Frank Lansner on Foster and Rahmstorf 2011

This is a repost from Lansner’s website, since Tamino aka Grant Foster won’t allow it to be discussed on his own website, I thought I’d give a forum for discussion here. – Anthony

The real temperature trend given by Foster and Rahmstorf 2011?
Posted by Frank Lansner (frank) on 17th December, 2011

(whoops, I’m not allowed to link to this article at Taminos site… I’ve never written on Taminos site, but he seems to know not to let me write – Frank)

Fig1. Foster and Rahmstorf recently released a writing on ”The real global warming signal”.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/ The point from F&R is, I believe, debating to counter the “sceptic” argument that temperatures has stagnated during the last decade or more. Since this is an essential issue in the climate debate I decided to investigate if F&R did a sensible calculation using relevant parameters.

Hadcrut global temperatures do have a rather flat trend these days:

Fig2. It is possible to go back to 1 may 1997 and still see flat trend for Hadcrut temperature data, so this data set will be subject for this writing:

Can F&R´s arguments and calculations actually induce a significant warm trend even to Hadcrut 1998-2011?

F&R use three parameters for their corrections, ENSO, AOD (volcanic atmospheric dimming) and TSI (Total Solar Irradiation).

“Objection”: TSI is hardly the essential parameter when it comes to Solar influence in Earth climate.

More appropriate it would be to use the level “Solar Activity”, “Sunspot number”, “Cloud cover” “Magnetism” or “Cosmic rays”. TSI is less relevant and should not be used as label.

Fig3. FF&R has chosen MEI to represent EL Nino and La Nina impacts on global temperatures. MEI is the “raw” Nina3,4 SST that directly represents the EL Nino and La Nina, but in the MEI index, also SOI is implemented. To chose the most suited parameter I have compared NOAA´s ONI which is only Nina3.4 index and MEI to temperature graphs to evaluate which to prefer.

Both Hadcrut and RSS has a slightly better match with the pure Nina 3,4 ONI index which will therefore be used in the following. (Both sets was moved 3mth to achieve best it with temperature variations).

Fig4.

After correcting for Nina3,4 index (El Nino + La Nina) there is still hardly any trend in Hadcrut data 1998-2011. (If MEI is chosen, this results in a slight warming trend of approx 0,07 K/decade for the corrected Hadcrut data 1998-2011).

Fig5. I then scaled to best fit for SATO volcano data set. For the years after 1998, there is not really any impact from volcanoes, and thus we can say:

There is no heat trend in Hadcrut data after 1998 even when corrected for EL Nino/La Nina and volcanoes.

However, this changes when inducing Solar activity, I chose Sun Spot Number, SSN, to represent the Solar activity:

Fig6.

To best estimate the scaling of SSN I detrended the Nino3,4 and volcano corrected Hadcrut data and scaled SSN to best fit. Unlike F&R, I get the variation of SSN to equal 0,2K, not 0,1 K as F&R shows.

Now see what happens:

Fig7.

F&R describes the Solar activity (“TSI” as they write…) to be of smallest importance in their calculations. However, it is only the Solar activity, SSN, that ends up making even the Hadcrut years after 1998 show a warm trend when corrected. On Fig7 I have plotted the yearly results by F&R for Hadcrut and they are nearly identical to my results.

So, a smaller warming from my using Nino 3,4 combined with the larger impact of Solar activity I find cancels out each other.

ISSUES

For now it has been evaluated what F&R has done, now lets consider issues:

1) F&R assume that temperature change from for exaple El Nino or period of raised Solar activity etc. will dissapear fully immidiately after such an event ends. F&R assumes that heat does not accumulate from one temperature event to the next.

2) Missing corrections for PDO

3) Missing corrections for human aerosols – (supposed to be important)

4) Missing corrections for AMO

5) F&R could have mentioned the effect of their adjustments before 1979

Issue 1: F&R assume that all effect from a shorter warming or cooling period is totally gone after the effect is gone.

Fundamentally, the F&R approach demands that all effects of the three parameters they use for corrections only have here-and-now effects.

Example:

Fig8.

In the above approaches, the Nino3,4 peaks are removed by assuming that all effects from for example a short intense heat effect can be removed by removing heat only when the heating effect occurs, but not removing any heat after the effect it self has ended.

Now, to examine this approach I compare 2 datasets. A) Hadcrut temperatures, “corrected” for Nina3,4 , volcanoes and SSN effects as shown in the above – detrended. B) The Nino3,4 index indicating El Ninos/La Ninas and thus the timing of adjustments. (We remember, that the Nino3,4 was moved 3 months to fit temperature data before adjusting):

Fig9.

After for example “removing” heat caused by El Ninas during the specific El Nino periods, you see heat peaks 1 – 2 years later in the “Nino3,4” corrected detrended temperature data.

That is: After red peaks you see black peaks..

This means that the approach of systematically only removing heat when heat effect is occurring is fundamentally wrong.

Wrong to what extent? Typically, the heat not removed by correcting for Nina3,4 shows 1-2 years later than the heat effect. Could this have impact on decadal temperature trends?

Maybe so: In most cases of El Nino peaks, first we have the Nino3,4 red peak, then 1-2 years after the remaining black peak in temperature data that then dives. But notice that normally the dives in remaining heat (black) normally occurs when dives in the red Nino3,4 index starts.

This suggests, that the remaining heat from an El Nino peak is not fast disappearing by itself, but rather, is removed when colder Nino3,4 conditions induces a cold effect.

