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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tide gauges say sea level rise is just 1.6 mms/year.
When they fix the glacial isostatic adjustments applied to the satellite sea level estimates, the rise from the satellite measurments will also be lowered to 1.6 mms/year.
There is no acceleration in these numbers either. There is some variability each year but the longer-medium-term trend is only 1.6 mms/year.
There are 88 years left before the year 2100. 88 years times 1.6 = 14 cms = 5.6 inches and does not equal 1.0 metre.
Sea level rise is faster than predicted = Rahmstorf’s dreamy math again.
trafamadore = tralfamadore ? Seems like.
November 28, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Steven Mosher says:
———————————————————————
Poor analogy. Golf club and ball manufacturers have more in common with the sceptic view … they don’t rely on model data, they gather their data from real time physical experiments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nxVEXFjal1I
Examination of the text of the paper of Rahmstorf et al for fallacious arguments reveals an example of one. The authors conclude that the “…adjusted observed global temperature evolution closely follows the central IPCC projections…” but as “closely” has more than one meaning this phrase is an example of an equivocation. This equivocation has the power to mislead the naive to the false belief that the IPCC models have been statistically tested without being falsified by the evidence when these models are really insusceptible to being statistically tested. The argument that is made by IPCC Working Group I in AR4 is of a similarly deceptive nature.
Yet another load of “statistical hand waving” to yield a desired result. When you set out to compare “projected” versus “actual” and find the result is that measured “actual” peaked in 1998 and declined thereafter, you have a problem with the AGW story-line. “Actual” is completely out of (below) the bands of uncertainty for all the various climate-model-projected scenarios! What’s a true-believer who makes a handsome living off the spoils of AGW theory to do? In a sane world, this data destroys the AGW story-line! CO2 kept climbing unabated and global temperature did not, FOR A PERIOD OF 14 YEARS!
Fortunately for the author of this paper, we no longer live in a sane world where reason dominated science. Tortured data is the fundamental tool of AGW promotion. Measured data does not show what you wish? Adjust it! Apply a series of statistically based transformations until you get either the outcome you wish or, at a minimum, one that does not utterly destroy the AGW story.
In this case, the author knew he could not get away with simply burying the “measured actual” data on which his paper purports to be based, so he presented it on his chart in barely visible “pink”. He then presented an “adjusted actual” in bold “red” that conveniently fell within the bands of uncertainty of previous computer model projections. The Emperor Has No Clothes! Has the entire world gone stark bonkers?
Bob Tisdale says: “The oceans warm naturally. That is, there is no apparent anthropogenic global warming component in the warming of the oceans. Land surface air temperatures simply mimic and exaggerate the warming oceans.”
Like you could have said that at the beginning of your post. You may disagree with the published study by Rahmstorf but you could learn a lot from his concise presentation.
One thing you should worry about is when you say things like, “ENSO is a process that creates and releases heat naturally.” The release part is fine; the creation part, not. It seems you should ponder the laws of thermodynamics in a more quantitative matter. Total heat has to add up and come from somewhere, otherwise we could just heat our houses by blowing air about.
I think one difficulty with peer review in cases such as this one is that there is little scope to objectively argue against an entire method. Should R&F have even attempted to remove ENSO factors from the climate and what does that even mean?
Even if you dont believe in Bob’s analysis, you have to wonder whether something like it could be real. Certainly R&F have the MASSIVE assumption that CO2 is doing the warming despite the obvious large step temperature increases which on the face of it are difficult to attribute to a constant small forcing.
That phrase “failed to note”. [!]
I would say it is not a failure to note by Rahmstorf et al (2012),
Rather, what we see and read is a Failure To Comprehend!
Rahmstorf et al. lack the fundamental ability to … Comprehend.
Therefore, they wander aimlessly from ‘tree to tree’ and ‘swamp
to swamp’. Like the Anthropogenic Mann Thing.
And their ‘arithmetic’ … unfounded … illogical … in any realm of Mathematics.
Perhaps the branches of Astrology will Rush To Aid Them In Their
Moment Of Supreme Need …. err … no. Not EVEN these.
Mr. Rahmstorf … an example of … Failure. Supreme Failure.
A failed human being, a monster calling itself Mr. Rahmstorf.
Steve Mosher says:
“What do I do?
