During the discussion of the 2010 calender average temperatures, Owen wrote:
I should also point out that we are in the midst of the deepest La Nina since ca. 1975, a La Nina that is expected to bottom out this month. Yet, we have temps still above UAH baseline. I think Lucia is correct in predicting that the next El Nino will break records.
I responded asking his basis for this statement, which turned out to be the very low value in the MEI and the December monthly forecast from NOAA (see forecast page.
Those are reasonable sources for that view, but I’d wanted to know the basis for Owen’s diagnosis because — as is usually the case with decreeing whether any particular La Nina or El Nino was “modest”, or “huge” — a person making a claim has loads of conflicting data to draw from. I, for example, regularly read the weekly NOAA forecasts, which show values of the ONI, and currently are based on fresher data than the Dec. 9 forecast. So, my impression of the strength and the anticipated timing of the “bottom” differed from Owen’s claim.
Neven jumped in and suggested I look at the Australian Bureau of Meterology information page; that page highlights the SOI.
So, in comments have three people who look at three different sources perfectly respectable indicators: SOI, ONI, MEI from two perfectly respectable sources: NOAA and Australia’s BOM. And things can get worse because NOAA’s discussions also show charts of various NINO SST indices, the forecasts happen to forecast the NINO 3.4 SST anomaly.
Meanwhile, in comments, at least one person suggested the fact that the 1998 record was not broken by UAH and RSS might indicate warming is insignificant.
So, that got me asking myself: When arguing about how much El Nino “should” have elevated the annual average 2010 temperature above some “normal” value, how do we each decide whether we think a particular El Nino or La Nina was “strong” or “weak”? Which indicator do we “like” ? Did “we” “like” the same one last year? Or did “we” change our mind after the results are in?
Mind you: I don’t really have a favorite one to explain things away. I have some criteria for picking one I an going to use to partially reduce “weather noise” in a regression. But I don’t really spend much time worrying about whether the 2010 El Nino was “huge”, “medium” or “small”. I prefer not to try to spend a whole lot of time “understanding” the excursion for a particular year and look at trend.
But, today, I am going to look at two possible ways to think about “how much” we might expect the 2010 El Nino to have elevated the 2010 calendar year average temperature. My answer is “maybe not so much”, but after I explain the reasoning, others may turn to other indeces and tweak the analysis to come up with a range of answers.
To get “an” answer to the question “How strong was the 2010 El Nino”? I examined the magnitude of the NINO 3.4 SST Anomaly. I chose this not because it’s “the best”, but because it’s the metric forecast by NOAA (see above), and it’s readily accessible. I then created two plots:
- A plot of the monthly value monthly by NOAA (here.
- A plot of 12 month lagging average computed with a 2 month lag. So, the 2010 averages is computed from values from (Nov 2009-Oct 2010. I use the lag because it’s widely believed the GMST lags the SSTs. Ideally, one would find the optimum lag– I didn’t. I just selected 2 months.
Now, let’s examine the graphs.
The first graph shows monthly values plotted since 1950. 
Above, red periods indicate periods when the SST was positive, and so on the side of “El Nino”, blue highlights periods when the SST was negative, and so on the side of La Nina. There is no special color for neutral values near zero.
Examining this graph, our eye is draw to the peak values. It appears that the 2010 El Nino had a fairly strong peak– higher than the 2007 El Nino. On the other hand, it’s pretty easy to see that there are plenty of El Nino’s whose peak are comparable in value to the 2010 El Nino. By width: temperature were positive for a fairly short time during and around the time of the 2010 El Nino. That is: The “red” region is not very wide relative to other El Ninos.
So, eyeballing this graph, the 2010 El Nino is at least noticable. Based on the peak, some might call it large. Others might argue that the effect shouldn’t be very strong on an annual average because it didn’t last very long. (In fact, the elevated SST 3.4 values end end mid year.)
Now, let’s look at the second graph. Reasoning that the effect on a 12 month average is a better indicator of the effect of El Nino on a 12 month average temperature, and that many think SST’s lead the GMST, I lagged the NINO SST 3.4 and averaged over 12 months. This results in the following graph:
Examining this graph, we see that the 12 month average NINO 3.4 SST from Nov 2009-Oct 2010 is positive, fairly small in magnitude. So, if we think NINO 3.4 SST is the “right” thing to look at, and that 2 months is the “correct” lag, then the net effect of El Nino was to create a small warming effect relative to whatever ‘normal’ is.
Nevertheless, looked at this way, we would expect that if we explain ENSO “weather noise” using the annual average of NINO 3.4, absent warming, 1998 should easily have been warmer than 2010. Instead, the two are neck and neck. We’ll see at least one declaration of 2010 as warmest recorded temperature (that will be in GISTemp). RSS and UAH are not showing a new record. HadCRUT almost certainly will not show a record; NOAA is a coin toss.
On the other hand, ‘explaining’ the weather noise using this particular annual average of NINO 3.4 also suggests that 1998’s record temperatures were not due to the largest El Nino of all time. So, maybe the peak is more important than the average over the year. (Or, even more likely, NINO 3.4 SST is not the best explanatory metric.)
Questions for readers
I intend this discussion as a sort of ‘strawmen’ of how to decide whether the 2010 El Nino ‘should’ have resulted in a huge “weather noise” excursion. I picked a metric that’s actually published in an agencies discussion of ENSO, I did some simple massaging and conclude some things few will dispute and others some likely will. The things few will dispute: 2010 was, for the most part, influenced by “El Nino”. The thing some will likely dispute: The effect was probably not very large. El Nino only explains a small part of the warmth.
Of course, yes, I persist in believing that absent a large volcanic eruption UAH, RSS and HadCRUT will set records during the next “El Nino” year. GISTemp might not– because it will be setting one this year. I don’t know if NOAA will set a record during the next — I’d have to look at the numbers a little.
Now, for the rest of you: How do you explain the amount of “weather noise” due to 2010 being an El Nino year? Tell us which method you favor, so we can hold you to that when you “explain” why the 2011 temperature are higher or lower than they should have been. 🙂
Oh.. I used R. 🙂 Specifically, I tweaked Kelly’s script here. My ridiculously inelegant version is here. If you wrote an R script and want it saved, I’ll host it. (You are permitted to have one just as skanky as mine.)
I would say the 2010 temperatures are irrelevant. As far as the “weather noise” being due to an el nino year, I don’t think el nino is well understood and I think there are larger forces in nature that play a more important rule.
