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.
trafamadore: Peer review = quality control. It’s not perfect, even Honda and Toyotas have defects. But peer review, its pretty good. And it’s all we got. No one has better idea how to do it at the moment, but you can put your ideas in the little suggestion box at your workplace.
Your comments and some of the responses highlight a serious problem. The peer-review process is not sufficiently rigorous that all the published papers can be relied upon; talented people in blogs often point out flaws in papers that have been published, such as this post by Bob Tisdale, itself based on citations of other published data. Most legitimate criticisms of the published AGW-promoting papers face insuperable difficulties in getting published (read of some of the rare successes at Steve McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit); this leaves blogs such at WUWT as the single most important corrective to the peer-review process, though bloggers are themselves not perfect.
So here we have a solid effort by Bob Tisdale highlighting serious flaws in a published paper, and your critiques are: (a) you are not qualified or willing to judge it on its merits and (b) it has not been published in the sort of peer-reviewed literature that is not accepting of criticism. You also wrote that Rahmstorf and Foster have published a prediction that can be tested in the future, but AGW promoters never accept failed tests of hypotheses: they revise them, as R&F did here to a previous testable hypothesis, in such a way that failed predictions never count as evidence with respect to the truth of AGW.
It seems to me that, if you discredit the value of blogs as a corrective to the flaws of peer-review (I maintain that they are the best single corrective we have now), you would do better to evaluate Bob Tisdale’s post on its merits, and make this a better blog thereby. Lots of people read WUWT; if any of the regular readers have slogged through your posts, they have wasted their time.
trafamadore says:
November 30, 2012 at 5:20 am
Wasn’t there an blog post here on cherry picking time intervals for an Escalator or something?
But I hadn’t seen that wood for trees web site, it’s cool. Thanks. Look at my plot:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1970/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1970/trend
Yes, there was, and all times were less than 15 years. I have taken your plot and extended it to 1850 and have drawn a few more slope lines. Here is a summary:
Last 15 years, slope is 0.
From 1970 to date, the slope is 1.3/century.
From 1912 to 1942, the slope s 1.6/century.
From 1850 to date, the slope is 0.4/century.
So if we are concerned about “proper” 30 year periods, the 30 year period from 1912 to 1942 had a steeper slope than the last 42 years. So CO2 does not seem to be a factor. Or do you not agree? See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1850/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1970/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1850/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1912/to:1942/trend
Matthew R Marler says:
Good comment- wish I had put that.
Werner Brozek:
In your cogent post at November 30, 2012 at 8:49 am you write
It is possible that there may be onlookers who do not understand the importance of your point which completely demolishes the ‘red herring’ from the troll posting as trafamadore.
Therefore, I write to spell-out the issues which you raise when you write, “all times were less than 15 years”.
Firstly, in 2009 the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported at
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
on page 123:
NOAA said that in 2009 and, Werner, you show that there has now been “zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more” so there is a “discrepancy” between what the models predict and “the expected present-day warming rate”.
The rubbish paper by Rahmstorf & Foster which is the subject of this thread is an attempt to excuse that “discrepancy”.
Which brings us to the ‘escalator’ thread mentioned – as another ‘red herring’ – by the troll. It is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/25/skeptical-science-misrepresents-their-animation-the-escalator/
In that thread I explained the importance of your point about “all times were less than 15 years” with reference to the discrepancy. I copy that post below to save others needing to find it.
Richard
—————–
richardscourtney says:
November 26, 2012 at 2:46 am
RoHa:
At November 25, 2012 at 10:36 pm you ask the very reasonable – and fundamental – question:
An answer to your question depends on what is “their point”. In his above article, Bob Tisdale correctly states that “point” to be
So, the simple answer to your question is, ‘Yes’.
However, like all simple answers, that ‘yes’ requires some expansion.
It ignores
(a) The cause(s) of the overall warming trend.
(b) The cause(s) of the periods when the trend ‘flattens’.
And
(c) The dissimilarity of the periods of ‘flattening’.
Importantly, SkS presents the ‘escalator’ as being a demonstration that the present period of ‘flattening’ is not an indication that the overall warming trend is mostly or entirely induced by natural climate variation. But their demonstration is false. I explain this as follows.
SkS (and e.g. renewableguy in this thread) assume the overall warming trend is mostly or entirely induced by increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. And that assumption is improbable for several reasons.
