I received an email yesterday morning advising me that Muller et al (2013) had been published. (Thanks, Marc.) The title of the paper is “Decadal variations in the global atmospheric land temperatures”. The abstract is here and a preprint version of the paper is available from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature website here. The primary finding of the paper is that land surface temperature anomalies are more closely correlated with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) than they are to NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies (as a proxy for El Niños and La Niñas or ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) index. We’ll discuss the very obvious reasons for this.
Muller et al also briefly discussed a couple sea level pressure-based indices. They will not be discussed in this post.
We’ll discuss why Muller should have included detrended North Pacific sea surface temperatures instead of the PDO in their comparisons with the AMO data, and we’ll use correlation maps to help show what the PDO represents—and what it doesn’t represent.
ON THE CORRELATION OF LAND SURFACE TEMPERATURES WITH THE AMO
The abstract reads:
Interannual to decadal variations in Earth global temperature estimates have often been identified with El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events. However, we show that variability on time scales of 2–15 years in mean annual global land surface temperature anomalies Tavg are more closely correlated with variability in sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic. In particular, the cross-correlation of annually averaged values of Tavg with annual values of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index is much stronger than that of Tavg with ENSO. The pattern of fluctuations in Tavg from 1950 to 2010 reflects true climate variability and is not an artifact of station sampling. A world map of temperature correlations shows that the association with AMO is broadly distributed and unidirectional. The effect of El Niño on temperature is locally stronger, but can be of either sign, leading to less impact on the global average. We identify one strong narrow spectral peak in the AMO at period 9.1±0.4 years and p value of 1.7% (confidence level, 98.3%). Variations in the flow of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation may be responsible for some of the 2–15 year variability observed in global land temperatures.
My Figure 1 is Figure 3 from Muller et al (2013). We’ll concentrate on it for a few moments.
Figure 1
The caption for their Figure 3 (from the preprint) reads:
Figure 3. Decadal fluctuations in surface land temperature estimates and in oceanic indices. The long-term variability was suppressed by removing the least-squares fit 5th order polynomial from each curve. (A) shows the 12-month smoothed land surface temperature estimates from the four groups. The decadal variations are very similar to each other. The Berkeley Earth data were derived from 2000 sites chosen randomly from a set of 30964 that did not include any of the sites from the other groups. (B) shows the AMO index compared to Tavg, the average of the four land estimates. (C) shows the ENSO index compared to the average of the four land estimates. (D) shows the AMO and ENSO directly. Note that the AMO agreement in (b) is qualitatively stronger than the ENSO agreement in (c).
When looking at their Figure 3, keep in mind that the data have been modified. Muller et al “suppressed” the “long-term variability” by subtracting the values of a 5th order polynomial curve from the data. See the example of the AMO data from the ESRL and the resulting 5th order polynomial curve here. They then smoothed the remainders with a 12-month filters for their Figure 3.
It should be very clear that El Niño and La Niña events (ENSO) are responsible for many of the year-to-year variations in the Average Land Surface Air Temperature data (Tave in cell C) and in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation data (AMO in cell D). The reason: ENSO is the dominant mode of natural variability on annual and interannual timescales. Muller et al (2013) in fact note that the AMO signal lags the ENSO signal:
For reference, the maximum correlation between AMO and ENSO in these data is 0.50 ± 0.04; with AMO lagging ENSO by 0.70 ± 0.25 years. This is a somewhat larger lag than previously reported in a more detailed analysis of ENSO by Trenberth et al. [2002].
We can see in cell B that the annual variations in the AMO and global land surface temperatures are remarkably similar. And we can see that the yearly changes in the land surface air temperatures (cell C) and the AMO (cell D) do not correlate as well with the ENSO signal.
Why?
Let’s examine the period from the mid-1980s to the early 2000s in cells C and D. The reasons for the differences show up quite well during that period. We can see that the Tave and AMO signals do not cool proportionally to the ENSO signal during the 1988/89 and 1998-01 La Niña events. Also, the Tave and AMO both respond to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 with a multiyear dip and rebound, while the ENSO signal does not—or shows little response to the eruption.
