmosphere heated and ice sheets melted, albeit using less heat input than ocean heating. So where did all this heat come from?

    First of all Paul, there never been a heating of dimensions told not in athmosphere nor have the ice sheets melted the way the so called scholars told nor have the waterlevels risen more than +1 cm, which btw is normal since the normal anual difference during a single year can show a difference, and so have done every single year since 1890, for +/- 1 meter….

    No ice sheet melting the was the so called scholars told here and elsewhere? Well if you take into account reality which can’t be dismissed due to faked, yes faked, ‘corrections’ where assumed not real changes over daytime, weeks, months and years been put into computer models we do have real observations. Winsor P., Arctic Sea Ice Thickness Remained Constant During the 1990s, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 28, NO. 6, PAGES 1039-1041, MARCH 15, 2001

    Apart from that…. false information been provided by the so called scholars regarding the temperatures in the Arctic past…
    “There is a farm that already around mid 1300’s – was abandoned due to permafrost, which struck during the so-called. “Little Ice Age”. The farm is known as The Farm in the sand (also called GUS), has not been possible to dig out until the last 20 years of the 1900s when parts of the farm re-saved from the permafrost layer.

    “Most of the Viking expansion took place during what scientist refer to as the dimatic optimum of the Medieval Warm Period dated ca, A.D. 800 to 1200 (Jones 1986: McGovern 1991); a general term for warm periods that reached chere optimum at different times
    across the North Atlantic (Groves and Switsur 1991). During this time the niean annual temperature for southem Greenland was 1 to 3°C higher than today. sid 40 Julie Megan Ross, Paleoethnobotanical Investigation of Garden Under Sandet,
    a Waterlogged Norse Farm Site. Western Settlement. Greenland (Kaiaallit Nunaata), University of Alberta, Department of Anthropology Edmonton. Alberta Fa11 1997″ ….. excerpts fromNorah4you page Miljöfrågan-‘Klimathotet’ (Miljöfrågan = eng. Environmental question; ‘Klimathotet’= ‘Climate threat’

    If imput to support a theory/hypothesis isn’t worth a dime, how much do you think the rest of the analyse of such a theory is worth? Not to mention the conclusions drawn from such imput…..

  48. I’ve made a number of comments on different threads at Tamino relating to Steig et al and their corrigendum. None have been posted.

    It is obvious that the Team is attacking in depth the McLean et al paper as a smokescreen to hide their own shortcomings.

  49. Jimmy Haigh (07:27:28) :

    replying to
    Paul K (22:10:30) :

    “…how a paper …got published in a peer reviewed journal. ”

    Isn’t peer review one of the bastions of AGW? I’m thinking about hockey sticks – just as an example…

    Actually peer review is one of the bastions of any science, including skeptical views on AGW. I have been looking for skeptical arguments that have withstood scientific scrutiny for the last several years, but to no avail. Most skeptical papers are shown to be incorrect in the peer review process. Occasionally, a skeptical paper gets published, either not peer reviewed (such as the Monckton paper last summer), or even rarer in a peer reviewed journal (Such as Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper last winter, or the MFC paper last month. Unfortunately, the conclusions in these papers didn’t survive widespread scientific scrutiny.

    Monckton’s paper was debunked by many scientists, in particular Arthur Smith wrote a convincing rebuttal that he submitted to the APS for publication. On the WUWT posts last summer, Duae Quartunciae comments destroyed Monckton’s hypothesis.

    G&T’s conclusions were widely attacked and wiped out. The most effective rebuttal that I read, was put together by a coalition of scientists working together on the internet, resulting in a submitted rebuttal available here:
    http://rabett-run-labs.googlegroups.com/web/G%26T2.11.pdf?hl=en&gda=JoAP8z8AAADEUdes6psiZfp7tCY5Z2rJeSsAWGd7SgbzN_MZz4nAjJ44BYODPBG_uViJnpPh3QqccyFKn-rNKC-d1pM_IdV0

    I highly recommend reading this paper, since the math and science in the paper should be within the reach of anyone holding an undergraduate degree in science or engineering.

    The MFC paper is wiped out by the response submitted by the nine authors listed above.

    Jimmy Haigh, please ask yourself, why is it than no significant skeptical talking points are surviving widespread scientific scrutiny? Any real skeptic, would be looking for the errors in Monckton, G&T, MFW, or for that matter, in Lindzen’s hypotheses.

  50. Paul K (11:18:42) :

    For those interested, the analysis is here, with an excerpt below:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/influence-of-the-southern-oscillation-on-tropospheric-temperature/

    Yet in their recent paper, McLean et al. (2009) did exactly that. They removed the influence of volcanoes by simply removing data which they suspected coincided with the influence of volcanoes. They suppressed random noise by taking 12-month moving averages. And they eliminated man-made global warming by taking differences between values 12 months apart, which not only completely eliminates all influence of trends, it strongly suppresses all low-frequency variation. It’s like estimating the influence of color on the sales of a new car, but first eliminating the influence of gas mileage, passenger comfort, reliability, and price! No wonder they’re able to claim that SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA as represented by UAH TLT — they got rid of the other influences first.

    Taking differences twelve months apart does not remove low-frequency variation. It removes some low frequency variation while preserving other. Please refer to the concept of “aliasing” via discretization. The effect is more complicated than stated here. The 12 month running averages suppresses very short term variations, but preserves longer term variation, albeit with reduced amplitude possibly; however, the preserved variation is in the same spectral band as the differencing preserves.

  51. But, the MJO activity is suppressed in El-Niño and La-Niña.
    however is very active in neutral periods (almost always).
    ENSO-neutral and La Niña. have different characteristics.

  52. Bob Tisdale,

    I understand your basic idea, that El Nino spreads stored heat out over a larger region and biases upward global temmperatures for years after a significant event. Some weeks ago I asked you on another forum about a potential feedback of El Nino in addition to this time/heat shifting tendency.

    The feedback is thus: In addition to transporting stored heat, a significant El Nino must also humidify the atmosphere–perhaps over as large a region, or larger, than the 40% of the planet directly affected by enhanced surface water temperature. The effect of this could be quite complex, but imagine for a moment that the principle effect is to enhance the water vapor “greenhouse” effect. Thus in addition to time shifting previously stored energy, a powerful El Nino also enhances a forcing function temporarily–a positive feedback. Both effects, the direct and the feedback, will raise global temperature.