1. retest until I can absolutely control all the conditions ( hehe, right )
2. Rerun my model with the ACTUAL parameters.
3. Account for the differences by adjusting the observations, removing noise, outliers etc
4. Invoke popper and claim that the model is wrong and newtons laws of gravity
which the model relies on are suddenly disproven.
Most of the time you will do #2, or #1 IFF it is feasible and cost effective
But if you cant do 1 ( we cant control the sun) and if you cant do 2 ( run the model over )
Then the only thing you can do is 3.
3 is ugly. 3 is hard. 3 is prone to confirmation bias because you tend to only correct those things that go in your favor to bring results inline with predictions, but option 3 is sometime the only thing you can do for the present time. its a band.”
Steve, (and I may be preaching to the choir) Then why bother with a paper like rahmstorf et al at all? If in order to get a linear fit you have to remove and manipulate your data then how can you possibly state with any confidence that your conclusions are accurate? To me this paper is simply an effort to try and prove a point, so I say, what’s the point? Wouldn’t money be better spent in trying to find out more about what we don’t know? Clouds come to mind…
trafamadore says:
“One thing you should worry about is when you say things like, “ENSO is a process that creates and releases heat naturally.” The release part is fine; the creation part, not. It seems you should ponder the laws of thermodynamics in a more quantitative matter. Total heat has to add up and come from somewhere, otherwise we could just heat our houses by blowing air about.”
Bob has already explained this and it’s in his presentation if you would get off your butt and take a look. He explains that the added energy comes from SWR from decreased low level cloudiness. If you want to debate then ask him about cloudiness trends or something else rational, your arguments are exactly that, arguments.
Trafamadore, you say: “One thing you should worry about is when you say things like, “ENSO is a process that creates and releases heat naturally.” The release part is fine; the creation part, not. It seems you should ponder the laws of thermodynamics in a more quantitative matter. Total heat has to add up and come from somewhere, otherwise we could just heat our houses by blowing air about.”
It’s quite evident that you simply do not want to get this. How many times have Bob explained this to you and to all of us? It’s how the ENSO process works! The times when the net uptake of energy from the sun into the global system – you know, energy input from OUTSIDE the system – is positive (La Niña) is an equally important part of the ENSO process as the part where the net uptake of energy from the sun is negative (El Niño), that is, more energy is released from the Earth system than is being absorbed from the sun. ENSO doesn’t ‘create’ the energy. It works it into the system. If ENSO only released energy, never received any, it would quite soon have depleted its fuel deposits and faded away. No, the energy comes from the sun. Constantly. That’s a no-brainer. Sometimes more is released during El Niño conditions than is being absorbed during the following La Niña conditions. Then the Earth system will on average loose total energy content. At other times more energy is absorbed during a La Niña event (like during a three year one) than is able to be released during the following El Niño conditions. Then the total energy content of the Earth system will on average go up.
How hard is this to understand?
trafamadore says: “One thing you should worry about is when you say things like, ‘ENSO is a process that creates and releases heat naturally.’ The release part is fine; the creation part, not. It seems you should ponder the laws of thermodynamics in a more quantitative matter. Total heat has to add up and come from somewhere, otherwise we could just heat our houses by blowing air about.”
Maybe you should study the data before you question my statement, trafamadore. The graphs presented in this post indicate the sea surface temperatures warmed naturally. Are you aware that the global oceans can be divided into logical subsets which show the ocean heat content warmed naturally, too? This is illustrated and discussed quite clearly in the two videos presented in the post. Since 1950, there have been three 3-year La Niña events. They occurred in 1954-57, 1973-76, and 1998-2001. During the multidecadal periods between those 3-year La Niñas, Ocean Heat Content cooled in the tropical Pacific. Did you know that? Are you aware that the same holds true for the tropical oceans as a whole? If you do not understand how the tropical oceans warm during La Niña events, then you have no basis from which to claim I don’t understand thermodynamics. Are you aware the Ocean Heat Content for the extratropical North Pacific cooled from the start of the dataset until the late 1980s and then warmed in a 2-year period, and that without that 2-year warming, the Ocean Heat Content for that region would show cooling from 1955 to present? Again, trafamadore, you need to study the data and the natural processes through which the oceans warm before YOU think that somehow, somewhere anthropogenic greenhouse gases can do something more that evaporate a little more water from the surface of the global oceans.
No, I didn’t ignore it, and I’m grateful to Bob for responding politely, unlike some of the other posters here.