In general, we are working with noisy volcano and SSN corrected data, so to any conclusion there will be some situations where the “normal” observations is not seen strongly.

Now, what happens is we focus on periods where the Nino3,4 index for longer periods than 2 years is more neutral – no major peaks?

Fig10.

Now, the detrended Hadcrut temperature “corrected” for Nina3,4, Volcanoes and SSN –  black graph – has been 2 years averaged:

The impact of El Ninos and La Ninas is still clearly visible in data supposed to be corrected for these impacts. Since this correction by F&R is their “most important” correction, and it fails, then we can conclude that F&R 2011 is fundamentally flawed and useless.

Reality is complex and F&R has mostly seen the tip of the iceberg, no more.

More: Notice the periods 1976-1981 and  2002-2007. In both cases, we a period of a few years with Nino3,4 index rather neutral. In these cases, the temperature level does not change radically.

In the 1976-81 period, the La Ninas up to 1977 leaves temperatures cold, and they stay cold for years while Nino3,4 remains rather neutral. After the 2002-3 El Nino, Nino3,4 index remains rather neutral, and temperatures simply stays warm.

Issue 2: Missing corrections for PDO

Quite related to the above issue of ignoring long term effects of temperature peaks, we see no mention of the PDO.

Fig11. Don Easterbrook suggests that a general warming occurs when PDO is warm, and a general cooling occurs when PDO is cold. (PDO = Pacific Decadal Oscillation). That is, even though PDO index remains constant but warm, the heat should accumulate over the years rather than be only short term dependent strictly related to the PDO index of a given year. This is in full compliance with the long term effects of temperature peaks shown under issue 1.

Don Easterbrook suggests 0,5K of heating 1979-2000 due the PDO long term heat effect.

I think the principle is correct, I cant know if the 0,5K is correct – it is obviously debated – but certainly, you need to consider the PDO long term effect on temperatures in connection with ANY attempt to correct temperature data. F&R fails to do so, although potentially, PDO heat is suggested to explain all heat trend after 1979.

I would like to analyse temperature data for PDO effect if possible.

Fig12. PDO data taken from http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

To analyse PDO-effect we have to realise that PDO and Nino3,4 (not surprisingly) have a lot in common. This means, that I cant analyse PDO effects in a dataset “corrected” for Nino3,4 as it would to some degree also be “corrected” for PDO…

More, this strong resemblance between Nino3,4 and PDO has this consequence:

When Don Easterbrook says that PDO has long term effect, he’s also saying that Nino3,4 has long term effects – just as concluded in issue 1.

Fig13. Thus, I am working with PDO signal compared to Hadcrut temperatures corrected for volcanoes and SSN only. The general idea that heat can be accumulated from one period to the next (long term effects) is clearly supported in this compare. If PDO heat (like any heat!) can be expected to be accumulated, then we can se for each larger PDO-heat-peak temperatures on Earth rises to a steady higher level.

Fig14. Note: in the early 1960´ies, the correction of volcano Agung is highly questionably because different sources of data concerning the effect of Agung are not at all in agreement. Most likely I have over-adjusted for cooling effect of Agung. On the above graph from Mauna Loa it appears that hardly any adjustment should be done…

Scientists often claim that we HAVE to induce CO2 in models to explain the heat trend. Here we have heat trends corrected for volcanoes and SSN, now watch how much math it takes to explain temperature rise after 1980 using PDO:

Fig15. “Math” to explain temperature trend using PDO. Due to the uncertainty on data around 1960 (Agung + mismatch with RUTI world index/unadjusted GHCN) I have made a curve beginning before and after 1960. For each month I add a fraction of the PDO signal to the temperature of last month, that is, I assume that heat created last month “wont go away” by itself, but is regulated by impacts of present month. This approach is likely not perfect either but it shows how easy temperature trends can be explained if you accept PDO influence globally.

(In addition I made some other scenarios where temperatures would seek zero to some degree, and also where I used square root on PDO input which may work slightly better, square root to boost smaller changes near zero PDO).

Now, how can PDO all by itself impact a long steady heat on Earth?? Does heat come from deep ocean or??

Fig16. It goes without saying that SSN and PDO (and thus Nina3,4 as shown) are related.

Is it likely that PDO affects Sun Spot Numbers? No, so we can conclude that Solar activity drives temperatures PDO which again can explain temperature changes on Earth.

Suddenly this analysis has become more interesting than F&R-evaluation, but this graph also shows that F&R was wrong on yet another point: Notice on the graph that we work the temperatures “CORRECTED” for Solar activity… But AFTER each peak of SSN we see accumulation of heat on earth still there after “correcting” for solar activity. Thus, again, it is fundamentally wrong to assume no long term affects of temperature changes. This time, temperature effect can be seen in many years after the “corrected” Solar activity occurred.

Conclusion: PDO appears Solar driven and can easily explain temperature developments analysed.

Thus perhaps the most important factors to be corrected for – if you want to know about potential Co2 effects – was not corrected for by F&R 2011.

Issue 3: Missing corrections for human aerosols – that are supposed to be important

It is repeatedly claimed by the AGW side in the climate debate that human sulphates / aerosols should explain significant changes in temperatures on earth.

When you read F&R I cant stop wonder: Why don’t they speak about Human aerosols now?

http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/greenhouse_gas.html

Fig17. In basically all sources of sulphur emissions it appears that around 1980-90 these started to decline.

If truly these aerosols explains significant cooling, well, then a reduced cooling agent after 1980 should be accounted for when adjusting temperature data to find “the real” temperature signal.