    Twenty-five years ago Lorenz wrote a paper that discussed, among other topics, the effect that complex feedback of this sort has on observed global temperature. The time scales involved in coming back to equilibrium from an isolated impulse can exceed several hundred years, and Lorenz said specifically that observers could mistake the lengthy return to equilibrium for a secular change in climate.

  53. WTH: You asked, “Bob – any plans on submitting your work for publication?”

    No. I’m a blogger. I’ve been published. It was in a totally different field, decades ago. I’m retired now. I illustrate and discuss the variability of SST and other datasets at my website for fun. When scientific studies disagree with the data, I comment. This post was one of those comments.

  54. One can just examine the monthly ENSO numbers versus the tropics temps (back to 1958, the dates of the original paper) and notice that the ENSO most definitely affects the tropics temperatures.

    I would say 45% of the variability is explained by the ENSO/SOI.

    The AMO and the ENSO together explain about 62% of the variability.

    Add in a little CO2 for a slight warming trend and you can get to 71%.

    The rest is random noise and/or explained by something else.

  55. So if the AGW hypothesis states that rising CO2 causes rising Global Mean Temperature, and real world data are contrary to that hypothesis, why does any of the above even have relevance? ENSO, El Nino, La Nina, etc. may be of great interest scientifically, yet none have any relevance to the primary hypothesis!

    If hypothesis does not adhere to data, one is obliged to discard hypothesis and shut up!

    …at least that was what I was taught when introduced to the Scientific Method of the Western World as a Freshman in High School in 1962. Was the Scientific Method repealed and I never heard about it? There are so many trees, we’ve forgotten where the forest was in the first place!

  56. The storm that has finally passed by us and onto the midwest had water galore in it. There have been records breaking all the way back to 1888 in terms of low daytime temps and rain amounts. All that water vapor and aerosols were sent to us from a rather warm pool in the upper regions of the Pacific. When it hit the further loaded dry dust filled air over us, it layered us in a thick carpet of cumulonimbus clouds and poured out that moisture till we all thought we were gonna drown! My hunch is that the thunder heads sent some kicked out heat up into the outer reaches of Earth’s atmosphere and belched it into space. I am thinking August will be average to cooler over the West and Northwest portions of the US because of it.

  57. Richard M: You wrote, “I’m not in disagreement with the overall opinion presented here. However, this comment appears to me to be strange. Is there some reason to express La Nina this way vs. giving the situation more weight? As long as it can be defined what’s the problem with calling it a unique event?”

    I included a detailed description of El Nino events in the linked post “Regression Analyses Do Not Capture The Multiyear Aftereffects Of Significant El Nino Events”.
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/regression-analyses-do-not-capture.html

    Attached to that post was a link to Bill Kessler’s (NOAA) ENSO FAQ webpage:
    http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/occasionally-asked-questions.html

    He writes, “Many scientists are coming to the view that there may not be such a thing as La Niña, or at least that it is not just the opposite of El Niño. Perhaps there is just the normal situation that is disturbed every few years by an El Niño. In that case the swinging back to cool temperatures should not be called La Niña but just plain normal.”

    I expanded on that in my post “La Nina Events Are Not The Opposite Of El Nino Events.”
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/08/la-nina-events-are-not-opposite-of-el.html

    Why did I expand on it? Because the global temperature response to La Nina events is not the same as it is to El Nino events, which is why regression analyses fail to capture the long-term effects of significant El Nino events. I guess I should have been clearer. I’ll have to add something to the version at my website to clarify that.

    Thanks.

  58. Dave Dodd (12:57:03) : If hypothesis does not adhere to data, one is obliged to discard hypothesis and shut up!

    …at least that was what I was taught when introduced to the Scientific Method of the Western World as a Freshman in High School in 1962. Was the Scientific Method repealed and I never heard about it? There are so many trees, we’ve forgotten where the forest was in the first place!

    Dave, I second your lines. Never understood, but seen same ignorance of Scientific Methods presented over and over among scholars the last 10 years. Doesn’t matter if it’s here in Sweden where some metreologists tries to make belive that lake Vaenern, tipping southward for the last 6800 years due to landrise, would overflow northwards due to AGW ‘effects’ or in discussions here, same bad maner shown everywhere.

    I have an other question to add to your question “Was the Scientific Method repealed and I never heard about it?” and that is IF it’s possible that the teaching and learning of Scientific Methods been put in shadow and IF sociologic lefttheoryanalyse methods been placed higher that real Scientific Methods. Can’t help wondering.

  59. Re: Pamela Gray (10:02:03)
    Keep in mind that confidence limits on regression lines are based on assumptions [that are untenable for most of the series we discuss around here (…even though the overwhelmingly-widespread convention is to simply ignore this – i.e. pretend otherwise in an effort to create some illusion of objectively quantitative reasoning)]. This contrasts with purely descriptive summaries (which make no assumptions). Variable-bandwidth smoothing percentiles would be a sensible empirical means of addressing your concern, but as we know, critics love pretending smoothing is bad in all contexts […so using smoothing (appropriately) can be a recipe for getting sucked into (ridiculous) protracted arguments]. Practical issues aside, you raise a good point [that underscores the need for a more efficient education system].

  60. Gary Pearse: You wrote, “Bob, I think this kind of critique of the critique…”

    Actually, it was a critique of the papers cited by the critique.

  61. “G. Foster, J. D. Annan, P. D. Jones, M. E. Mann, B. Mullan, J. Renwick, J. Salinger, G. A. Schmidt, and K. E. Trenberth”

    I can’t tell. Is that a list of the authors, or the Top 10 Worst Scienctists Ever?

  62. Paul K (11:18:42) “Well, if the math was done correctly, the actual impact of SOI on global temperature variation is less than 4%.”

    LMAO! Are you going to provide a link to help people see exactly where you are getting such comical distortion? (I see you provided a hint further upthread. Tamino has a great sense of humor. His style of attack is fun to watch.)

  63. Bob Tisdale
    You said
    matt v.: Regarding your 07:10:20 comment, can you graph what you’ve done? Posting all those numbers is confusing.

