Bob has asked me to carry this post, and I’m happy to do so. For those who want to criticize without contributing anything but criticism, I offer this insight: The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing. ~John Powell
-Anthony
Revised Post – On Foster and Rahmstorf (2011)
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
ABOUT THE ERROR-LADEN FIRST VERSION OF THIS POST
I displayed my very limited understanding of statistics in my post On Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 – Global temperature evolution 1979–2010. This was pointed out to me a great number times by many different people in numerous comments received in the WattsUpWithThat cross post. My errors in that portion of the post were so many and so great that they detracted from the bulk of the post, which was about the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. For that reason, I have added a third update to my earlier post on Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), which asks readers to disregard that post and the cross post at WUWT. That update also includes a link that redirects readers here.
I learned a lot from my mistakes. Many of those who commented provided detailed explanations of the methods used by Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). Thanks go to them.
When an author of a blog post makes a major mistake, it needs to be acknowledged and/or corrected, and I have done this multiple times for that portion of my earlier post about Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). Now I’m reposting an expanded version of the discussion of ENSO. If you’d still like to discuss the errors I made in the earlier post, please comment on that thread, not this one.
OVERVIEW
This post discusses the assumption made in the paper Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) “Global Temperature Evolution 1979–2010”that the variations in the global temperature record due to El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) can be estimated from an ENSO index. This post excludes all discussions of the statistical methods used by Foster and Rahmstorf in their paper. Please limit the comments on this thread to ENSO and surface temperature responses to ENSO.
INTRODUCTION
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) attempted to remove from 5 global temperature datasets the linear effects of 3 factors that are known to cause variations in global temperature. The paper covered the period of 1979 to 2010. The intent of their paper was to show that anthropogenic global warming continues unabated in all of those datasets. The independent variables listed in the abstract of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) are El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), volcanic aerosols, and solar variations.
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used independent measures for these three factors. Total Solar Irradiance and aerosol optical depth data were used to estimate the effects of solar variability and volcanic aerosols on global surface temperatures. This post does not pertain to them. This post initially discusses the attempt by Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) to use an ENSO index as a measure of the effects of ENSO on global surface temperature. What will then be discussed and shown is that an ENSO index cannot account for the effects of ENSO on global surface temperatures.
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) also makes two more assumptions that have little basis in reality. They assume the rise in surface temperatures since 1979 was linear and that it was due to anthropogenic factors. The sea surface temperature record of the global oceans since 1982 clearly disagrees with these assumptions.
ENSO IS NOT AN EXOGENOUS FACTOR
The following two papers discuss the problems with the assumption made by Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) about ENSO. One of the papers was cited by them in their paper.
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) cited Trenberth et al (2002) Evolution of El Nino–Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures”as one of their ENSO references. But Trenberth et al (2002) include the following disclaimer in the second paragraph of their Conclusions, (their paragraph 52, my boldface):
The main tool used in this study is correlation and regression analysis that, through least squares fitting, tends to emphasize the larger events. This seems appropriate as it is in those events that the signal is clearly larger than the noise. Moreover, the method properly weights each event (unlike many composite analyses). Although it is possible to use regression to eliminate the linear portion of the global mean temperature signal associated with ENSO, the processes that contribute regionally to the global mean differ considerably, and the linear approach likely leaves an ENSO residual.
The ENSO “residuals” are a significant contributor to the rise in Global Sea Surface Temperatures during the satellite era, as will be shown later in this post. Did Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) consider these residuals in their analysis? No.
A more recent paper was overlooked by Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). Compo and Sardeshmukh (2010) “Removing ENSO-Related Variations from the Climate Record” seems to be a step in the right direction. They write (my boldface):
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.
Note: While Compo and Sardeshmukh made a step in the right direction, they missed a very important aspect of ENSO. They overlooked the significance of the huge volume of warm water that is left over from certain El Niño events, and they failed to account for its contribution to the rise in global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies since about 1975/76.
ENSO IS A PROCESS NOT AN INDEX
I have discussed, illustrated, and animated the process of ENSO and its effects on global surface temperatures and lower troposphere temperatures for about three years. There are too many posts to list them all here. However, if the subject of ENSO is new to you, refer to the introduction post here. If you would prefer an introductory-level discussion about ENSO written by someone else, refer to the excellent answers to FAQ here by Bill Kessler of the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. For those who believe La Niña events are the opposite of El Niño events refer to the posts here, here and here. And for those who believe ENSO is represented by an index, refer to the post here. I will provide a relatively detailed overview of the process of ENSO in the following.
ENSO is a coupled ocean-atmosphere process that periodically discharges heat to the atmosphere during an El Niño. The phrase “coupled ocean-atmosphere process” refers to the fact that many ocean and atmospheric variables in the tropical Pacific interact with one another. For that reason, a number of tropical Pacific variables are impacted directly by ENSO, including sea surface temperature, sea level, ocean currents, ocean heat content, depth-averaged temperature, warm water volume, sea level pressure, cloud amount, precipitation, the strength and direction of the trade winds, etc. I have presented the effects of ENSO on each of those variables in past posts. And since cloud amount for the tropical Pacific impacts downward shortwave radiation (visible light) there, I’ve presented and discussed that relationship as well. In fact, the videos included in the post here presented ISCCP Total Cloud Amount data (with cautions about that dataset), CAMS-OPI precipitation data, NOAA’s Trade Wind Index (5S-5N, 135W-180) anomaly data, RSS MSU TLT anomaly data, CLS (AVISO) Sea Level anomaly data, NCEP/DOE Reanalysis-2 Surface Downward Shortwave Radiation Flux (dswrfsfc) anomaly data, and Reynolds OI.v2 SST anomaly data.
