From the University of Hawaii at Manoa:
El Nino unusually active in the late 20th century
Spawning droughts, floods, and other weather disturbances world-wide, the El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) impacts the daily life of millions of people. During El Niño, Atlantic hurricane activity wanes and rainfall in Hawaii decreases while Pacific winter storms shift southward, elevating the risk of floods in California.
The ability to forecast how ENSO will respond to global warming thus matters greatly to society. Providing accurate predictions, though, is challenging because ENSO varies naturally over decades and centuries. Instrumental records are too short to determine whether any changes seen recently are simply natural or attributable to man-made greenhouse gases. Reconstructions of ENSO behavior are usually missing adequate records for the tropics where ENSO develops.
Help is now underway in the form of a tree-ring record reflecting ENSO activity over the past seven centuries. Tree-rings have been shown to be very good proxies for temperature and rainfall measurements. An international team of scientists spearheaded by Jinbao Li and Shang-Ping Xie, while working at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, has compiled 2,222 tree-ring chronologies of the past seven centuries from both the tropics and mid-latitudes in both hemispheres. Their work is published in the June 30, 2013 online issue of Nature Climate Change.
The inclusion of tropical tree-ring records enabled the team to generate an archive of ENSO activity of unprecedented accuracy, as attested by the close correspondence with records from equatorial Pacific corals and with an independent Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction that captures well-known teleconnection climate patterns.
These proxy records all indicate that ENSO was unusually active in the late 20th century compared to the past seven centuries, implying that this climate phenomenon is responding to ongoing global warming.
“In the year after a large tropical volcanic eruption, our record shows that the east-central tropical Pacific is unusually cool, followed by unusual warming one year later. Like greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols perturb the Earth’s radiation balance. This supports the idea that the unusually high ENSO activity in the late 20th century is a footprint of global warming” explains lead author Jinbao Li.
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
  IMAGE: Ancient trees, such as Polylepis tarapacana growing in rocky soils in the South American Altiplano, are sensitive to climate anomalies associated with large-scale climate patterns stemming from the El Niño-Southern…
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
“Many climate models do not reflect the strong ENSO response to global warming that we found,” says co-author Shang-Ping Xie, meteorology professor at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa and Roger Revelle Professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego. “This suggests that many models underestimate the sensitivity to radiative perturbations in greenhouse gases. Our results now provide a guide to improve the accuracy of climate models and their projections of future ENSO activity. If this trend of increasing ENSO activity continues, we expect to see more weather extremes such as floods and droughts.”
Citation: Li, J., S.-P. Xie, E. R. Cook, M. Morales, D. Christie, N. Johnson, F. Chen, R. D’Arrigo, A. Fowler, X. Gou, and K. Fang (2013): El Niño modulations over the past seven centuries. Nature Climate Change. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1936
This research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Basic Research Program of China (2012CB955600), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, FONDECYT (No.1120965), CONICYT/FONDAP/15110009, CONICET and IAI (CRN2047).
Note the graph neatly leaves off the Medieval Warm Period.
No surprise there.
It’s the Sun stupid.
“El Nino unusually active in the late 20th century”
As was the sun, funnily enough, but lets not mention it….. Can I have more grant money please???
Desperation is a sad and pitiful state.
These people had better start planning a career change.
This is just more drivel, “Its unprecedented and man caused it” Evidence? ” We don’t need evidence, we have feeling”.
Another exercise in proving that modern times are warmer than the Little Ice Age?
BREAKING: Water is wet!
“Our results now provide a guide to improve the accuracy of climate models and their projections of future ENSO activity.”
An admission the current models do not work???
If the dashed lines mark limits of natural variability, what unnatural event causef the cold periods outside the limit? And Why is the cool limit bigger than the warm?
Oh more nonsense that leads to the failed prediction of a super El Niño first predicted by the rabid de Hansen.
If you notice they do not include the 21 st century in the data. Coincidence? Isn’t it funny how they basically splice on normal data when it helps the cause and just conveniently leave it off where it doesn’t?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/67.abstract#aff-1
Science 4 January 2013:
Vol. 339 no. 6115 pp. 67-70
DOI: 10.1126/science.1228246
Report
Highly Variable El Niño–Southern Oscillation Throughout the Holocene
Kim M. Cobb1,*,
Niko Westphal2,†,
Hussein R. Sayani1,
Jordan T. Watson2,
Emanuele Di Lorenzo1,
H. Cheng3,4,
R. L. Edwards4,
Christopher D. Charles2
– Author Affiliations
1School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
2Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
3Institute of Global Environmental Change, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China.
4Department of Earth Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
The El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) drives large changes in global climate patterns from year to year, yet its sensitivity to continued anthropogenic greenhouse forcing is uncertain. We analyzed fossil coral reconstructions of ENSO spanning the past 7000 years from the Northern Line Islands, located in the center of action for ENSO. The corals document highly variable ENSO activity, with no evidence for a systematic trend in ENSO variance, which is contrary to some models that exhibit a response to insolation forcing over this same period. Twentieth-century ENSO variance is significantly higher than average fossil coral ENSO variance but is not unprecedented. Our results suggest that forced changes in ENSO, whether natural or anthropogenic, may be difficult to detect against a background of large internal variability.
tallbloke says:
July 1, 2013 at 12:05 pm
It’s the Sun stupid.
What a stupid claim. The Figure does not support that.
As a layman who normally just lurks I’m really looking forward to Bob Tisdale’s take on this
Funny how they stop the study just before the last time the Southwest experienced huge droughts.
That 1900-1940 disagreement is large. Link is broken, but so is the one at every other article about this paper.
I hate that I suffer from this condition, but does anyone else taste bile as soon as a climate study mentions tree rings?
That what I was thinking.
I wish there was a link on this page to that report…
MWP is conveniently hidden. Maybe the trees are too young to show it. Then again, we are dealing with treemometers in any case.
Tree-rings have been shown to be very good proxies for temperature
====
no they are not…
and let’s just bob off the 1600 and 1800 spikes so they fit inside our story line……..
tree rings will only show you their growing season….
James at 48 says:
July 1, 2013 at 12:31 pm
MWP is conveniently hidden. Maybe the trees are too young to show it. Then again, we are dealing with treemometers in any case.
