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.
richardscourtney says: “Following a series of people pointing out your deplorable behaviour”
What’s that line about a kettle and a pot?
richardscourtney says: “Maybe you should learn that it is better to be thought a fool than to say something which proves you are.”
I am very used to being wrong, it’s part of my business model.
But a fool? I did not use the word to describe anyone here, and would advise you to follow my example.
richardscourtney says: “He has published his excellent “stuff” in several places including here.”
You can say and publish anything you want on the internet; but as you know I was talking about peer review. And that he has not done.
Tisdale could answer in a clear way where the mysterious energy comes from in his model. Several people have asked this of him, and when I looked in to it this AM, it turns out this is not the only place he has been asked such questions. He says it’s natural, well, that’s what he says. The more he explained things, the more I started thinking about people explaining a perpetual motion machine; his too complicated explanation, complete with caps and red lettering, seems overdone.
The bottom line is that the earth is warming, the Arctic is melting, and the ocean is both rising and becoming more acid. I suspect swirling hot and cold ocean currents are not going to be enuf to explain it all. Nevertheless, I will be the first to say I am wrong if he publishes in Nature.
Bob, as a non expert I would have to say I very much agree with Anthonys views on this one…
“He has not succeeded in terms of how science views, you know, a successful inquiry. His papers have not passed peer review.”
That was referring to Richard Muller but I can’t see a reason why it doesn’t apply here.
Nick Kermode says:
November 29, 2012 at 1:28 pm
“He has not succeeded in terms of how science views, you know, a successful inquiry. His papers have not passed peer review.”
That was referring to Richard Muller but I can’t see a reason why it doesn’t apply here.
______________________________________
With the amount of fraud in peer-reviewed papers, the gate-keeping and the expense, why the heck should Bob Tissdale bother?
Muller’s paper was submitted to peer review and not passed it after a year and a half. I.e., the reviewers have found problems with it. No reviewers have found problems with Tisdale’s paper.
trafamadore says:
At November 29, 2012 at 1:14 pm you say
Oh! So your business has gone broke. Or perhaps you business is windpower so subsidies pay for your being wrong.
And you say of Bob Tisdale
You can say and publish anything you like in ‘climate science’ in peer reviewed form if you have the right pals. An example of this is the ridiculous paper by Rahmstorf and Foster which is the subject of this discussion, and consideration of which you are trying to deflect. Even outrageous tripe such as Mann, Bradley & Hughes (1998) gets a pass through pal review.
Do you have anything to say in defence of the nonsense by Rahmstorf and Foster or is your snowstorm of strawmen – notably your unjustified attack on Bob Tisdale – the only response you can muster to the criticisms of that paper?
Richard
Nick Kermode says: “That was referring to Richard Muller but I can’t see a reason why it doesn’t apply here.”
I’m surprised you can’t see the difference, Nick. It’s very obvious. Muller was presenting a totally revised land surface air temperature dataset. On the other hand, I’m simply noting the blatantly obvious deficiencies in the methods used Rahmstorf et al (2012). Anyone who can read a graph can see the problem with their assumptions that I’ve presented in Figure 3 of this post. Why would you, Nick, think that requires peer review, when the problem is so obvious?
trafamadore says: “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.”
You can believe anything you want, trafamadore. I personally do not care what anyone believes.
What I do is very simple. I present data. And in this case, the data contradicts the assumptions made by the authors of the peer-reviewed paper. That leaves you, the reader of my post, with a number of choices. (1) You can believe the peer-reviewed paper, even though the data contradicts their assumptions. (2) You can believe the data as I have presented it. Or (3) you can be skeptical of what I presented and go to the source of data that I included at the end to the post and verify my results. If you verify my results, you have two more choices, which are to believe the data or to believe the paper. Those choices are yours.
Most of the visitors here have stopped verifying my results. They used to do it all of the time. Now, I see few comments to that effect. Most of the people here would favor (your choice of words—favor is a great word in this discussion, BTW) the data over a peer-reviewed paper. What’s your choice?
David A. Evans says: “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.”
Great analogy, David. Thanks. I’m terrible with analogies. And for those wonder what KERS is, it’s the Kinetic Energy Recovery System used on Formula 1 cars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_recovery_system
GRRRR. I missed the last two races of the season this year. The Sky Sports webcast through the eplsite locked up. That made me cranky when I saw the results.
@ur momisugly 7:33, Gail Combs says “In the cool (recharge) half of the cycle, La Nina,” and so on.