During an El Niño, warm water from the west Pacific Warm Pool can travel thousands of miles eastward across the equatorial Pacific. Keep in mind that the equatorial Pacific stretches almost halfway around the globe. So as the convection, cloud cover, and precipitation all accompany that warm water, their relocation causes changes in atmospheric circulation patterns worldwide. In turn, this causes temperatures outside of the eastern tropical Pacific to vary, some warming, some cooling, but in total, the areas that warm exceed those that cool and global surface temperatures rise in response to an El Niño. The spatial patterns of warming and cooling during a La Niña are similar to an El Niño, but of the opposite sign. And all that a paper such as Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) can only hope to account for are the changes in global temperature that respond linearly to the changes in the ENSO index used in the analysis. As confirmation, a paper cited by Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) acknowledged that there are ENSO-related factors that impact global temperatures that are overlooked by linear regression analysis. See Trenberth et al (2002) linked above.
Because global spatial patterns for El Niño and La Niña events are similar but opposite, many persons believe that all of the effects of El Niño and La Niña events oppose one another. This is far from reality. A La Niña event is basically an exaggeration of the “normal” (or ENSO-neutral) state of the tropical Pacific, while an El Niño event is an anomalous state.
An El Niño can carry huge volumes of warm water from the surface and below the surface of the west Pacific Warm Pool eastward to the central and eastern equatorial Pacific. That warm water is not consumed fully by the El Niño, so it returns to the west during the La Niña. One of the ways the La Niña accomplishes this return of warm water is through a phenomenon called a slow-moving Rossby wave, which forms in the northeast tropical Pacific at about 5N-10N. After the 1997/98 El Niño, the Rossby wave is plainly visible in ocean heat content anomaly animations, and better still in sea level residual animations from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
I’ve highlighted the Rossby wave in screen captures from the JPL video in Figure 1. The upper right-hand cell shows the formation of the Rossby wave and the lower left-hand cell captures the Rossby wave travelling from east to west at approximately 5N-10N, carrying leftover warm water back to the western Pacific during the transition from the 1997/98 El Niño to the multiyear La Niña that followed.
Figure 1
The Rossby wave can be seen in the first 10 to 15 seconds of Video 1. And as you will note, if you allow the video to play through, there are no comparably sized Rossby waves carrying cool waters back to the western tropical Pacific at 5N-10N after the La Niña.
Video 1
And to further confirm this basic difference between El Niño and La Niña events, there are also no comparably-sized Rossby waves carrying cool waters back to the western tropical Pacific at 5N-10N after any La Niña event seen in the full version of the JPL animation, Video 2, which runs from 1992 to 2002.
Video 2
There are no ENSO indices presently in use that can account for the return of the warm water to the West Pacific during a La Niña event that follows an El Niño.
As I’ve noted in numerous posts, ENSO is also a process that redistributes the warm water that was leftover from the El Niño itself and enhances the redistribution of the warm water that resulted from the El Niño in waters outside of the eastern tropical Pacific. The redistribution carries that warm water poleward and into adjoining ocean basins during the La Niña that follows an El Niño. The impacts of this redistribution depend on the strength of the El Niño and the amount of water that was “left over”. Lesser El Niño events that are not followed by La Niña events obviously would not have the same impacts. There are no ENSO indices that can account for this redistribution and these differences.
La Niña events also recharge part of the warm water that was released during the El Niño. They accomplish this through an increase in downward shortwave radiation (visible light), and that results from the reduction in tropical Pacific cloud amount caused by the stronger trade winds of a La Niña. Sometimes La Niña events “overcharge” the tropical Pacific, inasmuch as they recharge more ocean heat in the tropical Pacific than was discharged during the El Niño that came before it. That was the case during the 1973/74/75/76 La Niña. Refer to Figure 2. Tropical Pacific Ocean Heat Content rose significantly during the 1973/94/75/76 La Niña, and that provided the initial “fuel” for the 1982/83 Super El Niño and the multi-year 1986/87/88 El Niño. The La Niña events that followed those El Niño only recharged a portion of the heat discharged by them. Tropical Pacific Ocean Heat Content declined until 1995. Then the 1995/96 La Niña event “overcharged” the Tropical Pacific Ocean Heat Content again and that provided the fuel for the 1997/98 “El Niño of the Century”.
Figure 2
Refer also to the introductory level discussion in the post ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature.
THE TREND OF THE EAST PACIFIC SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES HAS BEEN RELATIVELY FLAT FOR 30 YEARS
The East Pacific Sea Surface Temperature anomalies from pole to pole, Figure 3, are dominated by the variations in tropical Pacific caused by ENSO, and as a result, the variations in the East Pacific Sea Surface Temperature anomalies mimic ENSO, represented by the scaled NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature anomalies. The trend of the East Pacific Sea Surface Temperature anomalies is relatively flat at 0.011 deg C/Decade.
Figure 3
The reason the trend is so flat: warm water from the surface and below the surface of the west Pacific Warm Pool is carried eastward during an El Niño and spread across the surface of the eastern tropical Pacific, raising sea surface temperatures there. And during the La Niña events that follow El Niño events, the leftover warm water is returned to the western tropical Pacific. Due to the increased strength of the trade winds during the La Nina, there is an increase in upwelling of cool subsurface waters in the eastern equatorial Pacific, so the Sea Surface Temperatures there drop. In other words, the East Pacific is simply a temporary staging area for the warm water of an El Niño event. Warm water sloshes into this dataset from the western tropical Pacific and releases heat, and then the warm water sloshes back out.
