Guest post by Bob Tisdale
I was visiting family in the Northeast U.S. when Sandy came ashore, so I was without power for most of last week. Since my return home, I’ve been catching up with all of the nonsense surrounding Hurricane/Extratropical Storm/Hybrid Storm Sandy. There have been hundreds of articles and blog posts that include references to climate change, global warming, and the warming oceans and their assumed impacts on Sandy. Yet no one has bothered to plot the long-term sea surface temperature anomalies for Sandy’s track. So we’ve had lots of baseless claims. Will the authors of those posts and articles feel foolish when they discover sea surface temperatures for Sandy’s path haven’t warmed in 70+ years? For those reading this post, who have access to the authors of those articles or the blog posts, feel free to leave them a link or two to this post.
The most absurd claim was made by Brian Reynolds in his post How a Warm Earth fueled Hurricane Sandy at The Energy Collective, which heralds itself as “The world’s best thinkers on energy and climate”. It was the topic of discussion in the post Frankenstorm-itis: Five degrees of Separation from Reality and Eleventy Gazillion Joules Under the Sea by David Middleton at WattsUpWithThat.
Apparently the “world’s best thinkers on energy and climate” rely on thought and not on data, because Brian Reynolds’s preposterous claim is clearly fantasy:
The Atlantic ocean [sic] is five degrees warmer than is was when most of you were born. Let that sink in for a minute. The entire Atlantic ocean [sic] averages five degrees warmer.
Oy! Five degrees.
He must believe most of us were born just after the last glacial period. That’s older than Mel Brooks’ 2000 Year Old Man.
What could that “best thinker” have been thinking? Then when he was questioned about it, Brian Reynolds wrote in a comment:
The point of this piece isn’t the exact temperature of the ocean, which is admittedly hard to calculate (You’ll note in reading one other comments that you don’t agree with me or one another after all) but rather that the earth isn’t a closed system.
Actually, Brian, you can’t dismiss your error and state that it’s pointless. You wouldn’t have written what you wrote if you thought it was pointless. Also, sea surface temperature data is available to the public through multiple resources (NOAA’s NOMADS website or the KNMI Climate Explorer) so there are no calculations involved. All you have to do is enter coordinates and the websites produce the data. If you had done that with a long-term sea surface temperature dataset like the Hadley Centre’s HADISST, you would have discovered that the sea surface temperatures anomalies of Sandy’s storm track (12N-40N, 80W-70W) haven’t warmed since 1938, when the another super storm hit the Northeast U.S. See Figure 1.
Figure 1
The coordinates are based on the storm-track map from the Jacksonville.com, which I’ve annotated in Figure 2.
Figure 2
For the extratropical portion of the path (24N-40N, 80W-70W), Figure 3, the sea surface temperature anomalies have actually cooled since 1938. It’s not a great deal of cooling, but the trend is clearly negative.
Figure 3
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF AN ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING SIGNAL IN THE SATELLITE-ERA SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA
The satellite-era sea surface temperature records indicates El Niño and La Niña events are the primary causes of the warming of global sea surface temperature anomalies over the past 30 years, not manmade greenhouse gases. I’ve searched sea surface temperature records for more than 4 years, and I can find no evidence of an anthropogenic greenhouse gas signal. That is, the warming of the global oceans has been caused by Mother Nature, not anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
I’ve recently published an e-book (pdf) about the phenomena called El Niño and La Niña. It’s titled Who Turned on the Heat? with the subtitle The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit, El Niño Southern Oscillation. It is intended for persons (with or without technical backgrounds) interested in learning about El Niño and La Niña events and in understanding the natural causes of the warming of our global oceans for the past 30 years. Because land surface air temperatures simply exaggerate the natural warming of the global oceans over annual and multidecadal time periods, the vast majority of the warming taking place on land is natural as well. The book is the product of years of research of the satellite-era sea surface temperature data that’s available to the public via the internet. It presents how the data accounts for its warming—and there are no indications the warming was caused by manmade greenhouse gases. None at all. The same holds true for Ocean Heat Content data. The warming of the global oceans to 700 meters since 1955 can also be easily explained through natural variables.