    Bob , I don’t have a graph but here is what my earlier number reflected. If the temperature anomaly for say 1976 is [-0.254 C] and if the temperature anomaly for 1977, an El Nino year, is + 0 .063 C, there is a net temperature gain of + 0.317 C. If you do this for all 9 EL Ninos between JAN 1977 and Dec ember 2008 and add these nine anomaly increases together you get a total of 0.990 C. This is measure of total anomaly increases during El Nino years. If you do the same for the 5 La Nina years you get a total reduction of 0.5 C. There was net increase in global temperature anomalies. I also show other heating and cooling factors. I showed how the cooler anomaly of 1976 morphed into the warmer 2008 anomaly.

    One of the key reasons for Global warming seems to be the net temperature increases due to extra heating resulting from more frequent El Ninos and extra solar heating around solar maximums. This heating was greater than the global cooling during La Ninas and other causes. It should be noted that these temperature anomaly changes are net increases during El Ninos/ La Ninas and Solar Maximums and naturally incorporate the heating/ cooling from other separate causes like AMO and other SST warming, etc., which are more difficult to measure.

    If you have a house and your furnace is on twice as much and some time at higher settings as your air conditioning, naturally your house is going to get warmer than normal

    SOURCES
    Enso events
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
    Hadcrut3 temperature anomalies
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

  64. Douglas DC: You wrote, “Been monitoring the SST charts again EL Nino appears not to be building…”

    The data used for the ONI, which is the OI.v2 SST data, can be downloaded on a weekly or monthly basis, using the NOAA NOMADS website:
    http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite=

    They update on Monday mornings.

    And for those who haven’t seen it recently, Douglas DC’s statement is confirmed here:

    NINO3.4 SST anomalies have flattened for the past few weeks.

  65. Nasif Nahle Sensei (12:32:35) : “Sorry for my ignorance… What the phrase “beating a dead horse” does mean and when does it apply? Thanks!”

    In the sense used in this post the ‘dead horse’ is something already laid to rest and need not be discussed again.

    However, the term has an historical meaning from the time of sailors being hauled out of bars dead-drunk after the captain’s mate paid off the poor man’s bar bill – euphemistically called the ‘dead horse.’ The recruited sailor then had to work for two weeks or so until he had “paid off the dead horse.” Well out to sea by then the sailors would have a ceremony to mark the date they actually began making wages. A canvas and straw horse figure would be raise out over the water and cut loose. Some say these floating false-dead-horses became the source of the name “the horse latitudes” although there are other well know possibilities.

    Here is an introduction:

    http://www.traditionalmusic.co.uk/sea-shanty/Dead_Horse.htm

  66. Bill Illis
    You said
    The rest is random noise and/or explained by something else.

    Here is what I found .Global SST anomalies have gone up during 10 out of the last 14 solar maximums . The rest were cooler due to L a Ninas or cool AMO/PDO. Global temperature anomalies [hadcrut3] have gone up the year after solar maximums in 9 out the last 14 solar maximums . Those that showed cooling, 2 were due to La Ninas or cool/low AMO or PDO levels or cool SST.
    Could some of the extra warming be due to extra direct solar heating around solar maximums.?

    At the same time global temperature anomalies went down for 9 of the last 14 solar minimums . Of those that got warmer , 5 had El Ninos .

  67. Pierre Gosselin (03:40:54) :

    Hurricane Season indeed !
    Just watched the weather channel, and they were saying how there have been no named storms this year (or one?) and that folks should be reminded of the year that that ended with a monster hurricane. Be afraid, be very very afraid.
    They then zoomed in on the awful heat in Chicago where one person died of a heart attack, with no word to rule out the possiblity that it was HEAT related.

  68. Pamela Gray: You wrote, “La Nina is a re-setting of an overly energized system filled with heat that cannot take any more heat.”

    But isn’t the eastern equatorial Pacific taking on more heat than normal during a La Nina? The trade winds increase then. This drives more cloud cover to the west, which cause higher than normal levels of downwelling shortwave radiation over the eastern equatorial Pacific.

  69. Fernando (12:23:32) “But, the MJO activity is suppressed in El-Niño and La-Niña. however is very active in neutral periods (almost always). ENSO-neutral and La Niña. have different characteristics.”

    Thanks for this note.
    Can you provide links &/or references?

    – –
    Dave Andrews (11:40:23) “I’ve made a number of comments on different threads at Tamino relating to Steig et al and their corrigendum. None have been posted.”

    I’ve encountered the same reaction (on another topic) despite objectivity coupled with genuine diplomacy. I honestly think he has a great sense of humor, judging by how thickly he lays on the distortion.

  70. Pamela Gray (13:06:35) :

    Yep, we got a dozen record low maximum on the 6th and two more yesterday (7th). Ground is soaked down a foot here. All that heat got blown off into space. I never though of Tstorms that way before. Long range forecast is all downhill from here. 1 heat wave of 2 weeks maybe 1 or 2 max-max records broken in the state (Ca.) . We wuz robbed, I tell ya.
    Winter looks to be a doozy, Pam. I have to wear a sweater in the morning, in early August.

  71. Frank Mosher: “Contrary ro conventional wisdom, when i look at ENSO 3.4 anomalies over the last 25 years, what jumps out at me is the very deep, prolonged La Nina of JJA 1998 thru JFM 2001. IMHO, that event is very significant. TLT temps also bottomed at that time, and have not cooled beyond those levels. Apparently i am the only person on the planet that sees that string of 35 months of continuous negative anomalies as significant.”

    But that string of 35 months of continuous negative NINO3.4 SST anomalies has little apparent impact on the tropical heat that migrated to the mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Refer to the top cell:

    Since it had little apparent impact on the TLT of the mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, why is it significant?

  72. Jimmy Haigh, please ask yourself, why is it than no significant alarmist talking points are surviving widespread scientific scrutiny?

    Fixed.

  73. If we consider the past 100 years, for which reasonable temperature data is availabe, a plot of global fossil fuel consumption shows about a 1200% increase in the rate of rise, after 1945. However, the rate of of global temperature increase between 1910 and 1940 is about twice as high as the period from 1945 to today.

    How on earth could anyone possibly conclude from the graphs of fossil fuel use and global temperature that:

    “the general rise in temperatures over the 2nd half of the 20th century is very likely predominantly due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.” ????