As far as suggestions for the new year, I reccommend you stop using 1979-present to make conjectures because it is flat out dishonest. It is dishonest because it is presented as more important than the rest of earth’s history. WHY AREN’T WE USING A HISTORICAL GAT TO COMPARE THE TEMPERATURES? I have a strong suspicion that historic GAT is higher than today’s temperatures and is therefore not used. Would you claim that 2010 is an exceptionally hot year historically, Lucia? Everyone talks about cherry picking points in time…why not eliminate this by using the entire lifetime of earth?
Lucia, did you see Dr. Easterbrooks post over at climate depot?
There are 9,099 years hotter than 2010 over a 10,500 year period. This makes 2010 completely irrelevant.
Of course there are other factors other than the ENSO. To name a couple:
– a moderately positive PDO for the first half of 2010
– a strongly positive AMO for 2010, assuming the December value remains positive.
I’ve also seen a discussion that GMST lags El Nino/La Nina by 6 months, rather than two.
Discussion of ENSO, SSTs and their impacts cannot go without contribution from Bob Tisdale. http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/11/multidecadal-changes-in-sea-surface_17.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/09/multivariate-enso-index-mei-captures.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/09/introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-3.html
We’ve been through this before… MEI is a weather metric for the area and includes wind, pressure and temperature and is the least effective in showing how much the El Nino affected global temps. SOI is simply pressure, but is part of a global pattern so it will be closer to global temperature. ONI (or even straight 3.4) is a measure of SST’s at or near to the center of convection and is a better representation of how much heat was released by the El Nino, so it will give the best picture of how much the El Nino affected global temps.
… and all will have their various lags
MikeC–
I know what they all are. But people are getting into p**ssing contests in comments arguing about how we should compare 1998 to 2010 and arguing about whether the El Nino was “big” or “small” and whether the upcoming La Nina is “big” or small”.
If you were trying to guestimate, what would you use to “correct” 2007 vs 1998.
Saying MEI is the least effective doesn’t tell anyone much since one is, presumably interested in which is most effect.
Also– it’s not clear to me that MEI is any better or worse than ONI. Both have modest positive correlations. Neither really stands out.
YFNWG–
I agree bob looks at this a lot. The lag is also something that is difficult to figure out. The correlations are far from clean.
Lucia, It will depend on the temperature set you’re using. GISS will show records because they have included Arctic temps. But the others will show warming overall because they include enough of the northern oceans that recovery from the LIA will still be seen in those records.
Anyways, Bob Tisdale has done some good (although not perfect) work on this… but I don’t participate on his blog cuz ya have to do that yahoo or what ever it is… such a pain…
Lucia, did you see Dr. Easterbrooks post over at climate depot?
There are 9,099 years hotter than 2010 over a 10,500 year period. This makes 2010 completely irrelevant.
.
You fell into the trap.
.
Hint: try to figure out where exactly 2010 is on Easterbrook’s graph (or 2000, or even 1950).
toto–
There are 9,099 years hotter than 2010 over a 10,500 year period.
This is utterly irrelevant to any evaluation of
a) whether humans are causing warming.
b) whether warming is good or bad.
c) whether possible warming might cause human suffering over the next few decades and centuries.
Who cares where 2010 is on Easterbrooke’s graph? It’s irrelevant.
The problem with both side is each wants to present counter arguments to strawman the other side is not advancing. In this case, Easterbrooke seems to be presenting some counter argument to the idea that a warmer temperature might do.. what? Cause the planet to disintegrate into asteroids?
No one is claiming the planet itself will explode or disintegrate if it warms. The concern is providing food, water, sanitation, decent living conditions etc. to human populations.
Nice to see that you are progressing with R. We (…er) more senior citizens can still learn it seems. You and Julio are tempting me to take the R plunge. 🙂
Is R on the cloud?
Shoosh0
Wikipedia says this:
That wording suggests the planet was warm when the CO2 was high, but a continent at the pole was glaciated. We have a continent at the pole right now– Antarctica. It’s covered with ice. Yet, we aren’t in an ice age.
Do you have a time table showing CO2 concentrations and global temperatures as a function of time? Better yet– global temperatures as a function of elevation? And before coming back with information, do you have information on other features like aerosols, methane etc? Because I have a very strong impression that you are providing partial information.
“MikeC (Comment#64717) January 4th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
GISS will show records because they have included Arctic temps.”
UAH includes the arctic, RSS does not, and they agree anyhow.
GISS includes the arctic, CRU does not, and they do not agree.
So maybe the problem is WHAT GISS pretends to be the temperature of the arctic, not THAT they use it.
Funny how the 1998 El Niño is getting stronger and stronger. Soon it will be the strongest El Niño ever …
Lucia: You wrote in the post, “Nevertheless, looked at this way, we would expect that if we explain ENSO “weather noise†using the annual average of NINO 3.4, absent warming, 1998 should easily have been warmer than 2010. Instead, the two are neck and neck.”
Are you making the assumptions that (1) El Nino events and La Nina events are similar but opposite processes and (2) have similar but opposite effects on global temperatures?
Re: YFNWG (Jan 4 14:11),
The AMO index would have to drop from 0.283 in November to -0.042 in December for the annual average to become fourth highest instead of third highest. While that’s not impossible, it would be unlikely, as there hasn’t been a monthly drop that large in the record and there have been only two times (out of over 1800) with month to month increases that were larger. The AMO index annual average has been increasing since 1974. It’s due to start decreasing.
SteveF–
Try just downloading my script, pasting in a line at a time and running. You can also uncomment some of the statements I shoved in to check that I didn’t screw up.
You might need to install some packages– zoo for one. You’ll see that the package is missing when you hit that.
(I think part of the ‘problem’ of R is learning where all the convenient packages are. The documentation tends to be written by whoever wrote the package and even after I learn how to use some commands I’m mystified at what they chose to communicate, their choice of examples and what they leave out.)
lucia: er… the statement that you quote was Shoosh’s, not mine. I was just pointing out that his statement is factually wrong, nothing else.
Re: lucia (Jan 4 15:03),
But the planet is in icehouse rather than hothouse conditions. Just because we’re in an interglacial now doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t still in a severe ice age that began about 2 Mya and is still in icehouse conditions that began about 35 Mya when an Antarctic ice cap formed for the first time since the planet cooled from the Eocene peak temperature.