—————————————————–
The data are there. They just don’t like them. Same with those since AD 2000.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130422-new-zealand-tree-rings-dendrochronology-science/
“This suggests that many models underestimate the sensitivity to radiative perturbations in greenhouse gases. Our results now provide a guide to improve the accuracy of climate models and their projections of future ENSO activity. If this trend of increasing ENSO activity continues, we expect to see more weather extremes such as floods and droughts.”
Sounds like confirmation bias with a bit of intelligence trap.
Interesting that there is no mention of any other factors that can drive flooding or droughts such as altering the way a river flows by damming, restriction, extraction, rerouting and ignoring history and building on flood plain. Equally, droughts can be exacerbated when water consumption increases or continues unabated in areas that are prone to or experience a drought. The general public will be suggestible to the idea of some external force driving flooding or droughts, especially if they adopt a consumer approach to either and where there is an unreasonable expectation you can build a house anywhere you like and there will always be running water.
According to a documentary on the Amazon there is a dry season every year in this region. However the jungle stores water which allows many species to get through this period, but sometimes only just. Clear cutting here will remove the jungles ability to store water and it shouldn’t take much imagination to know what will happen. Still, much easier to blame flooding and droughts on all those Welsh and English coal miners and all the many factory workers that used to toil across the northern hemisphere.
Mark Bofill says:
July 1, 2013 at 12:21 pm
“I hate that I suffer from this condition, but does anyone else taste bile as soon as a climate study mentions tree rings?”
Relax. Organized crooks come and go. Maybe someday even climate science becomes a science again. It will first have to defunded.
“Many climate models do not reflect the strong ENSO response to global warming that we found,” says co-author Shang-Ping Xie, meteorology professor at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa and Roger Revelle Professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego. “This suggests that many models underestimate the sensitivity to radiative perturbations in greenhouse gases.”
So greenhouse gases warm the oceans (and we thought it was the sun)? Is there anything CO2 can’t do? It’s the magical gas!
“Tree-rings have been shown to be very good proxies for temperature and rainfall measurements.”
Their own data shows this assumption is wrong. From 1910 to about 1940, the instrument readings and tree ring data strongly disagree. The amount of disagreement is comparable to the locations of the dotted lines that they arbitrarily used to define natural variability.
Also, this sentence needs correction-
“These proxy records all indicate that ENSO was unusually active in the late 20th century compared to the past seven centuries, implying that this climate phenomenon is responding to ongoing global warming.”
It should read-
“These proxy records all indicate that ENSO was unusually active in the early 20th century, which strongly disagrees with the instrument record. The entire tree ring record is plagued with unquantifiable, signal-overwhelming uncertainty, implying that tree rings should never be used to quantify historical temperature or precipitation.”
I find that tree rings are very good at keeping me warm in the winter. The bigger the ring the warmer I get.
Gary says:
July 1, 2013 at 12:10 pm
“Our results now provide a guide to improve the accuracy of climate models and their projections of future ENSO activity.”
An admission the current models do not work???
————-
Yes!
In the sense: it is worse than we thought!
CO2 models have been notoriously bad at linking El Nino to rising CO2.
For example in McPhaden (2011) “El Niño and its relationship to changing background conditions
in the tropical Pacific Ocean” they wrote, “This paper addresses the question of whether the
increased occurrence of central Pacific (CP) versus Eastern Pacific (EP) El Niños is consistent with greenhouse gas forced changes in the background state of the tropical Pacific as inferred from global climate change models. Our analysis uses high‐quality satellite and in situ ocean
data combined with wind data from atmospheric reanalyses for the past 31 years (1980–2010). We find changes in background conditions that are opposite to those expected from greenhouse gas forcing in climate models and opposite to what is expected if changes in the background state are mediating more frequent occurrences of CP El Niños.”
Here is an alternative conclusion-
“These proxy records all indicate that ENSO was unusually active in the early 20th century, which strongly disagrees with the instrument record. We have demonstrated that tampering with the modern instrument record has unjustifiably lowered instrument readings in the early 20th century, and that early and late 20th century climates are essentially identical.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 1, 2013 at 12:17 pm
tallbloke says:
July 1, 2013 at 12:05 pm
It’s the Sun stupid.
What a stupid claim. The Figure does not support that.
The very clear falling graph for the second part of the seventeenth century fits well with the Maunder minimum. According to Svensmarks theory a less active sun will give more cosmic radiation into the earths atmosphere causing more clouds and less warming, and with that perhaps weaker Niños. A possible sun related connection?
They are using the half-dead bristlecone-type trees again.
I put no stock in this study at all.
This is countered by a few other recent other paleo-reconstructions of ENSO. More on the others in a few days.
Trond A says:
July 1, 2013 at 1:04 pm
The very clear falling graph for the second part of the seventeenth century fits well with the Maunder minimum. According to Svensmarks theory a less active sun will give more cosmic radiation into the earths atmosphere causing more clouds and less warming, and with that perhaps weaker Niños. A possible sun related connection?
But the high solar activity in the middle of the 20th century does not fit well with the graph. So no solar connection.
Tree rings have some value in determining the amount of long term temperature variability within certain bounds and in segments of say 50 years, but are hopeless in picking up actual temperatures and the annual and decadal climatic changes. In other words these short term changes fall through a very coarse sieve that only captures the long term changes
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/26/noticeable-climate-change/
In figure 4 it can be seen the short term natural temperature variability is up to 10 greater than the paleo reconstructions show.
tonyb
I’m sorry, WHEN was the last one?
lsvalgaard says:
July 1, 2013 at 1:08 pm
But the high solar activity in the middle of the 20th century does not fit well with the graph. So no solar connection.
Graph: http://www.leif.org/research/ENSO-and-SSN.png
chris y says:
July 1, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Good work, Chris. Their own data in the chart above from 1900 to 1940 falsify their thesis. During that time, manmade CO2 could not have influenced El Nino behavior.
Also, to this date no paleoclimatologist has done empirical research to test the proxies that they use. Not one of them has ever planted a tree or managed its growth to see if it actually behaves in the ways “found” in the proxy record. They just pull old records out of anywhere and everywhere always assuming that they are good. How lazy can a scientist get?
Climate Science Protocol:
Step 1: Create your “theory” out of thin air.
Step 2: Create the plots of data that “proves” your “theory”.
Step 3: Look for source of data that matches the plots created in Step 2.
Step 4: Publish your “proof”.
Step 5: Get more money from grants to do more “research”.
Step 6: Go to Step 1.