    If anything, one might conclude that fossil fuel use has decreased the rate of global temperature increase … not that any correlation implies causation.

  74. My reasoning started at the increased trade winds. Which is why it sounded confused. As the East to West winds increase, the warm surface waters are blown West up against the West side of the Pacific, causing upwelling of cold water over most of the Pacific equatorial belt, thus creating overall colder global temps as volatile storm tracks cool things down from the poles to the equatorial belt. As sea surface heat is finally lost and La Nina has been around for a while, the system calms down and heat is once again allowed to build on the sea surface. So it does seem to me that La Nina is the energetic state and El Nino is the resting state while the batteries are being recharged. Comments?

  75. Paul Vaughan (13:25:25) :
    Paul K (11:18:42) “Well, if the math was done correctly, the actual impact of SOI on global temperature variation is less than 4%.”

    LMAO! Are you going to provide a link to help people see exactly where you are getting such comical distortion?

    I provided the link to the analysis in the comment above. Please read more carefully before you laugh so hard your anatomy is damaged.

    In the Trenberth rebuttal, they refer to papers that claim 15-30% of variation is due to ENSO, still significantly less than the 72% claimed by MFC. If I understand correctly, these numbers excluded impacts of volcanic eruptions.

    Tamino left the volcanic eruption impacts in, and then stuck to a proper mathematical treatment based on the method suggested by MFC (which still isn’t likely to give the best estimate of ENSO impacts). He simply also ran an example where he looked at SOI, volcanoes, and a LT warming trend together, and still came up well below the 72% number MFC claimed.

    “It turns out that all three influences combined account for only 51% of the variance in UAH TLT. Even including the effect of volcanoes and trend in addition to SOI, the actual fraction of explained variance is far less than that estimated by McLean et al. and claimed to be entirely due to SOI — that’s how strongly the filter they apply to the data distorts the results.”

  76. Kevin Kilty: You wrote, “Thus in addition to time shifting previously stored energy, a powerful El Nino also enhances a forcing function temporarily–a positive feedback. Both effects, the direct and the feedback, will raise global temperature.”

    And increase OHC, sea levels, etc.

  77. matt v. (13:30:09) “One of the key reasons for Global warming seems to be the net temperature increases due to extra heating resulting from more frequent El Ninos and extra solar heating around solar maximums.”

    Be careful with the latter line of logic. (You may need to adjust your message)…

    Elaboration:

    See Figures 7 & 8 here:
    Abarca del Rio, R.; Gambis, D.; Salstein, D.; Nelson, P.; & Dai, A. (2003). Solar activity and earth rotation variability. Journal of Geodynamics 36, 423-443.
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Abarca_delRio_etal_JGeodyn03.pdf

    …And Figure 3 here:
    Keeling, C. D. & Whorf, T. P. (1997). Possible forcing of global temperature by the oceanic tides. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 94(16), 8321-8328.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8321.full.pdf?ijkey=YjbRA3bMQaGic

    Theories should be able to account for the phase reversal. I haven’t seen any that do yet. If anyone knows of any, please let me know.

    This is not some trivial matter that can be swept under a rug; on the contrary, this is a MAIN effect demanding TOP priority.

    Paradox is what makes natural climate so interesting; it stretches our capacity for conditional thinking.

  78. One more thing guys, before I get slogged again. McClain, de Freitas, and Bob Carter (the authors of the paper being rebutted) are backing away from the claim that 72% of UAH TLT variation can be explained by SOI. They now claim that nothing can be said about long term trends from their analysis.

    Even they apparently realize that something is seriously wrong with the analysis, and they are running away from the claims made in their press release issued in conjunction with publication.

  79. OK; Pamela….I agree.
    Vertical wind profile typically associated with (a) inactive Atlantic basin hurricane seasons and (b) active Atlantic basin hurricane seasons. Note that (b) has reduced levels of vertical wind shear.
    the Atlantic Main Development Region (MDR) from 10-20°N, 20-70°W

  80. Nasif Nahle Sensei: You wrote, “Sorry for my ignorance… What the phrase ‘beating a dead horse’ does mean and when does it apply? Thanks!”

    Refer to:
    http://www.goenglish.com/BeatADeadHorse.asp

    bigcitylib accused me of discussing a matter that was irrelevant, because the authors of Foster et al were not discussing the points I addressed in this post. But bigcitylib failed to note that this post was not about Foster et al. This post discusses the analyses performed by the papers cited by Foster et al.

  81. matt v.: Thanks for the clarification in your 13:30:09 reply.

    But adding and subtracting temperature anomalies during El Nino and La Nina years on the ONI index neglects the effects the tropical Pacific is having during the years and months in between. You need to look at all the data. You’re also overlooking the effects of volcanic aerosols which counteracted at least two of those El Nino events.

    You wrote, “One of the key reasons for Global warming seems to be the net temperature increases due to extra heating resulting from more frequent El Ninos and extra solar heating around solar maximums.”

    But the difference between TSI levels at solar maximums is minimal and has a negligible effect on global temperature. You’re also overlooking solar minimums and the periods in between for some reason.

  82. Dr A Burns (14:29:09)

    “However, the rate of of global temperature increase between 1910 and 1940 is about twice as high as the period from 1945 to today.”

    Never seen this stated this way before – care to show how you came to this conclusion?

    I have seen statements to the fact that the temperature change (warming) in the early part of the 20th century is statistically indistinguishable from the latter part (Mitchell – Climate of Extremes) but not the the rate of change you state.

  83. Bob Tisdale (14:19:52) “[…] that string of 35 months of continuous negative NINO3.4 SST anomalies […] had little apparent impact on the TLT of the mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, why is it significant?”

    10 metres of snow makes for a lot of avalanches (including in places where they do not normally happen) in the Coast Mountains …and that’s a lot of runoff (floods, water supply). i.e. Let’s not forget the hydrologic cycle.

  84. Dr. A Burns: Re fossil fuel consumption vs rate of temperature rise

    …we should add to your point the possibility that the 30’s/40’s may actually have been the warmest decades in the last 150 years….. If not for the “adjustments” made to raw temperature records. Not to mention that those Raw records are horribly skewed upward in recent decades by UHI and siting errors.