In other words, the reason the land surface air temperatures and AMO agree so well is that, in addition to responding to ENSO, they’re also responding similarly to volcanic aerosols and to ENSO residuals, the latter of which prevent the land surface air temperatures and the AMO from cooling proportionally during the 1988/89 and 1998-01 La Niñas.
Nothing magical there. And it introduces an interesting question for other papers and blog posts?
Many papers and blog posts attempt to remove the impacts of natural variables from the global surface temperature record. When they add AMO data to the ENSO, volcanic aerosol and solar data in their multiple regression analyses, do they recognize and account for the fact that the AMO data and global land surface air temperature data have similar responses to ENSO and volcanic aerosols?
MULLER ET AL COMPARED APPLES AND ORANGES
A good portion of Muller et al (2013) deals with comparisons of global surface temperatures with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index (AMO) and with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation index (PDO), to emphasize their findings.
Muller et al (2013) failed to recognize that the AMO index data is detrended sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Atlantic, while the PDO index is NOT detrended sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific. The PDO is an abstract form (a Picasso version, if you will) of the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific. So Muller et al (2013) were comparing apples to oranges.
Because I’ve discussed what the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) index is—and more importantly what it is not—in numerous posts, I’m not going to go into a detailed discussion here. If this topic is new to you, refer to the following posts (listed in order of most recent to earliest):
Yet Even More Discussions About The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
An Inverse Relationship Between The PDO And North Pacific SST Anomaly Residuals
An Introduction To ENSO, AMO, and PDO — Part 3
But in scanning the preprint version of Muller et al (2013) I was struck with an idea of how to present differences between the PDO index and the North Pacific sea surface temperature anomalies. In their Figure 6, my Figure 2, Muller et al (2013) presented correlation maps of NCDC global surface temperature data to a couple of sea surface temperature-based indices. The left-hand map presents the correlation of the AMO data with global surface temperatures and the right hand map, ENSO (NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies) with global surface temperatures. High positive correlations are in dark reds and high negative correlations are in dark blues. Muller et al (2013) noted in the caption the reason they included the correlation maps.
AMO is observed to have positive or neutral correlation almost everywhere, while ENSO shows both strong positive and negative correlations.
Figure 2
And based on our earlier discussion, the reason the AMO has a positive or neutral correlation with global surface temperatures almost everywhere is, the AMO and global surface temperatures respond similarly to ENSO, ENSO residuals and volcanic aerosols. Simple.
Back to the idea I was talking about: The top two maps in my Figure 3 are correlation maps of global surface temperatures (NCDC data, same as Muller et al) with detrended North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies (the AMO) and NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies (ENSO). I prepared the maps using the KNMI Climate Explorer. These correlation maps are similar to the maps presented by Muller et al. I’ve added the correlation map of global surface temperatures with detrended North Pacific (north of 20N) sea surface temperature anomalies as the lower left-hand map, and presented the PDO correlations in the lower right-hand map.
Figure 3
Full-sized version of Figure 3 is here.
Note that on the maps I’ve marked the locations of the sea surface areas of the respective datasets with very fine black boxes. Also note that I used ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data for all but the PDO data. The ERSST.v3b dataset is the sea surface temperature component of the NCDC surface temperature dataset. On the other hand, Muller et al used the ESRL AMO data—it is based on Kaplan sea surface temperature data, which also includes Reynolds OI.v2 data over the last decade or so. I believe Muller et al used ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data for their NINO3.4 data (ENSO index), but the preprint version of paper provides a link to the weekly Reynolds OI.v2-based ENSO data, which starts in 1991—and they could not have used it for the comparisons from 1950 to 2010.
