Mythbusting Rahmstorf and Foster

Rahmstorf et al (2012) Insist on Prolonging a Myth about El Niño and La Niña

Guest post by Bob Tisdale

Anthony Watts of WattsUpWithThat forwarded a link to a newly published peer-reviewed paper by Stefan Rahmstorf, Grant Foster (aka Tamino of the blog OpenMind) and Anny Cazenave. Thanks, Anthony. The title of the paper is Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011. My Figure 1 is Figure 1 from Rahmostorf et al (2012).

The authors of the paper have elected to prolong on the often-portrayed myth about El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO):

Global temperature data can be adjusted for solar variations, volcanic aerosols and ENSO using multivariate correlation analysis…

With respect to ENSO, that, of course, is nonsense.

Figure 1

The Rahmstorf et al (2012) text for Figure 1 reads:

Figure 1. Observed annual global temperature, unadjusted (pink) and adjusted for short-term variations due to solar variability, volcanoes and ENSO (red) as in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). 12-months running averages are shown as well as linear trend lines, and compared to the scenarios of the IPCC (blue range and lines from the third assessment, green from the fourth assessment report). Projections are aligned in the graph so that they start (in 1990 and 2000, respectively) on the linear trend line of the (adjusted) observational data.

INITIAL NOTE

Under the heading of “2. Global temperature evolution”, in the first paragraph, Rahmstorf et al (2012) write:

To compare global temperature data to projections, we need to consider that IPCC projections do not attempt to predict the effect of solar variability, or specific sequences of either volcanic eruptions or El Niño events. Solar and volcanic forcing are routinely included only in ‘historic’ simulations for the past climate evolution but not for the future, while El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is included as a stochastic process where the timing of specific warm or cool phases is random and averages out over the ensemble of projection models. Therefore, model-data comparisons either need to account for the short-term variability due to these natural factors as an added quasi-random uncertainty, or the specific short-term variability needs to be removed from the observational data before comparison. Since the latter approach allows a more stringent comparison it is adopted here.

In the first sentence in the above quote, Rahmstorf et al (2012) forgot to mention that the climate models used in the IPCC projections simulate ENSO so poorly that the authors of Guilyardi et al (2009) Understanding El Niño in Ocean-Atmosphere General Circulation Models: progress and challenges noted:

Because ENSO is the dominant mode of climate variability at interannual time scales, the lack of consistency in the model predictions of the response of ENSO to global warming currently limits our confidence in using these predictions to address adaptive societal concerns, such as regional impacts or extremes (Joseph and Nigam 2006; Power et al. 2006).

Refer to my post Guilyardi et al (2009) “Understanding El Niño in Ocean-Atmosphere General Circulation Models: progress and challenges”, which introduces that paper. That paper was discussed in much more detail in Chapter 5.8 Scientific Studies of the IPCC’s Climate Models Reveal How Poorly the Models Simulate ENSO Processes of my book Who Turned on the Heat?

THE MYTH CONTINUED

The second paragraph of Rahmstorf et al (2012) under that heading of “2. Global temperature evolution” reads:

Global temperature data can be adjusted for solar variations, volcanic aerosols and ENSO using multivariate correlation analysis (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, Lean and Rind 2008, 2009, Schönwiese et al2010), since independent data series for these factors exist. We here use the data adjusted with the method exactly as described in Foster and Rahmstorf, but using data until the end of 2011. The contributions of all three factors to global temperature were estimated by linear correlation with the multivariate El Niño index for ENSO, aerosol optical thickness data for volcanic activity and total solar irradiance data for solar variability (optical thickness data for the year 2011 were not yet available, but since no major volcanic eruption occurred in 2011 we assumed zero volcanic forcing). These contributions were computed separately for each of the five available global (land and ocean) temperature data series (including both satellite and surface measurements) and subtracted. The five thus adjusted data sets were averaged in order to avoid any discussion of what is ‘the best’ data set; in any case the differences between the individual series are small (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011). We show this average as a 12-months running mean in figure 1, together with the unadjusted data (likewise as average over the five available data series). Comparing adjusted with unadjusted data shows how the adjustment largely removes e.g. the cold phase in 1992/1993 following the Pinatubo eruption, the exceptionally high 1998 temperature maximum related to the preceding extreme El Niño event, and La Niña-related cold in 2008 and 2011.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REMOVE THE EFFECTS OF ENSO IN THAT FASHION

Rahmstorf et al (2012) assume the effects of La Niñas on global surface temperatures are the proportional to the effects of El Niño events. They are not. Anyone who is capable of reading a graph can see and understand this.

