A Memo To Hansen and Sato
Guest commentary by Bob Tisdale
Date:August 21, 2011
Subject:A Request About Your El Niño Predictions And A Question About Anthropogenic Global Warming
To: James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato
Dear Makiko and James:
I am writing to you via my weblog with a request and a question. First, the request: Please stop predicting El Niño and Super El Niño events. Your track record is very poor. I, like many people who study ENSO, hope for extreme El Niño events, but when you predict a strong El Niño, a La Niña starts to evolve, and when you predict a “Super El Niño”, a mild El Niño comes to pass. Two examples come to mind:
Your March 27, 2011 mailing Perceptions of Climate Change was published at a number of websites, including Climate Story Tellers and Truthout. It included the following prediction of an El Niño event for the 2011/12 ENSO season:
Sometimes it is interesting to make a bet that looks like it is high risk, but really isn’t. Such a bet can be offered at this point. The NOAA web pages giving weekly ENSO updates predict a return to ENSO–neutral conditions by mid–summer with some models suggesting a modest El Nino to follow. We have been checking these forecasts weekly for the past several years, and have noted that the models almost invariably are biased toward weak changes. Based on subsurface ocean temperatures, the way these have progressed the past several months, and comparisons with development of prior El Niños, we believe that the system is moving toward a strong El Niño starting this summer. It’s not a sure bet, but it is probable.
Summer is well past its midpoint. And weekly NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies for August 10, 2011, based on the Reynolds OI.v2 dataset you use in your GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index, are approaching the threshold of La Niña conditions, Figure 1.
Figure 1
Note also that the NOAA models included in the ENSO updateyou referenced (now dated August 15, 2011) are forecasting La Niña conditions. Refer to Figures 2 and 3.
Figure 2
#####################################
Figure 3
And the majority of the other ENSO models are forecasting ENSO neutral conditions, Figure 4.
Figure 4
Based on the spread of model outputs, ENSO events are apparently difficult to forecast even in mid August, so there’s still a remote possibility that your prediction may come true, but right now, NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature observations are clearly pointing in the opposite direction.
Regarding Super El Niño events, let’s drop back a few years. In the draft of a paper titled Spotlight on Global Temperature dated March 29, 2006, you and a few of your associates predicted a “Super El Niño” for the 2006/07 ENSO season. (Thanks to DeSmogBlog for posting and maintaining the copy of the draft.) To refresh your memory, here’s what you wrote 5 years ago:
SUPER EL NINO IN 2006-2007? We suggest that an El Nino is likely to originate in 2006 and that there is a good chance it will be a ‘super El Niño’, rivaling the 1983 and 1997-1998 El Ninos, which were successively labeled the ‘El Nino of the century’ as they were of unprecedented strength in the previous 100 years (Fig. 1 of Fedorov and Philander 2000). Further, we argue that global warming causes an increase of such ‘super El Ninos’. Our rationale is based on interpretation of dominant mechanisms in the ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) phenomenon, examination of historical SST data, and observed Pacific Ocean SST anomalies in February 2006.
Please refer to Figure 5, which is a longer-term graph of the monthly Reynolds OI.v2-based NINO3.4 SST anomalies. You’ll note that I’ve indicated the 1982/83 and 1997/98 “Super El Niño” events. I’ve also marked the 2006/07 “Not-So-Super” El Niño, and the difference between the two, which results from your Not-So-Super Prediction.
Figure 5
If you’re not aware, there are many people who mistakenly believe that you are using your GISS Model-E General Circulation Models to make these erroneous predictions of strong and super El Niño events. I don’t feel it’s my responsibility to advise them that you are basing your predictions on your observations of climate data, not on your models, which as shown in Animations 1 and 2 do not appear model ENSO very well, if at all. Animations 1 and 2 are gif animations of time-series graphs that compare the observed NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature anomalies, which, as you are aware, are a commonly used index of the frequency and magnitude of ENSO events, to those hindcast by the GISS Model-EH and Model-ER.