If Muller et al (2013) had compared the AMO data (upper left-hand map) with a comparable dataset from the North Pacific (north of 20N) they would have used detrended North Pacific sea surface temperature anomalies (lower left-hand map), because the AMO index is detrended sea surface temperature data from the North Atlantic. Instead they used the PDO, which does not represent the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific. Notice that there are no similarities between the two lower maps but they’re both derived from the same area of the North Pacific. The PDO index basically represents the El Niño- and La Niña-related spatial patterns in the sea surface temperature anomalies in the North Pacific—for example, warm in the east and cool in the central and western North Pacific (north of 20N) during an El Niño.
That’s why the ENSO (upper right-hand map) and PDO (lower right-hand map) correlation maps are so similar in the North Pacific. The PDO is a statistically created dataset that captures the spatial-pattern effects of El Niño and La Niña events on the North Pacific sea surface temperatures. That PDO spatial pattern is important for fishermen because it impacts where fish are located. The PDO spatial pattern is also important because it impacts rainfall patterns in the United States—we discussed that in the recent post here. But the PDO does not represent the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific.
A couple of other notes:
The time-series data for the PDO index and the NINO3.4 sea surface temperatures are different for a very basic reason: the spatial pattern of the sea surface temperature anomalies in the North Pacific (warm in the east and cool in the central and western portions of the North Pacific during an El Niño and vice versa during a La Niña) are also impacted by the wind patterns (and interdependent sea level pressures) of the North Pacific, and those wind patterns and sea level pressures vary over time.
In the PDO map (lower right-hand map), note how the area of the central North Pacific east of Japan has the highest (though negative) correlation. That area is called the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension or KOE. The variations in the sea surface temperatures in the KOE dominate the North Pacific data, and they are inversely related to the PDO index.
Note also in the lower left-hand map that the sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic are correlated with the variations in the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific. I discussed this in detail in the post The ENSO-Related Variations In Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension (KOE) SST Anomalies And Their Impact On Northern Hemisphere Temperatures.
AMO HAS LITTLE IMPACT ON U.S. TEMPERATURES?
Notice above in Figure 6 from Muller et al (2013), my Figure 2, that the surface air temperatures in the United States correlate poorly with the AMO data. They mention this in the paper:
Remarkably, neither AMO nor ENSO shows a strong correlation with the temperature in the United States, although ENSO reaches strongly up the west coast of the US.
Curiously, the correlation map for the AMO that I created at the KNMI Climate Explorer (the upper left-hand map in Figure 3), shows a moderate correlation between the AMO and U.S. surface temperatures (using the NCDC global surface temperature data). In Figure 4, I used the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) data in the correlation maps. The U.S. surface air temperatures based on the BEST data also correlate with the AMO data.
Figure 4
Full-sized version of Figure 4 is here.
WOULD USING DETRENDED NORTH PACIFIC SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA INSTEAD OF THE PDO DATA HAVE CHANGED THE RESULTS OF MULLER ET AL?
Nope. The AMO still has the strongest correlation with land surface air temperatures, because they both respond similarly to ENSO, ENSO residuals and volcanic aerosols.
But Muller et al could have saved themselves some time, since the PDO data does not in any way represent the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific and there was, therefore, no reason to compare it to the AMO data.
ENSO RESIDUALS?
I mentioned ENSO residuals a couple of times in this discussion. Those residuals are basically the aftereffects of strong El Niño events, and those aftereffects are caused by the warm water that’s left over from those strong El Niños. My illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” [42MB] provides an overview of the causes and impacts of those leftover warm waters. It includes links to animations of data, which confirm the existence and source of the ENSO residuals.
And, of course, if you’re very interested in learning more about the processes of El Niño and La Niña events, there’s my book Who Turned on the Heat? The free preview is available here. Who Turned on the Heat? is available in pdf form here for US$8.00.
FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE AMO
A link to the NOAA FAQ webpage about the AMO is here. I provided a detailed introduction to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation in my post here.
The short description: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is a mode of natural variability through which the sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic can contribute additionally to or suppress the global warming of land surface air temperatures that are occurring in response to the warming of the rest of the global oceans. And as discussed in the “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” [42MB], the ocean heat content data and satellite-era sea surface temperature data both indicate the oceans warmed naturally.