The wording – half of the cycle – ought to be something like:
In the La Niña (recharge) activity . . .
. . . because there is not a cycle to halve.
Hi there Roger. I think your statement that no reviewers have found a problem with this work probably reflects the fact that it hasn’t been submitted for review, not there are no issues with this paper. On reading it several things jump out. Maybe someone can put my understanding right if I have it wrong.
Bob says….”They result because the naturally created warm water…”
As far as I am aware it takes energy to warm water. As far as I am aware it takes more energy to make warmer water, and more energy again to sustain it. The most basic laws of thermodynamics categorically disprove Bobs assertion here. I don’t know of any hypotheses that have relied on naturally created energy that have done too well in peer review.
Also Bob says ” The rest of the world data does not cool during La Nina events but sea surface temperatures there warm in response to El Nino events”
and
” 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.”
Looks like a plausible assumption based on the graph but if we look deeper into the past using this mechanism, some back of the envelope calculations would show a that this hypothesis just can’t be possible. I’ll try a short elevator as I understand Bob…
El Nino warms the “rest of the world” SSTs on each occasion,
La Nina does not cool the “rest of the world” SSTs post an El Nino event.
ENSO is not noise and can not be averaged out over time, therefore has a cumulative heat effect.
Bobs figure 5 shows three El Ninos between 85 and present,
Bobs figure 5 shows a 0.3C increase in SST.
Bobs mechanism therefore shows (roughly) 0.1C increase per event
In the last hundred years we have had about 23 El Ninos
Lets now be conservative and halve all the numbers to average a guess over long timescales and do the calculation
.05 increase per event x 11 events per 100 years= 0.55C over 100 years.
Still sounds plausible, but Bob says this is not waxing and waning noise that adds up to zero effect as RFC 12 suggest, so must be cumulative. So lets go back 5000 years..
0.55 x 50= 27.5C.
So, to my understanding, Bobs hypothesis is certainly supported by that 30 years of data but by extending the mechanism outside that time shows it is obviously incorrect. Some other mechanism is driving the increasing OHC. Combine that with the fact that whatever the wiggles or natural events all graphs show more heat in the ocean now than the 80’s. This has not been “created” (unless we have discovered perpetual motion) it has been transferred. Bobs hypothesis can not explain this. (?)
trafamadore
You are misled. You say that the globe is warming but it is not. The last warming trend ended before this century began. What peer-reviewed studies have told you that the globe is warming? You should not read such garbage.
You say that the Arctic is melting- it is not, it’s freezing. It’s that time of year, you see. Come May it will start melting, as always. Then it will start freezing again next Sept. The polar bears are doing fine, except when some global warmer shoots them with a tranquilizing dart. Then they drown. Has some peer reviewed study told you that Arctic ice will someday disappear completely? Ah-, you must be reading about what some climate model has “projected”.Watch out for those.
The ocean level fluctuates according to cycles of warmth and cooling, as ice mass ablates in warmer periods and accumulates during cooler periods. Can you not find a peer-reviewed study that explains that? So relax, because 2 or 3 mm a year is no big deal and that is fixing to reverse.
By the way, a warmer world is entirely beneficial. It means milder winters. It means a longer growing season and higher levels of humidity. This increases world food supply, no small consideration for a world that will double and redouble in population this century. That means food production will need to double and redouble. For that, we need a warmer world. A warmer world means better conditions for all life forms. Cooling is the scythe of death and the gravest of threats because we are still in the Ice Age, though at an interstadial.
So pray for a warmer world. Some time ago, it was hoped that we could warm the world by oxidizing carbon, but that hope has been dashed as the world has seen no warming for over a decade and it is feared that a cooling trend is coming.
Does peer-reviewed literature tell you that the oceans are becoming more acid? Tsk, tsk, poor, misled fellow. The oceans are alkaline, and will remain so for the next billion years or more. Some peer reviewed studies imply that CO2 has increased the acidity of ocean waters and is dissolving plankton, corals, etc., which is egregious error. So beware of what you see in the peer-reviewed literature. You could wind up with a bad case of ChickenLittlepox, an infectious social disease that dulls the reasoning processes and results in confusion.
to my (trafamadore’s): “I am very used to being wrong, it’s part of my business model.”
richardscourtney says “Oh! So your business has gone broke. Or perhaps you business is windpower so subsidies pay for your being wrong.”