The overall warming trend is most likely a recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA), and there is no reason to suppose the LIA was caused by change to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Simply, the LIA is an observed natural variation of unknown cause but the cause was not observed variation to atmospheric CO2 concentration. The Null Hypothesis and paucity suggest that whatever caused the LIA is the probable cause of recovery from the LIA (e.g. the LIA was coincident with the Maunder Minimum in solar activity: if it is assumed that the start of the Maunder Minimum induced the LIA then recovery from the LIA is a result of the end of the Maunder Minimum).
Importantly, it has been claimed that the overall warming trend is too large for it to have been caused by natural variation other than variation caused by increased atmospheric CO2 concentration (this claim is not true, but an explanation of why the claim is false is not relevant here).
Atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing exponentially. If it is assumed that the CO2 increase causes the overall warming trend then the periods of ‘flattening’ demonstrate that natural variations can overwhelm the warming effect of the CO2. This is a conclusive demonstration that natural variation has at least as great an effect on global warming/cooling as atmospheric CO2 concentration.
So,
the recent overall warming trend could be entirely a result of recovery from the LIA
but
the unknown cause of the LIA was not altered atmospheric CO2 concentration
and
the recovery from the LIA is most likely a cessation of whatever induced the LIA
while
the natural variability is observed to be sufficient to overwhelm the warming effect of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Which brings us to the periods of ‘flattening’ in the warming trend.
Firstly, these periods may be apparent and not real. The measurement data are sparse so the global temperature derivations have little confidence. Hence, values of trends in global temperature over short periods could be ‘noise’ provided by the uncertainty in the data and, therefore, these trends may indicate nothing about reality. Importantly, prior to the now present period of ‘flattening’, SkS and others were claiming such short-period-trends are ‘noise’. Indeed, they needed to claim that because – if they are real – the periods of ‘flattening’ demonstrate that natural variability can overwhelm the warming effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.
However, the present period of ‘flattening’ now exceeds 15 years and the claimed certainty of the data does not allow the trend of such a long period to be ‘noise’; i.e. the present ‘flattening’ is real and not ‘noise’.
The ‘escalator’ attempts to show the present ‘flattening’ is similar to the previous ‘flattenings’. Either it is or it is not. But, whichever of these possibilities is true then it does not support the SkS assertions of the overall warming trend being a result of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.
1.
If the periods of ‘flattening’ are real then they indicate the overall warming trend can be overwhelmed by natural climate variation.
2.
If the previous periods of ‘flattening’ are ‘noise’ then the present period of statistically significant ‘flattening’ indicates the overall warming trend is being overwhelmed by natural climate variation.
In either case, such large effect of natural climate variation provides the probability that the overall warming trend is mostly or entirely natural recovery from the LIA.
Add to that the fact – as Bob Tisdale’s article points out – that the trends in the SkS ‘escalator’ are false and one can only conclude that the SkS escalator is deliberately misleading propaganda.
And all of the above assumes that linear trends indicate anything about the global temperature time series. In reality the time series indicate several overlaid cycles which need to be understood and modelled for any true trends to be discerned, and those true trends would not be linear.
Richard
zzzzzzzz
Opps.
Death threats? Seriously?
Look, I agree with the Rahmstorf paper because it extents their past work in a logical direction and seems quite reasonable, at least to me. I disagree with the Tisdale stuff because it seems that he cant or doesnt explain where the heat comes from in the last 30 years. One being readable helped, my patience these days is short for poor writing.
Those who hit the modelers for changing their models, what are you smoking? That’s what they do! What are you thinking? Maybe they should keep using those old bad models because they they had a really good smell to them? Should we use weather prediction models from the 50s so Sandy could have killed more people?
You can hit peer review all you wish, but at a minimum it would have made Tisdale stuff readable, which the blog here has failed at.
On how the science community regulates it’s own self, lots has been written and lots has been said. But in the end, the only ones that are able to distinguish good work from excellent work are the scientists, evil, sinister, or whatever. (Based on the comments last week from a GOPer hopeful about the age of the earth, we need to stay as far from politicians as we can!)
On scientific misdeeds, it happens but it is really rare. I actually have never met a person with a retraction, but a friend of mine had a friend who knew someone who did. I think. I don’t wish to brag, but how many professions get critical reviews when the retraction rate is at 40 retractions per 100,000 articles — 0.04%? (And dont compare us to the priesthood, where about 1 to 2 percent of them have abused children, at least in the US.)