(1) No. For one thing, I’m comparing what appears as an El Nino in 1998 to an El Nino in 2010. One looks “stronger” than the other when we just average, but the comparison is El Nino to El Nino. The comparison is certainly simplistic– it just averages NINO 3.4, but there is no assumption about the “process”. It’s just an average of a measurement which may or may not have predictive power for GMST. If we assume the operation has some predictive power (or leading order predictive power) we would make a certain conclusion. (Of course, if we don’t like the operation, we think otherwise.)
(2) Yes. My impression is that it is believed that El Nino and La Nina have “similar but opposite” effects in the sense that El Nino generally results in warmer global averages and La Nina results in cooler global averages. So, the similarity-opposite assumption is: “El Nino correlated to warmer than average GMST”, “La Nina correlated to cooler than average GMST”. No more. No less.
Do you have any reason to find the two dissimilar in the limited sense I assume a similarity?
toto–
Sorry. I guess it looks like you and I agree and both disagree with shoosh on the Easterbrooke graph.
DeWitt–
Ok. But based on the snippets Shoosh showed, I can’t see any particular reason to think it’s surprising that a continent on the antarctic was glaciated. Is that a mystery? Or is it not? Shoosh wants to feed me these snippets.
Quick reading suggests he is feeding cherry picked bits, and quite honestly, I don’t want to spend endless hours trying to discover whether it was surprising that a continent at the pole was glaciated at that particular time.
So do you know if there is any big mystery Gondwanahowdoyouspellit was glaciated eaons ago?
Bob Tisdale–
Question for you:
Do you have a best estimate explanatory formula based on published quantities that “explains” the 2010 calendar average in terms of whatever oscillations you think best. If yes, we can code that up on R, have the code available and see how well the explanation holds up at the end of 2011.
Even if the predictive variables (e.g. MEI, AMO etc) are not yet published, we can write the code and update to see how 2011 is tracking a correlation as it unfolds. It would be pretty fun to do.
Looking at the three ENSO indicees, the ONI seems to be based entirely on SST data, the SOI entirely on the atmospheric pressure differences between Tahiti and Darwin, AU, and the MEI on SST, atmospheric pressure differences, surface winds, surface air temperatures, and extent of cloudiness, all analyzed by principal component analysis.
Which is best, I do not know, but MEI incorporates the greatest number of associated factors. MEI shows a relatively small El Nino in 2009-2010 and a relatively large La Nina, in 2010-11
Owen–
I’ve run correlations between GMST and both MEI and ONI before and it seems to be a crap shoot. You can decrees on or the other better depending on whether you claim you “trust” all the data, only the more recent periods etc. Also, you can get different answers by blotting out periods when volcanoes erupted (when that influence can screw things up.) So, while MEI might be better, who really knows?
What I do notice– and this has nothing to do with you personally– is people’s “favorites” do seem to change depending on what they want to currently explain. So, ideally, someone will have said which they prefer way back in 2009 and given us their reason. Then we can at least see if they remain consistent. Likewise, you prefer MEI today, we can see if you still “like” it in 2011.
But, like you, I have no idea if MEI or ONI are truly the best. Metrics based on a smaller number of things (i.e. ONI) are sometimes better because all you get out of more metrics based on lots of things is over fitting. Sometimes, metrics based on lots of things are better because the extra things really do have explanatory value.
MEI is a perfectly defensible choice in the sense that it’s a) regularly published by an agency (NOAA) and b) proposed by someone other than you who are referring to it. I’m not trying to suggest it’s just picked to get the answer you like–lots of people pick it. I think Bob Tisdale prefers it.
MikeC (Comment#64717): Can’t you then comment as anonymous and include MikeC at the end of your comment so I know who commented?
Lucia wrote, “MEI is a perfectly defensible choice in the sense that it’s a) regularly published by an agency (NOAA) and b) proposed by someone other than you who are referring to it. I’m not trying to suggest it’s just picked to get the answer you like–lots of people pick it. I think Bob Tisdale prefers it.”
I use primarily NINO3.4 SST anomalies as a proxy for ENSO. But we have to keep in mind that it represents the SST anomalies of the central equatorial Pacific and nothing more.
Lucia asked, “Do you have a best estimate explanatory formula based on published quantities that ‘xplains’the 2010 calendar average in terms of whatever oscillations you think best.”
I’m working on a post now (just about finished) that will discuss and illustrate what the land and sea surface temperature data presents as the effects of ENSO on global temperatures since 1982 (the year GISS switched source SST datasets since I’m using GISS LOTI in the post.) It’ll take another day or two to finish it. I’ll leave a link when I’ve posted it. From that, a formula could easily be developed from a few SST anomaly subsets.
Bob–
Cool! We can code that.
Maybe I have to set up a new betting pool where we have people explain their “method” of explaining the years anomaly and then seeing how well it “explains” 2011. It can use anything that will be published during the year (MEI, SOI, ONI, etc.)
The “explainer” can also indicate whether they think their method is likely to be any good. I’ll resurrect lumpy and tweak it. It’s mostly just a curve fit, doesn’t use MEI or SOI. Or maybe I’ll just come up with my best “lumpy-like” curve fit using MEI or ONI as compliments.
Re: lucia (Jan 4 15:34),
AFAIK, continents at the poles are almost a necessary condition for an icehouse (not snowball, however) planet. Right now we have Antarctica at the South Pole and an Arctic Ocean that is nearly cut off from the rest of the ocean, helping to maintain some ice cover year round at the North Pole. With the Pacific cut off from the Atlantic by the Isthmus of Panama and open sea all around Antarctica, it would be surprising if we weren’t in icehouse conditions.
Some people think that 450 ppmv CO2 is a magical tipping point between icehouse and hothouse, but the geography of the planet has changed so much over time that I doubt you can make that calculation with any precision. I would put it in the same category as calculating the probability of intelligent life in the galaxy using the Drake equation.
Alexej Buergin (Comment#64729)
Of course, the UAH and RSS sets measure troposphere temps while GISS and CRU are surface temps. I’m not sure if there is a great deal of difference when you add the arctic trends into the troposphere sets. But the surface, which I am more familiar with, certainly do as higher Northern lats will show greater warming trends than lower lats.
.
Bob Tisdale (Comment#64747)
Bob, I’d love to comment on your page, it’s the one I take most seriously cuz it’s observations… I do not always agree with your interpretations of the observations, but I think it’s the best page running… I’ll try it again.
ya Bob, I tried again and it wanted me to create a Google Identity and password, I’m too lazy to bother… but I’ll keep reading
Lucia, I took an annual average from 1950 to 2010 from NOAA and set a simple trend to it. Correlation 0.885
I then took your script, played with different lags and scales. I found that a 5-6 month lag and a scaling the anomaly by a factor of 1/13 gave the best correlation: 0.910
http://rhinohide.cx/co2/trendtester/img/trend-nino-NOAA-2010-61.png
red = noaa 60 year global temp anomaly
black = linear 60 yr trend
blue = 60 yr trend + nino_ave_lag_5_mo/13
——
My eye was drawn to the opposing slopes in the early 1990s and then it dawned on me – Pinatubo!