F&R fails to do so.

Issue 4: Missing corrections for AMO

AMO appears to affect temperatures in the Arctic and also on large land areas of the NH.

Fig18. In fact, the temperatures of the AMO-affected Arctic is supposed to be an important parameter for global temperature trends, and thus correcting for AMO may be relevant.

The AMO appears to boost temperatures for years 2000-2010 , so any correction of temperatures using AMO would reduce temperature trend after 1980.

F&R do not mention AMO.

Issue 5: F&R could have mentioned the effect of their adjustments before 1979

F&R only shows impacts after 1979, possibly due to the limitations of satellite data.

Fig19. “Correcting” Hadcrut data for nino3,4 + volcanoes it turns out that the heat trend from 1950 is reduced around 0,16K or around 25%. Why not show this?

I chose 1950 as staring point because both Nina3,4 and SATO volcano index begins in 1950.

Conclusion

F&R appear seems to assume that temperature impacts on Earth only has impact while occurring, not after. If you heat up a glass of water, the heat wont go away instantly after removing the heat source, so to assume this for this Earth would need some documentation.

Only “correcting” for the instant fraction of a temperature impact and not impacts after ended impact gives a rather complex dataset with significant random appearing errors and thus, the resulting F&R “adjusted data” for temperatures appears useless. At least until the long term effect of temperature changes has been established in a robust manner.

Further, it seems that the PDO, Nin3,4 and Solar activities are related, and just by using the simplest mathematics (done to PDO) these can explain recent development in temperatures on Earth. The argument that “CO2 is needed to explain recent temperature trends” appears to be flat wrong.

Thus “correcting” for PDO/Nina3,4 long term effect might remove heat trend of temperature data all together.

Solar activity is shown to be an important driver PDO/Nino3,4 and thus climate.

Finally, can we then use temperature data without the above adjustment types?

Given the complexities involved with such adjustments, it is definitely better to accept the actual data than a datasets that appears to be fundamentally flawed.

Should one adjust just for Nino3,4 this lacks long time effects of Nina3,4 and more it does not remove flat trend from the recent decade of Hadcrut temperature data.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
John West

“Given the complexities involved with such adjustments, it is definitely better to accept the actual data than a datasets that appears to be fundamentally flawed.”
Oh no, we must use the datasets that support alarmism. /sarc

Nice job debunking this data fudging, cherry picking, dogma bolstering, predetermined nonsense.

Camburn

Thank you. It appears that it is really just childs play to take this paper apart.
I know Tamino thinks he is a great thinker in his own mind, but a great statistician, he is not.
The first time I read that paper I thought what rubbish. Your analysis verifies that thought process.
How in the world do these folks get this junk published??????????????

davidmhoffer

Natural variation and climate cycles explained:
1971
Alarmists: There’s an ice age coming!
Skeptic: Looks like natural variation, not a long term trend….
Alarmists: Blasphemer! Ice Age! We’re all going to die!
1991
Alarmists: The world is heating up at an unprecedented rate!
Skeptic: But you just said….
Alarmists: CO2! CO2 is causing unprecedented warming!
Skeptic: OK, forget the ice age then, it STILL looks like natural variation, not a long term trend…
Alarmists: Blasphemer! Tipping point! We’re all going to die!
2011
Skeptic: You know, looking at the last 10 to 15 years, it doesn’t seem like there’s been anymore warming….
Alarmists: Natural variation! Itz hiding the warming!
Skeptic: Hiding the warming? Where?
Alarmists: Blasphemer! The warming is hiding in the bottom of the ocean where we can’t measure it, and/or being masked by aerosols, and/or being hidden by natural variation! We’re all going to die!
2031
Alarmist: There’s an ice age coming!
Skeptic: Looks like…never mind, I know where this is going. We’re all going to die. I for one, because a) I/m old and b) I’m sick to death of listening to alarmism.

crosspatch

The desperation among “The Cause” is starting to show. What is the purpose of these “adjustments”? Lets take the logic to is, well, logical conclusion. If he isn’t coming right out and saying it, the implication is (he might be saying it, I don’t now, I don’t read his site because I find it is generally nothing more than a warmanista echo chamber) that if he removes sources of natural variability, then we more accurately “see” warming caused by their beloved CO2. But we have a problem with that. First of all, I notice the first graph of “adjusted” temperatures only goes back to 1980. How convenient. Have “Tamino” show a graph of his “adjusted” temperatures across the entire temperature record and see what it looks like then.
We also know this to be a load of poppycock because there is absolutely no way that climate can be so sensitive as to rise so much from 1980 to 2000 from just the amount of CO2 change in that time. These adjustments say nothing. Well, actually, what they say is “if things were different, then they wouldn’t be the same”. As you point out, ENSO impacts can last for years. Tisdale has shown this on his site. It takes a while for heat to migrate to the poles. Adjusting global temperatures in response to an index something like EMI is rather nonsensical. For example, during a La Nina there will be a good bit of warm water pushed westward. When the trades slacken, that water “sloshes” back across the Pacific. ENSO anomalies are fundamentally trade wind anomalies and these impact the movement of surface water. It takes a while for that warm water pushed up against China to make its appearance off the coast of Japan. But I have a feeling his entire point falls apart dramatically if he extends his graphs earlier to, say, 1900.
And as you point out, I agree that these “adjustments” are not necessary and really don’t show anything. ENSO impacts can not be precisely quantified from one event to the next because so many other variables are involved. TSI is “sort” of a sunspot proxy but not a very good one, as you say, why not just use sunspots? But even then there can be up to a 10 year lag between a major change in solar activity and significant changes in the polar regions. So the solar changes are not evenly distributed across the planet at all latitudes at the same time.
Look, I am not a specialist in the field of ocean circulations or solar impacts on the oceans but I DO know enough to realize that history shows a lag between such things as solar cycle duration, AMO, PDO, and MEI and their full climate impacts at higher latitudes. He seems either to be way out of his depth on the climate impacts of the things he is adjusting for or he believes his primary audience doesn’t know any better and will simply take his word for it. So it might be either a lack of competence or a lack of integrity, not sure which.
These adjustments seem nonsensical and appear to be simply “trying” different “tricks” to get a result that looks like the one he wants and he plasters over it with a lot of words he hopes nobody really understands. At least that is what it looks like to me in this case.