Who Turned on the Heat? was introduced in the blog post Everything You Every Wanted to Know about El Niño and La Niña… …Well Just about Everything. The Updated Free Preview includes the Table of Contents; the Introduction; the beginning of Section 1, with the cartoon-like illustrations; the discussion About the Cover; and the Closing.
Please buy a copy. (Credit/Debit Card through PayPal—you don’t need a PayPal account). It’s only US$8.00.
You’re probably asking yourself why you should spend $8.00 for a book written by an independent climate researcher. There aren’t many independent researchers investigating El Niño-Southern Oscillation or its long-term impacts on global surface temperatures. In fact, if you were to perform a Google image search of NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies, the vast majority of the graphs and images are from my blog posts. Try it. Cut and paste NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies into Google. Click over to images and start counting the number of times you see Bob Tisdale.
By independent I mean I am not employed in a research or academic position; I’m not obligated to publish results that encourage future funding for my research—that is, my research is not agenda-driven. I’m a retiree, a pensioner, with a background in fluid dynamics. The only funding I receive is from book sales and donations at my blog. Also, I’m independent inasmuch as I’m not tied to consensus opinions so that my findings will pass through the gauntlet of peer-review gatekeepers. Truth be told, it’s unlikely the results of my research would pass through that gauntlet because the satellite-era sea surface temperature data contradicts the tenets of the consensus.
SOURCE
The Sea Surface Temperature anomaly data used in this post is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer website.
Maybe it’s just me (MkI eyball,) but fig 1 does indicate the high of a sinusoidal wave.
DaveE.
Bob Tisdale says; “I never said they did. I simply plotted the sea surface temperature along Sandy’s track to show that there has been little to no long-term warming in that region–contrary to the unfounded beliefs of many. ”
Another classic of avoiding the issue from you there Bob.
Let me try again:
Also having identified the area in which it first developed into a formally identified tropical storm you plot everything but that area. Rather odd. So let me help you out. Here is the same hadISST data you chose to discuss from the bit of your chosen area that you did not plot. 12-20N 70-80W
This is the montlhy data with a 12m gaussian filter.
http://i45.tinypic.com/1o3d6w.png
So your “unfounded beliefs of many ” appear not to be so unfounded.
I’m not out to promote AGW but neither do I see any point in criticising Mann and the team for perverting the data and “hide the decline” etc. and then playing the same games of hide and seek with the data.
Why did you chose not to present this information , did you just find what you expected to see and posted without looking properly:
And why do you so studiously avoid commenting on it when I point it out?
OssQss says: “I would also personally attest that the book referenced is packed with knowledge and worth every cent. ”
Thanks for the kind words. Glad you’re enjoying it.
P. Solar says: “Another classic of avoiding the issue from you there Bob.”
I’m not avoiding an issue, P. Solar. My post wasn’t about the subject matter you’re dead set on discussing. You’re acting like a troll. Get it?
Feel free to write up a post about whatever it is you think you’ve discovered and send it to Anthony. I haven’t read your replies in any detail nor looked at any of your links. The reason: you stated that something I wrote was stupid, because YOU, P. Solar, failed to comprehend the subject matter, which is not what you want to discuss.
Adios, P. Solar.
Bob Tisdale says: ” I haven’t read your replies in any detail nor looked at any of your links. ”
Well that is a pretty odd admission since you keep replying whilst ignoring the key point and calling me a troll.
Since you are having trouble reading I’ll keep it short.
You chose hadISST , you defined what you consider to be the birth place of Sandy.
Now look at the temperature record.
http://i45.tinypic.com/1o3d6w.png
You’re probably asking yourself why you should spend $8.00 for a book written by an independent climate researcher.
Better question: Why am I willing to spend $12 or more for it on a USB drive?
I’m on dial-up and wouldn’t want to try a long download of something I’m paying for.
More generally, if I don’t like a printed book then I have a paperweight, or fire-making material, or a target. There is some residual value. If I don’t like an e-book, I could delete it, either way I got nothing show for it.
But an e-book on a USB drive, I’ll still have the drive, which has a much higher residual value than a printed book.
On a quick eBay search, I found lots of 3 sticks, 2GB each, $12.75 with free shipping, from North Carolina. So they’re available for $4.25 just from here for a lot this small.
