Can Most Of The Rise In The Satellite-Era Surface Temperatures Be Explained Without Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases?

All of that took a lot of work. I have considered performing such an analysis, but never did it. I worked it from the other direction. I worked the standard deviation of a 10,000 year period from the Vostok ice core. Since the data from Vostok is a data point every 20 years or so it is important to compare to 20 year averages.
Based on that the world is well within one standard deviation which would give the same result that the current warming is normal and CO2 emissions have not altered anything.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/10/the-warmest-in-600000-years/

I just broke the button on my mouse scrolling down through this article!
I read a little and then scrolled down to see how much was left — and i scrolled and scrolled and then, maybe metal/plastic fatigue my mouse died.
I reckon it will take probalbly 2 hours and a good brain to read and comprehend this article, so it’s unlikely to see many responses for a while. i just thought i’d bump things along with a silly comment.
This dang Climate change is even killing mice.
tim

Bob said:
“Someone is bound to complain that I’ve deleted the Arctic data from the GISS LOTI data and that the Arctic is warming much faster than lower latitudes. Keep in mind that the Arctic is amplifying the effects of the rise in temperature at lower latitudes. This is the basis of the concept of polar amplification. If the vast majority of the change in temperature at the lower latitudes is natural, the same would hold true for the Arctic. Regardless, these latitudes were also chosen because the effects I want to illustrate with this post are relatively easy to display using them.”
____
Indeed, someone IS bound to complain, for your basic definition of polar amplfication of AGW is quite incorrect. It is not that the polar regions are amplifying the warming “going on” at lower latitudes, it is that any warming going on AT THE POLES is amplified through inherent positive feedback processes AT THE POLES, and specifically this is primarily the ice-albedo positive feedback process whereby more open water leads to more warming leads to more open water, etc.
I would direct readers to these links:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/oce/pubs/03pubs_files/Holland-ClimDyn.pdf
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/arctic-polar-amplification-effect
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7293/full/nature09051.html
With these extracts from them:
“Climate model simulations have shown that ice albedo
feedbacks associated with variations in snow and sea-ice
coverage are a key factor in positive feedback mechanisms
which amplify climate change at high northern
latitudes…”
“We conclude that diminishing sea ice has had a leading role in recent Arctic temperature amplification. The findings reinforce suggestions that strong positive ice–temperature feedbacks have emerged in the Arctic15, increasing the chances of further rapid warming and sea ice loss, and will probably affect polar ecosystems, ice-sheet mass balance and human activities in the Arctic…”
___
This is the heart of polar amplification and has very little to do with your stated defintion of amplifying the effects of warming going on at lower latitudes. The polar regions have their own set of dynamics that create the conditions for the inherent polar amplification of warming. To limit your analysis to part of the planet (60 degrees S to 60 degree N) and cast out the data from the latitudes where the majority of the earliest signs of AGW are occurring is, in my perception, more than a bit deceptive, and leaves your entire analysis quite hollow. As you yourself say:
“Regardless, these latitudes were also chosen because the effects I want to illustrate with this post are relatively easy to display using them.”
How convenient that the “effects you want to illustrate” are relatively easy using a select part of the planet…but do those effects have any relationship to what is actually happening to the whole planet? You might as well say, “let’s leave out the parts of the planet that GCM’s have long since modelled would see the first and most severe effects of AGW, and see if we can find any evidence of AGW.”
Bob, I certainly couldn’t hold a candle to you in terms of scientific knowledge or background, but I find your premises and logic baffling, as you knew, a priori exactly what point you wanted to make, and knew you could make it by throwing out the places on the planet where the first and most severe impacts of AGW have been projected to be seen, and are being seen, and then you mischaracterize the nature of polar amplification to try and further justify your point.
Other than that, your post was quite excellent….

After you remove ENSO and Volcanic forcing you ask:
“WHAT COINCIDES WITH THE UPWARD STEPS?”
The answer: SOLAR CYCLE!
Both the upward steps coincide with ascent into the next solar maximum. The flat periods coincide with descent into solar minimum.
What is left is a background warming trend. We have an explaination for that too – CO2.

Bob, great post, and I really appreciate the work you put into this. It was very enlightening.nI do, however, have a couple of things to point out that stuck out to me when you said them.
“The Sea Surface Temperatures of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans remain elevated during the La Nina because the stronger trade winds reduce cloud cover.”
This seems wrong. The stronger trade winds during La Nina do not extend past 130E on average, and are met over the western Pacific by stronger than normal westerlies coming from the east Indian Ocean, causing strong convergence and above-normal rainfall in the western Pacific and around the Maritime Continent. The weaker than normal trades in the eastern Indian Ocean help keep SSTs warm there. This is confirmed by viewing the correlation between surface zonal wind and Nino 3.4 SST data. One can see that during La Nina events (in which case you mentally reverse the anomalies shown in the image), there is net convergence over the western Pacific which results in increased cloud cover and precipitation.
A second statement that you made, similar to the first, also stuck out:
“The tropical North Atlantic warms during the El Niño because the El Niño causes a weakening of the North Atlantic trade winds.”
Again, this seems wrong. The increased upward motion in the eastern Pacific during El Ninos draws stronger than normal easterlies across the tropical north Atlantic. This can again be confirmed by a correlation between Nino 3.4 and surface zonal wind, which shows a tendency for stronger trade winds in the deep tropics during El Nino episodes. I can see how the anomalous westerlies and high surface pressure could contribute to warmer SSTs north of 20N in the Atlantic during El nino episodes, but to say it weakens the trade winds in the tropical belt is incorrect, most especially during the summer months when the Azores-Bermuda High is farther north.
All that said, this was a great post.

Bob – that’s a lot of excellent work and I’ll have to read it a couple of times more before I’m sure I’ve got a good grip on it. You’ve also made me wonder if I’m becoming too sensitive to word parsing because; the more I read of the article the more my mind keeps going back to the title you’ve given it and wondering “Why has Bob included the words ‘most of ‘ in the title?”
The title as it stands seems to imply that (at least some) *Anthropogenic* warming must be assumed by the reader – yet the article well shows that the sheer chaotic mass of natural forces, acting on the climate, supply an overabundance of probable cause.

‘Can Most Of The Rise In The Satellite-Era Surface Temperatures Be Explained Without Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases?’
Yes.
And if the climate fanatic doom monger hippies don’t understand that they’ve obviously not read their own material, what with the anthropogenic signal only constitute, according to themselves, some 20% of the .8 rise in temperature, and since 20% is less ‘an 50% or, in this case, the opposing some 80% then yes the supposed rise in temperature can be explained without the anthropogenic cause.

Thanks for this excellent work! I think this is quite close to what factors have mainly affected to temperatures. But maybe there additionally is solar factor behind ENSO…

john edmondson says:
January 10, 2011 at 11:38 am
Is it possible to make a prediction of what will happen in the next 5 to 10 years?
######
sure it’s possible to make a prediction. That’s not what you want to ask.