But first: For 33% of the surface area of the global oceans, the East Pacific Ocean (90S-90N, 180-80W), it may be possible to remove much of the linear effects of ENSO from the sea surface temperature record, because the East Pacific Ocean mimics the ENSO index (NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies). See Figure 2. But note how the East Pacific Ocean has not warmed significantly in 30+ years.  A linear trend of 0.007 deg C/decade is basically flat.

Figure 2

However, for the other 67% of the surface area of the global oceans, the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans (90S-90N, 80W-180), which we’ll call the Rest of the World, the sea surface temperature anomalies do not mimic the ENSO index. We can see this by detrending the Rest-of-the-World data. Refer to Figure 3. Note how the Rest-of-the-World sea surface temperature anomalies diverge from the ENSO index during four periods. The two divergences highlighted in green are caused by the volcanic eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Mount Pinatubo in 1991. Rahmstorf et al (2012) are likely successful at removing most of the effects of those volcanic eruptions, using an aerosol optical depth dataset. But they have not accounted for and cannot account for the divergences highlighted in brown.

Figure 3

Those two divergences are referred to in Trenberth et al (2002) Evolution of El Nino–Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures as ENSO residuals. Trenberth et al write:

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.

Again, the divergences in Figure 3 shown in brown are those ENSO residuals. They result because the naturally created warm water released from below the surface of the West Pacific Warm Pool by the El Niño events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 are not “consumed” by those El Niño events. In other words, there’s warm water left over from those El Niño events and that leftover warm water directly impacts the sea surface temperatures of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans, preventing them from cooling during the trailing La Niñas. The leftover warm water, tending to initially accumulate in the South Pacific Convergence Zone (SPCZ) and in the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension (KOE), also counteracts the indirect (teleconnection) impacts of the La Niña events on remote areas, like land surface temperatures and the sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic. See the detrended sea surface temperature anomalies for the North Atlantic, Figure 4, which show the same ENSO-related divergences even though the North Atlantic data is isolated from the tropical Pacific Ocean and, therefore, not directly impacted by the ENSO events.

Figure 4

There’s something blatantly obvious in the graph of the detrended Rest-of-the-World sea surface temperature anomalies (Figure 3): If the Rest-of-the-World data responded proportionally during the 1988/89 and 1998-2001 La Niña events, the Rest-of-the-World data would appear similar to the East Pacific data (Figure 2) and would have no warming trend.

Because those divergences exist—that is, because the Rest-of-the-World data does not cool proportionally during those La Niña events—the Rest-of-the-World data acquires a warming trend, as shown in Figure 5. In other words, the warming trend, the appearance of upward shifts, is caused by the failure of the Rest-of-the-World sea surface temperature anomalies to cool proportionally during those La Niña events.

Figure 5

I find it difficult to believe that something so obvious is simply overlooked by climate scientists and those who peer review papers such as Rahmstorf (2012).  Some readers might think the authors are intentionally being misleading.

FURTHER INFORMATION

The natural processes that cause the global oceans to warm were described in the Part 1 of YouTube video series “The Natural Warming of the Global Oceans”. It also describes and illustrates the impacts of ENSO on Ocean Heat Content for the tropical Pacific and the tropics as a whole.

Part 2 provides further explanation of the natural warming of the Ocean Heat Content and details the problems associated with Ocean Heat Content data in general. Part 2 should be viewed after Part 1.