    I applaud all those with the skill to even attempt to extract the answer from more complex processes like el nino. But if there is a way to show we’re (globally) cooler today than we were 70 years ago, nothing else would matter.

  85. Paul Vaughan

    Thanks for the references . You are referring to the fact that the association between solar variability and climate is lagged and that there is also an oceanic tidal influence on global temperatures . I did not look into this level of detail . As I used a broad recent 33 year period , some of this may be already be incorporated in my numbers , but you are right that individual short term relationships may not all be valid . I was trying to make the point about the doubling of El Nino events compared to La Nina events especially when compared to a similar period just before 1976. This is just too significant to ignore.

  86. Steve Hempell (16:28:20):

    Dr A Burns (14:29:09)

    Actually Dr A Burns, you are correct. I went back to a Hadcrutv3 graph and took the anomalies for 1911(-.573) to 1944 (0.099) and 1945 (-0.024) to 1998 (0.526) and the rates of change are as you stated. Interesting way of looking at it, but – I can hear the cries of “cherry-picking”!

  87. Pamela Gray (14:30:19) “So it does seem to me that La Nina is the energetic state and El Nino is the resting state while the batteries are being recharged. Comments?”

    I think I see what is going on here: oceanic-centric view vs. atmosphere-centric view (i.e. 2 ways of looking at the same thing).

    For an interesting brain-twister, study Erl Happ’s Figure 4 & related notes (including the whole article) here:
    http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/climate-change-a-la-naturale/


    Bob, thanks for the videos on your blog pages.

    Question:
    Do you know of any webpages providing:

    1) unsmoothed monthly TNI series?
    [The series I find via your blog-links suggests the authors only provide a 5-month smoothed series (which severely limits a responsible analyst).]

    2) raw (not anomaly) monthly Nino1+2?
    [Your blog links point to raw N4 (& N3.4), so with N1+2 I can construct unsmoothed TNI if necessary.]

    It is interesting to note that the period of relatively mild & anomalous polar motion (Vondrak 1999) roughly coincides with the period of reduced volcanic aerosols. (I’m not making any statements about causation – just pointing out something we might keep in mind.)

  88. Paul K (12:04:44) :

    “Jimmy Haigh, please ask yourself, why is it than no significant skeptical talking points are surviving widespread scientific scrutiny? ”

    OK Paul. Help me out here – which talking points are these?

    And while we are at it maybe you could prove to us that a) the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man’s activities and not, for example, the 800 year lag after the medieval warm period, and that b) CO2 from any source, natural or man made, is a driver of the globe’s temperature?

  89. Toto (10:40:33) :

    Regarding citations in science, read this article in the Guardian about bad science with AGW and IPCC in mind:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/08/ben-goldacre-bad-science-research
    “Hit and myth: curse of the ghostwriters”

    The article in Toto’s link references a study titled “How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network” by Steven A Greenberg, a professor of neurology at Harvard. IMHO, this is a landmark study. He focuses on the medical field, but the results apply to any field. Please read the entire study (or at least the abstract) at:
    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul20_3/b2680

    From the Conclusions section:
    “Through distortions in its social use that include bias, amplification, and invention, citation can be used to generate information cascades resulting in unfounded authority of claims.”

    The findings of this study have profound implications. Note how those findings support some of the conclusions made in the Wegman Report, especially the one about the impact of a “social network of authorships.”

  90. Nasif Nahle Sensei (12:32:35) :

    Sorry for my ignorance… What the phrase “beating a dead horse” does mean and when does it apply? Thanks!

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

    It means the recent ‘outlook’ of this blog.

    It’s funny how we had a dozen of articles dedicated to metofficeUK not giving their data out for the public to see(which they have to if asked anyway), in the end they ended up having the data but they refused to expose it, so all that talk kinda backfired…

    Which means,”he’s” not interested about finishing the story but rather beating it to death.I can handle it being young and all, but most of the users here are elders lol

  91. rbateman (14:12:54) :

    Pamela Gray (13:06:35) :

    Yep, we got a dozen record low maximum on the 6th and two more yesterday (7th). Ground is soaked down a foot here. All that heat got blown off into space. I never though of Tstorms that way before. Long range forecast is all downhill from here. 1 heat wave of 2 weeks maybe 1 or 2 max-max records broken in the state (Ca.) . We wuz robbed, I tell ya.
    Winter looks to be a doozy, Pam. I have to wear a sweater in the morning, in early August.
    Agreed to both. Long Range forecast is cooler and wetter than normal.I live near the foothills in South LaGrande, Or.My Black Locust is turning and there is reddish leaves showing at the tops of what hills I see. Going to the Coast for business (Coos Bay)
    It will be interesting to see if there is ANY sign of El Nino-I know a bunch of Coasties and Commercial Fishermen.They called the big Nino of ’97/98 before NOAA.If I have time, I’ll see my old ret.Coastie CPO friend who still fishes and works the USCG Aux. he keeps up with the Crabbasket scuttlebutt.(theCrabbasket is one of those places where if a meteor hit Charleston harbor a 5:00 am there wouldn’t be a
    Crabber or Fisherman left…
    Bob Tisdale (13:34:08) :
    Thanks Bob, I have 500 quatloos riding on a weak to moderate Nino with and
    an extra 200 riding it being neutral before the end of the year.This with a Warmist in my office who says that NOAA’s Nino earlier forecast is correct…
    -And ABC News…

  92. the_buther (18:07:51) :
    I can handle it being young and all, but most of the users here are elders lol
    Hope you keep young for ever….LOL

  93. Regarding Dr. A.’s post above. Here is global CO2 emissions from human activities for 20th century.

    1200 million Metric tons in 1950 versus over 700 million Metric tons now.
    This leads to CO2 being the “Houdini of Gases”.
    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Carbon_Dioxide_The_Houdini_of_Gases.pdf
    And it all leads back to this extremely “simplistic” diagram which is at the hear of the matter. Forget about all the complexities discussed above. Because if this doesn’t make complete and total sense, then nothing else is right. (scroll 1/3rd down)
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm
    The theory that 50% of man-made CO2 is taken back by a sink, just doesn’t make sense. It is a completely made up fictitious number that was created to make the parts fit, and they still don’t fit.