This is in fact the same response that has been given by Bob to me, and to others who have raised exactly the same issue several times in response to Bob’s postings.
The problem in more detail is this. Take figure 5, and rotate it by approx 10 degress clockwise. What you’d get is a graph that shows temp rises during an El Nino, followed by a gradual decay back to previous temps by the time of the following El Nino.
If you then impose a linear warming signal on to this graph you would get exactly what Bob shows. The question that has been asked before, by me and other people, is how could you distinguish these two cases – one where there is a gradual warming, and one where step changes occur due to El Nino events. The graudal waming case seems to some people to make more sense, as I do not think Bob has explained where the long-term increases in temperature are coming from.
Note that Bob doesn’t dispute this – he explictly says “I don’t present theories. I present data.”
I’m astonished at the nasty attacks I’ve received in comments above for wanting to know the answer to this issue. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Solar/CO2/volcanos/whatever – I would simply like to know if the data can distinguish between the case of there being no underlying warming signal and the case where is there a warming signal, and all of Bob’s responses are about the heat redistribution, which he explains very well, but does not (to me) explain where the gradual long-term increase in temperatures shown in figure 5 come from. I would think that this requires a long-term increase in ocean heat content, and not just a redistribution of heat, to sustain such a thing over the 35-year period of the graph.
You should not be astonished. Go back and read your original complaint wherein you claim that Tisdale had never responded to the issue except to tender his book. Then read your last posting wherein you admit that Tisdale has indeed provided you the answer previously; I quote: “This is in fact the the same response that has been given by Bob to me..”. When you seem to shoot from the lip, people will shoot back.
Furthermore, one complaint about the Rahmstorf paper is that it changes data to suit the theory. Please allow me to quote Faraday which quote seems applicable. “When I make observations that contradict my theories, I adjust my theory to accomodate the observation. What do you do sir?”
Well, the response to Faraday’s question is not recorded but it might have been something like– ” Take figure 5 and rotate it about ten degrees.”
Steveta_uk says:
November 29, 2012 at 12:58 am
Would you dispute that the warm water in the Western Pacific Warm Pool, (WPWP,) cannot be caused by IR back-radiation?
If you cannot dispute that then there is no need to explain any more than Bob already has.
Like a KERS on a GP car, between El Niños, energy from the Sun is harvested in the battery, (the WPWP,) and then later released during an El Niño. The only thing that can prevent this is additional cloud mid-Pacific. If we can find out why there is less cloud over the mid-Pacific than once there was, we will have the answer.
DaveE.
If only they’d fly away en masse!
Steveta_uk says: “The graudal waming case seems to some people to make more sense, as I do not think Bob has explained where the long-term increases in temperature are coming from.”
I have explained it in numerous posts before this one and in this post. In the two paragraphs before Figure 5, above, I wrote:
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.
And, Steveta_uk, in the paragraph before those two, I wrote:
They [the divergences during the La Nina events of 1988/89 and 1998-2001] 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.
Steveta_uk asks where: “… but does not (to me) explain where the gradual long-term increase in temperatures shown in figure 5 come from.” while ignoring the actual message of Fig 5. The rest of the world does not completely cool to the previous temp during La Ninas. Why? Any number of reasons which to me are mostly associated with 1) a lag in ocean currents, and to me the most obvious 2) increased solar energy and 3) solar energy is a constant. Why do you assume that Rafmstorf/Foster-12 actually identified the total impacts of even those influences studied and that those they idenfied are any where near the actual complete list.
Steve your confusion is based upon a reliance that the slow increase in warming MUST BE from GHGs. Worse to support that belief he has to adjust he visual presentation: “Take figure 5, and rotate it by approx 10 degress clockwise. What you’d get is a graph that shows temp rises during an El Nino, followed by a gradual decay back to previous temps by the time of the following El Nino.
If you then impose a linear warming signal on to this graph you would get exactly what Bob shows.”
What is obvious to me is that the AGW signal, when positive, is easily over whelmed by natural signals. The other problem I have is considering ~130 years long term, when we have a signal for this interglacial of overall cooling since the early warmup.
If the precise measurements you imply were actually available most of these discussions would disappear, but they do not exist, and we must calculate them from even more imprecise data/knowledge. The RF Study is a prime example of this.
Bob Tisdale says:”Maybe you should study the data before you question my statement, trafamadore.”
Perhaps. But maybe you should publish your stuff before you attempt to take down already published studies.