MikeC
I commented this afternoon at Bob’s using the Anonymous choice, and just ignored the request for Google Identitiy, etc.
“MikeC (Comment#64754) January 4th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
as higher Northern lats will show greater warming trends than lower lats.”
So since according to the satellites the troposphere does not get warmer, and since according to CRU the surface of the lower latitudes does not get warmer, a-GLOBAL-warming takes place only in a small and very thin layer of air around the North Pole.
lucia says: “Maybe I have to set up a new betting pool where we have people explain their “method†of explaining the years anomaly and then seeing how well it “explains†2011.”
Sorry if I misled you. The post I’m working on is not a prediction tool. I’m looking at existing data from 1982 to 2010 and attempting to identify the causes of the wiggles and the trend. One would need to forecast the SST anomalies of 3 SST subsets in order to make a 2011 forecast and that’s not something I do.
MikeC says: “ya Bob, I tried again and it wanted me to create a Google Identity and password, I’m too lazy to bother… but I’ll keep reading.”
I just checked all of the settings and anyone should be able to comment without signing in. I even signed out of Google to try it myself and this is what was at the bottom of the comment screen I got.
http://i53.tinypic.com/a0lafl.jpg
I wrote my comment, clicked on anonymous, entered the verification and it worked.
we’re talking trends alexej… and I’m not so sure how the troposphere behaves as opposed to the oceans moving heat to the poles at the surface… and I do not recall seeing anyone doing lattitude bands using sat temps.
.
bob… didn’t work for me… let me try it your way
ok Bob, I think I got it… awaiting your moderation I think
Speaking of, Bob, have you done anything with lattitude bands on the UAH or RSS sets?
Ron Broberg (Comment#64756)
Very interesting (and worthwhile) plot. It really does demonstrate the effect on ENSO on global average temperature and gives a best fit lag to boot. You wouldn’t happen to have that data in Excel format? That you would be willing to share?
MikeC says, “Speaking of, Bob, have you done anything with lattitude bands on the UAH or RSS sets?”
Not sure what you mean. Which latitude bands?
And yes, your comment went through at my blogspot.
Bob,
0-10 N, 10-20N etc, or something like that… by lattitude… not sure if they even publish that data, would be interesting to see
Given the difference in the El Ninos between the two years (the AMO was nearly identical in value and time between the two years), one would have expected 1998 to be about 0.07C higher than 2010 (which is essentially what the satellite measures have shown).
Therefore, no 0.24C of global warming over the 12 years as predicted.
All the important climate indices including temperatures, cloud cover, water vapour levels, outgoing longwave radiation, and rainfall patterns/levels lag behind the Nino 3.4 Index by 3 months on a continuous on-going basis.
@Toto
Fell for what? I am factually wrong about what? There are 9,099 years that are hotter than 2010. So sorry that I crushed your worldview. Toto, my guess is you listened to some quack from real climate that told you false information.
Lucia, do you see how viciously these people fight the historical temperature records?
Lucia you missed my point. I’m telling you that for the majority of earth’s history, it has been much hotter.
“Earth’s atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth’s history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.”
“The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.”
here is the link http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
I’m sorry but you cannot deny that we are experiencing historically low temperatures.
Regardless, I just want your official position. Your position is that with historically low atmospheric co2 we may experience a strong global warming?
Toto hint: he doesn’t show those years because they are COOLER than the years he is showing! HELLO!
Lucia: “Do you have a time table showing CO2 concentrations and global temperatures as a function of time? Better yet– global temperatures as a function of elevation?”
Yeah I do. Average GAT is about 22 C or a little higher. So once again, we are in an exceptionally cooler period, historically.
Your comment about the ice caps confused me? Surely you know the ice caps are an anomaly and their existence has been fairly rare throughout earth’s history. I would say the ice caps we have now are rare.
As far as aerosols and methane go, I admit I don’t know much about them. I have theorized that temperatures were very high during the time of the dinosaurs because of the massive amounts of methane they emitted.
Shoosh: Okay, I will point it out explicitly:
.
2010 does not appear anywhere in Easterbrook’s graphs. The data in these graphs end at the turn of the 20th century. Thus, contrarily to what Easterbrook says, the graphs say nothing about 2010, 1998, or 1934.
.
Have a look at Dave H’s comment in the WUWT thread. No, really, please do.
.
FWIW, someone tried to append an actual temperature record from central Greenland to the ice core data used by Easterbrook. You can have a look at the results there.
What you provide is not a time table. Let me repeat– do you have a time table showing CO2 concentration and global temperature as a function of time?
So? I’m trying to get you to provide sufficient information to determine whether ice caps at poles during the period you describe are unexpected. You have not done so. You are providing tiny snippets of vague information. For example:
1) No time table of CO2 vs time or Temp vs. time. (This time table should point to a reference showing a plot of table of CO2 as it varies over time and Temp as it varie over time centered on several millenia surrounding whatever time you are talking about. )
2) No discussion of possible changes in solar constant.
3) No discussion of where the glaciation existed.
4) No discussion of other factors known to affect GAT. (I.E. volcanic aerosols, methane etc.)
You are dropping a very vague snippet about a supposed “mystery”, leaving out information that every knows affects GAT and then requesting me to make some sort of conclusion about whether or not this is a “mystery”. Evidently, I’m supposed to even do my own research to figure out precisely when the period of time is, and then devote weeks to digging up all the information you don’t want to bother to provide when demanding I draw a conclusion about your “mystery”.
A very small amount of googling indicates that at least some of the details you leave out will cut against your theory that this period of time represents some sort of contradiction of the theory of AGW.
If you want an answer to your “mystery”, you are going to have to dig up the specific information that shows this is a “mystery”, and you are going to have to answer questions. Answers like “As far as aerosols and methane go, I admit I don’t know much about them. definitely cut against your historic episode being a mystery. It seem more likely the episode is only a “mystery” to people know almost nothing about important factors that affect the earth’s climate at the time. (That is: if we know nothing about aerosols, methane, position of the continents, solar constant etc. then whatever the temperature was it’s “a mystery”.)