  94. Paul K (14:35:19) “Tamino […] stuck to a proper mathematical treatment based on the method suggested by MFC”

    Would you ever criticize Tamino?

    Paul K (14:35:19) “[…] proper mathematical treatment […]”

    Who is fooling who here? Be realistic. Tamino was having fun with that post. I admire his sense of humor.

  95. I am not climate scientist but, to me this is an interesting way of looking at things.
    Use the HADCRUT3 data from 1938-1979 and then use the UAH data from 1979-1998. (does not include the 1998 El Nino data).
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1938/to:1979/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1979/to:1998/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1938/to:1979/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/to:1998/trend
    50 years of man-made CO2 skyrocking, and the Hadley data is in a slight downtrend from 38-78. Then pick up in 1979 with the more accurate satellite temps and that data continues to show a only very slight uptrend.

    Certainly these 50 years of skyrocketing emissions are NOTHING remarkable WHATSOEVER in the history of temperature change in our planet.
    But then we get to 1998 something happened and why would it be CO2 when CO2 had little or not effect for the prior 50 years? And if it didn’t have any effect from 1938-1997, then how could it be responsible for the rise from 1910-1940?? And so you are going to tell me it was ALL “natural variability”, except for this big step up in 1998, and the TV tells me the glaciers are melting and that proves it??? Temperatures haven’t even risen in many places where the glaciers are rising, like Glacier National Park.
    Here is the step, the big whoop of climate change.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2009/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/to:1997/trend
    more – El Nino drives Global Temperature and global fleecing.
    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalElNino.htm
    And don’t forget about Alaska step up around 1997, was that CO2??
    http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html
    We can only hope this will fade and recalled like a bad dream someday!

  96. matt v. (16:52:41) “[…] the association […] is lagged […]”

    It looks more like anti-phase.

    matt v. (16:52:41) “[…] individual short term relationships may not all be valid”

    …or perhaps they are simply conditioned by other variables. I note that Bob argued a point with you based on irradiance, but many around here will quickly point out the difference between insolation & irradiance. It is water (the hydrologic cycle) that we need to work harder to understand.

    matt v. (16:52:41) “I was trying to make the point about the doubling of El Nino events compared to La Nina events especially when compared to a similar period just before 1976. This is just too significant to ignore.”

    Agreed 100%.

    The 1976 change-point is robust across a number of variables and across a wide range of filtering.

    For interesting notes:

    Trenberth, Kevin E.; Caron, Julie M.; Stepaniak, David P.; Worley, Steve (2002). Evolution of El Nino – Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures. Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), 107(D8), AAC5-1.
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/jgr2001b/jgr2.html

    Excerpt:

    “Before 1976, ENSO events began along the west coast of South America (TNI positive) and developed westwards. However, after 1977 the warming has developed from the west so that TNI with reversed sign prevailed some 3 to 12 months before the main peak in N34 and was followed by TNI itself some 3 to 12 months after the peak. Therefore, the evolution of ENSO events changed abruptly about 1976/77 [Wang, 1995; An and Wang, 2000; Trenberth and Stepaniak, 2001].”


    You will find other interesting change-points if you look back further in the records. The change-points represent the most serious obstacle being faced by climate science. “Conventionally sensible” people will have a tendency to avoid [publicly at least] things they might not be able to figure out within their lifetime. Some will argue we need decades or centuries more data to tackle some mysteries, but I believe we have more than enough data to outline where the major shadows fall and establish a deterministic conditioning framework. It is impossible to predict how long it will take to resolve all of the boundaries, but my impression is that we are very close and that all that is missing is a spark.

    There is no shortage of people who will dismiss the following as “pure coincidence”:


    Note how 1931 & 1976 appear in Figure 2 of:
    Trenberth, K.E. & Stepaniak, D.P. (2001). Indices of El Nino Evolution. Journal of Climate 14, 1697-1701.
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/tniJC.pdf

    An alternate (& consistent with the above) approach to untangling change-point complexity:
    Tsonis, A.A.; Swanson, K.; & Kravtsov, S. (2007). A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts. Geophysical Research Letters 34, L13705.
    http://www.uwm.edu/~aatsonis/2007GL030288.pdf

    It is the complexity that makes natural climate so interesting.

    matt v. (16:52:41) “Thanks for the references”

    No trouble.

  97. Bob Tisdale, thanks for your many posts here and on your own site. Who needs peer reviewed journals? Many are not enhancing the reputation of the scientific method — they are crony publishing, with sloppy mathematics, methods, and data — and no one is checking. They used to be “prestigious” but are now becoming laughable.

    The consistent building of scientific knowledge about ocean temperature and “behavior “, out in the open with many critics and assistant thinkers, is a remarkable scientific achievement. Anthony knows a fellow venturer into the heretofore unknown. I am a grateful and faithful reader.

  98. Pamela Gray (14:30:19) :

    It makes sense as long as that is all there is. If something comes along to continue the cooling, how would the corresponding El Nino then be expected behave?
    To be more clear: PDO & AMO cold for the next 30 something years, cooling off the planet until equilibrium is reached under La Nina. What happens when the La Nina has ended and the planet is still not equalized? Something acts at times to take the baseline Sine Wave of El Nino/La Nina to a higher or lower state.
    Keep going, Pam, this line is interesting.

  99. Bob Tisdale (00:56:20) :

    par5: You wrote, “So, a ‘la nina’ event will not take us from neutral to cool because it can only take us from warm to neutral?”

    Not even close to a rewording of what I wrote. My sentence about La Ninas in the post , “a La Nina event is an exaggeration of ENSO-neutral conditions that occurs when the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes attempt to return to ‘normal’ after a traditional El Nino,” pertained to trade winds, currents, etc., in the tropical Pacific, not the impact of a La Nina on global temperature. It is explained in detail in the linked post. Here’s the link again:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/08/la-nina-events-are-not-opposite-of-el.html

    Regards

    Actually, I was not speaking of global temps- rather the conditions of the event. My fault for not making that clear. I have always wondered how heat dissipates in the oceans.