Ha Ha. No. I thought would have figured it out: I am a scientist. Like most scientists, I would at eliminating incorrect hypothesis. Think Edison, with his success story of 1999 ways not to make a light bulb, and you have a glimpse of the boring work I do! But not on AGW, thank heavens. But I have colleagues that do, and they are quite good I think. But I digress…
richardscourtney says “You can say and publish anything you like in ‘climate science’ in peer reviewed form if you have the right pals.”
I wish you were correct. Most unfortunately for all of us, you have no idea what you are talking about.
richardscourtney says “Do you have anything to say in defence of the nonsense by Rahmstorf and Foster or is your snowstorm of strawmen”
Of course I am not a climate man. But, no, I see nothing wrong with their paper. And to claim that the way they handled the ENSO noise in the record is wrong has no support in the published literature, that’s the way is has been done in the past, it’s a minor point in the paper, and they have a bigger point to make, and even if they thought they could modify it, I dont think they even care about. It’s not want they do. Also, I do have a fair amount training in statistics, like most scientists, and the approach appears statistically sound. It’s not too different than using a noise filter to remove the dust (ENSO) in a scanned picture.
But is there a problem with the published data? There might be.
Let me show you a problem:
Bob Tisdale says: “You can believe anything you want, trafamadore. I personally do not care what anyone believes.” He then does on to say he says stuff and we can believe of not. I am not doing justice to his screed, but you can read it above.
So your Tisdale is his own worse enemy, not me. How can people cite his stuff if it is not published, doesnt he know that you cant refs on the web in a paper? Heck, I dont even allow my undergrads to cite the web it in their term papers.
Nick Kermode
But Tisdale’s paper has been submitted for review right here at this website for a review process that is as thorough as any publication peer review and more thorough than some. It is an open process and superior to the present peer review system of publications, I believe.
trafamadore,
Leaving aside climate pal review, does it not concern you that there is no measurable AGW signal that has been conclusively identified? There is still no testable evidence showing that AGW even exists. At this point it is just an assertion. AGW may exist, but without measurable evidence it is still simply a conjecture. An opinion.
Do you tell your students that fact? Do you explain that AGW is stalled at the Conjecture stage of the Scientific Method? Do you explain that it is neither a testable hypothesis, nor a theory? Do you explain to them that the climate Null Hypothesis deconstructs all of the wild-eyed speculation regarding storms, weather, anthropogenic global warming, etc.? Do you inform them that every climate parameter has been exceeded during the Holocene, when CO2 was much lower?
Or, do you perpetuate the scientifically baseless Rahmsdorf/Foster myths, and the rest of the evidence-free climate beliefs?
Either produce testable, verifiable scientific measurements showing conclusively that global warming is caused, in whole or in part, by human emissions — or continue to defend peer reviewed witch doctor explanations. Because what they are doing is not science based, it is belief based.
Sixteen years and counting…
trafamadore says: “So your Tisdale is his own worse enemy, not me. How can people cite his stuff if it is not published, doesnt he know that you cant refs on the web in a paper?”
Your comments on this thread have reached nonsense level. Apparently you did not comprehend what I wrote to you in my earlier reply. Let me try it again: You, trafamadore, can accept the peer-reviewed paper or you can accept the data. I don’t care which choice YOU make. It’s your choice.
But I have to ask, Why would I be my own worst enemy, trafamadore?
mpainter says:
“The last warming trend ended before this century began.”
Really? Then please explain the measured ocean warming:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/world-ocean-heat-content-and-thermosteric-sea-level-change-0-2000-1955-2010
I love how people just ignore data because they don’t like its results….
Mughal,
Thank you for that link. which shows conclusively that there has been no acceleration of the natural sea level rise:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2012_rel4/sl_ns_global.png
Despite substantially higher [harmless, beneficial] CO2 levels, nothing unusual or unprecedented is occurring. Thus, the climate Null Hypothesis remains un-falsified, and AGW remains a conjecture; an assertion lacking testable, empirical measurements.
Nick Kermode says:
November 29, 2012 at 6:09 pm
As far as I am aware it takes energy to warm water.
That is correct. As Bob T. expressed it “downward shortwave radiation (visible light), . . .”
What part of that are you having trouble with?
mpainter says: “You are misled.”
No. I lead myself, thank you. My principles are my own. Care to share?
mpainter says: “By the way, a warmer world is entirely beneficial. It means milder winters.”
I am from Buffalo originally and I like to ski in the winter. I love the cold and snow. So dont anger me.
mpainter says: “Does peer-reviewed literature tell you that the oceans are becoming more acid? Tsk, tsk, poor, misled fellow. The oceans are alkaline, and will remain so for the next billion years or more. Some peer reviewed studies imply that CO2 has increased the acidity of ocean waters and is dissolving plankton, corals, etc., which is egregious error.”
