Setting the record straight on ‘the cause of pause in global warming’

Guest essay by Don J. Easterbrook, Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University

Last week in my post ‘‘The cause of pause in global warming,” I presented data showing that the lack of global warming was not the ‘biggest mystery in climate science,’ “but, in fact, it really isn’t a mystery at all, it was predicted in 1999 on the basis of consistent, recurring patterns of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and global climate.” This precipitated an avalanche of caustic comments by Bob Tisdale, almost all of which were totally irrelevant to what I said. This post is to set the record straight so there is no misunderstanding of the situation.

I like Willis Eschenback’s caveat: “if you disagree with something that I or someone else said, please QUOTE THEIR EXACT WORDS and state your objection. That way we can all understand just what you are objecting to, and the nature of your objection.” With that in mind, here is the crux of what I said.

Each time the PDO was warm, global climate warmed; each time the PDO was cool, global climate cooled.” “Each of the two PDO warm periods (1915-1945 and 1978-1998) and the three cool periods (1880-1915, 1945-1977, 1999-2014) lasted 25-30 years. If the flip of the PDO into its cool mode in 1999 persists, the global climate should cool for the next several decades. “

clip_image002

Figure 4. (Top) PDO fluctuations and projections to 2040 based on past PDO history.

 

clip_image004

Figure 4. (Bottom) Projected global cooling in coming decades based on extrapolation of past PDO recurring patterns.

I plotted the oxygen isotope measurements made by Stuiver and Grootes (1997) for the past 450 years, which,

showed about 40, regularly-spaced, warm/cool periods with average cycles of 27 years, very similar to the PDO cycle. There was no way to determine what the PDO looked like that far back, but the GISP2 warm/cool cycles were so consistent that correlation with PDO 25-30 year cycles seemed like a good possibility. Historically known warm/cool periods showed up in the GISP2 curve, i.e., the 1945-1977 cool period, the 1915-1945 warm period, the 1880-1915 cool period, the Little Ice Age, Dalton Minimum cooling, the Maunder Minimum cooling, and many others, lending credence to the validity of the GISP2 measurements.

clip_image006

Figure 5. Warm and cool periods to 1480 AD from oxygen isotope measurements from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. The average length of a warm or cool cycle is 27 years.

Conclusions

“The ‘mysterious pause’ in global warming is really not mysterious at all. It is simply the continuation of climatic cycles that have been going on for hundreds of years. It was predicted in 1999, based on repeated patterns of cyclical warm and cool PDO phases so it is neither mysterious nor surprising. The lack of global warming for the past 17 years is just as predicted. Continued cooling for the next few decades will totally vindicate this prediction. Time and nature will be the final judge of these predictions.

What drives these oceanic/climatic cycles remains equivocal. Correlations with various solar parameters appear to be quite good, but the causal mechanism remains unclear.”

Bob Tisdale immediately launched an insulting verbal attack in which he said:

“Easterbrook’s post is misleading, it misinforms, it is contrived, it is far from good science”

“Easterbrook continues to present his misunderstandings of the PDO”

“Easterbrook does more to mislead and misinform than to teach and inform”

“It’s bogus!”

“He insists on misinforming readers”

“Easterbrook’s bogus-looking global temperature anomaly data”

“I suspect it’s a fantasy dataset

Now I enjoy a spirited discussion of issues as much as anyone and am always willing to discuss any scientific issue, but these unprofessional, insulting remarks are not what I call science and do nothing to advance the understanding of issues.  Tisdale completely missed the point of what I said and the basis for saying it. Virtually everything he said was irrelevant to the data that I presented and nothing he said disproves any of my data or my predictions (which so far seem to be right on track). Tisdale missed the boat when he ignored my statement at the outset, “it was clear that PDO drove global climate (Figs. 2,3), but what drove the PDO was not apparent,” and again at the end, “what drives these oceanic/climatic cycles remains equivocal. Correlations with various solar parameters appear to be quite good, but the causal mechanism remains unclear.”