  100. It makes sense as long as that is all there is. If something comes along to continue the cooling, how would the corresponding El Nino then be expected behave?
    To be more clear: PDO & AMO cold for the next 30 something years, cooling off the planet until equilibrium is reached under La Nina. What happens when the La Nina has ended and the planet is still not equalized? Something acts at times to take the baseline Sine Wave of El Nino/La Nina to a higher or lower state.
    Keep going, Pam, this line is interesting.

  101. @Bob Tisdale

    Thanks a lot for the explanation! Some people don’t read well the articles and, what is worst, don’t understand a word from those articles or give opinions without knowing what’s the main arguments in the articles.

  102. My comment regarding the modeling paradigm presented in the 2001 paper on volcanic/ENSO forcing:

    With all due respect:
    Get Real.

  103. Paul K (12:04:44) :

    Jimmy Haigh (07:27:28) :

    replying to

    Paul K (22:10:30) :

    “…how a paper …got published in a peer reviewed journal. ”

    Isn’t peer review one of the bastions of AGW? I’m thinking about hockey sticks – just as an example…

    Actually peer review is one of the bastions of any science, including skeptical views on AGW. I have been looking for skeptical arguments that have withstood scientific scrutiny for the last several years, but to no avail. Most skeptical papers are shown to be incorrect in the peer review process.

    No. Absolutely definitely not. You think Newton, Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg and Schroedinger did no science because the “bastion of any science”, peer review, did not yet exist? I think not somehow. The bastions of science are adherence to the scientific method, free access to data for others to either replicate or find errors, free speech, free thought, and a dedication to truth.

    The peer review process in science today arose after the greatest scientific advances in human history had already happened, and it has proved to be a terrible mistake. It is largely dysfunctional. The pressure to conform has overridden the search for truth. And in “climate science”, the system bears more resemblance to the henchmen of a master criminal ganging together to provide a false alibi than it does to honest evaluation of papers based on their merit.

    Luckily, a new medium shows signs of seeking out a better method – scientific blogs.

  104. Bob Tisdale

    I think I qualified my figures with a comment ” very quick analysis” . not a detailed analysis that you are suggesting . I did include Mt Pinatubo . I also qualified my comments subsequently that I used the “net’ effect of all causes by noting the actual temperature changes due to all causes. I just wanted to note that during the last 9 El Nino events , the global temperature anomalies went up in 9 steps and during the last 5 L a Nina events the global temperature anomalies went down in 5 steps . In my opinion , this could account for a significant part of the warming that took place This is more than just coincidence. If anyone can give a better detail analysis and explanation , i would be pleased to read it. I don’t have a problem with the concept that EL Nino events impact a longer period than their main event but the main event can still be very significant which is what I noted.

  105. Just thinking out loud here.

    Most temp series that look at weather pattern variations resulting from different combinations of SST oscillations only focus on what happens to the temperatures over the continental US. I have seen the -PDO + -AMO condition and the expected dust bowl is present with cooler temps everywhere else. The other conditions related to one being positive and the other negative has cooler temps but in different places. The both positive condition shows a warmer US with isolated cold. The AMO is quite the driver of Gulf weather but that is due to the PDO weather patterns changing its weather related events to different locations and strengths. Of note is that when both are positive, not much happens in terms of broadly positioned storms over land. There are no catalysts. No fronts. And thus no place for the heat to rise up and get spewed out into the upper atmosphere. However, the minute one of them goes negative, then you have stormy heat dissipating weather. When enough heat leaves, the catalysts for storms between cold and warm fronts disappear and things calm down. It isn’t that the Sun does anything different, it is just that the storm fronts reflect heat till the cloudiness goes away and the Sun’s rays are once again allowed to heat the surface. I believe that this starts and stops the trade winds that allows the surface layer of warm water to stay or get blown away. Which then starts the whole thing over again. Calm and recharging condition: when one or both PDO and AMO are positive, more so when they are both positive. Stormy heat releasing energetic condition: when one or both PDO and AMO are negative, more so when they are both negative. These conditions then reset the trade winds to cause the flips to happen. There are other oscillations that enter into the equation and taken all together, these triggers of weather pattern variation simply bury any other signals such as CO2, Solar, soot, etc.

  106. Steve Hempell (16:58:21) :

    “Actually Dr A Burns, you are correct. I went back to a Hadcrutv3 graph and took the anomalies for 1911(-.573) to 1944 (0.099) and 1945 (-0.024) to 1998 (0.526) and the rates of change are as you stated. Interesting way of looking at it, but – I can hear the cries of “cherry-picking”!”

    One could hardly be accused of cherry picking if one compares the first half of the century (representing a period of low CO2 emissions) with the second half (representing the modern world of high emissions). Interestingly, the Hadcrut3 trend for both is 0.1K/decade.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/to:2000
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:1950

  107. “Peer review” was created for one purpose, and one purpose only – to protect the reputation of the journal and its editor of the day. Since journal editors and editorial boards were sufficiently astute to recognize that they were not experts in every field, they needed a mechanism to protect themselves from ridicule and other political, personal, and financial consequences of the printing of a paper that was either a fraud, charlatan, or just plain wacky. Hence, papers were farmed out to known (ie, trusted) colleagues or contacts to pass judgment on the acceptability of publishing the paper. It also was a means to favour certain groups and individuals with advanced knowledge of new discoveries of some import.

    The rather silly idea grabbed by lay folk today that “peer review” is some kind of acid test to the science presented is just that – a silly idea. Preservation of reputation is what it always was about, and still is.

    There is more substantive peer review occurring in one week here on Anthony’s blog than what occurs in a year at Nature, or any other journal.

  108. Steve Hempell (16:58:21) :
    “Actually Dr A Burns, you are correct. …– I can hear the cries of “cherry-picking”!”

    Chris Schoneveld (08:40:49) :
    “One could hardly be accused of cherry picking if one compares the first half of the century (representing a period of low CO2 emissions) with the second half (representing the modern world of high emissions). ”

    Exactly what I was about to say Chris.
    I should have posted my graph (hadrut3) and total global fossil fuel consumption (The error band is the IPCC’s claim):

    I’d love to see alarmists try to argue against that one !

  109. Re: Bob Tisdale (02:29:26)

    Thanks Bob.

    I have to use no fewer than 22 websites to get all of the data & info I need to reconstruct the raw monthly series accurately.

