Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO

by Craig Loehle

This is a short summary of my new paper Global Temperature Trends Adjusted for Unforced Variability.

The possible implications of internal or unforced variability in the Earth climate system is a frequent topic on Climate Etc. I hypothesized that the AMO might provide an index to unforced variability. I scaled it and subtracted it from the Hadley global data (Fig. 1).   Subtracting the scaled AMO reduces the variance of the data and changes the shape.

Slide1Figure 1. Hadley global temperature anomalies (black) with series adjusted by subtracting the scaled AMO (red).

I extracted total anthropogenic forcing from the IPCC AR5 appendices. A comparison of the adjusted Hadley data with forcing estimates (Fig. 2) shows a remarkable similarity of shape with a simple correlation of 0.92.Slide2Figure 2. Adjusted Hadley global temperature (black) vs. scaled (arbitrary scale) anthropogenic forcing (red).

Based on an approximately linear temperature trend since 1970, I obtained an estimate of 0.83 deg C/century for the warming rate over the 44 years. This would give 0.71 deg C more warming by 2100 as a simple extrapolation. This corresponds to TCR=1.2 and ECS=1.5.

Since the paper is open access and is short, I encourage you to read the full paper.

JC note:  As with all guest posts, please keep your comments civil and relevant.

560 responses to “Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO

  1. Pingback: Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO | Enjeux énergies et environnement

  2. Again, looking at recent data and not considering the ice core data for the past ten thousand years. The thermometer data and the other data during recent decades is not enough. The thousand year cycle cannot be understood by looking at a hundred or less years. If you do not try to understand the thousand year cycle, you are wasting your time and everyone else’s time.

    • The laws of physics are invariant with respect to time. Whatever governed climate 1000 years ago should still be operating, but we do not have 1000 years of good data. So I used what is reliable.

      • We have 870 thousand years of ice core data from the Antarctic.
        That is good data. It is not disputed by anyone on any side of this debate.

        People do disagree about what caused what, but no one has disputed the ice core data.

        Oops, I did forget, Michael Mann did flatten out the most recent ten thousand years with his hockey stick. It was discredited and the IPCC cannot even use it but it is the same as the alarmist climate model output that is still used. Climate model output is hockey stick output.

      • All of your reliable data is modern data and it is all inside the bounds of the past ten thousand years of reliable ice core data

      • The sixty year cycle has been studied to death. CO2 sensitivity has been studied to death. The thousand year cycle does produce warm and cold periods, like the Medieval and Little Ice Age and it has been ignored to death. We do have data and it can and must be studied.

      • My personal Pope’s Climate Theory is most likely right, but that must be verified or disproved. Don’t agree or disagree with my Theory. Agree to help study and determine what is right. We must know what caused cycles in the past or we are wasting all the time and money studying a century of better data during a warming part of the thousand year cycle.

      • Popesclimatetheory: The ice core data are not sufficient without good forcing data. Where does one get that? You need the distribution of land, ice, forest, CO2 and methane, solar, volcanic…and most of those are not available. The ice core data is also not the same as global temperature.

      • “The laws of physics are invariant with respect to time.”

        Are we sure about that? Or is it just a convenient assumption?

      • -1=e^iπ: well, in the GCM world, maybe not, but in the real world, yes.

      • David Springer

        Invariant with respect time. We really only have data for a small region of space over a small period of time. It isn’t writ in granite except as a practical matter for local space-time. Math might be invariant over time and space but maybe not so much for physical constants.

        http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/constants.html

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm

      • “The laws of physics are invariant with respect to time. ”

        Excuse me??? You mean that there is a non-zero probability that a lump of water will become an ice cube by itself?
        How about irreversibility and thermodynamics?

        Your statement is true only at the elementary particle level, in subnuclear physics.

        Try again.

      • “in the real world, yes.”

        Not sure about that. Looking at the big bang model, all sorts of crazy stuff occurred like cosmic inflation.

        And for all we know, we were created by a giant flying spaghetti monster and one day this spaghetti monster will get bored and change the direction of gravity, just to see what will happen.