Compare Bob’s Fig. 32 [ http://i51.tinypic.com/23jsjo1.jpg ] with
(a) http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vaughn_lod_fig1a.png
(b) http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vaughn_lod_fig1b.png
[from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/ ].
Also compare with monthly ISCCP cloud cover for 45S-90S.

onion says:
January 10, 2011 at 12:01 pm
After you remove ENSO and Volcanic forcing you ask:
“WHAT COINCIDES WITH THE UPWARD STEPS?”
The answer: SOLAR CYCLE!
What is left is a background warming trend. We have an explaination for that too – CO2.
Try UHI,
http://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=rjes.2011.1.21&org=10
http://www.metlink.org/pdf/articles/past_and_projected_trends_wilby.pdf
Since the 1960`s, the intensity of nocturnal UHI in the spring and summer has increased by approximately +0.12 degC/dec, this has been contributed to more rapid night time warming in the city that in the outlying rural areas.
Where are the weather stations situated.

onion says: “The answer: SOLAR CYCLE!”
Most studies about the impact of solar variations on global temperatures include multiyear to multidecadal time lags. That is, depending on the study, if memory serves me well, the lag times between solar variation and response in global temperature is said to range between 5-7 years on the low end to a couple of decades on the high end due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. Don’t you recall the debate over this a couple of years ago?
So your added comment, “Both the upward steps coincide with ascent into the next solar maximum. The flat periods coincide with descent into solar minimum,” fails to account for lag times. It also fails to account for the agreement between the inverted NINO3.4 data and the GISS LOTI data that’s been adjusted for ENSO and volcanoes. Refer again to Figure 5. Here’s a link:
http://i54.tinypic.com/2i8b02b.jpg

Elaboration on this:
See Figure 3 & Table 3 (true gems) here:
Trenberth, K.E.; Stepaniak, D.P.; & Smith, L. (2005). Interannual variability of patterns of atmospheric mass distribution. Journal of Climate 18, 2812-2825.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/massEteleconnJC.pdf
Note the wave patterns and also note that they have been isolated using a varimax rotation, which dramatically simplifies interpretation by “sorting” naturally contrasting modes. Seemingly complex (if viewed linearly) aspects of nature are tied together in a simple nonlinear whole.
Interesting work Bob.

FrankK says: “So Bob, without going thru the whole of your article are you saying that at least 15% is due to AGW? or……………….”
I have no idea what the “or” could turn out to be. I’ve shown that natural variables could account for 85% of the warming since 1982. Does it? Dunno. It might be more; it might be less. But this interpretation of the data illustrates that AGW might not be as strong a signal as many propose.

Bob, Anthony, I come to WUWT because they have published articles and analyses which the MSM wouldn’t touch, and which often have been scientifically accurate. WUWT, along with Climate Audit, showed the lack of clothes on the Emperor.
But if you believe that greenhouse gases (not just CO2, but also methane, tropospheric ozone, black carbon) aren’t responsible for some of the warming, I’m not with you.
The debate is about whether the increase in warming is small, medium or (unlikely in my mind) large, and then whether we should be further bankrupting already bankrupt societies to only slightly affect that rate of warming, whatever it is.
If we want to win the debate for the minds of people who aren’t hard set in their views, we don’t get there by denying what is, frankly, obvious on first principles: GHGs warm the atmosphere.
We get there by showing (1) the IPCC and their ilk have been BSing us, and now climategate shows that; (2) the models don’t know how to deal with important feedbacks such as clouds, and IPCC authors also acknowledge this, so that their vaunted models are untrustworthy (and overpredict current warming by quite a bit); and (3) the little the US could do, at very high cost today, will have almost no affect on future temperature changes, so why spend the money?

Very interesting report. I would recommend to include a summary of the results at the beginning of the article as well (such as 85% of GISS warming can be explained without GHG, .. or adjustment biases) .
As a side note:
Polar feedbacks appear to be poorly understood as about anything else in climate “science”.
Just recently a “scientist” at the German hyper alarmist PIK “found out” that the (temporary) loss of sea ice in the arctic leads to increased ocean heat loss to the atmosphere resulting in more snow elsewhere. This would clearly be a negative feedback mechanism.

Hi Bob, continuing in the debate from your blog:
“I hate to answer a question with a question, but Has there been a climate shift?”
I think so. North Pacific peaked in 2005, North Atlantic peaked in 2006 (even there was recent peak). Actually, the whole NH SST peaked.
http://i54.tinypic.com/2mwrngw.jpg
http://i52.tinypic.com/2vs1bpv.jpg
http://i51.tinypic.com/20u78l4.jpg

It would appear that your reply to mr Gates makes a lot of sense Bob but if the warming signal over the last 30 or 40 years is as week as it looks doesn’t that portend an extraordinary cooling over the next 20 or 30 years with the pdo amo going into a unified cooling phase?

Response to:
John says:
January 10, 2011 at 2:24 pm
____
Excellent post.

R Gates says, “…I find your premises and logic baffling, as you knew, a priori exactly what point you wanted to make, and knew you could make it by throwing out the places on the planet where the first and most severe impacts of AGW have been projected to be seen, and are being seen, and then you mischaracterize the nature of polar amplification to try and further justify your point.”
First, your complaint assumes that AGW is responsible for most of the warming. Big assumption.
Second, I’ve written posts or included graphs in blog comments for almost two years about these upward steps in SST for the East Indian-West Pacific Oceans, RSS TLT north of 20N, GISS LOTI (20N-65N), CRUTEM (20N-65N), etc. Of course I knew beforehand what the general outcome would be. I didn’t realize, though, how well the agreement would be between the adjusted GISS LOTI data and the scaled KOE and SPCZ Extension data.

R. Gates says:
January 10, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Dave Andrews says:
January 10, 2011 at 1:05 pm
R Gates,
Hang on, this polar amplification that involves melting ice doesn’t seem to be happening in Antarctica so perhaps your concentration on the Arctic is a tad one sided.
_____
Dave, with all due respect, you are quite out of your element here.
…
Find out the answer to this, and then let’s talk…with all due respect, you need to do some more research…
In other words, “go away you pig ignorant pleb and do some serious research on marginal visibility as a culturally contextual fashion forward social statement and you will have your ‘aha’ moment and see that the Emperor is, and always has been, splendidly clothed.”

RGates said:

The Arctic is the front-line of AGW, and to attempt to remove the front-line (and the wealth of data and real world effects found there) is to attempt to redefine the battle in terms that are both illogical and in my opinion…not founded on science.

Dr. James Hansen said:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2005/Imbalance_20050415.pdf
“This energy imbalance is the ‘smoking gun’ that we have been looking for”, referring ocean heat content.
and
Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere

Tropospheric warming is a robust feature of climate model simulations driven by historical increases in greenhouse gases (1–3). Maximum warming is predicted to occur in the middle and upper tropical troposphere.

Now it is known both of those tenets do not match reality, or are at least greatly exaggerated.
Since when is the Arctic the “front line” of AGW? Those who’ve followed the AGW storyline for the last two decades know that has not been the case until recently, namely 2007 and when all other AGW predictions have failed.
Could we please get a clear definition of just what AGW is and what the real fingerprints are?At some point there must be a way to falsify it. Are we now to believe the Arctic is is the location of the missing heat? Now we are told warming causes cooling; it’s become somewhat of a joke IMO.
There is no direct evidence to suggest the Arctic warming is due to GHG, CO2 or otherwise. There are several natural components (PDO, NAO, AO, AMO etc.) that comprise Arctic warming/cooling processes, and we don’t understand very much of them.

John says:
January 10, 2011 at 2:24 pm
“The debate is about whether the increase in warming is small, medium or (unlikely in my mind) large….”
But if it can be small, it can be very very small. So small that it cannot be measured…..

R. Gates says:
January 10, 2011 at 2:25 pm
“Polar amplification is thought to result primarily from positive feedbacks from the retreat of ice and snow.”
And the retreat of ice and snow is due to warm air/water originating elsewhere.

I really admire R.Gates. Perhaps he would like to participate in the bet at No Tricks Zone.
Another couple of hours reading Bob’s post leaves me in awe.

The ocean does not create its own heat. Heat is transferred from deeper to colder water under the influence of winds and currents. So the surface temperature can be changed by internal variation.
Surface temperature is an imperfect gauge of whether the earth has been warmed by an imbalance between incoming radiation from the sun, and outgoing radiation, because of the role of ocean currents in the distribution of heat between deeper and surface waters. The total change in ocean heat, including deep water regions is the best gauge of global warming.
The fact is that the oceans have been gaining heat since 1970:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-global-warming-is-still-happening.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif
Measurements of the radiational imbalance are converging on 0.8 to 0.9W/M^2.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-global-warming-is-happening-Part-2.html
I would like to see an explanation of how the ENSO cycle, and other ocean current phenomena, can result in a spontaneous increase in energy entering the earth atmosphere system. If the external GHG forcing accounted for only 15% the warming, as Tisdale is claiming, it would seem to me that the system must have an enormous positive feed back so that it becomes extremely unstable. This would seem to me a cause for alarm.