Refer also to the RealClimate glossary webpage about the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation here. There, they write:
A multidecadal (50-80 year timescale) pattern of North Atlantic ocean-atmosphere variability whose existence has been argued for based on statistical analyses of observational and proxy climate data, and coupled Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model (“AOGCM”) simulations. This pattern is believed to describe some of the observed early 20th century (1920s-1930s) high-latitude Northern Hemisphere warming and some, but not all, of the high-latitude warming observed in the late 20th century. The term was introduced in a summary by Kerr (2000) of a study by Delworth and Mann (2000).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
An El Niño releases heat into the atmosphere, and surface temperatures around the globe in many places warm in response to the El Niño, and in other parts, they cool—with more locations warming than cooling, so the average global surface temperature warms in response to the El Niño. But the heat released into the atmosphere during the El Niño is not directly warming the surface in those remote locations. The surface temperatures outside of the tropical Pacific warm in response to changes in atmospheric circulation caused by the El Niño. The processes that cause those changes are discussed in minute detail in Trenberth et al (2002) Evolution of El Nino–Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures. Wang (2005) ENSO, Atlantic Climate Variability, And The Walker And Hadley Circulation discusses why the tropical North Atlantic warms in response to an El Niño.
CLOSING
Compared to a number of other sea surface temperature-based indices (and sea level pressure-based indices, which we didn’t discuss in this post), Muller et al (2013) found that global land surface temperatures correlate best with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. We illustrated and discussed the reason for this—the AMO data and land surface air temperatures respond similarly to ENSO, ENSO residuals, and volcanic aerosols.
We also discussed and illustrated why Muller et al (2013) should have used detrended North Pacific sea surface temperatures instead the PDO data for a proper comparison to the AMO.
And we used correlation maps to show the differences between the PDO and the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific. We also used the correlation maps of the PDO and ENSO with global temperature anomalies to help explain what the PDO represents.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
jai mitchell says June 18, 2013 at 3:28 pm
1)
“So the amplitude of this sinusoidal wave function is basically just a guess, correct?”
Not really, the amplitudes must be calculated from regression from the data. You apparently do not understand that an identical methodology is used to predict the tides. People measure the amplitudes from regression from the data. See here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_tides#Tidal_analysis_and_prediction
The astronomical theory gives the frequencies, not the amplitudes.
2) “I repeat MUST, produce a tidal force model using AT LEAST the first 5 planets combined. You simply cannot produce a reasonably effective solar model without including the orbits of mercury-mars in your calculations.”
Again you are not reading my papers. What you say using all planets is done here
Scafetta N., 2012. Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81-82, 27-40.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2012.04.002
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/ATP3610.pdf
But it is irrelevant because the effects of the Venus, Mercury and Earth is to produce very fast tidal oscillations. These are not of the order of 10-12 years and above, but of a few months to 1 year.
Note that even if Venus, Mercury produce large theoretical tides (smaller than jupiter), because they are fast they are also smoothed out by internal solar dynamics inertia. So, on the decadal and above scales it is Jupiter and Saturn and possible the other planets that matter.
But the issue is not yet fully developed.
I hope that you understand that doing scientific research means to proceed step by step and this does not mean to be “dishonest” as you accused
Bob Tisdale
As usual, you don’t even bother to read my posts before responding to it. I said the author of THIS article (you), not Muller.
YOU said,
If Muller et al (2013) had compared the AMO data (upper left-hand map) with a comparable dataset from the North Pacific (north of 20N) they would have used detrended North Pacific sea surface temperature anomalies (lower left-hand map), because the AMO index is detrended sea surface temperature data from the North Atlantic. Instead they used the PDO, which does not represent the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific.
and I took that to mean,
“The author’s suggestion of only using north pacific SST during the PDO phase is intriguing. . .”
would you care to restate more clearly what you mean by a
“comparable dataset from the north pacific” (instead of including the south pacific values as was used in the PDO analysis)
————————
Bob, if you believe, in any universe, that the tropical ocean, as a whole body of water, acts as a net source of heat on planet earth, AT ANY TIME DAY OR NIGHT, EL NINO OR LA NINA.
then you need to go back to grade school and take a physics class.