crosspatch

Camburn says:
December 17, 2011 at 7:13 pm

OMG! This is a published paper? Which journal published this? Who reviewed it? Was this published in one of those “open” journals where the author basically pays for it to be published like some sort of academic vanity press?
Let’s see:
Received 27 September 2011
Accepted for publication 16 November 2011
Published 6 December 2011
Holy cow, that was fast. Received on the 27th and accepted 19 days later. That’s some fast peer review! Ok, now lets have a look at the publisher Environmental Research Letters. Aha! Just as I suspected:

Environmental Research Letters covers all of environmental science, providing a coherent and integrated approach including research articles, perspectives and editorials.
Free to readers, Environmental Research Letters is funded by an article publication charge.

Gee, I wonder how much it cost them to get this published:

The 2011 article charge for publishing in Environmental Research Letters (ERL) is $1600. You should send your payment to IOP Publishing, and you may pay in UK pounds sterling (£1000), Euros (EUR1100) or US dollars. We send invoices for payment after articles are accepted for publication.
Discounts are available as follows:
Members of the Institute of Physics pay $1360 (£850; EUR935)
ERL referees can qualify for a discount of $160 (£100; EUR110) for each article that they referee
Members of environmentalresearchweb qualify for a 25% discount on their first paper in ERL

So maybe $1600 bucks. He should have just stuck to publishing it on his website.

crosspatch

How in the world do these folks get this junk published??????????????

The vanity academic press where the author pays. $1600 is a rather cheap one. Many are up to $5000.

R. Shearer

Who would have thought the sun has something to do with climate, and solar activity for that matter?
s/

Honest ABE

The Pacific will always be more affected by the sun since it fills more of the equator than the Atlantic.
Whether this is due to direct absorption of varying levels solar radiation, changing levels of cloud cover along the equator as modulated by cosmic rays, changes in circulation patterns or some combination of the three is a subject I find very interesting.
It is as clear as day that it is part of a mechanism that dominates the global temperatures.

Werner Brozek

Is it possible to use their wrong arguments and prove that the MWP and LIA did not have any unusual temperatures? So if we, hypothetically speaking, remove all solar influences and PDO affects, etc. from the MWP and the LIA, then then temperatures would be adjusted to being flat for the last 1000 years until 1945. And where would we be if we extend this to removing all Milankovitch cycles over the last 600,000 years?

Camburn: “How in the world do these folks get this junk published??????????????” Remember that old saying, “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.”; in climate science it seems this is the rule as Climategate clearly shows.

Jennifer

crosspatch – you obviously don’t understand academic publishing at all. Vanity academic press? Get real. Look the journal up in “Journal Citation Reports”.

KR

“Objection”: TSI is hardly the essential parameter when it comes to Solar influence in Earth climate.
More appropriate it would be to use the level “Solar Activity”, “Sunspot number”, “Cloud cover” “Magnetism” or “Cosmic rays”. TSI is less relevant and should not be used as label.

Really? Total solar light energy is not relevant? What a curious remark – it should at least be a major factor. As I recall from reading Foster and Rahmstorf, they tried TSI, sunspot number, and a few other proxies for solar influence – with no significant differences. Have you actually run the numbers???
Tamino has, by the way, published his R code for these computations. I would be fascinated by your computations showing their results incorrect…
The really bad part of this article, unfortunately, is the piecemeal approach of attempting to account for TSI, then ENSO, then volcanic. Singleton regression of this approach will inevitably mis-account for various factors that are acting at the same time. I’m afraid Frank Lansner is not demonstrating any actual knowledge of time series analysis in this post.
I do, incidentally, agree that an aerosol factor/proxy would be very interesting and informative to include – and I’ve recommended the same to Tamino. But, as it stands, this is a very worthwhile paper on examining and accounting for multiple internal climate variations and forcings, in order to identify and isolate any warming trend outside ENSO, volcanic activity, and insolation effects.
If Frank Lansner feels he has a better approach, I would suggest he write it up and submit it to a journal.

fredb

So publish this. Please. Why leave it in a blog????

juanslayton

Lanser or Lansner? (Line 1)

juanslayton

Crosspatch: Received 27 September 2011
Accepted for publication 16 November 2011
Published 6 December 2011
Holy cow, that was fast. Received on the 27th and accepted 19 days later.

What happened to October?