Animation 1
#######################################
Animation 2
Your Model-EH and -ER, like other General Circulation models employed as future climate projection tools by the IPCC, do not come close to matching the frequency, magnitude, and duration of ENSO events. All three are very important when attempting to reproduce the instrument temperature record (and when trying to project future climate scenarios), since they dictate when and how much:
– heat is released from the tropical Pacific to the atmosphere, where it alters climate globally,
– warm water is distributed from the tropics toward the poles on the sea surface and below the surface of the oceans,
– warm water is created through coupled decreases in cloud cover and increases in visible sunlight over the tropical Pacific for use in the next ENSO event.
And now for my question: Where’s the Anthropogenic portion of the rise in Global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies during the satellite era? I can’t find it. I have been studying Sea Surface Temperature anomaly data for a number of years, and I cannot find any evidence of an anthropogenic component in Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly data. I’m referring to the satellite-era Reynolds OI.v2 Sea Surface Temperature dataset you use in your GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data. Animation 3 provides a basic introduction to what I have found.
Animation 3
Before you reply, please study two posts I’ve published recently:
ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature,
And:
They will provide a few answers to your initial thoughts.
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but many people outside of the climate science community have basic understandings of the process of ENSO. They realize that the warming and cooling of the central and eastern tropical Pacific during El Niño and La Niña events represent only a small portion of the processes that occasionally distribute vast amounts of heat from the tropics toward the poles, and they understand ENSO not only distributes heat through the atmosphere, but also within and on the surface of the oceans. They understand that the process of ENSO cannot be represented by a number in an ENSO index. Because of that, they understand the erroneous assumptions in the climate studies such as Fyfe et al (2010) “Comparing Variability and Trends in Observed and Modelled Global-Mean Surface Temperature” and Thompson et al (2008) paper Identifying Signatures of Natural Climate Variability in Time Series of Global-Mean Surface Temperature: Methodology and Insights. Those incorrect assumptions are carried over to blog posts such as Global trends and ENSO by your associates over at Real Climate. All portray ENSO as naturally occurring noise within the surface temperature record that can be removed through linear regression or through simple models that use an ENSO index to provide similar results. I have provided detailed explanations, illustrations, and animations in the above linked post (ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature) that illustrate the errors in these efforts.
In fact, as I noted in that post, the recent Compo and Sardeshmukh (2010) paper “Removing ENSO-Related Variations from the Climate Record” appears to be a step in the right direction. They write:
An important question in assessing twentieth-century climate is to what extent have ENSO-related variations contributed to the observed trends. Isolating such contributions is challenging for several reasons, including ambiguities arising from how ENSO is defined. In particular, defining ENSO in terms of a single index and ENSO-related variations in terms of regressions on that index, as done in many previous studies, can lead to wrong conclusions. This paper argues that ENSO is best viewed not as a number but as an evolving dynamical process for this purpose.
But Compo and Sardeshmukh also missed a very important part of ENSO. They overlooked the significance of the huge volume of warm water that is left over from El Niño events and failed to account for its contribution to the rise in global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies.
In closing, I, like you, look forward to the next strong or Super El Niño. I believe, though, we have different interests at heart. You appear to hope for one so that you can continue to piggyback your hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming on its multiyear aftereffects. I hope for a Super El Niño because the ARGO buoys are in now place, and it should be possible now to better track how the oceans distribute the warm water that’s left over from Super El Niño events.
Sincerely,
Bob Tisdale
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Models” and “scientists” predicted more El Ninos and positive AO phase forever. Event hey understood that with plenty of La Ninas and negative AO, it won’t be warming. Both prediction obviously failed. So?
“Hansen is exactly like the guy walking the streets with a sign predicting the day the world will end. When the date passes with no end to world he simply changes the date and resumes walking the streets with no acknowledgement of past failures.”
You are completely wrong. Hansen predicts the earth will end 20 years from “today”. Whatever day today is, the earth will end in 20 years. When it is 2011, the earth will end in 2031. When it is 2020, the earth will end in 2040.
Your mistake is in assuming that somehow 20 years from today gets shorter as we move forward in time. Hansen never said this. 20 years in the future never gets shorter, no matter how far into the future we move.
The future is simply a carrot on a stick to get the donkey (government) to keep pulling the cart (paying for research).