In the end, if you believe the Rahmstorf paper to be in error, who of you plan to write the editor? That’s what you are supposed to do, not whine about it in a blog. So get to it.
REPLY: That applies to you to Don, since you are here – Anthony
trafamadore says: @ur momisugly November 29, 2012 at 8:16 pm
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.
___________________________________
Don’t try that one on me
I sure as heck wish my Mom had ignored the @ur momisugly#$!@ur momisugly doctor with his *@ur momisugly#$!@ur momisugly new drug. The drug killed her but since it cause heart attack after heart attack (Known according to the peer-reviewed lit.) and she died from that side effect the ‘drug test’ was considered a HUGE “success” in the paper he was writing.
I was still in school and did the research and found the drug caused heart attacks. Unfortunately the doctor giving her the drug was a ‘specialist’ and knew nothing about the heart so he would not take her off the drug. Her heart specialist knew nothing about the new drug therefore would not take her off the drug and a consultion at Sloan Kettering had them backing away from their initial opinion after talking the the ‘Doctor’
When I finally convinced Mom to quit taking the drug it was too late she died within a week.
The doctor who killed her was known among his colleagues as “The Butcher” and the hospital a year later was ‘featured’ on 60 minutes because of the horrendous number of ‘excess’ deaths. It was a University ‘teaching’ Hospital.
trafamadore:
At November 28, 2012 at 1:30 pm you wrote
Now, at November 30, 2012 at 10:51 am, you write
I get that. You say you think that papers can only be assessed by “the scientists”, and in this case “the scientists” are climate scientists of whom you say are not one.
OK. That explains why you have repeatedly ignored my question which asks you if you have anything to say in defence of the paper by Rahmstorf and Foster by way of refutation of the criticisms of it by Bob Tisdale. You cannot address the subject of this thread because – you say – you are not one of “the scientists” competent to assess it.
It would have helped if you had admitted from the start that you felt you were incompetent to address the subject of this thread instead of trolling the thread with every irrelevance you could imagine.
Richard
trafamadore:
You seem to complain about Tisdale being unreadable. Can you be more specific? Perhaps his point of view is too disagreeable and you just can’t swallow enough meaning in order to understand what he is saying.
Thank you all for commenting. This thread will be quite enlightening when people stop back.
Regards to all.
trafamadore says:
November 30, 2012 at 10:51 am
That’s what they do! What are you thinking? Maybe they should keep using those old bad models because they they had a really good smell to them? Should we use weather prediction models from the 50s so Sandy could have killed more people?
You raise many interesting questions. The problem is that they do not really discard the models that simply do not work. They simply move the goal posts to make it seem as if their models are still good, but just need some minor tweaks.
I do not know if you are familiar with Ptolemy’s epicycles and other attempts to explain why planets sometimes go faster or slower and why they even seem to go backwards at times. It got extremely complex and still did not answer all questions. Then when Kepler came up with ellipses, much was explained. (And later Einstein expanded on Kepler.) In my view the warmists are like the people who cannot recognize when their theory is completely flawed and when confronted with new evidence, they do NOT embrace a new Kepler. What they do is try to add more ‘epicycles’ to make a flawed theory work.
Thank you very much for:
richardscourtney says:
November 30, 2012 at 10:42 am
On another blog I commented as follows:
So where are we now? With 15 years, we are 95% certain something is wrong. And according to Santer, if I have it right, at 17 years we are 100% certain something is wrong. And with RSS having 0 slope for 15 years and 10 months, we must be around 97% certain something is wrong.
I wonder if the same technique can be used to show that the current warming trend is consistent with a linear cooling trend since the Holocene optimum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
I am still hoping someone does a nice job of applying the SKS escalator graphic to 8000 years of Holocene cooling. My attempt was pathetic.
Who Turned on the Heat — 561 Pages!?!?!?!?
At least there are lots of graphics.
richardscourtney says:
November 30, 2012 at 10:42 am
Firstly, in 2009 the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported at
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
on page 123:
The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
Can’t find it there, try again please.
richardscourtney says:
November 30, 2012 at 4:55 am
Importantly, an Editor may choose to not put a paper to peer review if he/she perceives that its contents will be blocked by the vested interests of a powerful consensus group. For example, knowing there was such a prejudice of all potential reviewers, the then Editor of Nature published two papers by an incompetent patents clerk without putting the papers to peer review. Those papers on relativity by Albert Einstein initiated a revolution in physics.
Publishing those papers without peer review gave Nature a degree of credibility as a scientific journal on which it relies to this day.