Manfred

Regression with only a subset of the known influences (and, of course, none of the unknown influences) should give
1. a wrong weighting for the influences used
2. a wrong “corrected” signal.
Beyond that the authors write:
“The warming rates are now in even better agreement, and it remains the case that none of the differences are statistically significant.”
The authors know very well, that satellite lower troposphere trends should instead be very different from surface based trends and about 40% higher. Their very different result then confirms, that either their computation is false or climate model predictions are false or both.
The authors should also make a statement explaining how this got published so quickly witrh such a very obvious inconsistency.

davidmhoffer

juanslayton says:
December 17, 2011 at 9:16 pm
Crosspatch: Received 27 September 2011
Accepted for publication 16 November 2011
Published 6 December 2011
Holy cow, that was fast. Received on the 27th and accepted 19 days later.
What happened to October?>>>
It was in the raw data. Crosspatch used the adjusted data.

crosspatch

sheesh, you’re correct, I forgot October!
Facepalm.

crosspatch

Total solar light energy is not relevant? What a curious remark – it should at least be a major factor.

Because the variation is rather small and it is noisy. It gets lost in the noise of other sources of TSI variation. In this case it is probably acting as a general solar activity proxy. But cycle length would probably be a better one though you can’t go by that either because the impacts of solar length are not felt at all latitudes at the same time. Tropics might feel the difference during the cycle. Poles might feel the difference 10 years lagged. South pole might experience it differently than North pole. Places in between will be different, too.

Jennifer

“TSI is “sort” of a sunspot proxy but not a very good one, as you say, why not just use sunspots?” – you’ve got that entirely backwards. Sunspot numbers are a sort of TSI proxy, but not a very good one. Why would you want to use those instead of the actually measured amount of energy received by the Earth from the Sun? Perhaps because you are so desperate to find flaws in an analysis that contradicts your preconceived ideas that you simply don’t care about what actually physically makes sense?

crosspatch

Jennifer says:
December 17, 2011 at 8:47 pm

There are some REALLY BAD open academic press out there. There have been real cases of machine generated gibberish being accepted for publication.
You might have a look at this:
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=4873&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=open-access-peer-review-grants-and-other-academic-conundrums

Scam journals have flourished under the open access flag
Open access publishing has, so far, almost always involved paying a hefty fee. That has brought the rats out of the woodwork and one gets bombarded daily with offers to publish in yet another open access journal. Many of these are simply scams. You pay, we put it on the web and we won’t fuss about quality. Luckily there is now a guide to these crooks: Jeffrey Beall’s List of Predatory, Open-Access Publishers.
One that I here from regularly is Bentham Open Journals
(a name that is particularly inappropriate for anyone at UCL). Jeffery Beall comments
“Among the first, large-scale gold OA publishers, Bentham Open continues to expand its fleet of journals, now numbering over 230. Bentham essentially operates as a scholarly vanity press.”
They undercut real journals. A research article it The Open Neuroscience Journal will cost you a mere $800. Although these journals claim to be peer-reviewed, their standards are suspect. In 2009, a nonsensical computer-generated spoof paper was accepted by a Bentham Journal (for $800),

Alan Statham

Here is some wishful thinking, complete with awful spelling:
“F&R assume that temperature change from for exaple El Nino or period of raised Solar activity etc. will dissapear fully immidiately after such an event ends.”
Here is the truth:
“Since the natural influences can have a delayed effect on temperature, the regression allowed for a lag between the value of any of the three factors and its impact”

crosspatch

List if “predatory” academic “vanity press” organizations:
http://metadata.posterous.com/83235355

Alan Statham

“The authors should also make a statement explaining how this got published so quickly witrh such a very obvious inconsistency.”
Ha ha. Yes. Good one.

Masturbation is to sex what adjusted data is to science.

Alan Statham

“List if “predatory” academic “vanity press” organizations”
Perhaps my eyes are failing me but I can’t see IOP Publishing on that list. Please point out exactly where it is.

Camburn

KR@8:56
IF you actually read the jounals of repute, you will know that TSI is an extremely small variation.
Gamma rays have a much wider variation, as do UV rays etc…etc.
The methodology of this paper in question, and wow……is it in question…….is so bad that my high school senior thought it was junk science when she read it.
She could smell a pile of …….driftwood…….I do think most thinking folks not only smell this, but the odor is as raucous as the conclusion of this op ed piece of no scientific value.

crosspatch

My major problem with it is they only use their technique back to 1980. I suspect it will fall apart if they attempt a longer series. Also, most of this appears to be about adjusting more modern temperatures upward than anything else. Fundamentally they are saying that temperature rise is solar driven and not CO2 sensitive! Because what they are doing is showing temperatures rising as solar cycles were short, they remove major El Nino and La Nina events (removes noise from the trend) and then at the end of the record, adjust temperatures upward when solar activity drops off.
What they have done here is basically shown that the change in temperature trend is solar driven and has nothing to do at all with CO2!

Camburn

KR@8:56
The analysis of multiple forces acting in concert, yet trying to show their cause and effect on temperatures is so noisy that to conclude anything of value is so laughable that it is……..junk.
Rahmstorf’s last few publications have been so shoddy that they have totally debased his scientific potential as an analysist of climate science causes, effects and outcomes. I actually feel sorry for the poor fellow. Normally scientists get better, in this case he is getting worse as he clutches at straws that are hollow like straw.

Jennifer

crosspatch – get real. “Environmental Research Letters” is not one of those journals and you know it.

RockyRoad

KR says:
December 17, 2011 at 8:56 pm

I’m afraid Frank Lansner is not demonstrating any actual knowledge of time series analysis in this post.

Are you saying all three components used by F&R (ENSO, AOD and TSI) have to be applied collectively for the desired heat impact to appear? The impact of each of these three components (at least some of it) should be seen when each is inspected individually; it doesn’t matter what amount of R code Mr. Grant has generated for his “adjustments”. And it shouldn’t require time series analysis to come to any conclusions, especially when Lansner has shown that F&R insist heat events have no lasting impact; everybody knows that’s illogical.
And will Mr. Grant’s R code somehow show that “CO2 is needed to explain recent temperature trends”? According to Lansner, that requirement appears to be flat wrong.