In other words, I was correlating the chronology of the PDO with global climate and glacier fluctuations without worrying about the cause of the PDO. I don’t know what causes the PDO nor does anyone else, including Tisdale. I then used GISP2 Greenland ice core oxygen isotope data to show that 40 warm/cool cycles back to at least 1480 had 27 years cycle patterns very similar to those of the PDO and global warming cycles that we have observed in the past century. Tisdale vented his criticisms of my work on the basis of his interpretation of what causes the PDO, which is totally irrelevant to the data that I presented. The point here is I start with recognition of the existence of the PDO and it really doesn’t matter what the cause is—that’s a separate issue. Tisdale’s interpretations of the relationship of ENSO to the PDO may well be correct, but that does nothing to invalidate the data that I presented. As one of the commenters pointed out, “In addressing Don Easterbrook you assert repeatedly that the PDO is an “aftereffect” of the ENSO. This in no way contradicts anything that Don said, he left the cause of the PDO as unknown.” Tisdale failed to understand that none of his discussions about the cause of the PDO in any way invalidated the data presented.

Tisdale was very critical of figure 4, repeatedly calling it “bogus” (= false, fake, phony, counterfeit, sham) and “a fantasy dataset” (= made up, invented, fictional, imaginary, unreal) because the source of part of the curve from 1900-2000 wasn’t indicated. The logic of such a conclusion is not valid—just because you don’t know the source of data on a graph doesn’t render it ‘bogus’ or a ‘fantasy.’ Yes, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for source data and can reserve judgment until you get it, but Tisdale’s statements were way off base–not logical and unnecessarily insulting. Here is the original graph used for part of figure 4—it is neither ‘bogus’ nor a ‘fantasy.’

clip_image008

This curve is now 14 years old, but because this is the first part of the curve that I originally used in 2000, I left it as is for figure 4. Using any one of several more recent curves from other sources wouldn’t really make any significant difference in the extrapolation used for projection into the future because the cooling from 1945 to 1977 is well documented. The rest of the curve to 2010 was grafted on from later ground measurement data—again, which one really doesn’t make any difference because they all show essentially the same thing. The extrapolated parts of the curve show three possible projections: (1) cooling similar to 1945-1977, (2) somewhat deeper cooling, perhaps similar to 1880-1915, (3) somewhat deeper cooling, perhaps similar to that of the Dalton Minimum. The last two are diagrammatic only– really guesses, but are shown to illustrate possible options. Nothing that Tisdale says in his comments in any way invalids this figure.

The last three graphs in my post are intended merely as illustrations of the global cooling that has occurred since 1998, confirming (so far) the predictions that I made 14 years ago. If you don’t like figure 6, throw it out–Figures 7 and 8 make the same point. Tisdale’s conclusion that “cooling is not occurring from the peak around 2001 through 2010” is easily proven false by the Christopher Monckton graph below.

clip_image010

Global cooling from 1996 to 2013. Graph by Christopher Monckton http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/the-agu-policy-statement-as-redrafted-by-monckton/

Conclusions

1. I have neither the desire nor reason to quarrel with Bob Tisdale—I suspect our differences are less than one might imagine. His Enso interpretations may well be correct, but they have no relevance to the data presented in my WUWT post.

2. Nothing in any of Tisdale’s comments invalidates any of the data that I presented.

3. The global cooling predictions that I made in 2000, based on recurring patterns of PDO and global climate, have so far proven to be correct.

4. Nature and time will ultimately prove whether or not my all of my predictions are correct.

5. I hope that we can now move on to more productive issues, especially what is the principal driving force of climate changes. I welcome open discussions of scientific issues with anyone, including Bob Tisdale, but I confess to having little patience with argumentum ad hominem.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Cam

I think the last PDO warm phase actually ended in 2007 which would be in line with a 30 year cycle. The drop into cool 2000-2002 is similar to the two year warm period around 1960 in the middle of the cool phase. If so, as your top chart still shows, cooling would continue until the late 2030s.