And, of course, the natural processes that cause the oceans to warm were detailed with numerous datasets in my recently published ebook. 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.

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. The book was updated recently to correct a few typos.

Please buy a copy. (Credit/Debit Card through PayPal. You do NOT need to open a PayPal account.). It’s only US$8.00.

CLOSING

Rahmstorf et al (2012) begin their Conclusions with:

In conclusion, the rise in CO2 concentration and global temperature has continued to closely match the projections over the past five years…

As discussed and illustrated above, ENSO is a process that cannot be removed simply from the global surface temperature record as Rahmstorf et al (2012) have attempted to do. The sea surface temperature records contradict the findings of Rahmstorf et al (2012). There is no evidence of a CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming component in the satellite-era sea surface temperature records. Each time climate scientists (and statisticians) attempt to continue this myth, they lose more and more…and more…credibility. Of course, that’s a choice they’ve clearly made.

And as long as papers such as Rahmstorf et al (2012) continue to pass through peer review and find publication, I will be more than happy to repeat my message about their blatantly obvious failings.

SOURCE

The Sea Surface Temperature anomaly data used in this post is available through the NOAA NOMADS website:

http://nomad1.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh

or:

http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite=

=================================================================

Richard Tol is not impressed:

#Doha: Sea levels to rise by more than 1m by 2100 http://t.co/h2cNEMo7 Rahmstorff strikes again with his subpar statistics

http://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/273691430101323776

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
cui bono

Thanks Bob. Lucia has already blown their statistics out of the water in various recent postings. How do these things get past ‘peer-review’?

AleaJactaEst

so Bob – a formal rebuttal then? Only way to keep these dolts in check. No point blogging to the choir, it’s the journal editor and the readers we need to get to.

Louis Hooffstetter

Another climastrology classic: When empirical data doesn’t match the model, adjust the data.
Rahmstorf can adjust temperature data to fit models but sea levels won’t cooperate. What will he do then?
Bob Tisdale says:
“Some readers might think the authors are intentionally being misleading.”
Bob Tidale, A.K.A. ‘Captain Obvious’

Steveta_uk

We’ve all been exposed to Bob’s theories on many many … many … occasions, and every time he is asked where the heat that is driving this inexporable ramping up of temperatures comes from, and he never answers, apart from “it’s all in my book – buy it and find out”.
Not good enough in my view.
REPLY: yet it is good enough for you to point to peer reviewed papers behind paywalls that cost 3-4 times as much. #lazycheapskate – Anthony

Louis Hooffstetter says: “Bob Tidale, A.K.A. ‘Captain Obvious’”
Sometimes it’s necessary to highlight the obvious.

Thanks, Anthony, for sending me the link and for cross posting this.
Regards from a chilly place where I can see snow from my windows. Brrrr. I think I need to take a trip to the tropical Pacific so I can study ENSO in person. I guess all I need is some government funding–like that’s gonna happen.

HaroldW

It helps to create a better impression of agreement with projections, or at least “consistent with” projections, by showing multiple IPCC projections. From the paper, “The IPCC temperature projections shown as solid lines here are produced using the six standard, illustrative SRES emissions scenarios discussed in the third and fourth IPCC reports.” Projections — and equally importantly, the uncertainty regions — for emissions scenarios which did not occur, can not be validly compared to the observed (or adjusted) temperatures.

Vince Causey

I just went to the end to read the conclusion: “In conclusion, the rise in CO2 concentration and global temperature has continued to closely match the projections over the past five years…”
What a surprise. AGW is real and is happening now! Of course, anything that uses something that sounds as complicated as “multivariate correlation analysis” must be right.

Mike Lewis

Nicely explained Mr. Tisdale. Their (Rahmstorf/Foster) belief in AGW has become so profound though, they will not heed your science. Queue the screed rebuttal at the “Open Mind” in 3..2..1..