OT but hilarious and a little bit scary
Check this out – are you on the green hit list? Put your site and personal details in and find out what they are saying about you!
http://www.twawki.com/?p=10535
REPLY: heh, that’s interesting, I’m going to look further. -Anthony

Interesting post.
Who is paying you for all this work you are doing?

John says: “The debate is about whether the increase in warming is small, medium or (unlikely in my mind) large, and then whether we should be further bankrupting already bankrupt societies to only slightly affect that rate of warming, whatever it is.”
This post showed that the AGW component could be small. So I don’t understand the rest of your comment.

Bob:
A marvelous post. As noted by some, it will take hours to completely digest.
Having done a lot of Xbar and Rbar charts for SPC (statistical process control) and being greatly steeped in the business of “statistical significance” it appears to me that despite the “linear fit” upward trends, the “noise” of the data would be strong enough to make useful conclusions on “trends” impossible.
Have you run any S.D. (Standard Deviation) tests on the data sets?
Thanks!
Max

eadler says: “I admit that I haven’t followed the details of Tisdale’s above post. From what I have read of it, it seems to be take most of the observed sea surface temperature variations out of the global surface temperature variations between 60S and 60N, and then come to the conclusion that there has been no global warming of the surface. Since the sea surface represents most of the surface of the globe, my reaction is ‘duh!’.”
Apparently you missed much of the content of the post since you admit you “haven’t followed the details of Tisdale’s above post.” In other words, maybe you should have read the entire post before you react with “duh”.
You continued, “In fact if one looks at the heat balance of the oceans down to 2000M, which cannot be driven to first order by surface related ocean cycles, we come to the conclusion that the earth is warming due to radiative imbalance. This is estimated at about 0.8W/M^2.”
If greenhouse gases were having an impact on the OHC to depths of 2000 meters, eadler, they would have to have had an impact on the upper 700meters. Greenhouse gases couldn’t bypass the upper 700 meters to warm the 700 to 2000 meter depths.
If you’re not aware (and apparently you’re not since you didn’t bother to read this post), I’ve written three posts that illustrate that most if not all of the rise in OHC from 1955 to present (0-700meters) can be explained as responses to natural variables. Let me copy what was written. Maybe you won’t overlook it this time.
Just below Figure 28 I wrote: This makes perfect sense since there is little to no evidence of an anthropogenic global warming effect on global Ocean Heat Content (OHC) data. All one needs to do is divide the global oceans into tropical and extratropical subsets per ocean basin. Then it’s relatively easy to determine that ENSO, changes in Sea Level Pressure, and AMO/AMOC are responsible for that vast majority of the rise in OHC since 1955.
Here are the links again, eadler:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
AND:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift.html
AND:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html
This should also serve as a reply to your later comment in which you linked the posts from skepticalscience.

“”””” R. Gates says:
January 10, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Bob Tisdale says:
January 10, 2011 at 1:40 pm
R. Gates says: “Indeed, someone IS bound to complain, for your basic definition of polar amplfication of AGW is quite incorrect.”
The RealClimate post on Polar Amplification…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/polar-amplification/
…begins with the statement, “’Polar amplification’ usually refers to greater climate change near the pole compared to the rest of the hemisphere or globe in response to a change in global climate forcing, such as the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) or solar output (see e.g. Moritz et al 2002).” “””””
Well it seems to me, that incoming solar energy is concentrated in the mid latitude regions (tropics, and Temperate) simly because most of the sunlight lands there. So those places reach higher Temperatures compared to the poles, which receive relatively little sunlight.
As a result there is a natural Temperature gradient from equator to poles, and a natural flow of heat in that direction.
Because the polar Temperatures are so low, the cooling by radiation is very much slower than in the tropics, since the radiation goes at T^4.
So you have excess heat being transported towards the poles; where the loss mechanisms are quite poor. It stands to reason that Temperature increases will be larger at the poles than at the equator. It also takes less heat to increase the Temperature at low Temperatures (since the heat loss rate is much lower).
So this is a simple picture, and nothing that could be called an “Amplification” is occurring. It’s a non l;inear process.

George E. Smith says: “Did I get that correct; it WAS you who recently posted at WUWT to the effect, that Clausius-Clapeyron, predicts a 7% increase in atmospheric water content for a one deg C Temperature rise; as found experimentally by Wentz et al.”
It wasn’t me, George>

Bob – excellent!
Suggest you download the data sources, segregate and save them to an available (Anthony, can you oblige?) server. Mosh has suggested this in the past, and I strongly recommend it. THE DATA HAS A BAD HABIT OF CHANGING ON YOU!
R. Gates is very exercised about your exclusion of the Arctic. I believe that Bob’s approach is appropriate, and that he has responded appropriately.
It seems, Mr. Gates, that we should be concerned about the MECHANISMS of the first order cause of the warming, not the “first (region) to see the most visible signs of warming”, nor the feedbacks (second and third order impacts) that it may engender.
For us to consider the arctic warming to be serious, we need to understand what causes the arctic warming. Mr. Gates may be absolutely correct that when the arctic is warmed there results some (serious) additional warming: however, if that warming is not caused overwhelmingly by anthropogenic sources, then – at the very least – we can halt the alarmist cry over CO2 emissions and start the important work of science.
Remember, the GCMs (and their approach to the Aerosol/GHG balance) are predicated on the confident statement that absent CO2, there is not an identified mechanism that could have caused the warming over the past 30 years. Bob has advanced a plausible mechanism for a fairly large component of that warming (in the geographic areas that count. Interestingly enough, the greater the feedback at the Poles, the more comprehensively Bob’s mechanism explains the entire temperature rise!)
As an inventor of a computer model, I would focus on the first order issues first, and suggest that the second order issues are better resolved when the principal components of the model are better understood.

George E. Smith, I’m the one who said the Clausius-Clapeyron equations indicate there should be a 7% increase per degree C. All the climate model build in 6% to 8% for this amount.
Its just that water vapour levels are not increasing at that rate – there is a range in the estimates but it is closer to about half. It is also hard to tell because the correlation in the X-Y scatter is very poor.
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/7007/watervapourscattertemps.png
They are also strongly tied to the ENSO. All the rain and snow we have had lately is the atmosphere cooling down and dumping water vapour from the peak set by the last El Nino. It will continue for at least three more months.
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/1485/ensovstcwvnov10.png

Bob, the somewhat recent rise in temperature also coincides with the positive phase in the AO. The recent slow decent to its negative phase coincides with the pause in temperature. How would this influence factor into your theory? It has been fairly well understood that a positive AO results in warmer temperature in lower latitudes, and a negative AO results in colder temperatures in lower latitudes. It has also been recently been discovered that the winter 3 month AO average reveals a multi-year, if not multi-decadel oscillation.

Larry G says: “Suggest you download the data sources, segregate and save them to an available (Anthony, can you oblige?) server. ”
The data is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer.

George Smith says:
“Well it seems to me, that incoming solar energy is concentrated in the mid latitude regions (tropics, and Temperate) simly because most of the sunlight lands there. So those places reach higher Temperatures compared to the poles, which receive relatively little sunlight.
As a result there is a natural Temperature gradient from equator to poles, and a natural flow of heat in that direction.
Because the polar Temperatures are so low, the cooling by radiation is very much slower than in the tropics, since the radiation goes at T^4.
So you have excess heat being transported towards the poles; where the loss mechanisms are quite poor. It stands to reason that Temperature increases will be larger at the poles than at the equator. It also takes less heat to increase the Temperature at low Temperatures (since the heat loss rate is much lower).
So this is a simple picture, and nothing that could be called an “Amplification” is occurring. It’s a non l;inear process.”
The part you are missing is that in the Arctic, the loss of summer sea ice, results in a strong reduction in reflection of the sunlight, and absorption by the open ocean. This is where the amplification comes in.