Better be careful, Mr. Tisdale. James Hansen is one tough hombre. Haven’t you seen press releases of the man in his “Bwana Jim” sunhat with steely eyes peering off into the future? The man don’t need no stinking charts and graphs or pesky calculations to predict the future. He’s a visionary!
Visionaries are not like regular people. Visionaries often struggle with mundane chores ordinary people take for granted. Reading calendars, for example. So, he missed the date by a year or two or maybe even a few decades. So what? He’s operating on a mental plane ordinary mortals cannot comprehend, so they vent their jealousy by nit-picking the details.
Open up the mental windows and doors, Bob. I think chanting through a mouthful of magic rocks might help you in that exercise. You gonna’ have to “get outside the box” if you ever expect to catch up with Dr. Jim.
Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
August 21, 2011 at 6:37 pm
The late Dr. Theodor Landscheidt in the late 1980′s and 1990′s began making accurate predictions of El Nino events. His track record was excellent, because he used totally predictable planetary mechanics to make his predictions.
No mainstream scientists in the US of A would do this, because his/her work would be labelled as “astrology” by mainstream science. It is called prejudice
“Baa Humbug says:
August 21, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Judging by their results, their scientific work is about as bumbling as Inspector Cloussos work.”
That is an insult to Chief Inspector Clouseau. While Clouseau’s methods were unorthodox, he had a 100% success rate, even when he was not aware that he had succeeded.
In contrast, Hansen and mainstream climate science have a near 100% failure rate since 1998, when climate suddenly turned left, contrary to predictions. Had that happened to Clouseau he would have been demoted of fired, and Dreyfus would have remained as chief inspector.
Unfortunately in the world of climate science, a failed prediction simply means that you need more money for better tools. Unlike police work, climate science has no method to test if you are doing a good job, outside of the side of government grant you can rake in.
Please remember the rules. In the real world a failed prediction means you don’t know your job. In climate science it means you need more money.
Anyone else notice that Hansen and Sato have exactly the same facial expression, right down to the curve of the eyebrow? Maybe that visionary thing causes a whole person transformation.
The Nino 3.4 Index dropped to -0.74C last week so this year’s developing La Nina will make it 4 out of the last 5 years.
We would have to go back to the mid-1970s to find a similar pattern – the multi-year (or multi-year time periods dominated by La Nina or El Nino) eventually produce an accumulating impact. The length of time with no global warming will now extend out for another year – the climate models, and especially Hansen’s models, will be even further out.
Weekly NINO3.4 SST anomalies have dropped below the threshold of a La Nina:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/weekly-enso-index-drops-below-the-la-nia-threshold/
Thanks, Anthony
Hansen et al have had the ear of the “politicos” for so long that they ARE DESPERATE TO KEEP IT. The end is nigh, even the most lame brained politico must be realising that the faeces are going to hit the fan over the amount of money squandered on this nonsense. If carbon trading with all the Governement backing, cannot get off the ground as a business venture, it is telling something smells.. Lets keep after them and writing to our MP’s (UK)
Jorgekafkazar says:
August 21, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Doug Proctor says: “…So I hold that graphs, rulers and eyeballs can see patterns that are NOT perception biases but real.” and in response
Jorgekafkazar comments:
““Seeing” a pattern in climate can also be a true or false indication of something there. “Wiggle matching” is not science unless there’s a predetermined criterion for what constitutes a match and a method for calculating statistical significance for the result.”
Jorge argues, at its base, that the sort of insight that Aristotle up through Darwin brought to understand the universe is not valid as it is not done by scientists with access to computers and statistical algorithms to tease out predators from the shrubbery (love the analogy, by the way). It is an argument that says only the professionals – they top-notch, peer-reviewed, club of self-described professionals, of course – have access to the truth. It is also an argument that says unless you understand the process you cannot determine the outcome. To change analogies, it is an argument that says unless you understand the dynamics of human relationships you cannot predict the outcome of a failing marriage. Clearly not true.