Ben Wouters

If you are looking for the ultimate base for our climate, you must find an explanation for the ~18K warmer deep oceans some 84 million years ago.
I think I have a solid explanation, but be warned, it has nothing to do with CO2.
see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2011JC007255/asset/supinfo/jgrc12191-sup-0010-fs09.pdf?v=1&s=79e93e124ca1fd8a33753fc667ff17deaa20b3e6

Bloke down the pub

Handbags at ten paces.

“I hope that we can now move on to more productive issues, especially what is the principal driving force of climate changes”
The amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans in the first place skews the ENSO process between dominant El Nino and dominant La Nina.
A more active sun pulls the jets poleward for a zonal pattern with less clouds, more energy enters the oceans and El Nino dominates.
A less active sun pushes the jets more equatorward for a meridional pattern with more clouds, less energy enters the oceans and La Nina dominates.
The PDO may be an ‘after effect’ of ENSO but it is closely linked to it. I suspect that the variations in surface water temperature during the ENSO cycle cause the atmospheric pressure differentials that constitute the PDO.
During a warming period such as from LIA to date there would be upward stepping in temperatures from one positive mode to the next and in a cooling period such as from MWP to LIA there would be downward stepping in temperatures from one negative mode to the next.

Didn’t some thirteen year old girl posit this same theory re PDO a few years ago in Australia?

Don B

“All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet,” Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told the Los Angeles Times. “However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact.”
http://sppiblog.org/news/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times

PRD

As a reader who enjoys the debates and information on WUWT. I certainly enjoy a professional response to other respectable researchers who temporarily forgot their manners.
I am guilty of forgetting, and remembering myself. In a poor rendering of the fictitious Professor Dumbledor, “There is no reason to be rude, not even to our enemies.”

David L. Hagen

Thank you Don for your professional presentations, discussions for the public, and backing the scientific method.
Bob Tisdale
Please learn from Don, take a Dale Carnegie course, and work at addressing the science, not attacking the man.

Doesn’t this ‘Pause the Cause’?

Thank you Don. Besides, Tisdale, who would disagree with you and in what way?
Bob Tisdale, is Don missing something?

David L. Hagen says:
January 21, 2014 at 7:09 am
Thank you Don for your professional presentations, discussions for the public, and backing the scientific method.
Bob Tisdale
Please learn from Don, take a Dale Carnegie course, and work at addressing the science, not attacking the man.
================================================
That’s kind of a jackass statement to make about Bob until you’ve heard his response to this.

mpainter

I agree with Easterbrook when he posts:
“…but these unprofessional, insulting remarks are not what I call science and do nothing to advance the understanding of issues.”

Jeff L

Professional & courteous . Well done.

mpainter

Don B says:
January 21, 2014 at 6:37 am
“All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet,” Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told the Los Angeles Times. “However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact.”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I challenge Judith Curry or anyone else to show any impact of anthropogenic CO2 on climate.

FeSun

1.N0 it looks like a snake.
2.No like a wall.
3.No like a tree.
4.No …rope.
5.No…fan.
Same elephant?

Scott Basinger

Popcorn futures are looking up. /munchmunchmunch

juan slayton

I once heard Roman Jackobson tell a story about Ferdinand de Saussure, AKA “the father of French linguistics.” The story went something like this: De Saussure had invited a friend, a prominent cleric, to a meeting of the Societe Philologique, Paris. The topic of the day involved some abstract theoretical point of phonology, and the participants became rather heated in their discussion. Dr. Saussure was quite embarrassed and later apologized to the good father for his colleagues’ demeaner.
To which his friend replied that Dr. Saussure should not feel bad. He (the friend) was in fact rather pleased when the speakers raised their voices and pounded the podium, because only then could he be sure that “they really believed the ridiculous things they were saying.”
I’m not suggesting that anyone is saying ridiculous things in this post, only that I am pleased not to encounter a party line that is not to be questioned.
Unlike some other sites….