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceansandclimate.htm
————————–
The simple fact is that a slightly higher sea surface temperature in a single region (El Nino) cannot compensate for the average overall temperature of the entire ocean. Yes, there will be an increase in evaporation (where does this latent heat of evaporation energy come from? do you know?) But the overall net energy balance of the ocean in the tropics is highly negative (as opposed to the higher latitudes where it is positive. . .)
That is why we have the ocean currents.
—————————-
That oceanic influences on continental warming paper was cute. It doesn’t prove in any way, shape, or form, that the surface land heating was ONLY caused by ocean surface warming. The warming of Siberia and The Canadian Archipelago is currently being caused by shifts in the jet stream, same with the snow cover anomalies. They have NOTHING to do with sea surface temperatures.
what you are showing me is a misattribution to the author followed up with a pathetic excuse that is the equivalent of the BIG LIE (sea surface temperatures are natural). When the fact is that human produced greenhouse gasses are going to absolutely destroy our culture and society. And you will be finding that out very quickly now.
enjoy the additional 5-8C warming that we will begin to experience in the arctic in the next decade.
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/class_homepages/geog_4271_f10/readings/week_10_lawrence_et_al_2008.pdf
Keep watching this graphic:
http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg
when you figure out how real and existential this threat is, let me know, and if it isn’t too late, let me know what you plan to do about it.
enjoy the additional 5-8C warming that we will begin to experience in the arctic in the next decade.
============
jai, are you saying temps will increase 5-8C in the next decade….and we will experience that
-or-
are you saying temps will eventually get to 5-8C…and in the next decade we will experence the beginning of that increase
@ur momisugly jai mitchell
have I got this right? – you think a bucket load of heat is currently stored in the oceans and is gonna cause lots of future warming? (5-8 degC ?) I think it only reasonable to ask for some evidence/links for this statement!
jai mitchell says:
“Enjoy the additional 5-8C warming that we will begin to experience in the arctic in the next decade.”
That is proof enough for me that mitchell has gone off the deep end.
The noob, wet-behind-the-ears jai mitchell also tells Bob Tisdale:
“…you need to go back to grade school and take a physics class.”
Either mitchell has never taken a physics class himself, or he is as deluded a climate alarmist as I have seen recently. It is to Anthony’s creeit that he allows scientific illiterates like mitchell to comment here. That way, readers can easily see who really needs to take a physics class.
Tonyb says:
June 18, 2013 at 1:24 pm
———————
I don’t know much more about it other than it is from a new paper published today that used 10 different proxies that cover most of the North Atlantic and most of the series go back to 1000 AD. The proxies are mostly δ18O from foraminifera which in my travels around the paleoclimate appear to be the most reliable temperature proxies. They are the best.
paper here.
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/23/7/921.abstract?rss=1&utm_source=feedly
All the different data series and further notes here.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/paleocean/by_contributor/cunningham2013/
A collation of all of them is here – last column NENA_Comp is a composite of all of them.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/paleocean/by_contributor/cunningham2013/cunningham2013-data-series.txt
Since we were talking about the AMO, I thought it relevant to bring up.
The net effect of all oscillations, named or not, must be considered simultaneously when determining average global temperature. This is done in the paper at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html . This paper presents a simple equation that calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The only external forcing in the equation is a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph is included which shows the calculated trajectory overlaid on measurements.