R. Gates – you have said:
QUOTE
Arctic “freezer door” to be left open, it can mean misery for the populated areas further south. Along with the negative AO index, we’ve seen an increased frequency of the the Arctic Dipole Anomaly, whereby the deep polar closed low that normally keeps the Arctic air contained is split into a pressure zones on both sides of the pole (i.e. a dipole) creating zonal winds across the Arctic shunt both cold air (and ice) more vigorously out of the Arctic.
UNQUOTE
Would you please explain this in different words as I am confused by your explanation. For example:
(1) What is the “frezer door” and how does it get left open?
(2) what is a “deep polar” and how does it “close low”?
(3) Why does “the deep polar ” normally keep the Arctic air contained”
(4) why does it closing low split the artic winds into “pressure zones on both sides of the pole (i.e. a dipole) creating zonal winds”
(5) why does having “zonal winds across the Arctic” “shunt both cold air (and ice) more vigorously out of the Arctic?”
I am clearly not an artic specialist, but expressing your theory in such a manner does nothing to convince members of the general public that the recent cold weather in the northern hemisphere is due to global warming.
As an aside, people in Australia also are struggling to understand how our current cool and very wet summer is due to global warming.
The old 60 odd year climate cycle plus a knowledge of the nature of chaotic systems seem to adequately explain both phenonema in a much more straightforward manner.

Bob I had to take the time to read your post thoroughly. That’s some very good, level and honest work there.
This is a coincidence and you are only analyzing over the thirty year satellite era but viewing your Adjusted GISS LOTI data for 60S-60N with Secondary Volcano Adjustment in figure 28, the rate I noticed given in the equation of 1/4 ºC/century matches nearly exactly what you get in the trend of the 350 year long record kept in good old central England with little Pacific influence.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
I just stumbled on that data accidentally yesterday but it really caught my attention. Should give you some added confidence in your figures you are coming up about influences in the Pacific after corrected.
Seems to me that the small remaining residual has most of it explained by the UHI effect.
Good work. Nice to find some reality.

Bob: The first thing you’ll notice is that the warming trend in the Arctic was greater during the earlier warming period than the latter. Kind of makes one wonder about the supposed AGW impact during the latter warming period. Note also that the Arctic is amplifying the cooling during the cooling decades from 1945 to 1975. To me these two things indicate that the Arctic is simply exaggerating (amplifying) the trends at lower latitudes, and that the Arctic trends are not based on the greater Greenhouse Gas concentration.
BINGO. There is something left over in your analysis that might be GHG, but you’ve done a good job demonstrating that it’s quite feasible for almost all of it to be natural (or something else entirely).
Great article Bob, you have a very easy to follow and logical writing style, I look forward to your next article.
BTW – You can use excel to find the best fit for your lags, trends, cycles, or whatever instead of eyeballing it. Take the two data sets in two columns, square the differences in the 3rd, sum the squares, then tell excel to vary an input to the lag / trend / sine wave / intercept / offset formula, and set the sum of the square error to zero. It won’t, but it will try to minimize the error by moving the variable you tell it to (using goal seek). Or you can use the analysis toolpak (or write your own backsolver) to find multiple values with constraints (it’s quirky but works if you manually lead it close enough – it’s not very bright). Either way, you’ll have to define several equations at once and solve iteratively, but you can nail the lags, offsets, cycle wavelength, etc. This can work wonders to tease out cycles that look like trends, but in fact might be just the rising or falling slope along a long duration cycle. I’ve seen many examples where it looks like a function is in an uptrend, but a sinusoidal cycle overlaid on a downtrend explains the data a lot better (especially with long duration ocean cycles). I can email some examples if you want…
Then of course, once you’ve found the best fit for all of your variables, you can work forward toward prediction given certain new inputs. Handy stuff, way more powerful than linear regression. Mike S.

Bob:
You have done a huge amount of work but have been handicapped and misled by current methodology. Here are some points that you should consider:
1. Do not use averaging, even a running mean, because it destroys data. You want to know what is contained in your dataset, not to hide it. Use a magic marker or its equivalent, the Photoshop layer. If you do it right you should be able to observe that the 1998 super El Nino is different from all other temperature features of the last thirty years.
2. Forget about volcanic corrections. I have determined that volcanic cooling of the troposphere is a myth.
3. Forget about ENSO corrections. They are a normal part of every temperature curve. ENSO has been with us since the Isthmus of Panama rose from the sea. What you should do about ENSO is to make sure that all El Nino peaks and La Nina valleys are accurately represented.
4. Forget about curve fitting. If you have a series of ENSO oscillations put a dot in the center of any line connecting an El Nino peak with an adjacent La Nina valley. Connecting the dots gives you the best temperature average you can get. ENSO oscillations can be found in curves going back to the nineteenth century but I don’t know about their accuracy.
5. The super El Nino must not be incorporated into any temperature curve. Also, it is illegitimate to join two halves of the temperature curve to its right and left into a single temperature curve. That is because of the step warming between 1998 and 2002.
That should be enough. Now back to the drawing boards. I am looking forward to your revisions.
Arno

R. Gates states:
“To leave out the polar regions, and specifically the northern hemisphere, which, both by observation and by measurement has seen a larger percentage warming than the mid-latitudes is to slice the greatest area of dynamic change related to global warming right out of the equation. No one is happy with the sparse data, but other confirmatory proof, such as the melting of permafrost and the reduction in sea ice, show that the extrapolation of arctic temperatures to show increases must be close t the mark.
The Arctic is the front-line of AGW, and to attempt to remove the front-line (and the wealth of data and real world effects found there) is to attempt to redefine the battle in terms that are both illogical and in my opinion…not founded on science.”
To all climate scientists, but specially to the AGW crowd:
If the Arctic is so “crucial” for Science then why have there not been more (automated) ground stations been installed, or a satellite parked over it? That “essential” area is now patched over by interpolations in the climate models: strange for good Science. Exactly that same area now shows up in extreme colors on most temperature maps.

· · Bob Tisdale says:
January 10, 2011 at 2:16 pm
FrankK says: “So Bob, without going thru the whole of your article are you saying that at least 15% is due to AGW? or……………….”
I have no idea what the “or” could turn out to be. I’ve shown that natural variables could account for 85% of the warming since 1982. Does it? Dunno. It might be more; it might be less. But this interpretation of the data illustrates that AGW might not be as strong a signal as many propose.
========================================================
Thanks.
Well it could be that none of it is AGW.!
I have just looked and analysed the data from the longest temperature record world wide in Central England from 1659 to 2010:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
The so-called IPCC “accelerated warming” that is said to occur during the period 1963 to 2009 has a best-fit rising temp rate of 0.29 deg C per decade from this data. But there was also a rapid rising temperature period between 1695 and 1736 when there would have been no measurable increases in CO2 and therefore human induced warming. This rate is some 1.3 times greater at 0.376 deg C per decade over the 42 years of record!
Just as an aside:
Pity I can’t show the graphs here but there are 255 temperatures higher (warmer) than the mean yearly temp for 2010 for central England (i.e. 2010 temp sits at equal 256th on the warmest scale!) Not the warmest, not the second warmest or the third…..no the 256th warmest over the 351 years of record.There is also now a –0.22 deg C per decade (negative) regression slope in the temp data between 1995 and 2010.