Bill H

cui bono says:
November 28, 2012 at 6:12 am
Thanks Bob. Lucia has already blown their statistics out of the water in various recent postings. How do these things get past ‘peer-review’?
___________________________________________________________
Its hard to defeat Santa Claus and PAL REVIEW…

Camburn

The quality of research, if as presented in recent publications, needs a wholesale firing of the culprits who waste valuable time on this junk science.
What ever……happened to “critical” thinking abilities?
Are we truly at the bottom of the barrel as far as talent goes?
It most certainly appears that way.

Steveta_uk says: “We’ve all been exposed to Bob’s theories on many many … many … occasions, and every time he is asked where the heat that is driving this inexporable ramping up of temperatures comes from, and he never answers…”
Actually I have explained it. Maybe you weren’t paying attention at the time. Let me quote from a post about the Foster and Rahmstorf paper that was also cross posted here at WUWT:
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”.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure-2.png
The post referenced above is here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/revised-post-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-2011/
Steveta_uk says: “…and he never answers, apart from “it’s all in my book – buy it and find out”.
Please link the post or blog comment in which I wrote, “it’s all in my book – buy it and find out”. I just Googled that quote and it appears once, only once, and it was not written by me. Are you sure I wrote? BTW: It costs you nothing to watch the videos I linked. I go into more detail in the explanation there.
Last, I don’t present theories. I present data.

“multivariate correlation analysis” is nothing new or special. It is a form of curve fitting. It can predict the past almost perfectly, and has no power to predict the future any better than tea leaves or a pair of dice when applied to complex systems.
Rahmstorf and Foster assume that climate is a simple system. They assume the factors they are studying are linear. If this is not a correct assumption, then “multivariate correlation analysis” will likely deliver a spurious a result. Where is the sensitivity analysis to determine if what they have found is robust or simply a product of misapplied mathematics?
What we have is first year mathematics applied to a complex system, to project the future. If this approach actually worked then computers would routinely predict stock market values in the future and climate scientists would have no need over government grants. They could simply use their computers to make billions, and use this money to pay people to not burn fossil fuels. I’d be just as happy to have Rahmstorf and Foster pay me to live somewhere warm and sunny rather than drive to work each day in the cold and dark we call the great white north.

Thanks, Bob, very good article.
It is good you do not get government grants, otherwise you would be corrupted into the group-think that drives (and benefits from) the grants.

Steveta_uk

REPLY: yet it is good enough for you to point to peer reviewed papers behind paywalls that cost 3-4 times as much. #lazycheapskate – Anthony
Huh? Who has pointed at peer reviewed papers behind paywalls?

sailboarder

“where the heat that is driving this inexporable ramping up of temperatures comes from, and he never answers”
He said it was not manmade CO2, as the step changes contradict the theory or steady warming due to CO2 rising. Others have proposed and demonstrated planatary orbital effects on the sun, and have proved their theory through prediction and confirmation. We are entering a cool phase now.
The real question is, why do you refuse to open your eyes to the evidence in front of you? Perhaps because you cannot prove thaat the planetary orbital effects wrong, so you whine over your failed CO2 hypothesis? It is not Bobs job to educate you, it is your job.

trafamadore

It seems you have more of a problem with the refs Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, Lean and Rind 2008, 2009, Schönwiese et al 2010, than the one you link to, since those are the refs that Rahmstorf use to support their claim, “Global temperature data can be adjusted for solar variations, volcanic aerosols and ENSO using multivariate correlation analysis”.
Shouldnt you be focusing on the start of the myth rather than slamming poor illiterate scientists who only consider the scientific literature and must be excused for their sin of not taking the blogosphere seriously?

View from the Solent

Re:
Richard Tol is not impressed:
#Doha: Sea levels to rise by more than 1m by 2100 http://t.co/h2cNEMo7 Rahmstorff strikes again with his subpar statistics
On the other hand
“Put another way, in that scenario we would be looking at 5cm of sea level rise from Greenland by the year 2130: a paltry amount. …”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/
Commentary on latest GRACE data.

michael hart

“Global temperature data can be adjusted…”

We know it can.
What SHOULD be adjusted is Figure 1. They forgot to mention that it is drawn to give naive readers the impression that El Nino events were being forecast from 1980, which is not true. This is just one more deceitful hind-cast.
At least those people claiming to forecast flu-season from weather-models are trying to do something useful (though we haven’t actually got a forecast out of them either).