Seems to be working quite well at Step 5.
chris y says:
July 1, 2013 at 1:03 pm
Spot on! Hooray!
(Are Phd scientists trained not to think critically and trained not to experiment?)
Which grant or promotion are we going for next?
In support of
Milodonharlani & tallbloke’s comments
William:
It is difficult to understand how the climate ‘scientists’ can ignore nine (9) cyclic warming periods in the current interglacial period – the Holocene – and 13 additional warming periods in the glacial phase all of which were followed by cooling periods all of which correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.
There is overwhelming evidence to support the assertion that the sun is a serial climate changer. The question is not if the sun is the cause of cyclic climate changes but rather how.
A Hollywood producer could not write a more interesting script. Sunspot groups are disappearing as sunspots turn into pores. The helpful warmists have switched to magnetic spectrum analysis as it is becoming more and more difficult to observe sunspots visually. The climate war continues in the background.
What we are waiting for is an announcement from NASA that there is a usual and unexplained change to the sun and/or observational evidence of the start of significant cooling.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
“The role of solar forcing upon climate change”
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1999/QuatSciRevvGeel/1999QuatSciRevvGeel.pdf
This is not new. New is that they stop with last century now…
Steven was making fun of them here:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/1997-shock-news-el-nino-now-permanent/
“Ancient Trees are Sensitive to Climate Anomalies”
If so, how do they become ancient?
Gary says:
July 1, 2013 at 12:10 pm
“Our results now provide a guide to improve the accuracy of climate models and their projections of future ENSO activity.”
An admission the current models do not work???
Oh, no Gary. It’s simply a case of “New improved Climate Models! Even better than old Climate Models, which we’re not saying were rubbish of course… they were very good too… but New Improved Climate Models are even better at making Climatologists whiter than white! (While stocks last.)”
Underneath the graph above is written:
“The dashed lines indicate boundary for natural variability.”
The data lines cross the dashed lines. That cannot happen. Natural variability is the range of data from highest to lowest value. The dashed line for the high extent of natural variability must occur at the highest data point and the dashed line for the low extent must occur at the lowest data point. Natural Variability is the full range of what Mother Nature has shown that she can do.
Assuming that the data are correct and that manmade CO2 has a big impact on temperature, one could argue that the data points after approximately 1980 exceed natural variability.
These proxy records all indicate that ENSO was unusually active in the late 20th century compared to the past seven centuries, implying that this climate phenomenon is responding to ongoing global warming.
‘Implying’….Maybe…. maybe not. What it doesn’t tell us is whether this is unusual ENSO behavior for any given interglacial warming period. If we had similar comparisons of ENSO vs global warming for the last 5 or so interglacial warming periods, we might be able to determine if this is ‘normal’, especially for ENSO behavior near the tail end of an all-natural interglacial warming period.
Also, why the wide variance disparity between the the tree ring proxies and the instrumental record, from about 1900 – 1950???
William Astley says:
July 1, 2013 at 1:32 pm
all of which correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.
They are ignored because they do not follow the solar cycle changes
The question is not if the sun is the cause of cyclic climate changes but rather how.
It makes no sense to ask ‘how’ when there is no good evidence for your assertion.
What we are waiting for is an announcement from NASA that there is a usual and unexplained change to the sun and/or observational evidence of the start of significant cooling.
A usual change is hardly something to expect an announcement from NASA about.
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
You are still flogging that dead horse. The Sun has not been unusual during recent decades. Since you like to cite cherry-picked papers let me pick one for you to include in future comments:
“Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years” http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL38004-Berggren.pdf
“””””…..
“Many climate models do not reflect the strong ENSO response to global warming that we found,” …..”””””
Well that’s strange. I wasn’t aware that ANY climate models respond to WHAT WE FIND; aka what the observed weather / climate facts ARE.
And I thought it was “global warming” that responded to El Nino; a la 1997/8; not the other way round.
Now “late 20th century” would be after 1950 would it not ?
So that would include 1957 / 58 aka , the IGY year which just happened to produce the all time high, of recorded history of sunspots; according to a graph in “Willie” Wei Hok Soon’s book on the Maunder minimum.
And the subsequent sunspot peaks after 1957/8 have been higher than was the case in the 50-100 years prior to 1957/8; well not counting the recent poor excuse for a sunspot peak.
Now I don’t know how any of that relates. But NO climate models have EVER reflected, the observed reality.
Did I miss it in the comments? Can someone explain to me why the y axis is variance? So this is saying that the variance of some random variable has increased in recent years. What is the variable that they are measuring? Some statistician out there needs to comment. I know that variance can have a CI (this explains the asymmetry of the CI).
What utterly incompetent imbecile puts mean and standard deviation lines through a data set with an obvious uptrend since 1300 ish? Just putting the lines there implies the assumption that a) the mechanism in question is constant with some oscillation and b) that a 700 year record is a viable data set for something with about a 150 year period in its immediately apparent long period oscillating component. The next question of course is “might there be a mult century oscillation in play as well? Good grief!
correction
The next question of course is “might there be a multi century oscillation in play as well?”
Good Grief!
PS I suggest the people in Hawaii just go surfing. Science is a bit beyond them it seems.
The relationship between ENSO and Solar Activity is nothing new.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL034831/abstract
From the paper:
“El Nino/La Nina episodes represent warm/cool phases of 2- to 7-yr period El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in the tropical Pacific ocean-atmosphere system. Modeling studies find ENSO self-excited or driven by ambient noise. Here we find most El Nino and La Nina episodes from 1900–2005 grouped into non-commuting pairs that repeat every ∼11 yrs, aligned with rising and falling transition phases of the ∼11-yr period quasi-decadal oscillation (QDO). These alignments arise from non-linear phase locking of 3rd and 5th harmonics near 3.6- and 2.2-yr to the 1st harmonic near 11-yr period. Here we find these alignments replicated in both coupled general circulation model and conceptual model driven by 11-yr solar forcing, wherein the solar-forced 1st harmonic initiates a non-linear cascade of higher odd harmonics that are phase-locked with the same alignments as observed. These solar-forced 3rd and 5th harmonics explain ∼52% of inter-annual variance in the Nino-3 temperature index from 1900–2005.”
Snowlover123 says:
July 1, 2013 at 3:41 pm
The relationship between ENSO and Solar Activity is nothing new.