quote
loss of sea ice in the arctic leads to increased ocean heat loss to the atmosphere resulting in more snow elsewhere. This would clearly be a negative feedback mechanism.”
unquote
Robert Essenhigh predicted this years ago. That’s ‘predicted’ as opposed to ‘projected’ – he is a scientist (well, engineer) as well as a gentleman. I have seen suggested, however, that ice free Arctic water covers itself with even more reflective low cloud.
racookpe1978 wrote January 10, 2011 at 8:21 pm about polar amplification and it’s being caused by the relative importance of CO2 and methane as compared with water vapour: yes, it’s not just ice snow feedback, it’s more fundamental than that which is why Steig’s warming in Antarctica mattered — without that warming there’s a wheel coming off the bus. I’d also check emissivity changes during the dark nights in the Arctic, smoothed ocean cools slower.
BTW, Hansen’s “Global Warming in the 21st Century: An Alternative Scenario” seems to accept that CO2 control would be much more difficult than cleaning up black carbon emissions from power stations. Polar amplification has been attributed to carbon on snow, which suggests yet another reason for the imbalance between the Arctic and the Antarctic.
Google also “Global Warming in the 20th Century: An Alternative Scenario”
JF

Bob Tisdale,
What an excellent thought provoking study!
Is it necessary to be so complicated though? What about the following consideration?
1) The Hadcrut3, RSS, and UAH global data, all show that 1998 was the hottest year on record, globally. GIStemp also showed it as the hottest year back in 1999, before they since made highly questionable and big changes to the whole time-series.
(See previous WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/gistemp-vs-hadcrut/)
2) There is little doubt that the 1997-1998 El Nino was the main driver for the 1998 global high average and that it was big. (That is without necessarily understanding why it is so global and rapid in effect.)
3) However, what can be said is that what predominantly heats the oceans is sunlight. On the other hand, GHG induced back radiation has little effect because being long-wave, it is extinguished in the skin of the water, is able to re-radiate virtually instantly, and can only penetrate via rapid mechanical mixing.
4) Thus the 1998 super El Nino induced global warming was a secondary effect of short-wave ocean heating, not necessarily recent, and had very little to do with GHG.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, in your closing remarks you wrote:
In reality, NINO3.4 SST anomalies (or the CTI SST anomalies they used) can only account for the linear responses to the changes in equatorial Pacific SST anomalies.
Here is a comparison between Roy Spencer’s AMSR-E global sea surface T’s, and the Nino3.4 as issued by the Australian BOM. This supports your ~3-month lag, (I would have guessed longer), but see the remarkable correlation.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5010/5328413916_5d953c3ded_z.jpg
Nino 1,2,3,&4 etc is also presented by the Oz BOM

Levi,
Bob’s comments don’t look too far off the mark. Particularly “The Sea Surface Temperatures of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans remain elevated during the La Nina because the stronger trade winds reduce cloud cover.” seems spot on.
Australia’s BOM website has good ENSO info and good data about the present La Nina. Flick thru’ the different tabs halfway down the page they seem to be desciribing exactly what Bob is.
http://reg.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

Pamela Gray wrote, “It has also been recently been discovered that the winter 3 month AO average reveals a multi-year, if not multi-decadel oscillation.”
Not a “recent” discovery – well known, rather (but perhaps there are those who need a funding hook).

When the term polar amplification is used, it is to refer to the South Pole and the North Pole, otherwise you would use the term Arctic amplification.
Clearly there is no amplification in the South Pole, so Polar amplification does not exist.
Arctic ice has only been measured during the warm PDO, since the PDO has turned cold, the ice has now stabilised and since 2007 has grown. We need another few years of data to draw any conclusions on whether the Arctic ice just follows the PDO cycle.

Larry G;
Yes, I think you’ve touched the core. If Bob has shown that ~85% of the temp changes can be explained without reference to either the Arctic or GHGs, then they’re going to have to fight it out over the scraps! Unless something else scoops them up first …

Bob_FJ says: “SORRY, Re my post above to Bob Tisdale
“The link I intended suggesting dodgy GIStemp numbers was this:
“GISStimating 1998, by Steve Goddard
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/gisstimating-1998/”
Bob_FJ, while I will agree that the corrections GISS makes always seem to contribute to the trend, you also have to keep in mind that they do document the changes. Refer to my comment on that WUWT thread here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/gisstimating-1998/#comment-469598
Refer also to Steve Mosher’s comments about Goddard’s post, starting with this one:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/gisstimating-1998/#comment-469572

Daniel Kozub says: “Both articles involve pure curve-fitting to show a pre-determined outcome. Both are without any scientific merit.”
The linear effects that ENSO and volcanic aerosols have on global temperatures are well documented through a multitude of different analyses, including “curve-fitting”. This post was an effort to illustrate why the linear effects of ENSO do not capture the processes involved and fail to capture the impacts of the redistribution of the warm water that had been released during the El Niño.
You continued, “Neither of them adequately explain the step-change in the temperature record of the last decade that is apparent in both analyses. And that is a subject that I believe hasn’t been properly explained anywhere.”
I have written posts for almost two years that explain the upward steps in the global temperature record that occurred in 1998 and in 1988 , starting with these posts:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html
And:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html
You obviously feel the efforts are lacking, but you, Daniel, fail to suggest ways I could improve the explanations and posts.
You continued, “At least you admitted in the comments that you started this analysis with pre-determined results.”
Again, as noted in the comment you’re referring to, I’ve written posts or included graphs in blog comments for almost two years about these upward steps in SST for the East Indian-West Pacific Oceans, RSS TLT north of 20N, GISS LOTI (20N-65N), CRUTEM (20N-65N), etc. Of course I knew beforehand what the general outcome would be.

Bob said:
“CAN THE THIS TYPE OF EVALUATION BE EXTENDED BACK IN TIME?
I would not expect that what was presented in this post could be extended back in time. ”
A pity because unless it can be Bob’s brilliant and magisterial work cannot easily be used to involve ocean oscillations in the climate cycling from MWP to LIA to date.
For those climate changes we need to deal with the ‘stepping’ that is apparent from one phase of PDO to another which apparently requires an external forcing affecting the net balance between El Nino and La Nina over time.
Still, useful stuff nonetheless.

Michael D Smith says: “BTW – You can use excel to find the best fit for your lags, trends, cycles, or whatever instead of eyeballing it…”
Thanks for the suggestion, but I would limit the EXCEL statistical analysis for ENSO to the 1997/98 El Niño, because it was strong enough to overcome the other noise. The 1982/83 El Niño was also strong, but it was counteracted by the eruption of El Chichon. The additional noise can be seen in the failure of global temperature anomalies to respond as one would expect to the lesser El Niño events of 2002/03, 2004/05, and 2006/07. Refer to Figure 1. So those lesser El Nino events would bias any statistical analyses, as would the volcanic eruptions. And if I was going to limit the analysis to the 1997/98 El Niño, I might as well just eyeball the curves.
Example: I referred to Thompson et al (2009) in the post. They used a statistical model to determine lags and scaling factors. Link to Thompson et al:
http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/ThompsonWallaceJonesKennedy_JClimate2009.pdf
They also provided a link to their data:
http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet/ThompsonWallaceJonesKennedy/
I detrended their adjusted global temperature data over warming and cooling decades and compared the detrended data to their original ENSO index in this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/thompson-et-al-2009-high-tech-wiggle.html
As you can see in Figures 11 through 13, there were ENSO residuals left that were approximately the same magnitude as the reference ENSO signal.
My eyeballed wiggle matching in this post appears to have done a better job of eliminating the linear ENSO impacts.

eadler replied, “It seem to me that you claim that a warmer ocean surface will make the heat content of the ocean increase even more. Since an increase in heat content would make the surface temperature likely to become even warmer.”
Not sure how you assumed that from my posts, eadler.
You continued, “In fact if a strong self sustaining unforced warming of the oceans as we have seen, around 0.8W/M^2 does exist, the climate of the earth would be in the process of an unstable runaway condition.”
An assumption on your part. What I have shown in those posts is that the rise in OHC from 1955 to present can be explained by natural factors that have resulted in upward shifts in OHC, not a monotonous rise. The only ocean basin where the rise might be misinterpreted as being monotonous WAS the North Atlantic, but that has shown a significant drop since 2005.
You continued, “Finally, in order to determine total ocean heat content, it is prudent to go as deeply as possible. There can be an interchange of heat content between the depths below 700 meters and the region above 700M that would affect the total heat content in the region between 700M and the surface.”
Unfortunately, there’s little long-term OHC data at depths below 700 meters. But as shown in the posts I linked for you, those varaitions can be explained with natural variables.
The depths of 0-3000 meters used to be presented in long-term OHC papers along with other depths, but researchers have been presenting only 0-700 meters in the long-term reconstructions recently. Example, Levitus et al presented OHC at different depths (0-300m, 0-700, and 0-3000m) in their 2005 “Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003”. Looking at each ocean basin, and the global data, the long-term variations for the three depths in each basin are basically the same, as are the variations in the global data for the three depths. There are a few divergences, but one has to take any long-term OHC dataset with a grain of salt. There is little to no Southern Hemisphere OHC data prior to ARGO. If you’d like to wait another 30 years, I’ll be happy to explain the change in OHC over that period also.