Steveta_uk

“Perhaps because you cannot prove thaat the planetary orbital effects wrong, so you whine over your failed CO2 hypothesis?”
Again an attack on something I didn’t say have have never believed. How odd.

trafamadore says: “Shouldnt you be focusing on the start of the myth rather than slamming poor illiterate scientists who only consider the scientific literature and must be excused for their sin of not taking the blogosphere seriously?”
Somewhere along the line, possibly Jones in the 1989 book “The influence of ENSO on global temperatures” [not available online], a study used a statistical tool such as correlation or regression analysis to determine the linear relationship between an ENSO index and global temperature. With that factor and an appropriate time lag between the ENSO index and global surface temperatures, they then crossed a hurdle. They subtracted the scaled ENSO index from the global temperature data and claimed the difference was caused by manmade greenhouse gases. Since I haven’t read the Jones book, I don’t know if it was Jones who did it first.
Regardless, scientists and statisticians can never be excused for misrepresenting a process that causes global surface temperatures to warm over multiyear and multidecadal timescales.

michael hart

In Figure 1 this paper attempts to convey the impression that they have been forecasting El Nino temperature events since 1980. This is, of course, untrue.
The duplicitous in climate science know they must give the impression of producing good predictions, or even projections. Hence this paper.
It appears to me that at least one editor or reviewer may have made a less than fulsome complement. Thus the sentence:

“Global temperature data can be adjusted for solar variations, volcanic aerosols and ENSO using multivariate correlation analysis…”

should be read twice. At least.
“Global temperature data can be adjusted….” Yes, we know it can. That is why this is not, never has been, and will never be a prediction, whatever impression the authors may wish to convey to the unwary reader.
(ps mods, if I post on the test page does it now get treated as spam if I post it again?)

john robertson

Steveta_UK Don’t feed the troll?
Thanks Bob Still reading your book,great explanations love the graphs, you have communication skills sir, maybe the ,”It a failure to communicate” team should consider consulting you. After all their past techniques are a fail. Tamino is still using the old playbook , no brains, baffle ’em with bureaucrat speak.Peer review is looking more like pier review every year, as in a long walk off…

Since all this stuff is based on uncalibrated and uncalibratable assumptions and as pointed out a general ignorance, I suspect the entire process of peer review should also be called once again into questions. The methods these people use are only applicable to static processes and then only when long time factors are not applicable. I suspect climate is very much like human populations. We tend to make gross average assumptions all the time. The almost always are less then meaningful since the true “average man” simply does not exist.

Stephen Richards

Steveta_uk says:
November 28, 2012 at 6:17 am
We’ve all been exposed to Bob’s theories on many many … many … occasions, and every time he is asked where the heat that is driving this inexporable ramping up of temperatures comes from, and he never answers, apart from “it’s all in my book – buy it and find out”.
Not good enough in my view.
Your view is clearly somewhat foggy, I guess. How about you provide some science to prove that you mate and chief adjuster Rahmsdorf is correct? Oh, Sorry, that’s a request too far for your inadequate hypothoses.

Let me see if I understand this. We’re supposed to ignore the GISS, HADCRUT, and UAH temperature data sets that show no warming since 1998, and instead believe the paper’s “adjusted” data that shows the temps and CO2 happily marching in lockstep? Otherwise how can one explain their conclusion, “…the rise in CO2 concentration and global temperature has continued to closely match the projections over the past five years…”?

trafamadore

michael hart says: “In Figure 1 this paper attempts to convey the impression that they have been forecasting El Nino temperature events since 1980. This is, of course, untrue.”
I am sorry, I dont get that from the Fig at all. It looks to me like in 1980 the observations start. And the linear trend is not a prediction for that decade either, it’s based on observations. So could you pls explain what you mean by “forecasting”, cuz I really don’t get what you are saying.