‘The End of Global Warming’ at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ expands recent (since 1996) temperature anomaly measurements by the five reporting agencies and includes a graph showing the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising average global temperature.
jai mitchell says: “would you care to restate more clearly what you mean by a ‘comparable dataset from the north pacific’ (instead of including the south pacific values as was used in the PDO analysis)”
Fine, let me rephrase that paragraph for you, even though it was stated elsewhere numerous times in the post. AMO data is detrended sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Atlantic. The PDO is not detrended sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific. Therefore, the PDO is not comparable. Detrended sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific would have been comparable.
jai mitchell says: “Bob, if you believe, in any universe, that the tropical ocean, as a whole body of water, acts as a net source of heat on planet earth, AT ANY TIME DAY OR NIGHT, EL NINO OR LA NIÑA…then you need to go back to grade school and take a physics class.”
Everything I’ve presented in my blog posts and books over the past 4 years is supported not only by physics, it’s supported by data. It’s supported by ocean current data, trade wind strength and direction data, sea surface temperature data, ocean heat content data, downward shortwave radiation (sunlight) data, downward longwave (infrared) radiation data, cloud amount data, precipitation data, warm water volume data, depth-averaged temperature data, sea surface height data, etc.
jai mitchell says: “The simple fact is that a slightly higher sea surface temperature in a single region (El Nino) cannot compensate for the average overall temperature of the entire ocean.”
What you had written earlier pertained to El Niño and La Niña events, which take place in the tropical Pacific. But now you’ve magically shifted to global sea surface temperatures after your earlier comments were shown to be nonsense. In other words, you’re simply shifting your area of obvious confusion.
If you would take your blinders off and examine the sea surface temperature data and ocean heat content data as I’ve presented them in the following, you would note that there is nothing in either record to indicate any influence of human-induced global warming:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-manmade-global-warming-challenge.pdf
jai mitchell says: “That oceanic influences on continental warming paper was cute…”
Why would you say it was cute? Compo and Sardeshmukh performed an exhaustive analysis of your beloved climate models, and that’s what the climate models say. Once again, you’ve shown you can’t grasp what’s being presented to you.
jai mitchell says: “It doesn’t prove in any way, shape, or form, that the surface land heating was ONLY caused by ocean surface warming.”
And again, jai mitchell, you’ve highlighted for everyone reading this thread that you cannot comprehend what I’d written. I did not write that “surface land heating was ONLY caused by ocean surface warming.” Go ahead, go back and reread what I wrote in my last reply to you.
jai mitchell says: “The warming of Siberia and The Canadian Archipelago is currently being caused by shifts in the jet stream, same with the snow cover anomalies. They have NOTHING to do with sea surface temperatures.”
Do you realize you’ve just stated that natural variability, changes in jet stream location, can cause warming? That’s yet another indication that you’re a very confused person.
Are you aware that the oceans and atmosphere are coupled, jai mitchell? Do you understand what I mean by coupled?
Do you have any idea what causes shifts in jets streams, jai mitchell? Suppose I link a NOAA webpage that showed you that El Niño and La Niña events were one of the primary causes for shifts in the jet streams, which means that the locations of jet streams are, in fact, caused by changes in sea surface temperatures. Since you do not appear to have any technical background, I’ll link the NOAA webpage that’s easiest to understand:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tropics/enso_impacts.htm
jai mitchell says: “When the fact is that human produced greenhouse gasses are going to absolutely destroy our culture and society. And you will be finding that out very quickly now.”
Your nonsensical alarmism doesn’t fly here, jai mitchell. You, like most of your ilk, show no grasp of the subject matter.
Adios, troll.
Oops, I missed your closing, jai mitchell.
jai mitchell says: “when you figure out how real and existential this threat is, let me know, and if it isn’t too late, let me know what you plan to do about it.”
What do I plan to do about it? I plan to continue to write blog posts and books to help re-educate the public about the natural causes of global warming. And I plan to continue to be entertained by nonsensical comments from brainwashed, clueless alarmist trolls just like you. I do find you very entertaining, jai mitchell.
Theo Goodwin (June 18, 2013 at 8:56 am) asked:
“How could Muller and friends have overlooked this? How could journal reviewers have overlooked this? (Pardon my lack of politeness, but this matter raises a serious question of trust.)”
I guess you might call it politics.
The other possibility is they’re dumber-than-a-post.