WHAT EFFECT DOES THE WARM WATER HAVE WHEN IT RETURNS TO THE WESTERN TROPICAL PACIFIC DURING THE SUBSEQUENT LA NIÑA EVENT?
The warm waters released from below the surface of the West Pacific Warm Pool during a major El Niño are not done impacting Sea Surface Temperatures throughout the global oceans when that El Niño has ended, and they cannot be accounted for by an ENSO index. Keep in mind, during an El Niño like the 1997/98 event, a huge volume of water from below the surface of the west Pacific Warm Pool was spread across the surface of the eastern tropical Pacific. Consequently, warm water that had once been excluded from the surface temperature record, because it was below the surface, is now included in the surface temperature record. At the end of the El Niño, the trade winds push the warm water that’s now on the surface back to the western Pacific where it remains in the surface temperature record. The Sea Surface Temperature in the western Pacific rises as a result. Add to that the effects of the Rossby wave. As illustrated earlier, at approximately 5N-10N latitude, a slow-moving Rossby wave also carries leftover warm water from the eastern tropical Pacific back to the western Pacific during the La Niña. Ocean currents carry all of the leftover the warm water poleward to the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension (KOE) east of Japan and to the South Pacific Convergence Zone (SPCZ) east of Australia, and the Indonesian Throughflow (an ocean current) carries the warm water into the tropical Indian Ocean. And as noted above, due to the increased strength of the trade winds during the La Nina, there is an increase in upwelling of cool subsurface waters in the eastern equatorial Pacific, so the Sea Surface Temperatures there drop. But that cooler-than-normal water is quickly warmed during the La Niña as it is carried west by the stronger-than-normal ocean currents that are caused by the stronger-than-normal trade winds. And the reason that water warms so quickly as it is carried west is because the stronger-than-normal trade winds reduce cloud cover, and this allows more downward shortwave radiation (visible sunlight) to warm the ocean to depths of 100 meters. This additional warm water helps to maintain the Sea Surface Temperatures in the West Pacific and East Indian Oceans at elevated levels during the La Niña and it also recharges the West Pacific Warm Pool for the next El Niño event. Refer again to Figure 2. (Keep in mind that the graph in Figure 2 is for the Ocean Heat Content for the entire tropical Pacific, not just the Pacific Warm Pool.)
And what happens when a major El Niño event is followed by a La Niña event? The Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for the Atlantic, Indian, and West Pacific Oceans (the Rest-Of-The-World outside of the East Pacific) first rise in response to the major El Niño; the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño events for example. Then the Rest-Of-The-World Sea Surface Temperatures are maintained at elevated levels by the La Niña; the 1988/89 and 1998/99/00/01 La Niña events to complete the example. The results are the apparent upward shifts in the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the Atlantic, Indian, and West Pacific Oceans from pole to pole (90S-90N, 80W-180), as illustrated in Figure 14. Some have described it as a ratcheting effect, where the redistribution of warm waters during the major El Niño and La Niña events drive the surface temperatures up a notch.
Figure 4
In Figure 4, the dip and rebound starting in 1991 is caused by the volcanic aerosols emitted by the explosive volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo. And the reason the Rest-Of-The-World Sea Surface Temperature anomalies respond so little to the 1982/83 Super El Niño is because that El Niño was counteracted by the eruption of El Chichon in 1982.
To assure readers that the upward shifts in Rest-Of-The-World Sea Surface Temperature anomalies coincide with the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño events, I’ve included an ENSO index, NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature anomalies, in Figure 5. The NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature anomalies have been scaled (multiplied by a factor of 0.12) to allow for a better visual comparison, and shifted back in time by 6 months to account for the time lag between the variations in NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature anomalies and the response of the Rest-Of-The-World data.
Figure 5
But the ENSO Index data is visually noisy and it detracts from the upward shifts, so I’ve removed it in Figure 6. But in it, I’ve isolated the data between the significant El Niño events. To accomplish this, I used the NOAA Oceanic Nino Index (ONI) to determine the official months of those El Niño events. There is a 6-month lag between NINO3.4 SST anomalies and the response of the Rest-Of-The-World SST anomalies during the evolution phase of the 1997/98 El Niño. So the ONI data was lagged by six months, and the Rest-Of-The-World SST data that corresponded to the 1982/83, 1986/87/88, 1998/98, and 2009/10 El Niño events was excluded and left as black dashed lines. All other months of data remain and are represented by the blue curves.
Figure 6
And to help further highlight the upward shifts, the average Sea Surface Temperature anomalies between the major El Niño events are added in Figure 7.
Figure 7
Based on past posts where I’ve presented the data the same way, some readers have suggested the period average temperatures are misleading and have requested that I illustrate the linear trends. Figure 8 shows how flat the trends are between the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño events and between the 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Niño events.
Figure 8
Back to the East Pacific data: If we adjust the East Pacific Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for the effects of volcanic aerosols, Figure 9, the linear trend is slightly negative. In other words, for approximately 33% of the surface area of the global oceans, Sea Surface Temperature anomalies have not risen in 30 years.
Figure 9
Note: The method used to adjust for the volcanic eruptions is described in the post Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies – East Pacific Versus The Rest Of The World, under the heading of ACCOUNTING FOR THE IMPACTS OF VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS.
And if we adjust the Rest-Of-The-World Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for volcanic aerosols, Figure 10, we reduce the effects of the dip and rebound caused by the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. And the trend of the Rest-Of-The-World data between the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño drops slightly compared to the unadjusted data (Figure 8), making it even flatter and slightly negative.