Pamela Gray says: “Bob, the somewhat recent rise in temperature also coincides with the positive phase in the AO. The recent slow decent to its negative phase coincides with the pause in temperature. How would this influence factor into your theory?”
Sorry it took so long to get back to you, Pamela. I was working down the list of comments last night before I stopped for the night, and then this morning I started from the bottom up.
When I was preparing the post, I didn’t stop after I removed the KOE and SPCZ extension data. I then tried to identify the additional variations. The first thing I checked with the Northern Hemisphere data was the AO, (same for the AAO and the Southern Hemisphere residual). The correlation was terrible. There were a few periods when they appeared to run in synch but the other periods when they were out of synch greatly outweighed them. I tried a few other SLP datasets but was not getting anything worthwhile.
Could the AO (and AAO) have an impact? Of course. I’ve noted in this post that the KOE and SPCZ extension rise in steps during the La Nina events, and I’ve explained why those upward shifts occur. SLP could impact the magnitude of the steps and the magnitude of the responses of the surface data.
That’s one of the reasons I noted in the post that this was a preliminary analysis and it needed further research. It’s getting to the point where the additional research is beyond my simple means.
Regards

Didactylos says: “Obviously, anyone who goes to the trouble of reading and understanding what you wrote can plainly see what is going on, and make a neat list of your errors of reasoning.”
Please present your “neat list of [my] errors in reasoning.”

“”””” Bill Illis says:
January 10, 2011 at 6:29 pm
George E. Smith, I’m the one who said the Clausius-Clapeyron equations indicate there should be a 7% increase per degree C. All the climate model build in 6% to 8% for this amount. “””””
Well fancy that; my first guesspost was actually correct. When I read your Posts Bill, and those that Bob T posts, I often do get you two chaps intermixed. Wentz of course said “total atmospheric water content”, so they were talking more than just water vapor.
So you think the vapor is just half of what C_C predicts. Well unless I’m mistaken; doesn’t the C_C equation simply calculate what would be the saturation level of water vapor; and since it’s not a closed system; I imagine it isn’t always saturated.
I’m not a chemist so I am just getting my teeth into the C-C thing, because Prof Will Happer told me I should do that.
I’m glad that you and Bob T do what you do, because I just don’t have time to learn all that stuff. Right now I’m boning up on my Atomic Physics, and Atomic Spectra; from Herzberg, and Max Born. I’ll get back to the Molecular spectra, once I’m back to comfortable with the atomic spectra.
Thanks for clearing up that C_C thing; I knew it was one of you two who posted that; very timely.
George
On another matter; why do people keep on dredging up latent heat questions along with CO2 and the GHG thesis ?
Sure other thermal processes are important; but the one thing you can say about the greenhouse gas warming hypothesis, is that it is entirely a matter of Radiation Physics. True that may be only a part of the energy transport process; but it is the only part that really involves GHGs; well other than H2O which happens to be THE condensible GHG, and therefore CAN get involved in latent heat transactions; CO2 cannot since it remains immutable in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

Bob, I finally think I’m wrapping my thick head around what you are doing. Interesting

Bob from the UK says:
January 11, 2011 at 12:56 am
“Arctic ice has only been measured during the warm PDO, since the PDO has turned cold, the ice has now stabilised and since 2007 has grown.”
____
Uh, no, not quite. We’ve got the lowest January levels of Arctic sea ice ever on satellite record following the lowest December level ever. Saying the ice has “now stabilized” is wishful skeptical hyperbole at best…

“R. Gates says:
January 11, 2011 at 10:31 am
We’ve got the lowest January levels of Arctic sea ice ever on satellite record following the lowest December level ever.”
At this time of year the range of ice cover from year to year is so small that that is insignificant.
Wake me up in March.
Re that word ‘evah’. Do you mean since 1979 on a planet 4 billion years old?

George E. Smith says:
“CO2 cannot (get involved in latent heat transaction) since it remains immutable in the atmosphere for thousands of years.”
Well actually.
It does get involved indirectly. It increases the energy in the system to increase evaporation and speed up or intensify the water cycle.
However the water cycle negates the effect of more CO2 by just accelerating the extra energy to space for a zero effect on the equilibrium temperature of the bulk ocean.
I recently provided elsewhere a clearer explanation as to why the extra downward IR from more CO2 is unable to affect the equilibrium temperature of the bulk ocean and I’ll repeat it here:
“I think it would be fruitful to look very closely at the interface between SST(int) and SST(skin).
For definitions see here:
http://ghrsst-pp.metoffice.com/pages/sst_definitions/
It is necessary to get a clear idea as to exactly why the higher temperature of SST(skin) fails to slow down the rate of energy flow from the subskin below.
A. The Default situation
i) Evaporation occurs primarily because of pressure and density differentials between water and air. Thus it will occur even if both water and air are at the same temperature. The process of evaporation is not dependent on any temperature differential. There are other influences that will increase or decrease the rate of evaporation but they need not concern us here.
ii) At Earth’s atmospheric pressure the energy required to provoke evaporation is always less than the energy taken from the local environment when evaporation occurs so we need to analyse exactly where the deficit can be provided from.
iii) In the absence of DLR it is taken from the water below because the water is generally warmer than the air hence the development of a layer of cool water 1mm deep and 0.3C cooler than the ocean bulk below.
B. When DLR is added to the mix.
i) DLR in itself does nothing. Before it can warm anything it must be absorbed by a water molecule.
ii) When DLR impacts the water surface some molecules will evaporate immediately and others will need to wait a moment to acquire enough additional energy.
iii) Those which are in the process of evaporating form SST(int). Those which are busily acquiring energy form SST(skin). The molecules in SST(skin) steadily gain more energy and move upward towards SST(int). In the process they gain more energy and become warmer with sensible energy that registers on our sensors.
C. The response to DLR once evaporation from DLR begins.
i) The molecules in SST(int) evaporate producing a local energy deficit. The energy most readily available is in the nearest molecules of SST(skin) so a flow of energy is set up from SST(skin) to SST(int)
ii) That energy flow is upward so the additional energy being supplied to the molecules in SST(skin) cannot flow downward to increase the temperature of the subskin.
iii) We then have both energy AND individual molecules moving upwards towards SST(int)
iv) The DLR cannot penetrate beyond SST(skin) so ALL the DLR gets absorbed by molecules in that region and ALL those molecules in due course find their way to SS(int). Thus there is no surplus energy from DLR left over to warm the subskin and even if there were it is flowing in the wrong direction.
v) Meanwhile remember that there is a net deficit to deal with when evaporation occurs. If ALL the DLR is now in molecules that are going to move upward and evaporate it can only be provided by a cascade of energy from molecule to molecule up through SST(skin).
vi) But at the bottom of that cascade where SST(skin) has it’s interface with the subskin there is still going to be that deficit. That remaining deficit must be accounted for and it already has been catered for by the pre-existing upward flow of energy from the ocean bulk below which is always present even in the absence of DLR
vii) Additionally that energy is already of the correct quantity to make up the deficit because the DLR is ALL accounted for in the process of accelerated evaporation leaving the background equilibrium undisturbed.
Thus DLR in any quantity or from any source cannot alter the equilibrium temperature of the oceans.
Now if there is a flaw in any of that then someone please tell me now.