Don is basing his forecasts on pattern recognition which is as far as I can see at this time is the best way of forecasting climate . His future forecasts show possible cooling trends based on whether we are entering a Dalton or Maunder minimum. For somewhat more quantitative estimates of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the patterns of the 60 year (PDO) and 1000 year quasi periodicities in the temperature and the current decline in solar data see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Here are the conclusions of the last post for comparison and discussion.Incidentally I agree with Don that Tisdale missed the point of Dons work and that Bob’s intemperate attack was completely uncalled for. I also, like Don think that Tisdale’s ENSO mechanism is probably the key climate thermostat.
Here’s the quote
“In earlier posts on this site http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13
I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
Here are the conclusions of those posts.
1/22/13 (NH)
1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
4/02/13 ( Global)
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up. This is where scientific judgment comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate

David in Texas

Dr. Easterbrook,
You are certainly right that argumentum ad hominem has no place in scientific discussion. I agree with Dr. Curry, “… scientists [who] defend their theories by calling their opponents names, well that is a sign that their theories are in trouble.”
The worst part about argumentum ad hominem is that when used against a person, they tend to respond in the same way, even against people that did not use it against them in first place. Of course once used, it is very difficult to “climb down”, even knowing that is the right thing to do.
I don’t believe Tisdale’s theories are in trouble. He makes a reasonable case for “… what the PDO represents, and more importantly what it doesn’t represent”. You also make a strong case that global warming is associated with the PDO (index).
Getting back to the science, is it possible that your differences might be more with the assertion that “it was clear that PDO drove global climate”? Might that not be an overreach? Is it possible that what is driving the PDO (index) might also be driving global temperatures?

timspence10

Cut it out and behave lads, we don’t have to pin our colours to the mast. It’s the alarmists that have to substantiate their theories and justify their carbon taxes etc.

mpainter

5. I hope that we can now move on to more productive issues, especially what is the principal driving force of climate changes. I welcome open discussions of scientific issues with anyone, including Bob Tisdale, but I confess to having little patience with argumentum ad hominem.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, I would like to see more discussion of natural processes, especially what process is the root cause of the ENSO fluctuations, which study seems to be neglected.

wfbadger

Perfect. Beautiful. Like I always say, it’s nice when a post/comment doesn’t have all the rhetorical finesse of a flaming douchecanoe.

RichardLH

“Each of the two PDO warm periods (1915-1945 and 1978-1998) and the three cool periods (1880-1915, 1945-1977, 1999-2014) lasted 25-30 years.”
As the HadCrut4 data clearly shows.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:180/mean:149/mean:123/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720

RobB

Thanks, Don. However, I would just like to point out that we haven’t really had much temperature cooling so far (when compared to earlier cool phases) and we are nearly halfway through the current cool phase of the PDO. As I mentioned yesterday, though, it should be possible to remove the statistical effect of the PDO and quantify the residual trend.

Henry Clark

While not in disagreement with a number of valid points in this article, its very title makes me feel like addressing a topic of root cause.
The AMO has multi-decadal warm and cool modes with periods of about 30 years, much like the PDO.
As a reminder to readers, the AMO is defined as a temperature index itself. For instance, while Wikipedia is generally a terrible source on climate topics, it’ll suffice for this, as may be quoted:
Van Oldenborgh et al. derived an AMO index as the SST [sea surface temperature] averaged over the extra-tropical North Atlantic (to remove the influence of ENSO that is greater at tropical latitude) minus the regression on global mean temperature.
(Generally northern latitudes warm/cool more than the equator during times of global warming/cooling; the AMO would actually follow a still more related pattern to global temperature history if the latter wasn’t commonly published in forms heavily adjusted towards hockey sticks by activists).
Does one temperature index (the AMO) follow a pattern related to the pattern in another temperature index (global or Northern Hemisphere) in this case? Certainly.
Meanwhile, though, for a deeper prime cause for the pattern in temperature history (such as the LIA, the double peak in 20th century temperature history, etc.), there is … this, including particularly the illustrations 1/3rd of the way down: http://img250.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=45311_expanded_overview2_122_15lo.jpg