“MikeC (Comment#64766) January 4th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Bob,
0-10 N, 10-20N etc, or something like that… by lattitude… not sure if they even publish that data, would be interesting to see”
Why don’t you look it up?
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_2.txt
(UAH does something similar, but they do not use latitude-numbers as far as I know)
hm, maybe it is not so simple to remove the ENSO signal. Via klimazwiebel and Eduardo Zorita I came to the Thompson et al papers: for example: http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/ThompsonWallaceJonesKennedy_JClimate2009.pdf (there are others, described here: http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/09/aerosols-or-natural-variability.html)
I do not think I understand them by “overlooking” (no time), but the papers might give a look into the problem.
PS: hope, I used the same nick name… and sorry, no own work –> no time. But, I always wondered, how to remove the ENSO etc signals from the temperature serieses. It sounds interestingly, because some say: 1997/98 was a much stronger El Nino and others say: well, it was “much weaker” (overdramatic). As far as I can remember, I lived 6 months in Idaho in 1997/98. There was a lot of talk about El Nino and the problems in California in that winter. El Nino, Monica, Iraq (yeah, always a nice topic) were the topics in the US media.
Lucia, you have me completely lost. Historic GAT is a timetable of temperature over time. The link I provided to you also shows co2 in relation to time.
Toto, go back to media matters. Easterbrook’s post discusses the more recent temperatures…again, the reason the graph doesn’t show temperatures past 1905 is because they are irrelevant…they are all below the temperatures he is showing. Easterbrook is using a much longer time period. Sorry, history didn’t start when you were born. You are the on that is trying to cherry picked by using a smaller sampling of data, you idiot.
Lucia, the “mystery” you referred to is concocted from your own mind. It is historical fact that the ice caps are anomalies. If it makes you feel better, I will find out where the glaciation occured. However, it will make no difference because the earth usually doesn’t have icecaps.
(That is: if we know nothing about aerosols, methane, position of the continents, solar constant etc. then whatever the temperature was it’s “a mysteryâ€.)
So your basically saying for all we know, the temperature could have been much lower. What we do know about aerosols methane and the position of the earth’s contintents is that animals much less adaptable to earth than humans survived. I’m actually going to try and have Dr. Happer make some comments about this because this “history started when we born” stuff is so representative of elitist, group think. The earth has basically told us that it likes to be warmer, based on the FACT that the temperatures have been higher on average.
I don’t want to start personal attacks Lucia but I am wondering about your belief in co2 warming. I’m guessing your an atheist because you haven’t seen enough “proof”.
You cannot test the greenhouse theory either. Would you agree both belief in God and co2 warming are both faith based?
As a Christian, I believe in blind faith.
I guess I should also note that my blind faith tells me that God would not construct a planet so poorly that man ruin it so quicly when it has existed for billions of years.
Richard Lindzen also said something very similar to this, so before toto and company attack, remember I am in very good company.
Shoosh–
As an atheist about god, I find your confidence in god making an indestructable world interesting.
No. I do not agree that believe in god and CO2 warming are faith based.
BTW: not all Christians would say they believe in blind faith. Also, since you brought up Christianity, I suspect Lindzen is not Christian. I suspect he is Jewish. My suspicion is based on conversations over heard at the dinner table.
“As an atheist…”
And I suspect Lucia is not an atheist, but an agnostic.
She may believe that God doesn’t exist (I doubt it), but she doesn’t know. Therefore logically, the possibility that God does exist remains for her.
She doesn’t know that God does or doesn’t exist, just as she doesn’t know that CO2 does or doesn’t cause Global Warming.
You gotta have faith-a-faith-a-faith. 😉
Andrew
Yes I know Lindzen is Jewish, ashkenazi probably because he is a genius. Also, I’m sure you know ashkenazi Jews have recorded the highest iqs in the world.
You and I probably come from very different backgrounds. 2 of my great uncles were priests, they wanted to become priests since they were young kids (which I find pretty amazing). In fact I will send you a cool email that I hope you will not share with anyone.
That said, my great aunt and uncle on my mom’s side are both atheists, geniously smart and I love them. When I say geniously smart, they worked at NASA and helped create security codes for computers. Nice to see we can have an orderly discussion about religion. I hate it when people go Maher on me and say “Bible is a hoax” because I don’t go around telling people they’re going to hell.
Well I can’t send you the email as I noticed in the discloser there is no guarantee of privacy. I would say my confidence in God has a pretty pretty pretty good track record considering the earth is billions of years old.
Of course, I also think there is some truth to the theory that the earth has been created and destroyed many times but this opens up a can of spoiled plums because it necessarily implies that humans could’ve come before other creatures. It is one of those questions we will not know the answer to until we die. It cannot be proved or disproved.
Well I sent of an email to Dr. Happer. If he responds I will post my question in the email and his reponse, unless he requests that I keep it to myself.
Shoosh–
I rarely display emails sent. However, Anna Haynes sent me an email asking me to either provide her Steve Moshers email address or make a request of Steve Mosher. As a favor, I did convey her request to steve mosher. However, rather than rewording what Anna asked me to ask Steve Mosher, I just forwarded the email Steve Mosher. She then grumbled that the email was not kept confidential. I guess I was supposed to guess which sentences in that email were confidential and which were to be shared with Steve Mosher!
Anyway, my email inbox does not have the guarantee of confidentiality one gets when in a Roman Catholic confessional box, with one’s physician or lawyer. I don’t make a habit of republishing, but yes…. the stuff could be shared.
Here’s my take on the breakdown of the projected 2010 GISTEMP anomoly using my favorite simple model (literally and figuratively). I used the linear regression GISTEMP=a*(ln(co2)) +b*NINO3.4 +c*AMO +d for the period 1960-2009. This model is using ln(co2) as the proxy for all man-made forcings (co2, aerosols, soot, UHI, etc.) coming *out* of the heat pipeline, not going in. NINO3.4 is lagged four months.
The coefficient’s I get are:
a=3.112
b=0.063
c=0.151
d=-17.995
Next I mulitply these values by the 2010 monthly observations (with December infilled) and do the averaging. Calculating the man-made component as a*(ln(co2))+d, I get the following breakdown:
Projected 2010 GISTEMP anomoly = +0.663C
Man-made component = +0.569
NINO3.4 component = +0.038
AMO component = +0.046
Residual component = +0.010
Incidentally, the “apparent” sensitivity from the regression is 3.112 * ln(2) = 2.16C. This should be close to the guesstimate from the “Lumpy” model. One characteristic of Lumpy is that rate of heat going into the pipeline and coming out is essentially the same, so it should match this linear regression.