Bob,
you believe that the tropical ocean sometimes acts as a heat source, in contrast to the reality that the tropical oceans are the largest single heat sink on the planet, that the suns energy is primarily absorbed in the tropical seas and then transported via ocean currents to the northern latitudes. You have apparently written volumes about this but can still somehow defy the laws of thermodynamics and claim that the tropical ocean can act as a heat source.
The extreme Jetstream activity that has been occurring lately is not caused by natural variability. Your pathetic assertions that that they are show how desperate you have become trying to defend your insane ideology. There isn’t a single person in the northern hemisphere who doesn’t know that the weather is getting weirder and weirder. The simple fact that you cannot allow discussion about this shows how you are finally being proven as the dishonest fossil fuel industry shill that you are.
If you made even the most simple and honest inquiry to understand this you would have realized that the Arctic amplification has fundamentally changed the operations of the Jet Stream. That this was observed and documented in 2007 and predicted after the ice melt of 2012.
I can’t believe Judith Curry allowed herself to be named as an author of something so amateur.
For anyone who questions the 5-8C warming in the arctic.
it was related to the linked paper that describes the change that will occur there once the sea ice has melted. While there is significant arctic sea ice, the phase transformation that occurs (melting) is Isoclinic (stuck at 32’F) once the rest of the ice has melted, the energy that melted the ice in previous years will now lead to rapid temperature rises of sea surface and land surfaces. This is clearly shown in the following links.
————–
enjoy the additional 5-8C warming that we will begin to experience in the arctic in the next decade.
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/class_homepages/geog_4271_f10/readings/week_10_lawrence_et_al_2008.pdf
Keep watching this graphic:
http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg
when you figure out how real and existential this threat is, let me know, and if it isn’t too late, let me know what you plan to do about it.
not *isoclinic* , I meant isothermal. . .Latent heat of fusion. . .
jai mitchell,
It doesn’t matter what you meant. We know you’re only starting to get up to speed on the subject.
And the REAL WORLD has been making fools of both you and your links.
Yes, the Arctic is losing ice. But the Antarctic is gaining more ice than the Arctic is losing. Until you take the Antarctic into consideration, you come across as a raving lunatic.
“Bob,
you believe that the tropical ocean sometimes acts as a heat source, in contrast to the reality that the tropical oceans are the largest single heat sink on the planet, that the suns energy is primarily absorbed in the tropical seas and then transported via ocean currents to the northern latitudes. You have apparently written volumes about this but can still somehow defy the laws of thermodynamics and claim that the tropical ocean can act as a heat source.”
Jai, you are incoherent. When the tropics absorbs all that solar energy then the ocean currents transport that warm water, it is acting as a heat source. You don’t seem to understand that you are restating Bob’s point. If youre going to argue with him, maybe you should watch his video.
Kristian says: @ur momisugly June 18, 2013 at 9:15 am
….People still act as though Tisdale’s strictly data-based explanation of global warming since the 70s doesn’t exist and has never been put forward, on this blog or his own, or elsewhere….And yet they’re bound to have read or at least heard of this guy called Bob Tisdale at some point during the last four years showing us all that ENSO is the natural process doing the pulling – the Great Puppet Master – not just on an interannual or decadal scale, but on a multidecadal one. There is hardly a gap in our understanding of what caused the global warming since the 70s, which clearly and obviously is contained in its entirety within three abrupt shifts. Not for those of us who care to have a look at what the real-world data are actually telling us. Bob Tisdale has, once and for all, rid us of the need for any CO2 ‘God of the Gaps’ … And he’s still summarily ignored or dismissed. I wonder what kind of psychological or sociological phenomenon that lies behind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bob Tisdale does not have a PhD. Bob has ‘ONLY’ written a book about his findings and not published in their
Pal-reviewed ragspeer-reviewed journals and therefore Bob and his work DOES NOT EXIST in their Ivory Tower world.It is called arrogance and anyone who does not have a PhD and has worked with PhDs (or Doctors) for any length of time has run smack into this arrogance. The PhD matters more than the facts or logic. It is not just in Climastrology that you see it either. Just ask an intelligent, female nurse.
jai Mitchell
You comment that everyone agrees the weather is getting weirder and weirder.