Dan

Don,
I have a number of questions which hopefully you can provide some answers to.
It appears that you have used the 1945-1977 negative PDO period, and assumed that if this were to recur, from around the year 2000, you predict a future period of global air temperature cooling.
However, if you look at the global air temperature for that same period them amount of global air temperature cooling was less than 0.1 degrees. I cannot therefore see how you arrive at a plot indicating an approximate 0.7 degrees cooling as shown in your Figure 4 (bottom)?
Also in your Figure 4 (bottom), it is claimed that if the PDO replicated what occured in the 1880-1915 period there would be greater cooling than if a 1945-1977 event occurs, totalling almost 1 degree from current temperatures.
However, if you look at the PDO index for the 1880-1915 period and 1945-1977 period at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO1000yr.svg
it is clearly evident that the 1945-1977 event appears to be more signfiicant and for a great duration.
My question therefore, is how did you arrive at greater global cooling for a less intense PDO event?
Also in Figure 4 (bottom) you claim the projected IPCC warming. This does not appear to relate to any IPCC data that I am aware they have published. Why has this data got such massive year on year variations? Are they now predicting specific PDO events or volcanic eruptions – I think we know that this is not the case. This also purports to show 0.5 degrees warming per decade, which I am also unaware that they have stated.
Finally you state “Tisdale’s conclusion that “cooling is not occurring from the peak around 2001 through 2010” is easily proven false by the Christopher Monckton graph below.”
I think you shot yourself in the foot there, as the graph shows neither cooling nor warming, although it shows a different time period to that stated.

Don Easterbrook

David in Texas says
“Getting back to the science, is it possible that your differences might be more with the assertion that “it was clear that PDO drove global climate”? Might that not be an overreach? Is it possible that what is driving the PDO (index) might also be driving global temperatures?”
I had that same thought myself and it is certainly a possibility. Perhaps I ought to refer to the PDO as an ‘indicator’ rather than a ‘driver.’
Don

Greg

“If the flip of the PDO into its cool mode in 1999 persists, the global climate should cool for the next several decades. “
Met Office Chief Propagandist said something very similar in her recent “we’re not out of the woods yet” comment.
Seems that at least the M.O are expecting a fairly long “pause”. The other main agencies still seem to be “in denial” about the problem.

Gregory

Bloke down the pub says:
January 21, 2014 at 6:25 am
Handbags at ten paces.

LOL!

Greg

I had that same thought myself and it is certainly a possibility. Perhaps I ought to refer to the PDO as an ‘indicator’ rather than a ‘driver.’
Don
That would seem to be more correct. Bob is convinced that ENSO is the driver but I would apply the same principal. I don’t accept that ENSO creates itself, though I do agree with Bob’s hypothesis that changes in frequency and magnitude of Ninjo/Ninja 😉 event provides a means of producing a positive (or negative) energy imbalance.
We should concentrate on asking what is driving ENSO.
This is the biggest red scarf trick in climate science. By calling all these things “oscillations” they apply logical slight of hand to equate this to some kind of pendulum which has no net effect.
Word games in the place of science.
Yes Nutterchelli , this means you.

dearieme

I’m sorry, I’ve become a bit out of touch with these matters. Who is this [trimmed] Tisdale?

accessromance

I would rather have dirty laundry aired in public as long as it’s productive. Thanks to all for making it so.

RichardLH

“Perhaps I ought to refer to the PDO as an ‘indicator’ rather than a ‘driver.”
Indeed. PDO (and AMO) are abstract quantities. Their sign is only a matter of convention rather than physics.
Using the term ‘indicator’ also removes the concept of ’causes something to happen’ which ‘driver’ implies.

BA

What’s with the GISP2 graph? It’s well known that the top of the GISP2 temperature reconstruction is back during the Little Ice Age, the year 1855. But Figure 5 moves that up 100 years so all the dates and inferences are mistaken.

Meandering Thalweg

This current inter glacial period is very long in the tooth. If the history of glaciation continues to repeat the established patterns we will be praying for a some global warming very soon

Rod Everson

Gregory says:
January 21, 2014 at 8:16 am
Bloke down the pub says:
January 21, 2014 at 6:25 am
Handbags at ten paces.
LOL!