Thanks, AJ
H/T Bill Illis, as this is his linear regression model.
Two of my father’s great aunts were cloistered nuns.
The twin sister of one of the nuns was a kept woman of a wealthy man. He died. They sent her to the US to live with my grandmother’s family. She found another wealthy man. They lived together, had a kid. Eventually, after about 40 years, they married.
AndrewKY
We could debate the distinction between atheist and agnostic.. but not here. I could equally well observe that you say you believe god exists, but you can’t know. Therefor, logically, the possibility that God does not exist remains for you. So, you must also be an agnostic and not a theist.
I agree the existence of god cannot be proven. But, I lean very strongly toward god does not exist. Use whatever word you prefer. 🙂
“Therefore, logically, the possiblity that God does not exist remains for you.”
It’s true that my belief is not perfect. 🙁
But it is possible to know God through His creation. And sometimes He reveals himself more directly. 😉
Andrew
Re: AJ (Comment#64821) January 5th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
AJ (or Bill Illis), I have several questions (if you don’t mind):
(a) Can you show us a figure (or link to one) so we can see what this fit looks like?
(b) Why start only at 1960? (No El Niño data prior to then?)
(c) What are “forcings coming *out* of the pipeline”? (As written, this does not make any sense to me…)
(d) Any reason why the El Niño index should be lagged but AMO should not? (Isn’t that a little weird?)
and a comment:
It occurred to me the other day to try and use the world’s population as a proxy for all man-made forcings. The result was surprising, at least to me. You can see it here (the period covered is 1900 to 2005):
http://i56.tinypic.com/fdy7ix.png
This is an excellent post, Lucia, my compliments. It’s something I often wondered about. I also have a spreadsheet with the ONI data and some comparisons (I believe I posted them here at the time), but you did a much better and nicer job.
.
What I do notice– and this has nothing to do with you personally– is people’s “favorites†do seem to change depending on what they want to currently explain.
.
I’m not entirely objective, but I’d say the karma point people are much worse when it comes to picking favourite graphs and datasets, etc. Just check out how Anthony Watts reports on Arctic sea ice. It’s a disgrace.
.
Dr. Shooshmon, please believe me when I say that Don Easterbrook has fooled you with his graph (and it’s not the first time he’s doing that to people either). Do some research, read the link Toto posted. They explain why this graph is misleading. It really is.
Neven–
During break I was not posting much– but I read some blogs. I’m not entirely sure “karma point” people are worse at picking favorite graphs and datasets. That said, it’s difficult to keep track of who is worse unless individuals are very public with their posting.
Everyone, to some extent or another can lack objectivity from time to time. Yep… that includes me.
Re: julio (Comment#64831) January 5th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
.
(a) Can you show us a figure (or link to one) so we can see what this fit looks like?
.
See Bill post from a couple of years ago at WUWT:
.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/25/adjusting-temperatures-for-the-enso-and-the-amo/
.
(b) Why start only at 1960? (No El Niño data prior to then?)
.
Mauna Loa data starts in 1958… I just rounded up to 1960.
.
(c) What are “forcings coming *out* of the pipeline� (As written, this does not make any sense to me…)
.
Say we double atmospheric co2 overnight. This resulting temperature change would take some time to be fully realized. The initial loading is the forcing into the pipeline and the gradual temperature change is the forcing coming out of the pipeline. I believe it was James Hansen that used this analogy. Since my regression is against the realized temperature change, it is against the heat coming out of the pipeline.
.
(d) Any reason why the El Niño index should be lagged but AMO should not? (Isn’t that a little weird?)
.
Yes I think its weird as well, but Bill got a good fit using this approach.
.
Thanks, AJ
Re: AJ (Comment#64835) January 5th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Thanks! That’s a long post you linked to there, I’ll have to look at it carefully. It looks good, though.
MikeC wrote, “0-10 N, 10-20N etc, or something like that… by lattitude… not sure if they even publish that data, would be interesting to see.”
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I don’t believe I’ve prepared a post that divided the TLT data that way. Have you tried the KNMI Climate Explorer? Both RSS and UAH datasets are there, and it’s easy to use. I assume you’ve seen my intro post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/12/very-basic-introduction-to-knmi-climate.html
MikeC (Comment#64763)
January 4th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Speaking of, Bob, have you done anything with lattitude bands on the UAH or RSS sets?
You can do latitude bands on the UAH data at KNMI climate explorer.
One other interesting factor related to this post is the behavior of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). See http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_pdo_trend_latest.png from O’Day’s Climate Charts and Graphs.
The PDO seems to be related to ENSO, but on a different time scale. According to http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/, ” Two main characteristics distinguish PDO from El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO): first, 20th century PDO “events” persisted for 20-to-30 years, while typical ENSO events persisted for 6 to 18 months; second, the climatic fingerprints of the PDO are most visible in the North Pacific/North American sector, while secondary signatures exist in the tropics – the opposite is true for ENSO”
Looking at the recent warm and cool phases of the PDO in the 12/15/2010 chart prepared by O’Day, the warm PDO phase associated with the 2009-10 El Nino is quite small, while the one associated with the 1998 El Nino is huge in comparison. Also, the 2007-08 La Nina is contemporaneous with a pronounced cool phase of the PDO. In fact, if the PDO were the sole predictor (which it is not), these last 5-6 years should have been quite cool.
Neven, I read the links toto posted, I know he doesn’t display dates past 1905 in the graph. However, he does discuss the more recent dates in some of the paragraphs. I think you and toto are missing his point. The reason he does not show the dates past 1905 is because they are cooler. He is illustrating that there were thousands of years warmer than 2010/1998/1934.
Shooshmon,
“The reason he does not show the dates past 1905 is because they are cooler. He is illustrating that there were thousands of years warmer than 2010/1998/1934.”
Illustrating things is not a difficult concept – it involves presenting things visually. It is therefore not possible to illustrate that many thousands of years in the past were warmer than 2010, 1998 and 1934 by presenting a graph that shows temperatures for the thousands of years but not for any of 2010, 1998 or 1934. Perhaps Easterbrook explains in words why he thinks his assertion is true but that graph certainly doesn’t illustrate it.
That aside, 2010, 1998 and 1934 were all warmer than 1905, globally, even if not in the particular spot in Greenland in question. Even if Easterbrook’s assertion were true, all it would prove is something we already knew, that global temperature is not the same as temperature at a particular spot in Greenland.