Figure 10
Note: In the second part of a two part series (here), I further subdivided the Rest-of-the-World (90S-90N, 80W-180) sea surface temperature data to isolate the North Atlantic, due to its additional mode of natural variability. The sea surface temperatures for the remaining South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific data decay between the major El Niño events. In other words, the sea surface temperatures there drop; the linear trends are negative, just as one would expect.
In summary, ENSO is a coupled ocean-atmosphere process and its effects on Global Surface Temperatures cannot be accounted for with linear regression of an ENSO index as attempted by Foster and Rahmstorf (2011)–and others before them. We can simply add Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) to the list of numerous papers that make the same error. Examples:
Lean and Rind (2009) How Will Earth’s Surface Temperature Change in Future Decades?
And:
Lean and Rind (2008) How Natural and Anthropogenic Influences Alter Global and Regional Surface Temperatures: 1889 to 2006
And:
Santer et al (2001), Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends
And:
Thompson et al (2008), Identifying signatures of natural climate variability in time series of global-mean surface temperature: Methodology and Insights
And:
Trenberth et al (2002) Evolution of El Nino–Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures
And:
Wigley, T. M. L. (2000), ENSO, volcanoes, and record-breaking temperatures
IS THERE A LINEAR “GLOBAL WARMING SIGNAL”?
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) assumed that the global warming signal is linear and that it is caused by anthropogenic factors, but those assumptions are not supported by the satellite-era Sea Surface Temperature record as shown above. The El Niño events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 are shown to be the cause of the rise in sea surface temperatures since November 1981, not anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
CLOSING COMMENTS
This post illustrated and discussed the error in the assumption that regression analysis can be used to remove the impacts of ENSO on Global Surface Temperature. ENSO is a process that is not fully represented by ENSO Indices. In other words, the ENSO indices only represent a small portion of the impacts of ENSO on Global Surface Temperatures. Attempting to use an ENSO index as Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) have done is like trying to provide the play-by-play for a baseball game solely from an overhead view of home plate.
The assumption made by Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) that a linear trend provides an approximate “global warming” signal was shown to be wrong using Sea Surface Temperature data. When broken down into two logical subsets of the East Pacific and the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific Oceans, satellite-era Sea Surface Temperature data shows no evidence of an anthropogenic global warming signal. It only shows upward shifts associated with strong ENSO events.
If Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) were to exclude ENSO from their analysis, it is likely their results would be significantly different.
A closing note: I have also been illustrating, discussing, and documenting the ENSO-related processes behind these upward shifts for three years, using the East Indian-West Pacific subset (60S-65N, 80E-180). I first posted about it on January 10, 2008 in a two-part series here and here. The WattsUpWithThat cross posts are here and here.
ABOUT: Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
SOURCES
The NODC OHC data is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer, on their Monthly observationswebpage.
The Reynolds OI.v2 Sea Surface Temperature data used in the ENSO discussion is available through the NOAA NOMADS website here.
The Aerosol Optical Thickness data used in the volcano adjustments of the Sea Surface Temperature data in Figures 9 and 10 is available from the GISS Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Thickness webpage here.
markus says:
January 15, 2012 at 11:59 am
Couldn’t help myself
“R. Gates says:
January 15, 2012 at 11:40 am In general, more SW solar radiation enters the ocean during La Ninas that during El Ninos”
The fanciful world of a warmist. Hard to see though that warm mist isn’t it. “The Sun knows when a El Nino has formed as switches off.” Really, R.Gates. Both La Ninas and El Ninos are local phenomenon resultant from external forcing, on the other hand the oceans have global aspects, just like the Sun.
Mate, you’re illogical. You’re calling cause before you know the effects.
__________
You obviously know nothing of the role of clouds in blocking SW radiation from entering the ocean, nor how clouds vary between El Nino and La Nina, such that more SW enters the ocean on average during La Nina (because of the role of clouds), and thus OHC increases. In fact, it is apparent that you know nothing about the ENSO cycle at all, but are quite proficient in ad homs, such that responding to you in the future will of course be impossible.
Babsy says:
January 15, 2012 at 11:56 am
R. Gates says:
January 15, 2012 at 11:47 am
“i.e. what the ratio of natural versus anthopogenic was during the 1940′s may be far different now as the impacts from human activity has increased greatly.”
Until your ‘Team’ can demonstrate the mechanism of ‘anthropogenic’, and it be independently confirmed, it doesn’t exist!
_______
I don’t have a “team”, but the basic mechanisms behind anthropogenic influences on the climate are well explained, even if the total range of feedbacks are not known. For a nice comprehensive summary, might I suggest you read:
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405196165.html
Gates, if u contend that heat loss has been hampered by CO2, what other metric can u link to that would demonstrate this? For example, I would look at OLR data to see if there is a mechanistic match.
R. Gates says:
January 15, 2012 at 12:20 pm
“I don’t have a “team”, but the basic mechanisms behind anthropogenic influences on the climate are well explained, even if the total range of feedbacks are not known.”
Are you daft? The basic mechanisms of anthropogenic influences are USELESS if they don’t explain the ‘total range of feedbacks’ and make verifiable predictions about future events! Until they can make verifiable predictions, they remain CONJECTURE! Of course, conjecture is at the heart of ‘the scientific consensus’ that the Algore worships.
“R. Gates says:
January 15, 2012 at 12:13 pm
You obviously know nothing of the role of clouds in blocking SW radiation from entering the ocean, nor how clouds vary between El Nino and La Nina, such that more SW enters the ocean on average during La Nina (because of the role of clouds), and thus OHC increases.”