“Here we find most El Nino and La Nina episodes from 1900–2005 grouped into non-commuting pairs that repeat every ∼11 yrs, aligned with rising and falling transition phases of the ∼11-yr period quasi-decadal oscillation (QDO)”
It has not been shown that the QDO is solar related.
Looking at 7 centuries of data out of approximately 45 million centuries of geological history doesn’t give much credibility to the claim about being outside of natural variability.
lsvalgaard says:
July 1, 2013 at 3:46 pm
=======================================
It’s pretty peculiar how many of your posts dismiss the solar influence without any face value. There are many such studies that conclude a significant solar influence on El Nino.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS0016793207010148
From the paper:
“Monthly indices of Southern Atmospheric Oscillation (SOI) and corresponding Wolf numbers, geoeffective solar flares, magnetic AE indices as well as daily average values of the southward component of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF B z) and data on the wind characteristics at Antarctic stations Vostok, Leningradskaya, and Russkaya are analyzed. It is shown that a sharp decrease in the SOI indices, which corresponds to the beginning of El Nin’o (ENSO), is preceded one or two months before by a 20% increase in the monthly average Wolf numbers. In warm years of Southern Atmospheric Oscillation a linear relationship is observed between the SOI indices and the number of geoeffective solar flares with correlation coefficients p < −0.5. It is shown that in warm years a change in the general direction of the surface wind to anomalous at the above stations is preceded one or two days before by an increase in the daily average values of IMF B z. An increase in the SOI indices is preceded one or two months before by a considerable increase in the monthly average values of the magnetic AE indices."
statistical nonsense. the authors assume that the earth has a constant mean and deviation over a period of 700 years. Where has this been established? Is this what passes for peer review?
Here is the Nino 3.4 Index going back to 1856.
It bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to the chart that accompanied the news release.
http://s14.postimg.org/563au2le9/Nino_3_4_1856_2013.png
Obviously, they are just making up fake data again.
There is a long history of ships taking sea temperature measurements in this region. A long history of carefully measured SOI figures which are highly correlated to the Nino 3.4. A long history of rainfall patterns, fishing success, etc. etc. Of all the things that bug me; it is climate scientists trying to muck around with the history of the most important weather phenomenon on the planet.
If the dashed lines are the boundary for natural variability, what caused the temperatures to go significantly outside the dashed lines between 1300 and 1850? Can we take this as evidence of un-natural events? Alien visitations? Deviant sexual practices? Satanic rites?
“These proxy records all indicate that ENSO was unusually active in the late 20th century compared to the past seven centuries, implying that this climate phenomenon is responding to ongoing global warming.”
So a (vague) correlation “implies” causation ? Our learned friends the get to chose which way the correlaiton works. It could just as well be takes as proof of Bob Tisdales hypothesis that it’s ENSO that causes the warming. In fact it’s the first time I’ve seem a graph of ENSO on this time scale and it does seem to concur with Tisdale.
“In the year after a large tropical volcanic eruption, our record shows that the east-central tropical Pacific is unusually cool, followed by unusual warming one year later. Like greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols perturb the Earth’s radiation balance. This supports the idea that the unusually high ENSO activity in the late 20th century is a footprint of global warming” explains lead author Jinbao Li.
Nice to see mainstream climatologists finally recognising the fact that the tropics auto-regulate after an eruption. This is what I showed by stacking the six biggest events during the themometer record.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=310
It appears the warmists scientists who work for government agencies are trying to come up with a strategy to address global cooling.
They have a problem as sea ice in the Arctic and in the Antarctic has started to increase.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
To reduce the visual impact of a large increase in sea ice the scale of the sea ice graphs has suddenly changed. Sorry guys, you cannot hide global cooling. Try to imagine the public’s reaction to significant cooling. Think crop failures, coldest winters in 2000 years. Do think people will notice? Media reports? Public demands for explanations?
The gig is up. It is over.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.
It appears the planet has started to cool which is no surprise as the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by the highest solar magnetic cycle activity in 8000 years.
It is interesting that the warming period that occurred a little more than 8000 years ago was followed by the most abrupt cooling period in the current interglacial period save the Younger Dryas Heinrich event.
William:
I predict the sun will spotless by the end of this year. Where did that one come from? Who what of thought the sun could change and the change to the sun could affect climate on the earth? Weird!!! Freakout!!!
http://one.geol.umd.edu/www/preprints/Bond_et_al.pdf
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/8200yrevent.html
The 8200-year Climate Event
This figure shows snow accumulation and isotopically inferred temperature records in the Greenland GISP2 ice core and a temperature record derived from oxygen isotope measurements of fossil shells in the sediments of Lake Ammersee, southern Germany. These records all show a major climatic instability event which occurred around 8200 years ago, during the Holocene. The event was large both in magnitude, as reflected by a temperature signal in Greenland of order 5 C, and in its geographical extent, as indicated by the close correlation of the signal in these two locations. The dramatic event is also seen in the methane record from Greenland (not shown here) indicating possible major shifts in hydrology and land cover in lower latitudes. source: Von Grafenstein et al (1998) Climate Dynamics, 14, 73-81.
Abrupt tropical cooling ~8,000 years ago
“We drilled a sequence of exceptionally large, well-preserved Porites corals within an uplifted palaeo-reef in Alor, Indonesia, with Th-230 ages spanning the period 8400 to 7600 calendar years before present (Figure 2). The corals lie within the Western Pacific Warm Pool, which at present has the highest mean annual temperature in the world’s ocean. Measurements of coral Sr/Ca and oxygen 18 isotopes at 5-year sampling increments for five of the fossil corals (310 annual growth increments) have yielded a semi-continuous record spanning the 8.2 ka event. The measurements (Figure 2) show that sea-surface temperatures were essentially the same as today from 8400 to 8100 years ago, followed by an abrupt ~3C cooling over a period of ~100 years, reaching a minimum ~8000 years ago. The cooling calculated from coral oxygen 18 isotopes is similar to that derived from Sr/Ca. The exact timing of the termination of the cooling event is not yet known, but a coral dated as 7600 years shows sea-surface temperatures similar to those of today.”
So true. Here are some of the effects which I claim are “largely beyond natural variability” in our benign Holocene. Bring back the good old days I say.
So the story is that ENSO was a stable process between limits until mankind introduced an assignable cause sometime in the 20th Century.