Re: AJ (Jan 5 12:22),
You may be inflating the importance of ghg forcing by using ln(CO2) rather than ln(CO2(t)/CO2(0)). There’s still a question of what to use for CO2(0). You could use the pre-industrial level of 280 ppmv or the average level for the GISTEMP baseline period. The second would be my preference. That should substantially reduce the magnitude of the intercept.
The reason he does not show the dates past 1905 is because they are cooler.
.
2010 is cooler than 1905? Are you sure about that? Have you checked?
.
And wrt 1905:
.
One of the last comments to my “100 years of warming†post suggested that the GISP2 “present†followed a common paleoclimate convention and was actually 1950. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present†is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.
.
This is Easterbrook’s main sleight of hand. He wants to present a regional proxy for temperature from 155 years ago as somehow indicative of present global temperatures.
.
[…]
.
Unfortunately for Don, the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the coreâ€, it’s from layers dated to 1855. The reason is straightforward enough — it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice.
.
Easterbrook and Watts have successfully misled you. But it’s not too late for you to undo that.
Neven all you are doing is trying to convolute this argument. I’m making the basic point that almost all of the last 10,500 years have been warmer than 2010/1934/1998. Honestly, I have no idea what point your trying to make. I see that Jon said 1905 was not warmer than 2010/1934/1998. Okay. So the majority of the last 10,500 years is still warmer. I was wrong on one date. If you and Jon are so upset about him not displaying the dates in question, you can write and tell him to. Jon asserted that because he doesn’t show these dates, he can’t prove any years were warmer. Unfortunately for Jon, historic GAT is 22 C or a little higher, so it is absolute fact that we are in a cooler than average period.
You guys just follow suit like robots and cry about historic temperature records. This is the medieval warm period argument all over again. Neven, media matters/realclimate have brainwashed you but it’s not too late to start learning about history. Also, Richard Alley is a lying idiot. He still believes the medieval warm period was cooler than today. Nice source guys.
STARTLING NEWS:
Lucia, I received a prompt response from Dr. Happer but am waiting to see if he will allow me to share his presentation.
Jon:
It is a noob mistake to compare year to year, but it would be really surprising if e.g. the 100-year averaged temperature for Greenland showed a remarkably different pattern of warming and cooling than the 100-year averaged temperature for the globe.
Shoosh
I don’t give a hoot what the “earth likes”. The earth doesn’t like or dislike anything. It is not a god.
I care about optimizing conditions for humans. Yes. I have a human-centric view. I readily admit it. If you prefer to optimize for “the earth”, and take the view that “the earth” prefers to be inhabitted by dinosaurs and cockroaches and would prefer us gone… well, fine. I would prefer to have the earth be confortable for my species.
Carrick,
“It is a noob mistake to compare year to year…”
Are you calling Don Easterbrook a noob? He’s the one whose confident statements comparing individual years that aren’t supported by the data he presented Shooshmon is relying on. If so, I’m happy to agree – his work certainly proves he isn’t a competent climate researcher.
That said, it’s hard to agree or disagree with a statement as vague as “it would be really surprising if e.g. the 100-year averaged temperature for Greenland showed a remarkably different pattern of warming and cooling than the 100-year averaged temperature for the globe.” since it depends on value judgments as to what qualifies as remarkable. However, in the context of an argument over how individual years from the last 10,500 ought to be ranked from hottest to coldest, it shouldn’t be controversial to say that regional temperature trends could easily differ enough from global ones to significantly change the rankings of a great many individual years.
Trying to get back to the point of this post, Tamino has posted an analysis of three of the global anomalies datasets where the anomalies are adjusted for ENSO, solar, and volcanic forcings.
Not surprisingly, RSS, GISS, and UAH have 2010 as the hottest year when adjusted for the relatively smaller ENSO and lower solar forcing in 2010 compared to 1998. But surprisingly, both GISS and UAH show 2009 as the 2nd hottest year, when the anomalies are corrected for ENSO and solar effects.
Re: Paul K2 (Jan 6 17:01),
Tamino has left out the AMO index and restricted the the time series to after 1975. Of course the temperature is increasing. On the R plotting thread, we have evidence that the ENSO index reflects dT/dt rather than T so a linear correction based on the index is meaningless and a correction based on the integral of the index is probably circular.
PaulK2–
It’s one thing to include explanatory values in a multiple regression. But, I find it hard to get worked up over records in “corrected” surface temperatures.
At the end of any year, each person can fiddle with a choice of indeces (MEI, ONI, AMO), correct for features the chose( Volcanoes, Solar Cycle) play around a little and get a range of possible corrected surface temperatures. Then you can pick the “correction” you like best, this will let you trumpet records constantly. Look, even in a La Nina year, we have a record*
The rhetorical effect is a bit like baseball announcers coming up with a ‘correction’ home runs in a season based on height, weight, age, number of years in the major leagues, and birth country and then reporting the — after correction–old fat white guy born in France (who hit zero home runs) hit the most “corrected” home runs in the league this year. And then after wards marveling that even though he’s a fat old white guy born in France, he managed to hit a record high home runs.
The world is warming. We are going to see real record broken over time. GISTemp is going to break a real record. Efforts to explain we hit a record high during a La Nina year seems peculiar to me.
DeWitt Payne (Comment#64874)
January 6th, 2011 at 9:23 am
Re: AJ (Jan 5 12:22),
“You may be inflating the importance of ghg forcing by using ln(CO2) rather than ln(CO2(t)/CO2(0)).”
—————-
ln(CO2(t)/CO2(0)) = ln(CO2(t)) – ln(CO2(O))
There is no need for the division by CO2(Original), it can be represented by a simple A * ln(CO2(t)) – B
If the greenhouse effect is really controlled 85% by GHGs as Lacis’ paper of GISS recently said (it is more accurate mathematically to say Lacis concluded the greenhouse effect is 74% controlled by GHGs) then,
Global warming theory really is:
= 3/ln(2)*ln(CO2(t) – ln(CO2(0))
= 4.328*ln(CO2(t)) – ln(1)
= 4.328*ln(CO2(t)) C – 24.4C
give or take a 30 year or 1500 year lag in the impact.
[and coincidentally 5.35*ln(CO2) * 0.81C/watt/m2 = 4.33 – and 3.7 watts/m2 * 0.81C/watt/m2= +3.0C – ever wonder where the 5.35 ln came from ? – it is not measured, it is calculated from the 3.0C per doubling assumption]
so one can use simply use ln(CO2(t) starting with ln(1) or -24.4C if one wants. 280 ppm is then Zero, 1 ppm is -24.4C, 560 ppm is +3.0C, 1120 ppm is +6.0C and so on.