Anthony, interesting that an article aimed at avoiding the ad hominem generates the above exchange, no? Adding absolutely nothing but ridicule, they both deserved a snipping, in my opinion.

Rod Everson

Anthony, along, obviously, with my own comments should you reconsider theirs…

Don Easterbrook

Several people have commented that although Monckton’s graphs show cooling over the past 17 years (he also shows two other time intervals, 2001-2013 and 2005-2012), it is quite small. The more recent time intervals seem to show some deepening of the cooling (-0.25 C per century). The interesting question here is whether or not the cooling will deepen more with time. I’ve thought a lot about the question of where long-temperatures are heading as we’ve thawed out from the Little Ice Age. Are we headed back to where we were over the most of the Holocene (a couple of degrees above recent temps) and then tamper off, or are we perhaps headed back into Maunder/Dalton type cooling? That’s why I showed several possible scenarios (guesses, really) for my cooling projections–any of them are possible. Time will tell–I can only hope I live long enough to see the answer!

Don J. Easterbrook: Thank you for describing the source of the dubious looking data that you presented in your Figure 4. You wrote:

This curve is now 14 years old, but because this is the first part of the curve that I originally used in 2000, I left it as is for figure 4. Using any one of several more recent curves from other sources wouldn’t really make any significant difference in the extrapolation used for projection into the future because the cooling from 1945 to 1977 is well documented. The rest of the curve to 2010 was grafted on from later ground measurement data—again, which one really doesn’t make any difference because they all show essentially the same thing.

If read that correctly, you used global land+sea surface temperature data through 1999 and then spliced on land surface temperature data from 1999 through 2010. No wonder it looks bogus. It’s not a continuous global land+sea surface temperature dataset. It’s a hybrid that you manufactured that has no basis in reality. Contrary to your claims, it certainly makes a difference as the gif animation I provided in my January 19, 2014 at 6:34 am comment showed quite plainly. Here it is again.

The following gif animation overlays continuous NCDC global land+sea surface temperature from 1900 to year-to date (November) 2013 onto your Figure 4. Can you see how the two datasets coincide through the late 1990s and then, where you spliced on land surface temperature data, the real data doesn’t show the fictional cooling that you presented? That’s the problem with your splicing land surface temperature data onto a global land+sea surface temperature dataset.

Easterbrook Figure 4

Now that you’ve explained the problem with your graph you may want to update your figure 4, using real data, and accept that you erred by splicing two completely different datasets together.

Additionally, I did not use ad hominem arguments. My statements were not about you as a person; they were about the bogus data/graph that you presented, and continue to present as real.

Last, you also forgot to discuss or correct your Figure 6 from the last post.

Gotta go. Only a short time for lunch.

Don Easterbrook

BA says, “It’s well known that the top of the GISP2 temperature reconstruction is back during the Little Ice Age, the year 1855. But Figure 5 moves that up 100 years so all the dates and inferences are mistaken.”
Actually they aren’t. The top of the GISP2 core is 1950 (see the Stuiver-Grootes 1997 data set). Don’t confuse the oxygen isotope data with the temperature reconstructions of Cuffy and Clow and Alley.

Paul Vaughan

On the last page of a new article I put forth a (very specific) challenge to climate modelers.
Multidecadal Spatiotemporal Aggregation Primer:
☼ Sun-Climate 101:
Solar-Terrestrial Primer ☼

= Trivial Extension of Milankovitch
Sun-Climate 101 outlines law-constrained geometric foundations of solar-governed “internal” (a counterproductive misnomer) spatiotemporal redistribution (stirring) of terrestrial heat & water at a fixed, constant level of multidecadal solar activity.
Those with sufficiently deep understanding will recognize this as a 4-dimensional geometric proof.
See particularly item #5 on page 3, which underscores stirring & accumulation even with a fixed, constant level of multidecadal solar activity due to shifts & persistence of (large scale) terrestrial circulation that are an inevitable consequence of solar frequency shift.
It’s trivial and it’s geometrically proven.
The attractors (central limits) would be the same whether scrambled by white noise, spatiotemporal chaos, &/or lunisolar oscillations (the latter of which stand out clearly in observations).
The utility of these fundamentals extends beyond generalizing the role of stellar frequency in planetary aggregate-circulation to assessing the vision, competence, functional numeracy, honesty, & relevance of climate discussion agents, including those abusing authority.