Well lets have a quick look with our old automotive QA hat on. We note:
There are three prolonged excursions below bottom limit between 1300 and 1700 and 4 prolonged excursions above the upper limit between 1600 and 1900. Giving us no reason to regard that period as stable or typical for the purpose of determining natural variability.
The tree rings significantly differ from the Instrument readings for almost the entire time period where we have both, giving us no reason to place any faith at all in the tree ring record.
You wouldn’t get an order for squat from an Auto maker with work like this.
From their graph, it shows that the high ENSO activity from 1900-1940, comparable to that of the late 20th century, is not captured by their tree-ring proxies. Why should we expect it to reflect previous high ENSO activity in earlier eras?
It seems the demonstrable unreliability of these proxies make them a bad source for historical extrapolation.
Bill Illis says:
Here is the Nino 3.4 Index going back to 1856.
It bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to the chart that accompanied the news release.
http://s14.postimg.org/563au2le9/Nino_3_4_1856_2013.png
Obviously, they are just making up fake data again.
===
Perhaps it “bears no resemblance” since it is not plotting the same variable.
BTW, _please_ define a background colour for you graphs. Every time you post one I have to open a different browser just to view your graphs, because no background means black. I’d be inclined to ignore such posts normally but unforntunatley you usually something quite informative 😉
Anthony, the doi is broken:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1936
“Tree-rings have been shown to be very good proxies for temperature and rainfall measurements. ”
Unforntunately we can’t separate the two !
ferdberple says:
July 1, 2013 at 4:12 pm
——————————
IMO support for the virgin sacrifice rituals of coastal South American peoples during the pre-Columbian period is much more robust than your deviant sexual practices hypothesis, although the two phenomena could be correlated. However we have abundant physical evidence for the virgin sacrifice hypothesis.
alex says:
July 1, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Gary says:
July 1, 2013 at 12:10 pm
“Our results now provide a guide to improve the accuracy of climate models and their projections of future ENSO activity.”
An admission the current models do not work???
————-
Yes!
In the sense: it is worse than we thought!
——————————-
The failure of climate models is unprecedented!
Except that it’s not really. They also fail when “backcast” to the 1960s, to the prior 20th century, to the prior millennium, the Holocene, the rest of the Cenozoic & the Mesozoic to boot. Then they fail even more miserably for the Paleozoic & Precambrian. Such total failure is unprecedented even in the astonishingly bad history of computer modeling of all complex phenomena with the possible exception of thermonuclear detonations, where the physics is indeed fairly well settled.
Dear Dr. Stalsgaard,
It’s probably been a long time since you had to teach a freshman-level science course, but, here’s your chance to feel nostalgic. I am not a scientist (as you are well aware, I am sure). I have become confused by some of the posts above. My questions are:
1. A. Are you asserting above that sun-warmed oceans do not drive ENSO?
B. If so, what drives ENSO?
2. A. Are you asserting that El Nino’s do not release heat resulting in warming the land?
B. If so, what is the effect of an El Nino event on land temperature?
If I worded my questions above too inaptly to be susceptible of an answer, please help me out and re-frame my queries so that you can answer them. Oh, come, now — they can’t be THAT poorly worded! #[:)]
With high hopes that you will consider my questions worth your time to answer,
Janice
Did I miss it in the comments? … What is the variable that they are measuring?
[Dave W at 3:25PM]
If your question was answered, I missed it, too. I cannot answer your question, but, my GUESS about what those scientists from The [Slaves’] Republic of China are doing is simply creating propaganda to promote the destruction of the economies of the Free World.
Li and Xie say: “These proxy records all indicate that ENSO was unusually active … .”
This is a baldfaced assumption presented as a rational conclusion. Why does it follow from what they saw in the coral that ENSO and not something else is the controlling effect on the coral?
WHAT VARIABLE are they measuring?
My answer: None. They are only assuming.
[RANT alert:]
And (I’m getting angry, now), boy does it remind me of what was done to our P.O.W.’s by the Chinese via their PROXIES, the North Vietnamese: “America hate you. No one care ’bout you. You fight for nothing.” — rotten, lying, snakes! Okay, okay, a crook is a crook whatever country they are from, but, grrrrr, if there’s one thing communists do well, it’s lie. And here come two little communists, lying to the American people (and the free world)….
[End of RANT.]
If the dashed lines are boundaries of variability, I’d say that between 1300 and 1550 it was unusually inactive.
..thanks to SUV’s of course.. 😉
@tallbloke:
Good catch!
@All The Solar Advocates:
There is a ‘confounder’ that is hard to remove. Orbital resonance means that many things involving orbits happen in sync. The sun is “stirred” around by angular momentum changes from the gas giant planets in the same way that the Earth and Moon have their orbits stirred around. “The all go together when they go”. That means that you can not use correlation to show causality. (Yet it can be a clue to a connection…)
In particular, the lunar orbital patterns are driven by the same planetary motions, and the moon drives the ocean tides that stir cold water to the surface of the ocean. The moon orbit has a clear connection to both ocean tidal mixing (thus to surface temperatures) and to planetary positions (via orbital resonance effects). It also has a nice 1800 year cycle that looks like a decent match to long term climate cycles.
In short, showing the planets causing small changes in the sun, and the resultant shifts of temperature shows a connection between planets and temperature cycles, but does not show the sun is the active agent of change; especially given that the moon is demonstrably changing tidal cycles and ocean surface temperatures on the same pattern.
Paper that lays it out: http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full
Some of my comments:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lunar-resonance-and-taurid-storms/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/why-weather-has-a-60-year-lunar-beat/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/d-o-ride-my-see-saw-mr-bond/
@All:
So the authors of “Yet Another Tree Ring Fallacy” (YATRF?) have managed to make many unwarranted “leaps of assumption”. The number of errors per page is quite high (many listed above in comments). But one glaring problem is simply not recognizing that the history of climate is well documented to have 1500 to 1800 year cycles and trends; so their fundamental assumption that the period of their graph is flat is a horrid “brain fart”.
The have leapt off a cliff of conclusion in asserting that present behaviour is outside natural norms. They have leapt again off another cliff of conclusion that any of it has anything to do with CO2. And they have continued to leap with the notion that ENSO is more related to CO2 than to the moon and tide patterns stirring the oceans. (They also seem to have done little or nothing of a literature search to look for other prior art, such as that lunar / tidal paper).