RobW

Bob said:
“I guess all I need is some government funding–like that’s gonna happen.”
But according to those who “know” black is white, up is down, cold is warm, wet is dry…
So anything is possible in this world of today. 😉

Matt G

Bob is correct it is impossible to remove ENSO from global temperatures, nobody has correctly.
First thing your calculation must show involves making the 1998 El Nino peak flat, but to do this just adds on to a later time period (not removed correctly here either). This is the evidence that ENSO is part of the later period too and therefore can’t be removed, highlighted by Bob because it surfaces elsewhere away from the ENSO region. The El Nino in 2010 is hardly removed at all so a general calculation that fails between different El Nino’s. This paper is wrong and only the political agenda let these papers through. That’s the difference between statisticians and science in this case, with the latter not understanding the process.

Matt G

My post above should be “—,with the latter understanding the process much better.”

miket

Good stuff again Bob. It is typical that these types spend their time creating hypothetical temperature projections, just so that they can show an increasing trend. If they are so good at adjusting the effects of solar variations and ENSO out of models, why don’t they build these marvellous figures into the models and show how good the the models are at matching real world observations? Of course, that doesn’t work and wouldn’t show an upward trend.

Don

The problem here is with peer review. Think about it:
-classmates grading each others’ papers; no prof in sight.
-asylum inmates diagnosing and prescribing for each other; no doc in sight.
-the latest shipment of parts from China evaluated by comparison to each other; no external standard in sight.
Competent and intelligent and ingenuous people like Bob T. and Steve McIntyre don’t get chosen as reviewers of “climate science” because they are NOT peers, they are SUPERIORS!
Thanks for the SUPERIOR review, Bob (and Anthony)!

Chuck L

“Peer Review” = “Pal Review,” nuff said.

P. Solar

What a fraud this Rahmsdorf is!
They’ve been saying for years it’s NOTHING to do with the sun, now they adjusting for TSI !
Tacitly admitting that the models totally fail to model the major climate variations, they now make post hoc adjustments TO THE DATA to make it fit the models.
Final last trick ™ use a nice light pink for what’s now the rigged data put lots of stuff behind it and hope no one notices that even after the massaging it’s still does not match , even for 11 years.
This is a work worthy Micky Mann.
So after all the tricks, what part of the model is it which has been show to work ?
You see, the world is really cooling, but if we adjust the data for the fact it is cooling it (nearly) warms just like we said all along that it would. Projections are spot on and if we carry on adjusting real temperatures like this the everything in our fairyland world will be so hot it will die.
WE MUST ACT NOW. Say no to global data warming before it’s too late.

P. Solar

Climate Tipping Point:
A specially designated bin on every campus where this kind of RUBBISH can be dumped and the paper recycled.
This is usually kept away form other buildings because it stinks !!

“Steveta_uk says:
November 28, 2012 at 8:02 am
“Perhaps because you cannot prove thaat the planetary orbital effects wrong, so you whine over your failed CO2 hypothesis?”
Again an attack on something I didn’t say have have never believed. How odd.”
All that sniping, obfuscating, refusal to answer questions posted, selective irrelevant blathering and making inane, irrelevant commentary may appear to you to be demonstrating something of importance. From my purview, it exposes a sad little person trying desperately to being “right”. It comes across as something really sad. Why not just accept the fact that you are heading down the wrong path, instead of trying to demonstrate how ignorance and bias has overclouded your thinking processes. Better still, as much as I view your comments as comedy, surely there are other sites on the web who may actually appreciate your endless examples of childish comedic behaviour, I am certain this is not one of them.

P. Solar

trafamadore says:
November 28, 2012 at 7:36 am
>>
It seems you have more of a problem with the refs Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, Lean and Rind 2008, 2009, Schönwiese et al 2010, than the one you link to, since those are the refs that Rahmstorf use to support their claim
>>
No. The authors chose the papers they use. That means they (presumably) read them, find the method to be sound and endorse them by accepting the results and building on it.
No one forces them , they are totally responsible for what they chose to accept and adopt.