Thus “correcting” for PDO/Nina3,4 long term effect might remove heat trend of temperature data all together. Solar activity is shown to be an important driver [of] PDO/Nino3,4 and thus climate.
Finally, can we then use temperature data without the above adjustment types?
Given the complexities involved with such adjustments, it is definitely better to accept the actual data than a datasets that appears to be fundamentally flawed.

Sounds good to me. Unless you’ve got some solid evidence to the contrary, this pretty much skewers F&R. And you can toss your reliance on CO2 into the trash bin. Besides, how long have these “adjustments” to the temperature record been going on? Oh, you say long enough to keep the scam going to ply for more grants? That’s how it looks from here, too.
(Would you think Mr. Grant, who won’t even allow discussion of this alterate view, ever agree to such a paper being published–and he is typical of those “reviewers” you’re suggesting Lansner submit his paper to? Anymore, it’s far more important to get information out like this to the general public in a blog like WUWT than let 3 nay-saying “reviewers” prevent logical discussion from happening.)

TomRude

When the data does not cooperate, re write the data! LOL

crosspatch

Normally scientists get better, in this case he is getting worse as he clutches at straws that are hollow like straw.

What I am finding odd is why he published with Foster. Well, it doesn’t matter. In about 10 years time this is all going to be moot anyway.

If we should look at corrected temperature trends instead of the real observed trends, as F&R stated, all the temperature graphics and tables from the IPCC reports should be adjusted, and the IPCC conclusions should be assessed then against this consistent adjusted data. Now F&R changed the rules unilateral and random from 1997.
Further the predicted alarming effects on the human race of global warming will only be significant for the real measured temperature, not the by F&R reconstructed temperature. So, what the cause is, the actually stopped temperature rise in the 1999-2011 period is then good news for all of us. I never heard the alarmist moderate their alarm-warnings.

TimTheToolMan

I find the whole concept hilarious that “if it wasn’t for the La Nina cooling, we’d be warming”
I mean sure, try to remove volcanic events, but dont remove effects of the climate itself.
There is every chance that either La Nina’s or El Nino’s will become more prominent in a warming world and not stay relatively static in their proportions.
So removing their influence is turning something that is measured and real into something that is artificial and essentially useless without the additional information of how we can expect those effects to change in a warming world.

ENSO is not neutral up-and-down, as Bob Tisdale shown. Warm water from frequent El Nino events in recent decades spread around the world. Maybe also North Atlantic, which SST record gives the shape to the global record, is kind of aftereffect of ENSO.
So, has the Team already explained the 1910-1940 warming?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945
I say the 1975-2002 warming was exactly a replication, run by the same natural variations, namely oceanic oscillations going on in 60-year sine wave cycle.

KR
On TSI: Its just the labelling of the Solar activity I find odd.
TSI normally varies beteen 1365 and 1366 W/m2…
The cloud cover on Earth varies 10% synchronously with variations on the sun, that is the area of the Earth that is covered with clouds varies 3% synchronously with the Sun.
“TSI” was also used by IPCC in AR4 2007 in this graph:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/ipcc—a-historical-graphic-45.php
TSI was the ONLY factor mentioned governing temperatures on Earth, and it was shown to be tiny in comparisons with human influences.
Naive as I am, I thought that this symbolic denial of Svensmarks Cloud theory was a little yesterdays news.
But then in 2011 F&R stil use the TSI label , apparently ignoring that TSI is a minor factor, indirect mechanisms – like Svensmark showed – matters more.
K.R. Frank

TBear (Sydney, where it has finally warmed up, but just a bit ...)

Dennis Nikols says:
December 17, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Masturbation is to sex what adjusted data is to science.
___________________________________________
As in more enjoyable?
Or all the self-abuser/science-abuser can find?
Some analogies are good. Dis is a good one.

So, neither the warmist scientists nor the sceptic scientist/bloggers can agree on the solar influence regarding global temperature.
Yet the sun “goes down” and it instantaneously gets cooler, it shines and heats noticeably in the equatorial and neighbouring latitudes, has little effect at the poles, it has 11 (~) year sunspot cycles and other longer term cycles also measurable as influences on global temperature, yet it is ignored as a factor in the gloal temperature equation.
It is the prime mover, and any variation in its UV or other heating influences will certainly have a direct effect on Earth. These include magnetic storm and wind effect variations detectable as variables on earth.
Its distance and incidence angles are direct variables.
This might have significance:
“It is true that, as the alarmists say, since 1961 the average level of TSI has been approximately level if one averages out the peaks and troughs from solar cycles 19 through to 23.
However, those solar cycles show substantially higher levels of TSI than have ever previously occurred in the historical record. (Solar cycle #24 is noticeably less in effectiveness).
Because of the height of the TSI level one cannot simply ignore it as the IPCC and the modellers have done.
The critical issue is that having achieved such high levels of TSI by 1961 the sun was already producing more heat than was required to maintain a stable Earth temperature. On that basis alone the theory of AGW cannot be sustained and should now die.
Throughout the period 1961 to about 2001, there was a steady cumulative net warming effect from the sun. The fact that the TSI was, on average, level during that period is entirely irrelevant and misleading.”
Any actual warming, not due to man-made surface heating, can be thus explained.
And currently there is a significant reduction in solar influence, prompting claims of a possible cold period. (Supported by a measurable lessening of global temperatures.)
Does this make sense?