I live on the East Coast of Australia, and fully appreciate the effect of clouds during La Nina. Those clouds caused deaths here in Australia 2010.
However, you know nothing about the discipline of discourse. Arguing global OHC is elevated during local La Nina is fundamentally flawed. At the same time those clouds are are hovering over the Eastern Pacific, they are not hanging over the North West Pacific.
You are right about changing local OHC during La Nina & El Nino, but to further suggest that these changes go only one way is wrong.
The argument by F&R 2011 is that the variations in the global temperature record due to El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) can be estimated from an ENSO index, this is illogical, as it argues a particular effect can be uniformly applied. It can’t, as Bob Tisdale demonstrated.
Enough of dogma, I want proof.
There is an interesting article on The Blackboard concerning Bastardi’s 20 year bet.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/checking-in-on-bastartis-wager/
No one won the bet this year, but one thing’s for certain: 2011 was NOT the hottest year ever!
Pamela Gray says:
January 15, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Gates, if u contend that heat loss has been hampered by CO2, what other metric can u link to that would demonstrate this? For example, I would look at OLR data to see if there is a mechanistic match.
_____
I make no such contention. My point was about the overall effect of El Ninos not releasing as much heat as La Ninas (and ENSO neutral periods) have been storing over the period of time that the Foster & Rahmstorf paper covered (1979-2010). leading to a net gain in ocean heat content. As fort the cause of this, it certainly might be that additional forcing from the added CO2, CH4, and N2O, over preindustrial levels might be involved, but there could be other natural factors working in combination as well. If we had reliable OLR that covered the entire earth for the period in question, we might be able to see some match or correlation between incrasing OHC and decreasing OLR, but to my knowledge, this data does not exist. Certainly if more energy is going into the heat sink of the ocean, you’d think less must be be going into space.
markus says:
January 15, 2012 at 12:50 pm
“Enough of dogma, I want proof.”
They don’t have any proof. And they know it. And they know that we know that, too.
Bob Tisdale says:
January 15, 2012 at 4:40 am
With respect to your want to redirect this thread to double-dip La Nina events:
I am not trying to redirect this thread. You have made great pains in your article to explain the rosby wave method of loading the La Nina phase of ENSO, but you have not considered the PDO loading of La Nina as witnessed during 2011. There is more than one method that you seem to be ignoring and you have not answered how a double dip La Nina can occur if only the rosby method is to be employed.
In 2011 the warm water in the North Pacific adjacent to Japan (which basically is the neg PDO) was transported to the equatorial water above New Guinea which took us from a neutral ENSO to La Nina. In 2011 the PDO index led the ENSO 3.4 index.
R. Gates says:
January 15, 2012 at 10:07 am
Allan MacRae said:
“Foster and Rahmstorf have analyzed a warming segment of clearly cyclical warming and cooling data, and then suggest that this “global warming signal” can be extrapolated into the future. This is just more global warming alarmist nonsense.”
_____
Gates said:
“Actually, that is one of the best and most important parts of their entire paper. Skeptics are always asking for specific, verifiable predictions…well, here you have one. If the statistical filtering methods used by Foster and Rahmstorf can be validated by other scientists, then there is a very specific prediction for the linear background (one short-term noise is filtered out) rise in temperatures caused by anthropogenic forcing. If making specific and verifiable predictions is “alarmist nonsense” to AGW skeptics, then it seems skeptics are practicing a different kind of science.”
MacRae also said, which Gates deleted:
“There has been no significant global warming for a decade. Earth temperature is probably at the top of the cycle and is about to decline – aka “global cooling”. Such cooling last occurred from about 1945-1975. Bundle up.
The Climategate emails provide so much evidence of fraudulent behavior by acolytes of the global warming “Cause” that reading their papers is a waste of time….”
______
Gates commented above:
“… If making specific and verifiable predictions is “alarmist nonsense” to AGW skeptics, then it seems skeptics are practicing a different kind of science.”
MacRae now says:
Gates, you speak of “practicing a different kind of science”:
After more than a decade, NONE of the scary predictions of the global warming alarmists have materialized. The warmists’ predictive track record is one of absolute failure. Based on the warmists’ dismal track record, one can safely assume that EVERYTHING they predict is highly likely to be false.
Babsy,
I may well be daft, but you apparently are unfamiliar with the nature of chaotic systems and how impossible it is to fully model or predict the nature and magnitude of all feedbacks, let alone account for natural variations such as ENSO, solar, volcanoes. But even with this difficult, if Foster & Rahmstorf’s 2011 paper stands up, it is a good start to making some quantifative and measureable predictions for the underlying warming signal. Due to your rather rude posts, all future dialog with you terminated.
Geoff Sharp said:
“n 2011 the warm water in the North Pacific adjacent to Japan (which basically is the neg PDO) was transported to the equatorial water above New Guinea which took us from a neutral ENSO to La Nina.”
____
I’m not certain that the currents run that direction, and that water near Japan would go south to the equatorial water above New Guinea. I believe that equatorial water is part of the normal Pacific Warm Pool, which may move toward the east during an El Nino, but don’t ever think if comes down south from near Japan.
Rather rude? I’m sorry! To whom shall I address my check to further their study of this incredibly complex and important phenomena? I’m just a poor, dum country boy frum Texas that don’t know no better than to think if the world is gettin’ colder then we must need more of that nasty CO2 gunk in the ar to keep frum freezin’ to deaf!
Until someone produces verifiable data, AGW is nothing more than a scam.