Look around, you can find local companies offering custom logos for small businesses, from T-shirts and hats to pens. You can get drives with your book title. But even a sticker would be fine, so it’s labeled. But that’s a desired option, not a deal breaker. There are companies that do custom preloaded/duplicated drives (example, not endorsement), if you find the volume of sales too great to do it yourself. You have choices to consider.
So you can pick up sales from the curious, as they’ll have something worthwhile no matter what. Your book will also be in a form that is portable, moveable between devices and also loanable, without the worries among the moral about possible copyright violations. I could read your book on whichever computer I’m using without leaving multiple copies around, etc.
I realize we’re in the digital age, print is dead. But the preference for tangible physical ownership is not.
P.Solar,
there are 3 issues with your post, which I would like to address:
1. You are not talking about the same thing, critizise with harsh words, but don’t give an appropriate (appropriate to the harshness of your critics) reason, why you use a different latitude window.
2. Temperature differences to the peak in the 1940s are still small. And 0.1 degrees of this increase is highly dubious and consequence of a disturbing adjustment:
You are aware of the issue, see last posting in this thread
http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/12/hadsst3/
3. The link between AMO und cyclone energy is interesting. But global tropical cyclone activity has been low in recent times. The latter suggests, there is no temperature link or if any a negative correlation, and the link between AMO and hurricane activity may be caused by an external driver, (such as the sun) which influences both.
kadaka;
As an alternative to your alternative, an external USB drive (160 GB) cost me $40 about a year or two ago (now available larger and cheaper). Can hold thousands of e-books and/or lotsa other stuff. Mine’s sub-divided into 5 letter-drives. Will move to any and every upgrade/new computer I get (imminent, long overdue).
Manfred , thanks for the thoughtful remarks.
1. Bob in his article selected the region he wanted to use and identified the storm as having first been officially logged and followed in the tropical section. However, in his discussion about whether SST was a factor he plots the whole region, then the later, extra-tropical part of the storm track but he expressly ignores the region where he says the storm originated. This region, when inspected DOES show a marked increase in temperature which is totally at odds with what he is trying “prove” in his text.
1b. Yes, language a bit harsh, to anyone not familiar with my long term efforts to discuss issues in Bob’s “work”. He systematically refuses to address any issues raised and tries to sidetrack , as he does once again here. After three calls he has still not commented on the blatant mistake/misrepresentation I pointed out. Preferring to call me a troll than to address the issue.
2. All temperature differences are small when averaged over large areas but because they affect large areas actually represent huge amounts of energy. Yes, there are issues with the SST record (glad you note my highlighting them) but my point here was to accept Bob’s choice of data set and region, using that to question his conclusions.
3. Manfred says: “But global tropical cyclone activity has been low in recent times. The latter suggests, there is no temperature link or if any a negative correlation”
Well, you need to define what you mean by “activity” and “recent” and point to data. You may be confusing this with lack of US land-falling hurricanes, which Pielke Jr. has pointed to. Whether they hit land or are still hurricane force when they do is another question and is less predicable/attributable.
Accumulated cyclone energy is one common measure of cyclone activity and as my graph shows it certainly has not been low.
http://i49.tinypic.com/xbfqtw.png
The sources for the data are marked on the graph if you want to check.
It is fairly well accepted (except by Bob Tisdale) that hurricanes are caused by warmer SST conditions, though I was quite stunned by how closely they matched. This fact does increase the confidence I attribute to both the data sets.
In fact I think the 0.1 K offset I had to put into that plot around 1920 is strong evidence that one of the SST “bias” adjustments is wrong. I have sent this to John Kennedy at the Met Office who works on hadSST and he says he is considering what it means. The counter argument is, it also suggests that the post-war adjustments may not be that bad overall.
Manfred says: “2. Temperature differences to the peak in the 1940s are still small. And 0.1 degrees of this increase is highly dubious and consequence of a disturbing adjustment:”
My main conclusion from the AMO graph is that there is a strong correlation, most of the current peak is just natural variations but there is a slightly higher peak than last cycle.
Objectively this has at least two interpretations: a) a small AGW signal; b) a small increase in the amplitude of the natural variation.
I see both as credible possibilities.
“The Sea Surface Temperature anomaly data used in this post is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer website.”
Let’s check another cherry: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst2/
Oops. Record warm seas below Sandy. But we knew that, didn’t we.