    These institutions really need to get past these habits of:
    a) only providing anomalies.
    b) not being explicit about climatologies & base periods when only anomalies are provided.
    c) chopping series at arbitrary dates like 1950 & 1991 (when 1866-2009 are available).
    d) scrimping on decimal places for cosmetic reasons.
    e) smoothing monthly data before posting it …and additionally still labeling it [misleadingly] “monthly”.

    I’ve just consumed precious time pursuing tedious detective work (including splicing & cross-comparisons between files to discern exactly what processing has been carried out) and it is going to take yet more time to reconstruct high-quality raw series now that all of the necessary clues have been gathered.

    Very Serious [rhetorical] Question:
    Why can’t these institutions simply be straightforward in providing raw data (with all of the digits) on a plain-text webpage?

    That way if people want to sloppily construct unspecified anomalies, apply unspecified filtering, and chop series into random fragments to be scattered all over the net, they can do so themselves – efficiently.

    We have inherited ridiculously inefficient & backward conventions.

  110. Pamela Gray (07:08:08) “[…] There are other oscillations that enter into the equation and taken all together, these triggers of weather pattern variation simply bury any other signals […]”

    Not all of the “noise” is noise if ones looks at local extremes. A big part of the masking is due to spatial averaging (for one example: across the track of the jet stream – which can put even 2 near locations out-of-phase with one another …let alone global averaging). Another simple part of the masking is diurnal (night & day) averaging. You present a good thought exercise with your AMO, PDO brainstorming.

  111. I’ve been digging into the references on “COWL” (cold oceans – warm land). In attacking McLean et al. (2009), Foster et al. (2009) cite Thompson et al. (2008) who cite Wallace et al. (1995) who make a statement that supports McLean et al. (2009). Wallace et al. (1995) acknowledge right in their abstract that ENSO has contributed to an upward trend in temperature anomalies since 1975. Interesting …as is this COWL concept.

  112. Like a pendulum swinging on a wobbly base, I don’t believe there is equilibrium. If there was, how would it re-energize? It is possible to build a virtual simple pendulum that re-energizes itself. You have to include wobble so that energy does not bleed all away when everything is in equal balance. It is also possible to build one with many parameter variables and wobbles that affects the swing around the average center so that it moves farther away from the center on one side for quite some time compared to the swing back the other way before the swing becomes equalized again. But true balanced equilibrium cannot be reached or else the system has no way of re-charging. The chaotic system of Earth’s atmosphere and Earth’s wobbly orbit, its moving land masses, its slow building and wearing down of geological land structures, and its huge weather machine called the oceans, along with all the variables in that system, creates the perfect self-energizing but highly variable pattern of climate and weather. Industrial CO2 added or subtracted from GHG’s cannot statistically change the complex pendulum and the amount of energy it absorbs and releases. The climate trend attributed to CO2 cannot be true. It is a statistical artifact of a complicated but very natural pendulum.

  113. I’ve just spent some time investigating the Trans-Nino Index (TNI). It is easy to see why the originators employ 5-month smoothing. With raw series, this index can easily be improved substantially. So now the question is: Why is full-record-length raw-data not easily-accessible? It appears that more time-consuming digging & auditing will be necessary. (It’s like these agencies are going well out-of-their-way to make it a hassle for us to see something…)

  114. Nonlinear response to ENSO after 1976? …


    Wu, A; & Hsieh, W.W. (2003). Nonlinear interdecadal changes of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation. Climate Dynamics 21, 719-730.
    http://www.ocgy.ubc.ca/~william/Pubs/wu_ClimDyn2.pdf

    Excerpt from the abstract:
    “Nonlinear interdecadal changes in the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon are investigated using […] nonlinear canonical correlation analysis (NLCCA) […]. The leading NLCCA mode between the tropical Pacific wind stress (WS) and sea surface temperature (SST) reveals notable interdecadal changes of ENSO behaviour before and after the mid 1970s climate regime shift, with greater nonlinearity found during 1981-99 than during 1961-75. Spatial asymmetry (for both SST and WS anomalies) between warm El Nino and cool La Nina events was significantly enhanced in the later period. […] According to the delayed oscillator theory, such an eastward shift would lengthen the duration of the warm events by up to 45%, but leave the duration of the cool events unchanged.”


    Tang, Y.; & Hsieh, W.W. (2003). Nonlinear modes of decadal and interannual variability of the subsurface thermal structure in the Pacific Ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research 108(C3), 3084.
    http://www.ocgy.ubc.ca/~william/Pubs/tym7.pdf
    http://web.unbc.ca/~ytang/paper71.pdf

    Excerpt from the abstract:
    “The nonlinear principal component analysis […] is applied to the observed upper ocean heat content anomalies (HCA) in the Pacific basin from 1961 to 2000. […] The first nonlinear decadal mode goes through several notable phases. Two of the phases are related to decadal changes in the La Nina and El Nino characteristics, revealing that
    the decadal changes for La Nina episodes are much weaker than the changes for El Nino episodes.


    Wu, A.; Hsieh W.W.; & Shabbar, A. (2002). Nonlinear characteristics of the surface air temperature over Canada. Journal of Geophysical Research 107(D21), 4571.
    http://www.ocgy.ubc.ca/~william/Pubs/wu_sat.pdf

    Wu, Hsieh, & Shabbar (2002) apply nonlinear principal component analysis (NLPCA) to Canadian surface air temperatures (SAT) and find strong nonlinearity for fall & winter after 1950 but not before.

  115. @ Paul Coppin

    You wrote:
    There is more substantive peer review occurring in one week here on Anthony’s blog than what occurs in a year at Nature, or any other journal.

    Agreeing is not peer reviewing.
    You have your fingers in your ears going la la la the earth is not warming.
    The earth is warming and you and I and all the other people on this planet will have to deal with that as best as we can.
    Maybe if not too many millions of people die things won’t be that bad Eh?

    Regards

  116. In Foster et al.’s (2009) attack on McLean et al. (2009) they cite Thompson et al. (2008).

    Thompson et al. (2008):
    ~100 Hiroshima-sized explosions are predicted to lead to a global-mean cooling of ~1.25C (ref. 5) […] 5. Robock, A. et al. Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 7, 2003-2012 (2007).”

    How many animals will die?
    How many trees will die?

    ]’:

Comments are closed.