DCA engineer says: “I’ve seen concern for the use of “eye-balled”. Can you explain or qualify this?”
The scaling and lag were established by appearance of the two variables, using the larger(est) event (the 1997/98 El Nino, the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption, etc.) as reference, not by statistical methods using all events. The data indicates that the larger events (such as the 1997/98 El Nino) are strong enough to overcome the noise that can mask the global response to lesser events. In other words, I used the larger events as reference because the response to them was clearest.

Chris Brown says: “Have you not just correlated temperature with temperature?”
I have adjusted hemispheric surface temperature datasets based on volcanic aerosols, and on a temperature-based ENSO index. Both volcanoes and ENSO events are known to cause variations in global temperatures. I then argued and illustrated that there are secondary effects of ENSO that are not accounted for using the temperature-based ENSO index. I compared the ENSO and volcano-adjusted data to the SST anomalies of two parts of the western Pacific (the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension and the SPCZ Extension) where the secondary effects of ENSO appear strongest. Originally, that was where I ended the post. The agreements between the adjusted hemispheric temperature data and the respective KOE and SPCZ datasets were very strong and would have made for a great post. (I would have ended with Figures 13 and 22 and those were good matches between datasets.)
What has some people concerned (including yourself apparently) is I elected to take the post a few steps farther. I took the hemispheric surface temperature data that were adjusted for ENSO and volcanoes and further adjusted them with the datasets that were intended to illustrate the secondary effects of ENSO. It is the secondary effects that are presently not accounted for in climate studies like the one referenced in the post, Thompson et al. These secondary effects are the unknowns, and this is why the first paragraph of the post includes the following sentence: “But this basic evaluation indicates these secondary effects of ENSO require further research.”

Bob Tisdale
You wrote January 11, 2011 at 2:36 am :
“…while I will agree that the corrections GISS makes always seem to contribute to the trend, you also have to keep in mind that they do document the changes…”
Documentation of changes does no necessarily mean correctness. Bear in mind that you limited your own study to latitudes +/- 60 degrees, apparently because you had greater confidence in GISS for this region.
What sticks out like dog’s balls, is that there is a distinct disparity between GIStemp, and the other big 3 for the widely described 1998 “super El Nino“. Whilst I don’t have great confidence in Hadcrut3, it’s 1998 does line-up rather well with UAH & RSS. The satellite data picks-up stratospherically, what is a surface driven anomaly rather markedly.
The big 4 time-series plus NCDC global records are conveniently overlaid here with common baselines:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/AllCompared%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979.gif
The other big 3, all show a distinct plateau commencing at, I would say; 1998, variously described as a cooling phase or lack of warming. Even RealClimate recognised this in an article some time back. (although it was rapidly closed after 3 days of comments… whoops).
If you like to draw step-changes, then one could argue a step change at 1998, on the basis of the combination graph cited above.
The effect of GISS depressing the 1998 value (some time after 1999, and raising 2005 etc), is to show a lessening of the plateau, or if you like a more remorseless global warming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bob, did you see my January 10, 2011 at 10:35 pm ?
It proposes a less complicated and/or supportive argument.
I see that eadler has some objections to it, and has even quoted the oracular mount of RC. I may have time to respond today

Bob_FJ says: “Bob, did you see my January 10, 2011 at 10:35 pm ?”
Yup. I already replied to the first part of it, when I replied to the correction.
You continued, “It proposes a less complicated and/or supportive argument.”
I’m not sure how they make the same arguments I made in this post. My primary discussions were that NINO3.4 SST anomalies do not capture the process of ENSO and that there are secondary effects of ENSO that could explain much of the rise in surface temperature since 1982.

Bob Tisdale says:
January 11, 2011 at 12:51 pm
eadler says: “You ascribe the increase in ocean heat content to natural factors. The only ‘natural factor’ you mention is ocean surface temperature. The problem with this explanation is that ocean temperatures, to first order are a consequence of an increase in ocean heating, rather than a cause of ocean heating.”
The three posts I linked in the text of this post, and that I linked a second time for you in my January 10, 2011 at 5:23 pm reply to you, were Ocean Heat Content posts. They were not about “ocean surface temperature” . The units are Gigjoules per sqaure meter (GJ/m^2) not in deg C. The NINO3.4 SST anomalies you see in the graphs (as explained in those posts) are there as references for timing, nothing more.
Let’s try again. Here are the links:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
AND:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift.html
AND:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html”
I read those links. They show graphs regarding variation in the heating of different regions of the earth’s oceans. They say nothing about the source of the heating although they correlate it with El Nino and other ocean oscillatory phenomena, which are related to periodic sea surface temperature variations. As I have mentioned, high ocean surface temperatures are a ,result of ocean heating, not a source of ocean heating.
The oceans are heating either because they are gaining additional heat from the sun, downward radiation from the atmosphere, or are losing heat more slowly through radiation, evaporation or convection to the air. You haven’t presented any evidence that bears on these sources of ocean heating in the 3 links you have provided. Breaking the ocean up in sections doesn’t shed any light on the sources of ocean heating.

Stephen Wilde says:
January 11, 2011 at 11:10 am
“George E. Smith says:
“CO2 cannot (get involved in latent heat transaction) since it remains immutable in the atmosphere for thousands of years.”
Well actually.
It does get involved indirectly. It increases the energy in the system to increase evaporation and speed up or intensify the water cycle.
However the water cycle negates the effect of more CO2 by just accelerating the extra energy to space for a zero effect on the equilibrium temperature of the bulk ocean.
I recently provided elsewhere a clearer explanation as to why the extra downward IR from more CO2 is unable to affect the equilibrium temperature of the bulk ocean and I’ll repeat it here:
“I think it would be fruitful to look very closely at the interface between SST(int) and SST(skin).
For definitions see here:
http://ghrsst-pp.metoffice.com/pages/sst_definitions/
It is necessary to get a clear idea as to exactly why the higher temperature of SST(skin) fails to slow down the rate of energy flow from the subskin below.
A. The Default situation
i) Evaporation occurs primarily because of pressure and density differentials between water and air. Thus it will occur even if both water and air are at the same temperature. The process of evaporation is not dependent on any temperature differential. There are other influences that will increase or decrease the rate of evaporation but they need not concern us here.
ii) At Earth’s atmospheric pressure the energy required to provoke evaporation is always less than the energy taken from the local environment when evaporation occurs so we need to analyse exactly where the deficit can be provided from.
iii) In the absence of DLR it is taken from the water below because the water is generally warmer than the air hence the development of a layer of cool water 1mm deep and 0.3C cooler than the ocean bulk below.
B. When DLR is added to the mix.
i) DLR in itself does nothing. Before it can warm anything it must be absorbed by a water molecule.
ii) When DLR impacts the water surface some molecules will evaporate immediately and others will need to wait a moment to acquire enough additional energy.
iii) Those which are in the process of evaporating form SST(int). Those which are busily acquiring energy form SST(skin). The molecules in SST(skin) steadily gain more energy and move upward towards SST(int). In the process they gain more energy and become warmer with sensible energy that registers on our sensors.
C. The response to DLR once evaporation from DLR begins.
i) The molecules in SST(int) evaporate producing a local energy deficit. The energy most readily available is in the nearest molecules of SST(skin) so a flow of energy is set up from SST(skin) to SST(int)
ii) That energy flow is upward so the additional energy being supplied to the molecules in SST(skin) cannot flow downward to increase the temperature of the subskin.
iii) We then have both energy AND individual molecules moving upwards towards SST(int)
iv) The DLR cannot penetrate beyond SST(skin) so ALL the DLR gets absorbed by molecules in that region and ALL those molecules in due course find their way to SS(int). Thus there is no surplus energy from DLR left over to warm the subskin and even if there were it is flowing in the wrong direction.
v) Meanwhile remember that there is a net deficit to deal with when evaporation occurs. If ALL the DLR is now in molecules that are going to move upward and evaporate it can only be provided by a cascade of energy from molecule to molecule up through SST(skin).
vi) But at the bottom of that cascade where SST(skin) has it’s interface with the subskin there is still going to be that deficit. That remaining deficit must be accounted for and it already has been catered for by the pre-existing upward flow of energy from the ocean bulk below which is always present even in the absence of DLR
vii) Additionally that energy is already of the correct quantity to make up the deficit because the DLR is ALL accounted for in the process of accelerated evaporation leaving the background equilibrium undisturbed.
Thus DLR in any quantity or from any source cannot alter the equilibrium temperature of the oceans.
Now if there is a flaw in any of that then someone please tell me now.”
You must have missed the post I made above, where I showed the flaw in your thinking.
Because of the heating of the ocean depths by the sunlight , which penetrates a number of meters , the depths are warmer than the surface skin, because radiation, evaporation and conduction cause the surface skin to lose heat.
The DLR heats the surface skin. This suppresses the upward convection of the heat absorbed from the sun by the ocean depths below the surface. With reduced upward convection from below, more of the sun’s heat will remain in the ocean. If the DLR decreases, the temperature gradient between the surface skin and bulk increases, and more heat flows from the ocean depths to the surface where it is radiated away. If DLR increases, less heat flows from the depth to the surface. So DLR can have a significant effect on how much of the sun’s short waver energy is retained by the ocean.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
Your explanation left out this important mechanism, so your conclusion that DLR cannot affect ocean heat is wrong.