      • “The laws of physics are invariant with respect to time.”

        In the case of the Earth’s surface temperature, you are assuming that we are absolutely aware of all the physical processes affecting the Earth’s temperature and the physical relationships governing the interaction of all those processes.

        Which we aren’t.

        The science is NOT settled.

      • “The laws of physics are invariant with respect to time.”
        Are we sure about that? Or is it just a convenient assumption?

        There is no problem with the laws of physics.

        There are problems with the understanding of the laws of physics. There are problems with models that cannot produce output that look like real data. Real data is a product of the correct laws of physics. Model output is a result of incorrect modeling of physics or a result of important physics that is left out.

      • The ice core data are not sufficient without good forcing data. Where does one get that?

        Solar in is measured. IR out can be calculated using temperature, and it is being measured. Solar in is equal to IR out plus Albedo out. Everything that is not IR out is Albedo out. Also, Albedo is being measured. At the top of the atmosphere, that is all that is.

      • The ice core data is also not the same as global temperature.

        Ice core temperature’s are the temperature of the water, the oceans mostly, that the water came from.

        Ice core data is the temperature of the thermostats that are used in earth temperature regulation.

        It is not the same as global temperatures, but is is the best of any proxy for the past 800 thousand years.

      • Me, I’ll, start from the large scale evaporative heat engine, driven by a white hot, not yellow because the sky is blue, infra-red heat source.

        Water/ice controlled with a long feedback loop. Spinning down to entropy with zig-zags on the way. An ‘ice skater’ twirling on the ice, faster with icy hands to the poles, slower with warm hands to the waist.

        Energy transfers between the Equator and the Poles by cold, cold water with the majority of the temperature changes limited to the water/ice interface.

        An unseen outcome that we all know intellectually to exist.

        With an approximately 60 year period signal.

    • Ice core data is good data.
      http://popesclimatetheory.com/page85.html
      Look at the last ten thousand years, from the Arctic and the Antarctic.
      Explain this amazing bounding.

      If it snows more when it is warm and it snows less when it is cold, it is well explained. If you use any other climate theory that I have ever heard about, it is not explained.

      • Have you had a chance to look at the relationship between ENSO 3.4 and temperature. I have plotted UAH records from December 1978 and the relationship (12 month moving averages) looks interestingly close. Where it diverges seems to coincide with the effects of the Mt Pinatubo cooling starting in June 1991. It would be interesting if an analysis could be done over a longer period. https://frankbrus.wordpress.com/

      • There is an upper bound on temperature that is strongly enforced by more snowfall when the a Polar ocean is warm and thawed.

        There is a lower bound on temperature that is strongly enforced by less snowfall when the a Polar ocean is cold and frozen.

        In between, all the other forcings can work, but they cannot push temperature out of bounds. There are all kinds of correlations, but none extend out of bounds.

    • Of all the theories and explanations I’ve seen, Alexander’s strikes me as the most believable. Perhaps it is the simplicity of it, but it makes sense to me at a gut level and I haven’t seen anyone shoot holes in it.

  3. Craig,

    What you have done seems pretty straight forward and logical. The paper is indeed fairly short and easy to follow. The results are quite enlightening and likely to be provocative.

    Not being well versed in the AMO index, can you tell me how one scales it in order to be able to subtract it from surface temperature data?

    Did you have much trouble publishing this and did you get much feedback in the peer review process?

    • Mark,
      I scaled it simply by finding the scale factor that would reduce variance in the result the most. For some random reason the review process was easy. Mainly editorial.

      • Craig Loehle: I scaled it simply by finding the scale factor that would reduce variance in the result the most.

        that sounds like linear regression with the intercept fixed at 0. Is it?

      • mathewmarler: It also has an intercept term, but yes simple regression.

      • Here is what it says in the paper: The AMO data were scaled vertically to minimize the variance in the (temperature – AMO) data. The result of
        subtracting the scaled AMO from the temperature data is designated the adjusted Hadley data.