Geoff Sharp says: “I am not trying to redirect this thread. You have made great pains in your article to explain the rosby wave method of loading the La Nina phase of ENSO, but you have not considered the PDO loading of La Nina as witnessed during 2011. There is more than one method that you seem to be ignoring and you have not answered how a double dip La Nina can occur if only the rosby method is to be employed.”
First, Rossby is capitalized because it is Carl-Gustaf Rossby’s last name, and his last name is spelled with a double “s”.
Did you read my earlier reply to you in its entirety, Geoff? Apparently not. Does this post have anything to do with the 2011 La Nina, Geoff? Why, no it doesn’t! Why can’t you understand the topic being discussed on this thread, Geoff? And by your comment you still have no idea what the PDO is or what it represents. Not a clue.
Tell me the exact sentence and paragraph where I wrote, inferred, or implied in the above post that there was something called a “rosby [sic] method”. You can’t, because I did not. My post included a discussion about Rossby waves forming during the transition from specific El Nino events to specific La Nina events, Geoff. There’s nothing in my post about a so-called “rosby [sic] method”. You’re fabricating things again, Geoff. I’m not sure why you do it, but it’s a reoccurring thing with you.
If you’ll recall, Geoff, back in July, Anthony Watts asked you to stop posting comments on topics other than the solar cycle. Remember that? If not, scroll down to the end of my July 4, 2011 at 7:09 am reply to you:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/30/yet-even-more-discussions-about-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-pdo/#comment-693877
Good-bye, Geoff.
Exp says:
January 15, 2012 at 2:51 am
“If you put enough extra energy into a system to heat up the whole by an average of around 1C, wouldn’t you expect that those (severe and catastrophic) events that rely on energy, thermodynamic processes and entropy for their existence to be enhanced and effected?”
Well, if you did expect these results, Exp, then why hasn’t there been an increase in “severe and catastrophic” events since ~1880 – that is, as proven by numbers, not merely asserted and later found to be only false ad hoc fabrications; and likewise why has there been no correlated increase in ACE and Cat 4-5 hurricanes over the past 30+ yr. of warming since the ACE measurement began, and probably longer; and why has there instead been even the opposite empirical phenomenon, a decrease in ACE and Cat 4-5 numbers to historic lows during the allegedly “gradual” but “continuous” increase in GMT?
Therefore, why do you not conclude instead that increased GMT, whatever it physically represents, or CO2 levels or fossil fuel CO2 production correlates with better earthly conditions in the respects you name, and even that “mainstream” Climate Science’s physics, science and logic, as you stated it above, is wrong?
That, instead of you merely asserting that “To deny this is to deny science and logic”, thereby using the same old rhetorical, anti-scientific method characterizing mainstream Climate Scientists’ practice of their “science” – in other words, when you again simply repeat another empirically unhinged meme as though it is empirically, scientifically, and logically based, when it is certainly not?
Then you say, “Attribution is very hard to quantify certainly But trying to imply and insinuate that this means there is no effect and also trying to misrepresents scientists by claiming they are citing AGW as sole or even primary cause is outright dishonest.”.
Point of order, Exp! The allegations of attribution appearing to derive from the CO2 = CAGW “hypotheses” are the problem of the “mainstream” Climate Scientists alone and solely of their own making. Or are they now denying their own “tenets” and mantras directly stating far and wide that CO2 = CAGW? That’s even become what they’ve intentionally morphed the term “climate change” itself to mean.
No, the dishonesty comes from them, when they show no concern on their part that they haven’t got even one relevant prediction correct yet; and when they also show to the world that they apparently don’t care about the fact that they can’t explain much of anything in the past from their CO2 = CAGW mechanisms, to boot.
The dishonesty continues when they start saying everything they can on a completelyad hoc basis, to try to rhetorically back off their apparent claims from the fact that their CO2 = CAGW “theory” simply doesn’t work in the real world. They’ve even proven it themselves, that is, insofar as their anti-scientific “begging the question” GCM methods and grant directed “science” allows them to actually prove anything.
Therefore, amidst all of their monotonous recurrent handwaving, etc., what are the mainstream Climate Scientists saying about reality? The answer is that they are in effect not proposing anything of a truly scientific or empirical nature, even though it looks like they are – at least if you instead wrongly take what their words say at face value as genuinely intended hypotheses about reality.
In other words, according to the way that the mainstream Climate Scientists practice their own “science”, their “hypotheses” are not statements about scientific or objective reality at all.
And that’s why Climate Science’s objective failure as real science doesn’t bother the mainstream “Scientists” and why their method involves the fact that they simply won’t let reality and the objective failings of their “science” dispute and even falsify their own “hypotheses”. Their “science” turns out to be thoroughly meaningless compared to real science and the real world. And that’s apparently the way they want it, because they just keep pushing on anyway with their same old boring unhinged/sub-rational rhetorical methods, of course coupled with their more focused Alinskian and Gramscian methods, while apparently attempting in effect to bring about a Totalitarian Hegemony of thought, despite and in confrontation with objective reality and real Humanitarian ethics.
Likewise, Exp, why aren’t you worried about what mainstream Climate Science says and does compared to reality and the practice of real science, instead of similarly putting all your efforts toward trying build up Climate Science illogically by your own misrepresentation or alteration of what the Climate Scientists’ own “scientific” words say, just as they do, and by trying to put words in the mouths of sceptics who are merely engaging in the practice of real science’s principles and methods, which are based almost entirely upon scepticism?
What is in it for you, Exp, that outweighs your own mind’s potential allegiance toward having a valid connection with reality? Why can’t you bare to spare the rest of us from hearing your unhinged Mantras and from having to deal with their quite adverse real world consequences – which by now are demonstrably acting against the whole of Humanity, including yourself?