As usual not very accurate when it comes to facts, Richard.
Einstein published his Annus Mirabilis papers in Annalen der Physik (he’d published there before), not Nature!
Also they weren’t exactly not peer reviewed, Einstein submitted his papers to Planck who forwarded them for publication, that’s a real peer review.
Needless to say Einstein’s publication in A der P did nothing for Nature’s reputation although it did temporarily boost Annalen’s reputation as the foremost german language physics journal.
Phil. says:
November 30, 2012 at 5:33 pm
on page 123:
That should be page 23, in the middle column in the blue part. However since page 23 is not numbered, you have to go to page 24 and scroll back up a page.
Regarding “Rest of World” temperature hardly dipping from the 1989 and 2000 La Linas, have a look at the pink curve in Figure 1. Global temperature dipped in these years, even if ocean temperature outside the East Pacific largely did not.
My biggest complaint of Figure 1 is not the attempt to detrend ENSO – the difference between the pink and red curves in the La Nina years of complaint indicates to me this actually largely works. My complaint is that the large slope of about .17 degree/decade is from not detrending for AMO, which is known to affect global temperature and probably contributes to the periodic component that is visible in HadCRUT3. After detrending for the periodic component visible in HadCRUT3, the linear trend from 1980 to 2011 would be about .115 degree/decade.
trafamadore,
The rising “linear trend” is the only impression they want the reader to take home, they don’t want the reader to understand it. Projections, predictions. Whatever. They want to avoid it being called that when it is wrong, but still wish to draw an arbitrary, continuously rising linear trend line so they can say “Look: Consistent with models”. They are arguing from what the temperature might have been, not what it is or was.
Phil:
At November 30, 2012 at 5:33 pm you wrote
“Can’t find it there, try again please.”
You are right. I made a misprint when I wrote “page 123”. I intended “page 23”. Sorry.
Indeed, I need to be very specific to avoid further knit-picking of your usual kind.
The quotation is actually in an explanatory box so you need to go to page 24 the scroll back.
I am truly sorry for my misprint of the page number which I feel certain means you will claim invalidates the quotation.
Richard
Phil.:
At November 30, 2012 at 5:59 pm you provide your usual inaccurate knit-picking and assert I am “not very accurate on facts” (which is laughable coming from you).
It seems you have picked up the baton of irrelevant distraction from trafamadore. My advice is that you don’t bother because your track record shows you are even less competent at it than he is.
For example, in your post I am answering, you say Einstein had his work “peer reviewed” because he asked Plank to comment on it. Well, according to that criterion, Tisdale has had much more peer review of his work because he has put it on the internet for everybody to comment on it.
The subject of this thread is a review of the ridiculous paper by Rahmstorf&Foster.
Address the criticisms of the Rahmstorf&Foster paper or go away.
Richard
Donald L. Klipstein says: “Regarding ‘Rest of World’ temperature hardly dipping from the 1989 and 2000 La Linas, have a look at the pink curve in Figure 1. Global temperature dipped in these years, even if ocean temperature outside the East Pacific largely did not.”
Using any global dataset can be misleading. The object of this post was to show that some portions of the globe respond proportionally to La Nina events (East Pacific), while the vast majority of the globe does not. Because the vast majority of the globe does not cool proportionally during all La Ninas, Rahmstorf et al cannot attempt to remove the linear effects of ENSO. They’ve left a very obvious ENSO residual that accounts for much of the warming seen over the past 30 years.
With respect to your comment about the AMO, I will agree in part. However, detrended North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies also diverge from the ENSO index (fail to cool proportionally) during those La Niña events. I’ve never seen this addressed specifically in any papers about the North Atlantic or the AMO.
http://i48.tinypic.com/2vhtcev.jpg
Regards
RobertInAz says: “Who Turned on the Heat — 561 Pages!?!?!?!?”
I assume that means you’ve purchased a copy. Thanks.
richardscourtney: It seems you have picked up the baton of irrelevant distraction from trafamadore.
When you are wrong on the details that you have introduced into the discussion, you ought to admit it and apologize. If someone with the stature of Planck recommends publication of Bob Tisdale’s work in the peer-reviewed literature, I am sure it will be published. Since you claimed that Einstein’s paper had not been peer-reviewed, you ought to admit that you were wrong. You ought not to refer to a detail that you introduced into the discussion as a “nit”: if it’s an irrelevant detail, instead you ought to apologize for introducing it.