        Are those the residuals from the linear regression, then? If the intercept is non-0, then what you describe are not the residuals from the regression.

      • I scaled the AMO using regression to maximize the reduction in variance of the temperature minus scaled AMO. Then subtracted that from the Hadley data. That’s all.

      • Craig Loehle: I scaled the AMO using regression to maximize the reduction in variance of the temperature minus scaled AMO. Then subtracted that from the Hadley data.

        If you used linear regression and the intercept was non-zero, why did you subtract the “scaled’ AMO instead of the “predicted” AMO?

        And for figure 4, did you regress the residual AMO on the two forcings, and then plot the fitted values, or did you ignore the intercepts and plot the “scaled” values (which is what it says in the caption)? Again, if the “scaled” values instead of the “fitted” values from the regression, why?

        I think it is a good, straightforward paper, I am just puzzled by these details.

        This is a simpler approach than WebHubTelescope’s csalt model. He used log(CO2) as a forcing, not linear CO2, and he had other terms for forcings and covariates.

      • Craig,

        Are you saying that you did a linear regression on (Hadley-constantXAMO) and determined that a constant of .625 minimized the variance about the regressed line?

        If so, what is the logic behind doing this?

      • Mark: the logic is that my hypothesis is that the AMO is an index to variability I wanted to remove. By scaling it I was converting the local AMO index into its effect on global temperatures (or the linkage between them).

      • Craig Loehle: Mark: the logic is that my hypothesis is that the AMO is an index to variability I wanted to remove.

        The model that you described in words is gmt = b1*AMO (where gmt is your choice for global mean temperature.)

        The model that you estimated is gmt = b0 + b1*AMO.

        Why did you estimate a model that is different from your conceptual model, and then use the b1 from that estimated model?

    • I see no reason to believe that the AMO is an index for all forms of natural variability. In fact that would be an astounding coincidence. Nor can an index be reasonably subtracted from a temperature, because the units are different. If you subtract the Dow Jones from a stock price, what are the units of the result? Perhaps adjust is a better term.

      • David Wojick: it need not capture ALL natural variablity if it captures some of the dominant natural variability on the multidecadal scale. I cited reasons to think it might in the paper. It is a hypothesis. As an index, yes I used it to “adjust” the temperature record.

      • The AMO is a major factor in the little sixty year cycle.
        It is not a major factor in the bigger, more important, thousand year cycle.

      • Popes: the thousand year cycle does not change much on a 100 year scale, and contributes noise to my analysis.

      • Craig: If a 1,000 year cycle exists and if the GAT during the cycle changes by, say, 2C (Tmax-Tmin), then that 2C change will have occurred on average over 250 years (1/4 cycle). Furthermore, if the cycle is sinusoidal, then the maximum rate of temperature change during a cycle will be approx 0.12C per decade, equivalent to 1.2C over 100 years. This seems like a rather substantial temperature change to me.

      • willb01: in some of my previous work, I found the long cycles to show a 0.2 deg C cooling per 1000 years, so that is my basis for ignoring them. Also, over 100 years the trend due to a 1000 year cycle would look linear and appear to be part of the long term warming.

      • Craig: Sorry, I should have said that my hypothetical 2C change will occur on average over 500 years (1/2 cycle). Still, the maximum rate of temperature change during such a cycle will be approx 0.12C per decade.

        “In some of my previous work, I found the long cycles to show a 0.2 deg C cooling per 1000 years …” )
        Over a 1,000 year cycle, I was assuming that the peak temperature difference (Tmax-Tmin) would appear when Tmax and Tmin were separated by 500 years, not 1,000 years.

    • From the paper: (my bold )

      The cycle evident in the AMO index (Fig. 1) is not present
      in the natural forcings time series used by IPCC AR5, is not
      well-captured by GCM simulations [15] and shows no linear
      trend by itself, and thus likely represents an internal climate
      oscillation,
      as argued by Chylek et al.[16] and Wyatt and
      Curry[5]. The AMO cycle of 67.8 years is consistent with
      periodic climate cycles found in numerous geophysical

      The fact that the NOAA AMO index shows no trend is because that is the way it is defined, so there is no “thus” about it. It is assumed to be a stationary internal oscillation. Since no one knows the cause of AMO, that assumption is baseless. Whatever causes the AMO “oscillation” may also cause a rise or fall over the century.