I don’t profess to be a computer scientist, but as an earth scientist who is in a large field in which pattern recognition comes first and understanding later, and always an incomplete if not incorrect understanding, I have a lot of experience to say that predictive ability and understanding are not necessary in a working situation. Graphs, rulers, eyeballs (and brains) are definitely able to see what is going on if what is going on is fairly simple. Einstein was famous for saying that he didn’t do physical experiments, he did “mind” experiments. Our job as skeptics is largely to do those mind experiments, to audit what we are told to find internal consistencies that give us courage that what we suspect is true – regardless of the computers and modelling. Most climate science understanding is, after all, modelling, not observation., a matching of outcome patterns with historical data – a matching that is eyeball-worthy, by the way. If you need statistics to figure it out, it is probably not worth worrying about.
The IPCC, Gore et al say that the pattern we have seen for the past 30 years is clear, unambiguous in its meaning that CO2 generated by human beings is going to roast the planet. On that basis one should expect to see clear, unambiguous patterns. What I see is clear, unambiguous patterns through the 180 years of reasonable temperature data that have some 30 or more cyclic activity punctuated with repetitive cycles of around 5 years. There is a noticeable “hum” within the climate noise. In the Fig. 5 data there are significant warming spikes at the 5, 4, 3, 3, 5, 4, 3 intervals since 1981. Hansen et al employ sophisticated programs to find “true” patterns that don’t predict well, while also not – apparently – reflect this 5,4,3 etc. pattern. If you are modelling-centric, you say the observations are wrong, are noise, are happen-chance. If you are observation-centric, which I am, you suggest that the observations are right, and the mechanisms proposed are either wrong or not sensitive enough to develop the short-term patterns.
So I stick with my prediction based solely on the pattern of Fig. 5. The weather is what we live with, while the climate is what drives our economy (and our funding). Over the next 89 years the correct understanding of climate drivers will show as observations that match predictions. Over the next few years, the weather will be more likely predictable by those who note recent trends and project them only a short-time ahead. The warm spike I predict in 2013 and 2018 is based on what has recently happened.AND in line with the IPCC-Hansen view that the climate is linear, simple and progressive. Significant randomness is not within any climatic model that I know of – if it were we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Even Archibald’s prediction of a large temperature drop by 2020 (sunspot related) allows smaller, internal cycles.
Overall, if graphs, rulers, eyeballs and brains cannot determine reasonableness in the global warming debate, if those four cannot establish probable and improbable courses of temperature movement over the next few years, none of us skeptics (except a professional or two) have any right to disagree with orthodoxy. We are not learned enough. The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Mayans, Chinese – all those groups created civilizations based on the reasoning of observant, patient, reasoning men. The 19th century was a revolution because of such reasoning people, people without a lot of data but the ability to trust patterns and detect internally consistent correlations (CO2-AGW is not internally consistent).
This is an interesting discussion and important point Jorge has raised. Are citizen-scientists, are citizen-thinkers armed only with paper, pencil, knowledge far more detailed and sophisticated that any Darwin of his time had, those with the ability to think through others’ arguments – are these groups truly qualified to figure out what might be going on?
The warmists say “trust the experts”. The skeptics – such as I – say we can figure some things out at least as well as the “experts”, and perhaps on a more practical level, better than the “experts”.
These days we are told we live in special times, where the past is no predictor of the future. Gore is a prophet, Hansen a disciple that will bring order from chaos. What was is not relevant, as today is Different. I disagree. 2.8C in 2013 and 2.0 in 2018. If not in detail, then in pattern. A prediction probably as good as the one the IPCC might give.
Theo Goodwin says:
August 22, 2011 at 5:18 am
“Anyone else notice that Hansen and Sato have exactly the same facial expression, right down to the curve of the eyebrow? Maybe that visionary thing causes a whole person transformation.”
Eureka! Visionary eyebrows! I believe you may be onto something. Come to think of it, that’s the exact same expression my high school classmate was wearing (ages ago) as he rolled forward in his desk and stared intently into our teacher’s eyes. Face-to-face a mere foot apart, eyes locked onto his, she raise her eyebrows in that exact same arc as if to say, “Yes, Gordon?” At which point Gordon cut a 130 decibel “blue hazer” that rattled the classroom windows.
I miss Gordon.
Occult Practices
9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. 13 You must be blameless before the LORD your God.
The Prophet
14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.”
17 The LORD said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”
21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.