Don’t know much about the Rahmsdorf’s expertise, but his accessory Grant Foster is a climate science dupe. When I posted this on RC
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Jun.htm
to point to the 350 years of no temperature rise, he concluded that I fabricated data . When he was put right by his host, this dubious so called expert Foster resorted to spitting vulgarities, forcing mightily embarrassed Gavin (of RC) to delete number of his posts.

trafamadore

Bob Tisdale says: “Regardless, scientists and statisticians can never be excused for misrepresenting a process that causes global surface temperatures to warm over multiyear and multidecadal timescales.”
So, if you were to recalculate/revise the red line in Fig 1 of the Rahmstorf paper, what would it look like? Isnt that the bottom line? I see your ocean surface analysis, but I dont see how that would figure in the Rahnstorf analysis, which considers more “places” (for lack of a better word at the moment).
The second thing is (cuz I have scanned you contribution a number of times and I hate to say it but) I really cant find where you have clearly articulated “the myth” in a single sentence, it must be in there somewhere. Please help. (Or someone else.)

mpainter

Well, Steveta_UK, Tisdale has answered your complaint, and quite obligingly. Will you not acknowlege it? Perhaps you intend to ignore it.

trafamadore

Chuck L says: “Peer Review” = “Pal Review”
If you pls, could you suggest that to Nature or Science? It would be very helpful, I think, and people wouldnt haf to waste all this time resubmitting stuff.

Back to basics with Karl Popper:
http://guscost.com/2012/11/28/global-whining/

Gail Combs

Camburn says:
November 28, 2012 at 6:41 am
The quality of research, if as presented in recent publications, needs a wholesale firing of the culprits who waste valuable time on this junk science.
What ever……happened to “critical” thinking abilities?
Are we truly at the bottom of the barrel as far as talent goes?
______________________________________________
Yes I am afraid so.
I have become more and more convinced the average voter doesn’t have the brains or even the curiosity to checkout Bob’s great vids or Anthony’s great website. The mediocrity of current science not to mention the fraud is appalling and it did not spring from nowhere. We blame ‘Post Normal Science.’ Here are the origins.

The Shadow Scholar
The man who writes your students’ papers tells his story
…You’ve never heard of me, but there’s a good chance that you’ve read some of my work. I’m a hired gun, a doctor of everything, an academic mercenary. My customers are your students. I promise you that. Somebody in your classroom uses a service that you can’t detect, that you can’t defend against, that you may not even know exists.
I work at an online company that generates tens of thousands of dollars a month by creating original essays based on specific instructions provided by cheating students. I’ve worked there full time since 2004. On any day of the academic year, I am working on upward of 20 assignments…

For 10 years, William Schmidt, a statistics professor at Michigan State University, has looked at how U.S. students stack up against students in other countries in math and science. “In fourth-grade, we start out pretty well, near the top of the distribution among countries; by eighth-grade, we’re around average, and by 12th-grade, we’re at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa.”
Source

… Surveys of corporations consistently find that businesses are focused outside • the U.S. to recruit necessary talent. … One respondent to the survey even noted, “If I wanted to recruit people who are both technically skilled and culturally aware, I wouldn’t even waste time looking for them on U.S. college campuses.”
Source

…the U.S. ranks 21st out of 29 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in mathematics scores, with nearly one-quarter of students unable to solve the easiest level of questions….In 2000, 28 percent of all freshmen entering a degree-granting institution required remedial coursework…
Source

No teacher, but every textbook, left behind.
An exasperated William Bennetta explained why so many teachers accept inferior textbooks from these publishers, “[T]he major schoolbook companies… have long recognized that the teacher corps in America includes some desperate dumbbells, and the companies have learned to produce books that the dumbbells will like.” Alistair B. Fraser, a professor of meteorology who runs web sites exposing bad science in textbooks, concluded bleakly, “Apparently, most teachers believe everything they teach.” To which I add, why not? Cornell professor Donald Hayes, quoted in the Grandfather Education Report, reported on results of sampling 788 textbooks used between 1860 and 1992: “Honors high school texts are no more difficult than an eighth grade reader was before World War II.”……