The formula starts to break down after CO2(t) is 0.1 ppm but it doesn’t matter because all the plants die at about 100 ppm so 100 ppm is a pretty firm boundary condition anyway.
Re: Bill Illis (Jan 6 21:31),
Sure if your data had no noise. But the magnitude can make a difference in a least squares fit of noisy data because B folds into the intercept of the fit. If I had the energy, I’d Monte Carlo some data and demonstrate.
DeWitt Payne (Comment#64942) January 6th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
The reason for using the NINO3.4 and AMO factors is to filter out some of the noise. As the model is very simple, there are lots of assumptions and I don’t expect it to yield perfect results. But I am comfortable with the statement “of the +0.66C GISTEMP anomoly, the man-made component is about +0.56C (co2, UHI, etc) and the natural component is about +0.10C.”
.
Things get dicier when using it for predictive purposes. First of all, we are regressing “forcing in” with “temperatures out” of the pipeline. As we can find a good quadratic fit with the ln(co2) curve, the rate of change of ln(co2) is linear (first deriviative). If the rate of change in temperature increases is also linear and the relationship between the two lines holds in the future, then it does have predictive value, but that’s a big if.
.
Also, I had used the term “apparent” sensitivity because the “real” sensitivity would have to account for the heat in the pipeline. If one uses Lucia’s Lumpy model, then the heat in the pipeline would have effectively converged on a maximum value. That means the rate in and out are effectively the same and the linear regression actually yields the “real” sensitivity. The only problem is that the experts in heat transfer have a model which has an increasing accumulation of heat in the pipeline. The Lumpy term exp(-t/T) leads to convergence, but the expert’s model would effectively have T increasing over time leading to continued accumulation.
Lucia: A few days ago I had written that I would be finished with a post in a few days. Things came up that kept me away from it and I’ll try to get back to it next week.
Regards
Dr. Shooshmon, phd. (Comment#64886) January 6th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Sorry Shoosh,
You are beating a very dead and seriously decomposing horse.
I actually like the GISP2 graph of arctic Greenland temps over the last 10500 years. I think it does show temp variation for that region over a long period of time with remarkable resolution.
It does:
* Demonstrate wider temp variability in arctic Greenland than previously known.
* Represent a useful proxy for wider arctic temp reconstructions.
* Clearly demonstrate warm and cold periods that are consistent with historical records.
It does not:
* Serve as an accurate global temp record.
* Demonstrate that the earth has been warmer 95% of the last 10500 years than now.
* Show any 20th century temps.
* Support Don Easterbrook’s conclusions in any way.
Easterbrook has done some very interesting and valuable glacier studies in the past. He missed this on by a mile. His conclusions are pure balderdash. In retrospect he probably wishes he had an undergrad geology student check his work before scheduling the press release.
ivpo,
Does anything serve as an accurate global temperature record on either a long or short timescale?
Quote:
Dave Andrews (Comment#65005) January 7th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
“Does anything serve as an accurate global temperature record on either a long or short timescale?”
Nope. What we have lies somewhere between “isn’t very much” and “better than nothing” It is what it is.
But, I find it hard to get worked up over records in “corrected†surface temperatures.
[…]
Efforts to explain we hit a record high during a La Nina year seems peculiar to me.
.
Who is getting worked up? None such efforts were made. 2008 was the La Niña year, not 2009.
.
It’s pretty interesting, that’s all. At least as interesting as this your blog post was. In fact, they complement each other pretty well, I think.
What I mean by not getting worked up is that I find it uninteresting that someone can devise some “correction” to create records where otherwise there would be no record.
But if you find it uninteresting, fine.
But Lucia, you wanted to know how much ENSO influences the temperature records. You wrote:
.
So, that got me asking myself: When arguing about how much El Nino “should†have elevated the annual average 2010 temperature above some “normal†value, how do we each decide whether we think a particular El Nino or La Nina was “strong†or “weak�
.
Tamino took it a step further, wrote a quick blog post and showed the temperature trends with the ENSO more or less removed (not perfectly, and he doesn’t pretend it is), and a ll of a sudden it’s uninteresting, despite the apparent overlap between your and his blog posts?
.
I find that strange.
ivp0:
I’d be surprised if it didn’t reflect and highly correlate with global temperatures over say a 100-year smoothing.
Neven–
It’s the claim of records I find uninteresting. Also, note what I say in the post suggests that I think people can see what they want to when “explaining away” non-records. For example, I observe this:
(italics new)
What I did not explicitly say– but thought– was that all three people come to different conclusions about the strength of La Nina’s and El Ninos.
The flip side would be I think they can find what they want to find records. That appears to be the exercise Tamino is undertaking. So, my main thought is: We can all argue which are the “right “indicators, “right” corrections and find different “records” if we like. Or we can explain away records we don’t like. These are all similar exercises.
I’m somewhat interested in seeing the different methods people use– but what I find interesting is that each person proposes a different method to “correct” or “explain”.
The result is that, ultimately, I think trying to decree records based on corrected values is … (hunting to think of an adjective that is more polite that what I really think…) uhmm… uninteresting.
We are setting real records without “correction”. Why not just note that?
Tamino was responding to a question some of his commenters had asked:
.
.
And it’s only towards the end of the post that Tamino makes any mention of records:
.
.
We are setting real records without “correctionâ€. Why not just note that?
.
I don’t know. Maybe because of the it-hasn’t-warmed-since-1998-crock?
Neven–
Sure. And we are only discussing Tamino’s discussion of records way down here in comments because PaulK2 brought up Tamino’s discussion of records. I engaged PaulK2’s comment. Later you jumped in and I talked to you.
Hey. Tamino can talk about anything he wants for whatever reason. But if someone comes to comments here and expresses their opinion that showing that one can create records where there are none is a “good” way of illustrating anything, I’m going to express my opinion. I don’t think it’s a particularly good way, for a number of reasons. If the purpose is to engage the “it hasn’t warmed since 1998 crock”, I think it’s a very poor way– for reasons I noted above using the baseball player anamoly.
If you think otherwise, that’s fine. If PaulK2 and you didn’t bring up the post, I wouldn’t have discussed it because, mostly, I don’t think that particular post is worthy of mentioning one way or the other. It’s… yawn…
Lucia, you never seem to stop to amaze me. 🙂
Neven– Nor you me. 🙂
Art reflects life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s