All you have to do is stop it yourself, but I’ll bet that you can’t.
R. Gates says:
January 15, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Geoff Sharp said:
“n 2011 the warm water in the North Pacific adjacent to Japan (which basically is the neg PDO) was transported to the equatorial water above New Guinea which took us from a neutral ENSO to La Nina.”
____
I’m not certain that the currents run that direction, and that water near Japan would go south to the equatorial water above New Guinea. I believe that equatorial water is part of the normal Pacific Warm Pool, which may move toward the east during an El Nino, but don’t ever think if comes down south from near Japan.
The prevailing winds last year and perhaps the returning shallow water current looked to redistribute the heat from the Neg PDO warm pool to above New Guinea (we were watching this daily on my blog). There was no warm water moving west along the pacific equatorial region last year, the previous year (2010) was in solid La Nina mode.
http://forces.si.edu/arctic/02_02_04.html
This is a real world observation that Bob seems to ignore. The PDO can be an important driver of La Nina.
Bob Tisdale says:
January 15, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Tell me the exact sentence and paragraph where I wrote, inferred, or implied in the above post that there was something called a “rosby [sic] method”. You can’t,
I was referring to the majority of the text in your article. I can see you are too agitated to form a reasonable response. Why do you get so aggressive when I am only producing some evidence of a PDO led La Nina?
“If Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) were to exclude ENSO from their analysis, it is likely their results would be significantly different.”
Likely? Of course they’d be different, but what would that prove? The point of trying to estimate ENSO is that ENSO adds variations to the temperature record, Remove the variability and we can see if a trend exists; linear or otherwise, warming or otherwise.
If you’re right, then *YOU* should be able to show how to correctly account for the variability that ENSO adds to the temperature record.
Bob Tisdale says: “If Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) were to exclude ENSO from their analysis, it is likely their results would be significantly different.”
Kevin O’Neill says: :”Likely? Of course they’d be different, but what would that prove? The point of trying to estimate ENSO is that ENSO adds variations to the temperature record, Remove the variability and we can see if a trend exists; linear or otherwise, warming or otherwise.”
_____
As ENSO made up the majority of the difference they found and removed when identifying their linear trend, it is without question that their results would be different, but I thnk this would miss the point. It seems rather than exclude ENSO, they ought to include even more El Nino activity (i.e. the residual SST that Bob identified in his oceanic westward moving Rossby wave) for filtering. By including this westward Rossby wave activity (and it is possible that they already did, as they used a range of best fit lag times after an El Nino,, from 0 to 24 months), the leftover linear trend they found and identified as anthropogenic, might be reduced considerably, or it might not, I really don’t know. Was it included in the “best fit” lag time process or not? I’ve directed a blog post toward this end on Tamino’s web site. I’ll be interested on the response.
JPeden responded very well to Exp – WELL SAID!
January 15, 2012 at 2:50 pm
“If Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) were to exclude ENSO from their analysis, it is likely their results would be significantly different.”
Not really, putting aside all the issues of using a linear model if you drop out MEI lagged 4 mths the following are the changes in parameters estimated by linear regression (ignoring the trig functions):
Time: 0.0171 with, 0.0166 without
TSI: 0.0613 with, 0.0586 without
AOD lagged 7m -2.37 with, -1.40 without
Intercept -117.5 with, -112.9 without
MEI lagged 4m 0.079 with
R2 .69 with, .60 without
Not surprising really since MEI and AOD are the most highly correlated of the independent vbles. They’re squabbling over which bit of variance they get.
Bob Tisdale says:
January 15, 2012 at 4:40 am
Geoff Sharp says: “El Nino loading of a La Nina via rosby waves is but one method that forms La Nina. The principal falls apart during neg PDO periods when we experience double La Nina. The basic method tells us we need warm water above New Guinea to begin the La Nina process which can also come from the PDO warm pool during the neg phase as we see today.”
———————————————
You and I have discussed the PDO before, and your continued insistence on the PDO’s importance and your discussion of it in your comment clearly indicate you still do not understand what it is. The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO. The PDO only relates to the leading principal component of the detrended sea surface temperature anomalies for the NORTH PACIFIC north of 20N. The last time I checked, Geoff, New Guinea was south of the equator. Has it moved? If not, it does not enter into a conversation of the PDO.
The “PDO is an after effect of ENSO” statement is where I take issue with self perceived total knowledge on this topic, you are right only some of the time on this issue. Last time we discussed this issue was before the back to back La NIna formed, I was stating how a PDO warm pool could trigger a La Nina event and in fact must do to induce back to back La Nina, which almost always occur during neg phases of the PDO. Both you and Anthony tried to silence me, but observations during 2011 have proved me correct.
You are selling to the world that the PDO can have no effect on ENSO. I disagree with you and 2011 is just one example of your limited understanding on the topic. You still haven’t answered how we achieved the back to back La Nina or why the very strong La Nina of 2010 did not “charge” an El Nino event the following year.
KR: Thanks for linking Santer et al (2011). That’s a very odd paper to link in a discussion of the effects of ENSO on sea surface temperature as I’ve presented in this post. Santer et al analyzed CMIP3 models which model ENSO very poorly. I don’t believe I’ve ever found a paper that says that any CMIP3 model simulates ENSO well. Those models that try (Not all do) might get a component or two right, but they miss the rest. Also, CMIP3 models can’t model the sea surface temperature anomalies during the period discussed in this post in any ocean basin, on time series and zonal mean bases. Those failures of the CMIP3 models were discussed and illustrated here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/part-1-%e2%80%93-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-versus-ipcc-hindcastprojections/
And here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/492/
You wrote: “Why has this not happened before? (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ – 135 year ENSO record)”
You provided a link to the extended MEI data. Why? How would it show whether these upward shifts have or haven’t happened in the past? Do you know for a fact that ENSO was or wasn’t responsible for the rise in SST anomalies from the early 1910s to the early 1940S? If so, you provided the wrong link.