Sorry, but in the science world, peer reviewed published stuff trumps abstracts from meetings, talks, books, unpublished manuscripts, the US house of representatives — and blog posts. (That was in order of credibility, BTW)
Maybe to say it another way, I am not a climate specialist and it is obvious that most others on this site are not either. So when I see someone try to take down a published article with a bunch of Excel graphs and has not published himself, I favor the peer reviewed stuff. Pretty simple.
If you are right, prove it like a lowly scientist does it…you publish. Pretty simple. I think that Mr Watts believes this as well.
Hiding in the blog dens that are uncritical of your stuff means you will never improve your story and of course never have an effect.
Duster says:
November 28, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Gail Combs says:
… CRU’s Dr. Phil Jones, world renowned climatologist, can’t even plot a trend in Excel!
Gail, there is a saying that circulates around the internet regarding spreadsheets and statistics, “don’t!”…
_________________________________
I haven’t used Excel in a decade or two. It was just the first spreadsheet I learned and I found it extremely easy even for the ‘computer-impaired’ My home computer has Linux. (I Can’t stand Windows)
wsbriggs says:
November 28, 2012 at 3:30 pm
So tell me, when with the electrical fields within the atmosphere be included in the predictions? What effects do electrical discharges like the Aurora Borealis have on stratospheric clouds? Can sprite discharges modify the path of the jet streams? What about the low frequency resonances in the ionosphere, what is their contribution? Are these second order, third order effects? Who’s studied it?…
_________________________________
Try Dr. Joan Feynman, Richard Feynman’s sister. She has been fascinated by the Aurora Borealis since Richard showed it to her as a little girl.
trafamadore says:
November 28, 2012 at 6:50 pm
….One thing you should worry about is when you say things like, “ENSO is a process that creates and releases heat naturally.” The release part is fine; the creation part, not. It seems you should ponder the laws of thermodynamics in a more quantitative matter. Total heat has to add up and come from somewhere, otherwise we could just heat our houses by blowing air about.
______________________________________________
Bob has most certainly explained that.
In a nut shell El Nino is the ‘release of heat’ half of the cycle and La Nina is the recharge half of the cycle. These two halves are NOT necessarily in equilibrium. If the El Nino has ‘left over heat’ as it has during the time Bob has been studying it then the net result is an increase in total SST. link
In the cool (recharge) half of the cycle, La Nina, the cloud cover in the equatorial zone is diminished and the seas gain heat from the sun. If this gain is fairly large the seas do not cool as much giving the stair steps seen in Bob’s <a href="http://i49.tinypic.com/j638yq.jpg"graphs. If the gain is small during La Nina the seas could cool more and there could be less El Ninos and you could see a DECREASE in SST as is evident in the EPA graph from 1880 to 1910.
My SWAG is that is the type of ENSO we are going to be seeing in the near future with a net decrease in SST. For example the last La Nina has not been followed by an El Nino but by a La Nada (neutral)
Bob explains it a heck of a lot better than I can in his video.
trafamadore:
Following a series of people pointing out your deplorable behaviour, at November 29, 2012 at 5:27 am you have the gall to write
He has published his excellent “stuff” in several places including here. And he is suggesting that you read it before making your foolish comments.
Maybe you should learn that it is better to be thought a fool than to say something which proves you are.
Richard
richardscourtney: In ‘climate science’ when an understanding is shown to be wrong by failure of a prediction then it is common practice to make post hoc adjustments to the prediction. The FR paper is a clear example of such a post hoc adjustment.
On this I agree with you. I in my wording, I distinguish between “testing a hypothesis” and “rescuing a hypothesis”.
Trafamadore
Many in the warmist camp refer to the process of peer review as you do, as a sort of imprimature or certification of validity,and that papers that lack such a certification are unworthy of consideration. This assumption is gross error, as peer review is no certification of the validity of the study. Furthermore, many worthy papers are given at science colloquiums and conferences. For example, at the annual GSA conference, hundreds of geoscientists gather to present and to hear studies and reports, none of which have been “peer reviewed” or published in a journal. This sort of colloquium is found in all scientific disciplines. Almost all scientists have participated in such conferences and none would ever make such statements as you have concerning unpublished studies, EXCEPT in the field of climatology where one repeatedly hears sneers about “peer review” or lack thereof. Your sneering reveals you as a parrot, repeating what you hear without understanding what you say.