Hot under the collar

Mod please, dearieme says: at 8:20 am.
Pointless and totally uncalled for.

Green Sand

Greg says:
January 21, 2014 at 8:09 am
….Met Office Chief Propagandist said something very similar in her recent “we’re not out of the woods yet” comment.
Seems that at least the M.O are expecting a fairly long “pause”…..

======================
Might get an indication of how long as the MO are due to update their “Decadal Forecast” this month:-
“Decadal forecast – Forecast issued December 2012. The forecast will be updated in January 2014.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

CEH

dearieme says:
January 21, 2014 at 8:20 am
“I’m sorry, I’ve become a bit out of touch with these matters. Who is this arsehole Tisdale?”
Bob Tisdale is a well respected contributor to this blog and does not deserve profanities thrown at him. Profanities in a blogpost only shows bad language skills.
REPLY I agree, the comment has been trimmed. Dearime is now on moderation to prevent future issues- Anthony

kim

Dearie’ll learn, a bright one.
======

Don Easterbrook

Bob Tisdale,
Having seen the original graph, I don’t understand why you persist in calling it “bogus” — why are you apparently so intent on discrediting me rather than addressing the points being discussed here? Substituting more recent temp curves in fig 4 won’t make any significant difference.
As for Fig 6, if you don’t like it, throw it out–look at Monckton’s graphs and the other two figures. These are just illustrations showing that cooling is indeed happening–do you disagree with that?
Let’s stop this squabbling and move on to more productive discussions.

Steve Oregon

“Is it possible that what is driving the PDO (index) might also be driving global temperatures?”
I had that same thought myself and it is certainly a possibility. Perhaps I ought to refer to the PDO as an ‘indicator’ rather than a ‘driver.’
Don”
I had a spark. As a layperson pondering this stuff.
Fearing no ridicule and assuming my language can be deciphered.
Could the the combined gravitational, earth’s rotation and lunar pull influences be driving the variation in the PDO? Sort of the sloshing around effect that affects ever so slightly the oceans with every subtle or grand vertical and horizontal warm/cold transference.
It seems to me since the oceans are a massive loose liquid covering most of the earth and are subjected to tremendous influences that cannot be collectively stable variation is unavoidable.
Ok that’s enough. I may not get a bite.

stevefitzpatrick

Don,
Welcome to the world of ENSO monomania. Good luck with that.

RichardLH

Steve Oregon says:
January 21, 2014 at 8:56 am
I too have pondered this question. The lateral tides on Earth from Sun and Moon are something rarely discussed. This is, the horizontal component on the Earth’s surface of the combined gravity field. The vertical, aka Tides, are well discussed and have been dismissed as being any part of the global temperature (though having a 28 day Lunar cycle and using a monthly summary of temperature may hide that quite well).
The lateral forces though, operating as they do in high latitudes, could cause effects all the way down through the water column and cause North to South ‘sloshing’ of the lower, colder water.
I do not know if anyone has done research on the data to determine if this is the case though.

mpainter

Greg says:
January 21, 2014 at 8:19 am
I had that same thought myself and it is certainly a possibility. Perhaps I ought to refer to the PDO as an ‘indicator’ rather than a ‘driver.’
Don
That would seem to be more correct. Bob is convinced that ENSO is the driver but I would apply the same principal. I don’t accept that ENSO creates itself, though I do agree with Bob’s hypothesis that changes in frequency and magnitude of Ninjo/Ninja 😉 event provides a means of producing a positive (or negative) energy imbalance.
We should concentrate on asking what is driving ENSO.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have put your finger on the primary issue: “We should concentrate on asking what’s driving ENSO.”
This site has seen a multitude of postings on this topic and none have adressed this important question. ENSO does not drive itself, so what is going on?