That is not the worst of it. Schools bore bright kids silly and then drug them when they fidget or act up. Children as young as first grade are labeled ADHD and routinely put on drugs by the school’s tame doctor. No parent needed. Parents have even been threatened by the schools with ‘Child Abuse’ charges and having the child removed by social services if they try to take their child of the medication.
Gifted children and adults are at high risk for being identified as ADD.
A peer reviewed paper:

ADHD among American Schoolchildren: Evidence of Overdiagnosis and Overuse of Medication
…The Jensen et al. (1999) sample involved individuals between 9 and 17 years of age. By excluding a large proportion of children in the age group (i.e., ages 6 to 9) most affected by and/or treated for the disorder (Cohen et al., 1993; Safer & Zito, 1999; Safer et al., 1996; Scahill & Schwab-Stone, 2000), the study may have yielded an artificially low rate of ADHD and its treatment
Findings from this study were consistent between two racially, economically, and socially diverse school districts. In both school districts, the rate of ADHD medication use was highest among white males and lowest among black females; 17% of white males and 3% of black females received ADHD medication in school.

The Real Suicide Data from the TADS Study Comes to Light
ADHD: Ritalin – Brain damage, heart attacks, hallucinations & liver damage
The Drugging of Our Children
Death from Ritalin

David A. Evans

Bob Makes observations which make perfect sense in an engineering sort of way, then suggests a plausible mechanism but get called names.
Why not suggest why the mechanism is wrong or a different mechanism that explains the observations which logically cannot be caused by CO2, though they may help to cause CO2.
DaveE.

bwanajohn

It seems most have missed a significant paradigm shift here. It used to be CO2 was THE driving force to global temperatures. Now Rahmsdorf et al by removing ENSO, solar variations etc in order to make the data fit have implicitly admitted that OTHER factors like solar variation, ENSO etc are more of a factor on global temps than CO2. I see this as a major win even if the overall article is bunkum.

bones

If you detrend their detrending by examining more than the last 30 years, it cuts their warming trend by about 60%. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-cuts-recent-anthropogenic-warming-trend-in-half/
If this exercise in curve fitting can be extrapolated, the temperature arrest of the last 15 years ought to be continued for another decade or two. That ought to put a knot in the warmista’s undies.

Arfur Bryant

So, let me get this straight…
After the publishing of the MBH98 graph, the warmists were hyping that 1998 was “…likely the warmest year in a millennium.” It epitomised the hype that was cAGW.
Now, since they are having a hard time accepting that there has been no effective increase since 1998 (in spite of various attempts to manipulate the data), they wish to try to make the 1998 peak ‘disappear’ behind an avalanche of ‘adjustment criteria’. Any suggestion of an accelerated rise in temperature has been forgotten. The Emperor is truly naked and his advisors are desperate.
How much lower will ‘climate science’ sink?

GeorgeOrwellsWorld

Why does this get peer reviewed ?
Is there quality control at PIK in Potsdam ?
Does Tempo Analytics support activities of their employee Grant Foster ?
Why do main stream media report this at all ?

Graeme W

I had a completely different response to what was quoted from the new paper.
I looked at what was said and the Figure 1 graph and concluded that since the IPCC projections do not include all the items that the paper claims to have removed from the observational data, then the IPCC projections, if accurate, are not projecting real temperatures. You can see that clearly in the graph – the projections are all higher than current temperatures. Therefore, even if we assume that the projections are correct, they don’t reflect what the temperature will be.
So anytime someone quotes the the IPCC projections for what temperatures will be in 2100, we can point to this paper and say that this paper states, quite clearly, that the projections will not be for observed temperatures because they don’t include all the factors.
The response to that will be that over time the other factors will average to zero, but I’d like to see a paper that demonstrates that. Until then, that’s only an unproven assumption.