      The whole game of “internal oscillations” is just substituting semantics for science. All natural processes are named the whatever “oscillation”, and are thus assumed to be net zero effects, yet this assumption is neither stated nor justified. This is not science, it’s wordplay.

      The whole process is based on an a priori assumption that there is no natural long term change in climate and thus any residual can be attributed to anthropogenic effects.

      Sadly Craig Loehle’s paper just accepts these unstated assumptions and propagates the substitution of semantics for logic and science.

      That is probably why the review process was easy.

      Since he chose to use a combined land+sea temperature record, I would have expected to see some discussion of whether UHI effect was a significant contribution to the residual trend he found.

      The analysis here makes almost no assumptions. done is to scale the AMO and subtract it. Sensitivi

      This statement is a demonstration of how this concept of ” oscillations” is so entrenched that there is no longer any conscience of it even being there. It is a blind spot There is a similar problem with ENSO, which is most decidedly not a pendulum like ‘oscillation’.

      The merit of this paper is that without raising the above questions and accepting the assumption that recent warming is anthropogenic, it still comes out with about half IPCC’s model sensitivity.

    • Another logic problem common in climatology is the idea of averaging land and sea surface temperatures and applying this to an energy balance calculation.

      The heat capacity of water is massively greater than that of air, so there is a fundamental error in averaging the two if you are considering the effects of “forcings” since this is a heat energy calculation and a land air + sea surface temp average is not a valid measure of heat content of either medium.

      Near-surface land air temperatures typically vary at about twice the rate of SST. This underlines the inapplicability of land+sea averages. This will tend to exaggerate temperature change ( which is why climatologists like to do it ) but this will also reduce the derived sensitivity of the present analysis.

      Otherwise the it is already widely recognised that the ACTUAL forcings do not produce an alarming rise. This only happens inside models that then double actual science based forcings with non-empirical guesses at parameters like cloud feedbacks and false assumptions about relative humidity remaining constant, that are NOT born out by observation.

      Alarming warming only happens in the models.

  4. Craig, all this fits together reasonably well if the ‘grey earth’ no feedbacks is maybe 1.1C for a TCR of 1.2. But less well if the no feedbacks value is 1.2, (Lindzen and AR5) because then the TCR of 1.2 says no feedbacks, which is then inconsistent wirh ECS 1.5, a value requiring weak positive feedback.

    • Ristvan: I believe my TCR value more than the ECS value which has assumptions in it. However, the no-feedback earth has ECS of 1.2 or so whereas my TCR is with some unknown loss of heat to the ocean.

    • Show me your TCR and ECS for the Roman and Medieval warm periods and the Little Ice Age. Show me any actual real data that is outside the bounds of the Roman and Medieval warm periods and the Little Ice Age.

      Climate model output is not actual real data and cannot be used here.

  5. The linearly detrended AMO has well known issues as outlined by Mann. Primarily it assumes the non-AMO part is linear when we know that the background forcing trend at least doubles from beginning to end and so is very nonlinear. The problem then arises that part of the faster rise at the end is counted as part of the AMO instead of the faster forcing. So, subtracting this as a so-called AMO signal de-emphasizes the forcing contribution. It’s a way of reducing the sensitivity if that is what your aim is, but it doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny.

    • Sorry Jim D but Mann is not exactly an authority in my world.

      • Your own plots show that the anthropogenic forcing gradient doubles, which casts doubt on your linear detrending too (and backs up Mann’s criticism).

      • stay tuned for the next round of Mann vs stadium wave team dueling papers on this topic (recently published in Science, we’re preparing a blog post)

      • Jim D: The AMO is trendless, as I showed. The fact that subtracting is improved the match with the forcing record I think is quite interesting.