It isn’t about CO2. It likely is only a little related to solar output (that being mostly the UV distribution and not TSI; and some GCR modulation) but those changes happen in sync with tidal ocean mixing changes (and tidal air mass movements…) so solar can show a correlation that is strong, even as the mechanism for solar is weak; since the sun and moon are in orbital resonance with the same gas giant planet movements.
But what is quite clear is “As above, so below”, the wisdom of the ancients, has a strong core of truth to it. It isn’t about us, and our arrogance to think we matter to the planet. It is all about the giant forces of nature, taking geological scale times to change and “do what they will”.
So once again we need to learn that we are not the center of the universe, and not the center of climate changes. We are irrelevant. Natural cycles will be continuing long after we burn all the carbon in the world; and even if we burn none of it.
Seems to me that WE COULD MEASURE THE LAST WARM CYCLE OF THE PDO 1978-2007 better than we did the previous one. Since records are kept since 1950 and even then suspect before the satellite era, this article is cherry picking what was the one warm PDO event we could measure. Cries of the eternal warm enso quickly fell by the wayside as soon as the PDO flipped and instead weaker modiki type ninos have interrupted what has been a dominant cool enso period. This is to be expected in the cold pdo, and a simple look at the cold pdo vs warm pdo that we have the more accurate records for ( again the most accurate was from the late 70s on, which was a warm PDO.. and the warming globally in response.. which unfortunately never hit the AGW proponents as to the real reason for the warming.. the fact that they could measure better the first warm event off a cold one) speaks volumes
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
The fact is that the warm enso events until the Pdo flips back will only be as common as they were in the last cold pdo, in the 50s through 70s, and you can look for yourself at that. Its not rocket science, which is probably why many agw proponents are scared. .how long can grant money go out for what is a simple, common sense matter
Snowlover123 says:
July 1, 2013 at 4:00 pm
It’s pretty peculiar how many of your posts dismiss the solar influence without any face value.
On the contrary I supply links and Figures to support my posts. Contrast the vapid comment “It’s the Sun, stupid” with my comment providing a graph http://www.leif.org/research/ENSO-and-SSN.png
Now, there are dozens of papers claiming relationships [some of them contradictory]. There are also more sober assessments like this one: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Causality-SSN-Climate.pdf
Page 25: “No causative link between solar irradiance and tropical climate”
William Astley says:
July 1, 2013 at 4:28 pm
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
“Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional”
Consider the possibility that their reconstruction is simply wrong. Recent studies strongly suggest that, as we have already discussed at length.
I predict the sun will spotless by the end of this year.
Fair enough. And if it isn’t, then you must concede that you have been wrong all along. Otherwise such a ‘prediction’ has no merit.
Janice Moore says:
July 1, 2013 at 6:05 pm
1: what drives ENSO?
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/el-nino-story.html describes what el Nino is. I’ll not cite all of it here, let this suffice:
“In normal, non-El Niño conditions, the trade winds blow towards the west across the tropical Pacific. These winds pile up warm surface water in the west Pacific, so that the sea surface is about 1/2 meter higher at Indonesia than at Ecuador. The sea surface temperature is about 8 degrees C higher in the west, with cool temperatures off South America, due to an upwelling of cold water from deeper levels.
During El Niño, the trade winds relax in the central and western Pacific leading to a depression of the thermocline in the eastern Pacific, and an elevation of the thermocline in the west. This reduces the efficiency of upwelling to cool the surface.”
2: what is the effect of an El Nino event on land temperature?
From the same source: “The eastward displacement of the atmospheric heat source overlaying the warmest water results in large changes in the global atmospheric circulation, which in turn force changes in weather in regions far removed from the tropical Pacific.” Including land areas.
With high hopes that you will consider my questions worth your time to answer
With high hopes that it will be worth your time to study the link I provided.
I simply don’t believe this graph has anything to do with El Nino. I checked both satellites and HadCRUT3 that goes back to 1850 and none of this correlates with any ENSO activity. Furthermore, tree rings from High Sierras do have a thirty year periodicity, and that does not correspond to anything of theirs. This periodicity is likely to relate to happenings in the Pacific Ocean but not to El Nino either because the nominal El Nino periodicity is about five years.
Graph (not so ccherry-picked as some) showing rough correlation of solar cycles with temperatures over the record 162 years. http://bit.ly/12i2xnR
James Cook says:
July 1, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Graph (not so ccherry-picked as some) showing rough correlation of solar cycles with temperatures over the record 162 years. http://bit.ly/12i2xnR
We expect a solar cycle variation of the order of 0.1 degree C. The divergence between the temperature curve and the sunspot number since 1980 cannot be explained by such a correlation.
Further: I checked the Nature Climate Change web site and the paper is not there. In their paper they make this claim:
‘ “In the year after a large tropical volcanic eruption, our record shows that the east-central tropical Pacific is unusually cool, followed by unusual warming one year later. Like greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols perturb the Earth’s radiation balance. This supports the idea that the unusually high ENSO activity in the late 20th century is a footprint of global warming” explains lead author Jinbao Li. ‘
This is the usual error made by climatists looking for a non-existent volcanic cooling. They find a La Nina valley and appropriate it for the volcano they think is cooling off the atmosphere. The warming that follows a La Nina is of course an El Nino. From that imaginary aerosol activity they jump over to to the idiotic conclusion that their imaginary increase of El Nino activity in the twentieth century represents a footprint of global warming. How does this kind of trash pass peer review?
Dr. Svalsgaard,
Thank you for taking the time to answer me, partially in your post above, and also by pointing me toward some helpful information. I believe I found the answer to my main question above (at 6:05PM) on page 19 of the paper whose link you provided above (at 8:02PM): http://www.leif.org/EOS/Causality-SSN-Climate.pdf..
Q. Re: Global Sea Level, why does it say “A recent acceleration?” on page 30 of that same paper, with an arrow toward the Global Sea Level around the year 2000? It didn’t look like an acceleration to a novice like me.
Re: the photo of John Moore and his porridge on p. 39 — looks like the photographer was threatening to give his breakfast to Goldilocks; John looked like he was saying, “Over my dead body.” heh, heh
Ah, well, I’m getting farther and farther off the topic.
Thanks again for answering. I hope you are enjoying your summer.
Your grateful student,
Janice
Funny how in the graph, during early times, without our C02 influx the earth naturally when beyond the dotted lines, {the boundary of natural variabililty!} so something unnatural was going on.