Bob says:As you can see in Figures 11 through 13, there were ENSO residuals left that were approximately the same magnitude as the reference ENSO signal.
Wow, you’re not kidding! Thanks for the explanation.

Bob_FJ says: “4) Thus the 1998 super El Nino induced global warming was a secondary effect of short-wave ocean heating, not necessarily recent, and had very little to do with GHG.”
The 1997/98 El Nino was fueled by the warm waters created by the 1995/96 La Nina. Discussed that and provided a link to a McPhaden (1999) paper “Genesis and Evolution of the 1997-98 El Niño” in the following post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/02/la-nina-underappreciated-portion-of.html

eadler says: “I read those links. They show graphs regarding variation in the heating of different regions of the earth’s oceans. They say nothing about the source of the heating although they correlate it with El Nino and other ocean oscillatory phenomena, which are related to periodic sea surface temperature variations. As I have mentioned, high ocean surface temperatures are a ,result of ocean heating, not a source of ocean heating.”
It appears I must write a post for those, like yourself, who are skeptical of skeptics, and provide a more detailed analysis of the rise in OHC.
And I will disagree with your final sentence, which read, “As I have mentioned, high ocean surface temperatures are a ,result of ocean heating, not a source of ocean heating.”
Sea surface temperature is a portion (component) of ocean heat content.

Bill Illis: Thanks

eadler Reur January 11, 2011 at 10:45 am
Your comments seem to hinge on a 2006 commentary piece at RealClimate, which I doubt would have passed peer review. But anyhow, let’s look at it using some engineering style first principles:
A] It all seems a tad futile in that even IF the methodology were correct, it alleges only a 0.08C rise for 2xCO2, (sensitivity), relative to pre-industrial, which, is hardly alarming. However, the experiment is apparently flawed, based on the parameters that have (not) been described etc. Furthermore, this result can only be determined during daylight hours, and the laws of physics do not stop at night.
B] Great accuracy is claimed for temperature measurements, but not for the instrument measuring downward LWR. More seriously, there was a dependence on an S-B calculation of up-welling radiation based on the surface temperature measurement, in order to determine the net radiation.** However the sea surface is far from constant, particularly when observed from a close distance on the vessel. By rights, there should be a separate value determined for emissivity for each data point, but it seems most unlikely that that could be done.
C] The skin temperature is not purely a radiative consideration because it is also affected strongly by evaporation and thermals. That’s using Trenberth & Fasullo (T & F) terminology. In their latest “Earth’s Energy Budget Diagram” they attribute ~60% of the global surface cooling to these drivers. OH, and they think ~10% of the calculated up-welling radiation escapes directly to space BTW. See B] (Oh, and 0.9 W/m^2 have gone missing)
D] The discussion on a skin layer up to 1mm deep seems to be rather speculative and irrelevant. The true skin wherein LWR is fully absorbed is a nano portion of any such 1 mm, (varying with wavelength a la Planck), and it is from there that re-emission occurs with great rapidity. That is also where the conductive interface and the evaporative molecules are located relative to the atmosphere. The statement that water up to 1 mm deep is in contact with the atmosphere, and consideration of its temperature gradient etc, is erh inappropriate.
E] There are many parameters that appear to have no consideration, for instance.
* Humidity variation would significantly alter the ratio of contribution of CO2 to the total GHG effect.
* Cloud cover increase generally increases humidity. (This may well explain the upward slope obtained in the graph, with increasing cloud cover).
* Humidity, wind speed and atmospheric pressure affects evaporation rate
* Wave action affects emission, mixing, & evaporation
* Wind speed affects the effectiveness of the conductive interface
F] My word, that’s a funny chart! Why doesn’t he simply show a legend for each data point? If I understand it they only took data between about 9:0 am and 10:00 pm. (eyeballed) So, what were the energy and temperature gradient considerations etc in those missing ~11 Hrs?. If I understand it correctly, at ~10:00 pm the flux varied between about -85 & -10 W/m^2. Is that right?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
** BTW eadler, you wrote to Matt G that 324 w/m^2 of back radiation (T & F say 333), heats the surface. Wrong! It slows down the escape of heat. In the case of T & F’s scenario, there is a net EMR transport of HEAT upwards of (396-333) = 63, not a downward gain of 300+ W/m^2 of HEAT. But don’t worry, Peter Minnett (RSMAS) got it wrong in his title too.
Also, in your citing of the 2006 Minnett piece there was reference to an article by Fred Singer which makes perfectly valid points that are not addressed in that RC expose.
See also: Stephen Wilde says: January 12, 2011 at 10:08 am
Stephen, sorry to cross yours, but mine was in draft late yesterday.

Bob, Figure 2 here succinctly reinforces one of your points:
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
Too bad that wasn’t presented in color.
We’ve got to be careful interpreting that plot though. They only looked at one extent (i.e. sliding-window width).
Also, due to the nonlinearites, we need to realize the distortion of a comparative look at the 2 time intervals studied in the paper’s various correlation maps – (relates to a point I made above when discussing North Atlantic SST). As the plots are structured, apples & oranges are being compared — still gives some info, but info that needs to be interpreted carefully – and which can be seriously misleading.
Bottom Line: Without varying extent, there’s a limit to what can be learned – and interpretations can run seriously afoul with so many blind spots (which are guaranteed if only one extent is studied).
The authors do succeed in getting people thinking in the right direction; even if a single paper can’t be all luxurious things desirable, it can be ruthlessly efficient in its succinctness.

Paul Vaughan: Thanks for the link. I’ve enjoyed and learned much from Trenberth’s early papers. And yes, I did qualify that with “early”. His more recent work? Not so educational.

Bob Tisdale wrote, “I’ve enjoyed and learned much from Trenberth’s early papers. And yes, I did qualify that with “early”. His more recent work? Not so educational.”
I found one of his 2010 papers useful. Clarification: My approach to filtering Trenberth’s communications is the same one I apply to Corbyn’s or anyone else’s: Mine for the substantive bits and filter off hyperpartisan nonsense.
–
I will reiterate Bob’s thanks to Anthony (& WUWT more generally).