jens raunsø jensen

I also experienced difficulties yesterday when trying to upload the following comment on Taminos open mind page (yes ! this is indeed what it is called); the comment never appeared:
The paper and result of Foster and Rahmstorf (FR) is in my view questionable on the following main grounds: the T-records are non-linear, and the time period considered is too short compared with the number of variables/parameters estimated.
1. In the introduction of the paper it is stated: “The warming trend since that time (1979) is at least approximately linear”. However, significant step changes in mean temperature regime are widely identifiable in station and global level temperature records around 1987/88 (say 80% of European stations) and 1997/98, and most scientists seem to agree on a hiatus in warming (i.e. near constant T) for the last 10-15 years. The step change model gives a significantly higher R2 than a simple linear model (at least in the cases I have studied, incl. the global T-curves). These step changes in T-regime are obviously linked somehow with extreme ENSO events. The T-records during the period is thus most appropriately considered to be non-linear.
2. Failure to recognise these steps by the linear model used by FR – although I miss an explicit statement in the paper of the math of the total model for an in-depth analysis – will as far as I can see effectively include this major “ENSO signal” in the time trend parameter of the FR model. The time trend does therefore not represent the “real global warming signal” as claimed by FR (I assume FR interprets this as the anthropogenic global warming). The time trend parameter represents a warming signal mainly caused by non-linear natural processes in the period.
3. FR fits 4 parameters (plus 3 lags, 7 parameters ?) to only 32 data points, whereas it is a general statistical recommendation in multiple regression analysis that the number of observations should at least be about 10 to 20 times the number of independent variables/parameters, to avoid unstable solutions. The degrees of freedom in the FR analysis are marginal, and the statistical robustness of the result is therefore in any case questionable.
Regards …. Jens

KR says:
December 17, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Really? Total solar light energy is not relevant? What a curious remark – it should at least be a major factor. As I recall from reading Foster and Rahmstorf, they tried TSI, sunspot number, and a few other proxies for solar influence
In all current climate models, TSI is used as one of the forcings. But that underestimates the real influence of the sun: The about small change in direct total energy does hide the 10% change in UV and other higher energy waves. The change in UV has a huge influence in the lower stratosphere, including changes in ozone formation, ITCZ and jet stream position followed by changing cloud/rain patterns. Not to mention other mechanisms that influence cloud amounts on short and long term. That further drives ocean heat content as heat buffer, including that solar energy penetrates the surface several tens of meters, while backradiation IR from GHGs is absorbed in the upper fraction of a mm of the oceans, leading to direct reradiation/reflection or evaporation. Thus pure TSI as forcing neglects the differences between the different forcings. 1 W/m2 solar change is not equal to 1 W/m2 caused by GHG changes… See further:
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf

crosspatch

TSI was the ONLY factor mentioned governing temperatures on Earth, and it was shown to be tiny in comparisons with human influences.

TSI can be used as a rough proxy of solar activity in general. They probably should have used some other indicator such a sunspot counts or solar wind speed or cycle length or something. Cycle length doesn’t have the resolution needed, though. But what is interesting is that what the paper really says is that in a period of high solar activity, temperatures rise. If we then go into a period of weak solar activity (lower TSI) and use that TSI to adjust temperatures back up, we see the trend continue up. In other words if they were to invert the solar adjustment and run the time series starting much farther back into the past, they might show a pretty flat temperature trend. What these calculations seem to have done is continued the temperature rise by adjusting recent temperatures upward in order to compensate for the drop due to the change in the solar cycle. To put it another way, had we continued with short solar cycles, we probably would have seen continued warming.
As the period from 1980 was a pretty active period, the warming seen during this time is pretty consistent with the response seen at other times on the past when we had active solar periods. And since it was an active period, the “average” TSI used is actually pretty high in a historical context. Had they run the series starting much earlier, the period of 1980-2000 would have been a very active period, much above average, and that would have resulted in the temperatures of that period being adjusted downward.

Henry Galt

Jennifer – Perhaps because you are so desperate to find.an analysis that agrees with your preconceived ideas that you simply don’t care about what actually physically makes sense?
FTFY. Someone was bound to do it. Maybe they already have as Anthony’s science news outlet is read by many thousands of people daily and some of us sit silent until prodded into participation by obvious bias or such like.
You should read a few of those emails from your chosen dogmatists. You know, the ones where they show the collusion involved in their particular mode of “science” including the warping of journal’s output, reviewers and editors. Many are available here. (I am being pointedly polite. Really, I think you are probably incapable of seeing the mote for the plank – are you a “climate scientist?)
Frank, thank you for this debunking. Fortunately it will receive far more exposure, examination and comment here amongst scientists than in the place where it would only cause dissonance amongst the believers.
Far more.

Mooloo

TimTheToolMan says:
I find the whole concept hilarious that “if it wasn’t for the La Nina cooling, we’d be warming”

You really couldn’t make it up, could you?
If it wasn’t for my lack of money, I’d be rich. So by removing the influence of my spending, hey presto, I’m actually rich!

JJ

The whole idea of using “corrections” for ENSO, ADO, etc in order to measure “global warming” is assinine. Those are nothing more than components of the earth’s energy budget. If the metric that you are using to measure your “global warming” does not account for those components inherently, then you are using the wrong metric, as your metric is not global.