Does peer-reviewed literature tell your doctor that a new drug has come out that might save someone close to you? Tsk, tsk, poor, misled fellow. Dont do it! Quickly, stick your head in the sand because the death of someone close to you is natural.
More seriously, more heat will have winners (Canada) and losers (Texas). Be careful of what you wish for.
Nick Kermode says: “As far as I am aware it takes energy to warm water. As far as I am aware it takes more energy to make warmer water, and more energy again to sustain it. The most basic laws of thermodynamics categorically disprove Bobs assertion here.”
Nick, your lack of understanding of ENSO is astounding. You obviously do understand the interaction between the trade winds and the surface temperatures of the tropical Pacific. You obviously do not understand the interaction between the trade winds and tropical Pacific cloud cover. You obviously do not understand the interaction between tropical Pacific cloud cover and downward shortwave radiation (visible sunlight) entering the tropical Pacific. You obviously do not understand the interaction between downward shortwave radiation and the ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific.
Maybe you might try to understand the topic of discussion before you make statements that broadcast your ignorance of the subject matter.
Nick Kermode says: “I don’t know of any hypotheses that have relied on naturally created energy that have done too well in peer review.”
I immediately thought one: McPhaden 1999 “Genesis and Evolution of the 1997-98 El Niño”.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/mcph2029/text.shtml
McPhaden writes:
“For at least a year before the onset of the 1997–98 El Niño, there was a buildup of heat content in the western equatorial Pacific due to stronger than normal trade winds associated with a weak La Niña in 1995–96.”
Would you like me to explain how that happens, Nick?
John F. Hultquist, it appears the trolls would rather believe in a flawed hypothesis than spend a few moments to comprehend what the data says. To each their own.
Bob Tisdale says: “But I have to ask, Why would I be my own worst enemy, trafamadore?”
Guys (and I mean gals too by that), I think we are starting to get somewhere.
Bob Tisdale says: “Your comments on this thread have reached nonsense level. Apparently you did not comprehend what I wrote to you in my earlier reply. Let me try it again: You, trafamadore, can accept the peer-reviewed paper or you can accept the data. I don’t care which choice YOU make. It’s your choice.”
No. You see it’s not my choice. Data only matters when it’s published. Scientists, mostly liberals BTW, are really conservative on this one point. It’s the choice of the scientific community, they are old rules that go back hundreds of years, and they have served us unbelievably well. Unbelievably. If you don’t agree with that, fine, but then you will have nothing to offer, and when this blog is deleted some day, you and the bytes that define you will be gone. You don’t get to set the rules. You will just be ignored. So deal with it.
So to others out there who have something to offer, stop complaining about the quality of science and publish in a peer reviewed journal. Only then will people really notice you.
trafamadore says:
“Data only matters when it’s published.”
What?? You prissy, testosterone-deficient academic. Data is data! Clearly, you do not understand that fact. Go back to your tenure-protected ivory tower, jamoke. This here is the real world.
You poison minds in order to keep your green sycophant, competition-free fellow academics kissing up to your protected status. How comfortable.
You have no balls. If I am wrong, then let us set up a real debate, with a mutually agreed moderator in a neutral venue. Recorded on YouTube, for all the world to see, forever.
What’s that? You, like every other cowardly climate alarmist, tucks tail and runs from any real debate? What are you afraid of? Having the public pass judgement on your witch doctor pseudo-science?
You and Algore. Two peas in a pod.
Chicken.
trafamadore says:
November 29, 2012 at 8:37 pm
——————————————-
So your premise is that ENSO and SST data is neither published, nor derived from peer-reviewed publications ?
You idiot.
D Böehm says: “do you perpetuate the scientifically baseless Rahmsdorf/Foster myths, and the rest of the evidence-free climate beliefs?”
Look, the Rahmsdorf paper is–in the end–a prediction, and we will have no idea of its mythdom until 5 to 10 years from now. They stuck their necks out, and we will see. But to call it nonsense _now_ is nonsense. You must wait.
Hansen did the same thing 20 years ago, and he has been more or less correct, and thats with a really weak model by todays standards.
Models are hypotheses, and they are tested by their predictions, and then they are modified, and they are tested again, and on, and on, and on. As it turns out, the worse model out there has predictive value and the best model out there is not prefect. What would you expect?
But scientifically baseless? Not.