Janice Moore says:
July 1, 2013 at 10:09 pm
Q. Re: Global Sea Level, why does it say “A recent acceleration?” on page 30 of that same paper, with an arrow toward the Global Sea Level around the year 2000? It didn’t look like an acceleration to a novice like me.
Looks like there were three ‘accelerations’. the one on the right is the recent one, perhaps.
A recent paper says that ENSO cycles are predictable.
Ludescher, J., Gozolchiani, A., Bogachev, M.I., Bunde, A., Havlin, S., Schellnhuber, H.J. Improved El Niño forecasting by cooperativity detection. PNAS, 2013
“The new approach employs network analysis which is a cutting-edge methodology at the crossroads of physics and mathematics. Data from more than 200 measurement points in the Pacific, available from the 1950s on, were crucial for studying the interactions between distant sites that cooperate in bringing about the warming.”
Preumably the researchers used a neural network or a genetic algorithm. We can’t say much without knowing the algorithm. However, based on my own limited experience with neural networks, the models do not have a time dimension, thus the model would not detect a trend.
If prediction over time can be done precisely without a trend component, that implies the cyclical component swamps any trend.
Possibly the bottom line from this experiment is that, in relation to ENSO, no AGW effect is detectable.
frankpwhite says:
July 1, 2013 at 11:44 pm
A recent paper says that ENSO cycles are predictable.
Possibly the bottom line from this experiment is that, in relation to ENSO, no AGW effect is detectable.
By the same token, no solar effect can operate as otherwise the predictable ENSO could be used to predict the solar cycle. I guess the presumption is that the ENSO cycles are predictable because of their own inherent cycles.
frankpwhite says:
July 1, 2013 at 11:44 pm
A recent paper says that ENSO cycles are predictable.
The paper is here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.8039.pdf
“But the high solar activity in the middle of the 20th century does not fit well with the graph. So no solar connection.
Graph: http://www.leif.org/research/ENSO-and-SSN.png”
Right – but suppose you allow an ~60 year lag for the PDO cycle – you might have a decent correlation then – but yes it’s not the sun on it’s own that’s responsible.
frankpwhite says:
July 1, 2013 at 11:44 pm
A recent paper says that ENSO cycles are predictable.
Reading the paper reveals that they are not talking about ENSO cycles but using observations over the Pacific as a precursor to ENSO a year ahead.
BenG says:
July 2, 2013 at 12:18 am
Right – but suppose you allow an ~60 year lag for the PDO cycle – you might have a decent correlation then
And if you allow the lag to vary just right you might concoct a decent correlation [with anything]. But as Tweedledee said “‘if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t”.
Cumulative Southern Oscillation Index (atmospheric pressure difference Darwin -Tahiti) shows strong correlation with geological data of the equatorial Pacific
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SOI.htm
except for the short period (1950s and early 60s) while nuclear atmospheric tests were conducted in the Pacific ocean.
Joseph Bastardi (July 1, 2013 at 8:00 pm)
“Cries of the eternal warm enso quickly fell by the wayside as soon as the PDO flipped…”
There was a slight lag as I tracked a lot of warm ENSO papers through about 2002-2003. There is a nice correlation between weather and models that predict that weather with about a five year lag.
RE: Bill Illis says:
July 1, 2013 at 4:07 pm
I also noticed they seemed to smooth-out or airbrush-out (or whatever) some mighty big El Ninos in the 1800’s.
Also the paper cherishes an implied belief everything was nice and stable in the past, however as I recall there was a pre-Inca civilization which was quite advanced, and had clever irrigation systems, that got wiped out by a prolonged drought. As I recall the drought lasted over fifty years, and could not have occurred unless El Ninos stopped altogether during that time. In other words “natural variability” has some wild swings.
What is special about the 20th century – the rising trend in ENSO variability in the tree-ring data started at least as early as 1600.
Climatologists seem to have a bipolar disorder regarding ENSO. Half the time they dismiss it as noise, questioning if it is a real phenomenon at all. The other half of the time, they come over all expert on ENSO and show how it proves AGW after all. Total BS merchants just making up BS as they go along.
If the tree-ring data is so good, then the sharp divergence between the blue and red lines in the graph indicate data manipulation in the instrumental record. Maybe the climate history editors decided that such a sharp temperature rise (~1900) and fall (~1940) was not credible so ironed it out with an adjustment.
“The dashed lines indicate boundary for natural variability. Recent El Niño behavior is largely beyond natural variability.”
Since El Niño behaviour is natural,they just need to move the dashed lines outwards. Unless they pre-suppose that the recent behaviour is not natural, in which case their conclusion is the same as their premise, which is circular reasoning.
What did I miss?
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 1, 2013 at 12:17 pm
tallbloke says:
July 1, 2013 at 12:05 pm
It’s the Sun stupid.
What a stupid claim. The Figure does not support that.
====
Well it does when compared to this one. The cumulative integral of your adjusted SSN series.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=410
Greg Goodman says:
July 2, 2013 at 4:47 pm
Well it does when compared to this one. The cumulative integral of your adjusted SSN
Hardly http://www.leif.org/research/ENSO-and-cum-SSN.png
And why should it compare with an integral over hundreds of years?
It’s just a quick exploration, not a definitive study. It would be better to convolve it with a decaying exponential maybe adjust the ‘neutral’ SSN a bit, but it follows the general ups and downs of their variability plot over 250 years. Since no one’s work out what drives ENSO yet , it looks like it merits a closer look.
Greg Goodman says:
July 2, 2013 at 5:41 pm
it looks like it merits a closer look.
We have the Wolf Numbers back to 1700, so let us integrate from there:
http://www.leif.org/research/ENSO-and-cum-SSN.png
I don’t think it is worthwhile chasing this.