Vince Causey

You gotta hand it to these scammers. First they try to impute a gentle warming to co2 – fair enough – at the time it was a plausible conjecture. But then the warming stops so they have to come up with something. I know – the heat is hiding somewhere where we can’t detect it. Somehow it managed to get past all those argo monitors.
As the skeptics continued to beat them over the head with this patently absurd argument, out comes their latest wheeze. Lets take some new parameters – enso, aod etc and twiddle the dials until out pops a temperature trend that closely resembles the last decade.
So we are now being told – you can forget actual thermometer readings of actual temperatures. They don’t count anymore. You have to take the temperature with a thermometer, then add one La Nina, subtract an El Nino, multiply that by one AOD divided by a TSI. Then you see, the rising trend appears just like we predicted. What’s that you say? If you add cloud cover into the mix temperatures go down? If we included PDO and AMO it goes down even more? And what happens if we hindcast the whole twentieth century? Who cares! We’re only interested in adjusting the apparant non warming.
Does remind me of some paper by Parker et al a few years back. They just couldn’t accept that radiosonde measurements showed no warming and “adjusted” those with wind shear figures. Wind shear, as everyone knows, is a much more accurate thermometer than, err, a thermometer.

Bomber_the_Cat

I tried commenting on the Tamino site which, in a parody of Orwell’s novel ‘1984’, is called ‘Open Mind’.
I was immediately struck by the fact that none of the comments there were controversial. They always agreed with whatever brilliant article Tamino had written, beginning with such phrases as “Brilliant analysis’, ‘Super exposisition’, ‘Well done’ etc. Now, being a cat, I easily vomit, and there is only such much of that twaddle that I can stomach..
I quickly found out why this is so. Any controversial or critical comments are of course censored. But it is worse than that! – if that is possible. Tamino actually edits your comments to make them say what HE wants, and then replies to the bits he thinks he might have a clever answer to!
Personally, I can’t see the point of a site like that. A site where sycophantic sheep just chant “Four legs good, two legs bad”. Nothing can be learned there. The only surprising thing is that some people, presumably of very low self-esteem, still bother to go there.

First, one of the obvious errors in the opening of Frank Lansner’s post: He writes, “MEI is the ‘raw’ Nina3,4 SST that directly represents the EL Nino and La Nina, but in the MEI index, also SOI is implemented.”
This is wrong. The MEI does not use NINO3.4 SST anomalies; it uses NINO3 SST anomalies, but the NINO3 SST anomalies are only one of 6 variables used to denote the frequency, magnitude and duration of ENSO events.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Frank needs to do his homework better.
Let’s take a look at a couple of Frank’s issues with Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). His first issue is “F&R assume that temperature change from for exaple El Nino or period of raised Solar activity etc. will dissapear fully immidiately after such an event ends. F&R assumes that heat does not accumulate from one temperature event to the next.”
With respect to ENSO, Frank’s issue overlooks the most obvious error with Foster and Rahmstorf’s use of an ENSO index in their regression analysis. ENSO indices do not represent the process of ENSO. ENSO indices only represent its local effects on the equatorial Pacific, or in the case of the MEI, its effects on the tropical Pacific. This is discussed and illustrated in detail in the 2-part post “ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature”. See here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/enso-indices-do-not-represent-the-process-of-enso-or-its-impact-on-global-temperature/
And here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/supplement-to-enso-indices-do-not-represent-the-process-of-enso-or-its-impact-on-global-temperature/
So yes, like many other authors before them, Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) misrepresent the process of ENSO by attempting to remove its wiggles from global temperature with the MEI. The authors either misunderstand ENSO or they are attempting to mislead their readers.
I’ve been trying to come up with an analogy about attempting to use an ENSO index to represent the impacts of ENSO on global surface temperature and so far I’ve come up with: it’s like trying to give the play-by-play for a baseball game from only an overhead view of home plate, or it’s like trying to give a traffic report for the entire Los Angeles basin from one downtown L.A. traffic camera. Anyone else have an analogy? Kim?
With respect to solar, Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) assume a 0-month lag and use regression analysis to extract a solar signal from the global temperature data. This might be applicable for land surface temperature data and for TLT over land, but it does not address the thermal lag of the oceans. The lag has been studied for decades and the debate about lags still rages on, with estimates ranging from months to decades. Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) clearly overlook this in their paper.
Frank Lansner’s second issue was,” 2) Missing corrections for PDO.”
There is no correction for the PDO. The PDO does not represent the Sea Surface Temperature of the North Pacific. This has been discussed ad nauseum here at WUWT. Frank Lansner cites Easterbrook. Also, I discussed the errors in Easterbrook’s assumptions about the PDO in this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/comments-on-easterbrook-on-the-potential-demise-of-sunspots/
Frank Lansner’s fourth issue: “Issue 4: Missing corrections for AMO”
Yup, Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) missed that. The AMO according to RealClimate accounts for “some, but not all, of the high-latitude warming observed in the late 20th century.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-amo/

Frank Lansner says: “TSI normally varies beteen 1365 and 1366 W/m2…
The cloud cover on Earth varies 10% synchronously with variations on the sun, that is the area of the Earth that is covered with clouds varies 3% synchronously with the Sun.”
Please identify which cloud cover dataset you’re referring to. I know of no cloud clover dataset that “varies 10% synchronously with variations on the sun.” That sounds like a fabrication.

I objected to the analysis based on the ‘uncertainty of the solar input’. This resulted into a spat with someone called Tamino, to whom I promised to meet and personally extract an apology.
Only ‘good thing’ that came out of it was that
secretive Tamino is Grant Foster himself .