The extended MEI is a nice dataset, though. Don’t take me wrong. But for a long-term ENSO index, I prefer the NINO3.4 SST anomalies based on HADISST data. In fact, that’s one of the few things Trenberth and I agree on. He uses HADISST for his long-term NINO3.4 SST anomaly data:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/TNI_N34/index.html
That dataset is actually a combination of HADISST and Reynolds OI.v2 data, because the Hadley Centre is a little sluggish with their monthly updates.
You wrote, “Ocean Heat Content, by any records (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/), has increased hugely over the last 30 years. That’s completely inconsistent with an ocean driven positive SST change from ENSO variations – both OHC and air temperatures are rising.”
Based on your comment, you don’t understand ENSO, and you surely have never investigated what caused the rise in OHC over the term of that dataset. Here’s a link to the KNMI Climate Explorer.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
They have the NODC OHC data there. It’s presented in gigajoules/m^2 which makes comparisons lots easier. Divide each ocean basin into tropical and extratropical subsets and study the long-term data. Start with the North Pacific, north of 20N. You’ll see that OHC in the North Pacific north of 20N dropped steadily until the late 1980s and then made a sudden upward shift. If you investigate that, you’ll find the answer to what caused it. Granted, it’s not ENSO, but it is a natural factor. Then compare the North Atlantic OHC to the OHC of the rest of the ocean basins. The trend of the North Atlantic OHC on a GJ/m^2 basis is more than 4 times greater than the trend for Global Oceans without the North Atlantic. Have you ever investigated why? North Atlantic OHC has also been falling fastest during the ARGO era.
Then take a look at the OHC for the Southern Hemisphere oceans (extratropical), starting with the South Pacific, and try to determine why that dataset rises as it does. Consider that you’re adjacent to the tropical Pacific and ENSO distributes waters as discussed in this post. Then try the tropical Indian Ocean, etc.
I’ve investigated the OHC in that way, but you wouldn’t study the links if I provided them . So it would be wasted effort on my part. Best that you learn through doing anyway.
You wrote, “What is the SST observational difference for this limited set of data between (a) ENSO induced “step changes” that are not statistically meaningful given the data variance, and (b) ENSO variance around a linear trend separately caused by, oh, greenhouse gas changes?”
I had thought you might have read my post up until that portion of your comment. Now I’m not too sure. You provided links to posts at Tamino’s and Skeptical Science. I’m not sure why, because they aren’t relevant to this discussion. In fact, much of this post addressed the fact that statistical analyses couldn’t be used to address the process of ENSO and its aftereffects. And then you provide a link to a statistical analysis by Tamino that doesn’t address what was presented in this post.
I have discussed a multi-facetted process in the post above. Do either of the posts you linked at Tamino’s and SkepticalScience address that process and the interrelationships between the variables? Nope. Do they address why the SST anomalies for the East Pacific (33% of the surface area of the global oceans) have been flat for 30 years? Nope. I’ve provided numerous links to support what was written. Do Tamino’s and the SkepticalScience posts address what’s presented in them? Nope. Do they discuss the animations included in some of those links that allow readers to see the upward shifts actually taking place? Nope. Do they address the side-by-side animations between different variables so the reader can see the interrelationships between the variables? Nope.
It was nice that you provided a summary of your beliefs. Few people do that. But since you’ve missed what’s presented in this post and used irrelevant links to attempt to support your comments, the summary falls flat. Some persons reading this thread will probably come to the conclusion that your comment, in total, was a classic attempt at misdirection. I know I have.
Regards
Kevin O’Neill says: “Likely? Of course they’d be different, but what would that prove? The point of trying to estimate ENSO is that ENSO adds variations to the temperature record, Remove the variability and we can see if a trend exists; linear or otherwise, warming or otherwise.”
And you continued, “If you’re right, then *YOU* should be able to show how to correctly account for the variability that ENSO adds to the temperature record.”
Apparently you did not read the post. My guess is you looked at the graphs on your way to the summary, because you would not have written what you’d written if you had read the post in its entirety.
Geoff Sharp says: “I was referring to the majority of the text in your article. I can see you are too agitated to form a reasonable response. Why do you get so aggressive when I am only producing some evidence of a PDO led La Nina?”
The majority of the text in my post is not about a “rosby [sic] method” as you ealier described so your reply does not ring true. And you provided no evidence of a PDO led La Nina? You continue to misunderstand the PDO.
You wrote, “Last time we discussed this issue was before the back to back La NIna formed, I was stating how a PDO warm pool could trigger a La Nina event and in fact must do to induce back to back La Nina,,,”
Please point me to the exact thread and comment in which you wrote something to the effect of, “how a PDO warm pool could trigger a La Nina event and in fact must do to induce back to back La Nina.”
Please also point me to a paper that discusses a “PDO warm pool.” I’ve never seen this term written before. In fact, that sounds like something you’ve created. Are you talking about the positive SST anomalies east of Japan along the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension (KOE)? That warm water gets spun north as a result of a La Nina. It’s also impacted by the North Pacific sea level pressure, which is why it can have different timing. And that’s all the PDO is. It’s an aftereffect of ENSO that’s also impacted by sea level pressure.