This is simply not the case. it may be ‘;weirder compared to 10 years ago-although I doubt it, but compared to 500 or 1000 years ago, certainly not. How do I know?
I trouble to research past weather and have read tens of thousands of weather observations dating back to the 11th century with very good information in the form of journals, crop records and notes of the costs of damage. Where is this information? In such places as the Met office archives and library, the archives of devon and upland dartmoor where they have to be deciphered from the original hide scrolls. from the cathedrals who keep good records of the alms they gave to the poor in extreme weather, from the Latin records of the great country estates who needed to know the cost implications of losing crops or of a bumper harvest, from such places as the Scott polar institute where every document has to be physically brought from a strong room. We have great records in Britain that date to the Romans that can’t all be dismissed as ‘anecdotal.’ the general catch all put down by people who recognise that the achilles heel of CAGW is history, and what it tells us, which is that climate constantly changes and you can’t point to the past to prove today is different.
There is not the slightest evidence the weather is getting weirder. There is every evidence that our forefathers suffered numerous extremes beyond our comprehension . look at history before you make the sort of statements you did.
You need to argue the radiative physics that it MAY get worse, not that it IS worse
We live in a relatively benign climatic period. why should we be surprised we are slightly warmer than during the last period of the LIA?
tonyb,
And of course..
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2013.png
Massive temp rise happening there… NOT !!
jai Mitchell: In response to your June 18, 2013 at 9:15 pm comment, the ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific indicates that ENSO acts as a chaotic recharge-discharge oscillator, with La Ninas serving as recharge and El Ninos as discharge. The periods highlighted in red are the 1954-57, 1973-76, 1995/96 and 1998-01 La Ninas:
http://oi40.tinypic.com/9l97wh.jpg
As to the rest of your claims, you’re parroting nonsense.
If you have no interest in learning, I have no interest in continuing our discussion.
Good-bye
As a non-scientist I hope the discussion of this very interesting entry doesn`t end here. Muller et al seems to depend on much of Scafetta`s past work for their conclusions and yet Scafetta gives the impression that the people at Muller et al did not understand much of it. Mosher does a poor job of defending Muller et al and so you get the impression he wants the head scientist at Muller et al to have a meeting with Scafetta. But maybe Jai Mitchell is the head scientist that Mosher depends on. As Bill would say, “Show me where I got it wrong.”
Also, we need to know more about these JGR people. Are they even credible?
Paul Vaughan (June 18, 2013 at 9:18 pm) wrote:
“I can’t believe Judith Curry allowed herself to be named as an author of something so amateur.”
I need to retract this statement. Actually I can believe it. Theo Goodwin is right. This is a trust issue. As far as I’m concerned Judith Curry has betrayed trust fatally by publishing with Muller. I can suggest that what’s needed now with some sense of urgency is a new climate blog to give traffic from Climate Etc. a good alternative. Now that a line has been crossed I’ll say out loud what I’ve always quietly thought of Climate Etc.: It’s a tool to support a consulting business. Promote belief in uncertainty — complete with discussions that appear hopelessly muddled — and you can sell a wider range of scenarios to the suckers who decide to be your clueless customers. What I see: A businesswoman first. A politician second. A climate scientist fourth. Usually manages to get by with decent social judgement & tact, but is naive & vulnerable due to a fatal shortage of technical & quantitative capacity. Broken trust is an ugly place. My advice to Judy: Swiftly totally dissociate yourself from Muller.
Bob Tisdale (June 18, 2013 at 6:39 pm) clarified for the 1000th time …
“AMO data is detrended sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Atlantic. The PDO is not detrended sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific. Therefore, the PDO is not comparable. Detrended sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific would have been comparable.”
Simple truth that will always mean nothing to dark agents of ignorance &/or deception.
[SNIP- that’s over the top, first warning – Anthony]