Greg Holmes says:
August 22, 2011 at 8:26 am
Hansen et al have had the ear of the “politicos” for so long that they ARE DESPERATE TO KEEP IT. The end is nigh, even the most lame brained politico must be realising that the faeces are going to hit the fan over the amount of money squandered on this nonsense. If carbon trading with all the Governement backing, cannot get off the ground as a business venture, it is telling something smells.. Lets keep after them and writing to our MP’s (UK)
Greg. unfortunately the politicos are up to their necks in as well.
Cameron’s fa[]ther in law is heavily in to renewables,(why do think a £1.5 billion wind generation grant was annouced six months after the election) Cleggs wife is a director for a Spanish renewable company
Go look at the MPs website and see the interests they all declare, lot of renewables companies have MPs as directors /non executive directors and lots lobby for them,
As ever follow the money.Where there’s money to be made politicians won’t be far away
after all these are people who want power….and money and the more they get the more they want.
Writing to your MP is a waste of time, remember only 3 or 4 MPs voted against the climate change bill in 2008 out of 650+ MPs
Ref -John A says:
August 21, 2011 at 9:50 am
“James Hansen does not ever answer questions from mere mortals. He certainly poses them. There is zero possibility of a considered and thoughtful reply (99% confidence limit)”
Once something is posted on ‘The Web’ it is immortal. Rest assured that they will respond. If not now, then certainly in the next life. If not on this planet, than on another, in a galexy far, far away.
Climatologists “know” this to be true. Everything is possible in Climatology.
[In New York City by 2008] The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change. There will be more police cars. Why? Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up… Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.” – James Hansen testimony before Congress in June 1988
@ur momisugly Theo Goodwin – At last a reason for the warmists bandwagon “… panic people into supporting huge taxes for mitigation of CO2 …” – which we already have done in the UK by means of hoiking up electricity bills to subsidise covering our landscape with 500 foot turbines.
Mycroft
A very good summary. It’s the governments of the the world who are funding the UN and the IPCC
who support the NGO’s in pressurizing MP’s to be Green and, until now, the populace have been prepared to go along with it for all kinds of cuddly ‘Gorey’ polarbeary reasons – but not much longer if this winter is as bad as the last couple, which is looking increasingly likely. The bills will arrive and there will be no money to pay them. People will get angry.
Sure, the elected elite (and the unelected ones in Europe) have their heads in the trough. Its AGW supported by the propaganda they are themselves funding that keeps them there while all the useful idiots cheer them on !
God forbid anyone should stop the party. Hence we had Sir Humphrey Appleby style inquiries set up in the UK to kick the issue into the long grass (English joke) and similar in the US with the EPA
driven by Obarmy trying to force his will on the country by bypassing the Senate by banning CO2 !
Don’t forget that the IPCC’s original mandate was to find the human link to Global Warming (as it was then) – NOT to find the actual causes of Global Warming. Only the skeptics seem to want to do that as everyone else seems to be otherwise engaged making money or covering their backs.
Bcreekski says:
August 21, 2011 at 10:36 am
“I understand the distaste for Hansen. But, for those of us who do not closely follow all this, could someone post a concise list of failed predictions by Hansen? ”
Try starting at….
http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/james-hansen-1986-within-15-years-temps-will-be-hotter-than-past-100000-years/
“Adamski says:
August 21, 2011 at 10:42 am
What percentage (realisticly) do climate/weather forecasts/models have to meet to be deemed a success?”
Climatologists don’t make predictions, they make ‘projections of scenarios’ and ‘probability spreads’. The Met office said last winter would be 40% normal, 30% colder, 30% warmer. And would claim success regardless of what happened. I kid you not!
I’d like to see some of these guys on ‘The Apprentice’ talking that rubbish to some hard headed businessman.
“Will it be colder this winter?” –
“Well Sir Alan it might be…or it might not” –
“You’re fired!”
Forecasting. There is an old story of a small town medico who had a 100% success record in predicting the gender of babies to be born. He would tell Mum-to-be that the child would be a boy, then say, “Look, I’ll write it up in my diary so whe can check afterwards” Of course, if he said “boy” he would write “girl”. If the verbal was accurate, no diary needed. If not, turn to the book ….