The desperation continues to rise. Once ignored, nearly always taken out of trends to show CAGW CO2 effects, now Enso activity is being included perforce as part of the CO2 effect because this pesky index is such a big player in the temperature record’s rises and falls. Killing off phenomena that overwhelm CO2 is the only game in town among end-of-world climate sciencers since 1997 – knocking earth’s temp down from 15 to 14C for the 1930s to get rid of the dirty thirties temp pinnacle, leveling the various warming periods of the last 5000 years or so, going from CAGW to Climate Change to extreme weather events to weird weather as the temp record flattened since 1997, scuttling the 1922 all time global high of 136F in Libya in favor of 134 in Death Valley (July10, 1913) so that they have a chance of breaking a lower temp, putting a thermometer 20 miles away at Bad Water located in a natural topographic, westerly facing parabola next to an asphalt highway with a salt flat to the west to add a second sunshine to the site…..
milodonharlani says:
July 1, 2013 at 12:17 pm
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/67.abstract#aff-1
Science 4 January 2013:
Vol. 339 no. 6115 pp. 67-70
DOI: 10.1126/science.1228246
Report: Highly Variable El Niño–Southern Oscillation Throughout the Holocene
This coral study is a useful reality check – going back 10 times further than the tree-ring study in time and finding current ENSO variability unexceptional. Clearly from the above figure only 6 cycles of variability is too few for any conclusions. I wonder if Cobb et al 2013 is cited in the above paper?
lsvalgaard says:
July 2, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Greg Goodman says:
July 2, 2013 at 5:41 pm
it looks like it merits a closer look.
We have the Wolf Numbers back to 1700, so let us integrate from there:
http://www.leif.org/research/ENSO-and-cum-SSN.png
I don’t think it is worthwhile chasing this.
Nice to see Leif has adopted my method of subtracting the mean SSN from the SSN and integrating the result as a proxy for OHC in making his comparison. The match is suggestive and definitely worth investigating further. It may have more to do with a solar effect on tree growth than ENSO, given the proxy used in the OP, but nonetheless demonstrates a clear Sun-climate link IMO.
tallbloke says:
July 3, 2013 at 2:51 am
Nice to see Leif has adopted my method of subtracting the mean SSN from the SSN and integrating the result as a proxy for OHC in making his comparison.
Nonsense, the Figure was in response to Greg’s use of the integral to show the clear lack of correlation.
Ask Greg where he got the technique from.
As for “The clear lack of correlation”, it’s a better correlation than the IPCC have for the link between co2 increase and temperature isn’t it?
tallbloke says:
July 3, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Ask Greg where he got the technique from.
This is a standard technique so don’t try to pretend otherwise.
As for “The clear lack of correlation”, it’s a better correlation than the IPCC have for the link between co2 increase and temperature isn’t it?
Pick any two random correlations, one will always be better than the other. That does not mean that any of them is any good. But, some people are more gullible than others. The easiest one to fool is yourself.
So you’ll have no problem linking to a graph of integrated sunspot numbers departing from the mean made prior to my first development of the technique in 2009 then?
tallbloke says:
July 3, 2013 at 11:13 pm
So you’ll have no problem linking to a graph of integrated sunspot numbers
Some examples:
http://www.earthdoc.org/publication/download/?publication=4410
by D Martini – 2001 –
quasi lowpass filter, besides we found that the integrated sunspot numbers … and the integrated sunspot numbers (marked with circles) are shown in Fig. 1.
The Global Solar Magnetic Field Through a Full Sunspot Cycle …
soi.stanford.edu/~yliu/papers/schrijver08.pdf
by CJ Schrijver – 2008 – Cited by 43 – Related articles
For example, the cycle-to-cycle variation of the integrated sunspot number would be expected to cause substantial variations in the behavior of the field over the …
Hemispheric Sunspot Numbers R_n and R_s: Catalogue and NS …
arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0208436
by M Temmer – 2002 – Cited by 108 – Related articles
Aug 23, 2002 – graph of the cumulative Sunspot Numbers (Fig. 5). The calculated t values with 95% significance are overplotted at each specific month signed …
A cumulative method of presentation of solar activity secular changes
adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988BAICz..39..355B
by V Bumba – 1988 – Related articles
The Cumulative Curves for Other Indices of Solar Activity In the same way we used the mean yearly values of the observed sunspot relative number for …
Appendix G – Analytical methods for water resource development …
http://www.droughtsandfloods.com/Appendix%20G%20-%20Long%20range…
by WJR Alexander – 1978
and negative sunspot numbers in Figure 2A and the dates of zero cumulative departure in. Figure 2B. The straight lines drawn through these points in Figure 2A …
Geological Survey Professional Paper – Volumes 372-373 – Page A-37 – Google Books Result
books.google.com/books?id=NuwqAQAAIAAJ
1963 – Geology
RELATIVE SUNSPOT NUMBER, ZURICH OBSERVATORY TULARE LAKE, … The trends in cumulative departures from this mean are similar to those shown by …
A typical mark of a pseudo-scientist is ignorance of the literature and self-adoration.
tallbloke says:
July 3, 2013 at 11:13 pm
So you’ll have no problem linking to a graph of integrated sunspot numbers
Some more examples:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15584306
In the early days of data verification, engineers paid much attention to the mean and
changes in the mean of a time series. Until 1937, plotting and analyzing the cumulative
departures from the mean were the principle methods of verifying the consistency
and homogeneity of hydrometeorological data.
http://ncsd.ca.gov/Library/Groundwater%20Information/PAPADOPULOS%20REPORT.pdf
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/35550/1/93-1255.pdf
Related to the calculation of the Hurst exponent
Even discussed here at WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/07/california-climate-pdo-lod-and-sunspot-departure/
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993JATP…55..155T
Rome rainfall and sunspot numbers. Thomas, R. G.
Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Vol. 55, No. 2, p. 155 – 164, 02/1993
“The accumulated departure from mean (ADM) of the 208 yr Rome rainfall strongly inversely resembles the ADM of sunspot numbers.”
Perhaps this last one is the clearest refutation of your claim.
Thanks Leif, I’ll pick my way through those. I wonder why pseudo-scientists such as yourself have been ignoring the implications all these years.
tallbloke says:
July 4, 2013 at 11:42 am
Thanks Leif, I’ll pick my way through those.
You can start with this one:
Rome rainfall and sunspot numbers. Thomas, R. G.
Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Vol. 55, No. 2, p. 155 – 164, 02/1993
“The accumulated departure from mean (ADM) of the 208 yr Rome rainfall strongly inversely resembles the ADM of sunspot numbers.”
Perhaps this last one is the clearest refutation of your claim.
I wonder why pseudo-scientists such as yourself have been ignoring the implications all these years.
You snide remarks tell more about you. Since all those ‘correlations’ are spurious there are no implications to ignore.
You may benefit from these papers [specifically about ENSO – to stay on topic]
http://www.leif.org/EOS/No-Solar-Decadal-Forcing.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Is-there-Evidence-for-Solar-Forcing.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Causality-SSN-Climate.pdf