      • It is obtained by detrending, so it should be trendless unless a mistake was made.

      • Jim D: the AMO detrending is detrending of temperature, not forcing. And only of the regional values, not global.

      • Sensitivity studies assume forcing and temperature are linearly related. Your own paper makes that assumption. Nonlinear forcing means a nonlinear background temperature variation. It’s tough to escape that or justify otherwise.

      • Jim D: where did I assume nonlinear forcing?

      • The problem is that you did not. Linear detrending is like assuming linear forcing. A crappy subtraction of forcing will lead to a crappy estimate of natural variability.

      • I see some confusion. To summarize, forcing varies linearly with temperature and neither have varied linearly with time, at least doubling their rates of change over the 20th century.

      • Jim D: your last comment does not help. Forcing by CO2 is logarithmic with concentration. Forcing data should convert that properly such that temperature varies linearly with forcing. I showed that my adjusted temperature record varies linearly with forcing, and both increased their slope at the same time after 1950. You have perhaps not actually read my paper.

      • If you think Jim D has a problem with your AMO analysis, just wait until JCH shows up.

      • Jim D perhaps write down the model you are assuming in equation form so it is clear.

        Having said that you need to remember that what Mann called “AMO” wasn’t what others do. As I recall Mann took NH temps and subtracted modeled temps appropriately forced (natural & human) and smoothed the residue, and called that the AMO. So it is an artifact of the model used rather than the real world, let alone the Atlantic.

      • The point is that the forcing does not vary linearly with time, so using a linear detrending of a temperature series is not correctly subtracting the forcing to give an unforced oscillation. You should be subtracting a nonlinear temperature series that better represents known forcings (like Mann or Pratt do). The Steinman et al. Science paper already criticized linear detrending and the response by Wyatt et al. was not to defend it.

      • JimD, I am not really sure what your issue is. The hypothesis is that a scaled AMO may be a good index for unforced variability. He subtracts that from the temperature anomaly and gets a good correlation with estimated forcing. There isn’t any reason to be concerned with how valid detrending may be since the AMO is already detrended because it is assumed to be an oscillation. Since he isn’t subtracting forcing, he is just determining correlation, he isn’t assuming anything other than what he stated in his hypothesis, scaled AMO MAY be a good index for natural variability. IF it is a good index, then he gets a lower end sensitivity, but not unreasonably low. If it isn’t a good index, back to the drawing board. Keep an eye on it and in a decade or two it might be used as a “good” index for unforced variability.

        Scaling btw is a bit controversial but since there is greater than anticipated warming in the 30N to 60N latitudes it is reasonable to believe that some of that warming could be amplification of natural variability. Plus, since there is also polar amplification that appears to track AMO that would also be reason to assume some amplification of natural variability. Warming/cooling by any cause that cannot be figured out is by default “unforced variability” and positive or negative feedbacks to that “unforced variability” would be plain old amplification.

        I have no idea how well Craig’s index will work out, but I like his use of scaling since I have done it myself :)

      • captd, you have to ask what you need to do to separate the AMO from the background, and linear detrending only works if the background varies linearly with time. That is the issue. What he has is a signal contaminated by the nonlinear part of the forcing, and that is not worth much.

      • JimD, “captd, you have to ask what you need to do to separate the AMO from the background, and linear detrending only works….”

        No you don’t. Dr. Craig Loehle did not invent the AMO, he has no reason to ask squat about an existing, defined “oscillation”. All he is implying is that a scaled version of the AMO may be useful. You are reading way too much into this.

      • Jim D: 1) Nonlinear detrending using forcing data would be assuming what I am trying to test–ie, circular reasoning.
        2) Listen to captdallas, he understands and explains it clearly
        3) If what I have done is worthless, why don’t you go see Star Wars or something. You’ve made your “point”.

      • No one else is defending linear detrending, Even Wyatt, Kravtsov et al. did not try to defend it in their response to Steinman et al., and there is a reason. If you want the real natural oscillations, you have to do a better job than that of subtracting the forced part. If you don’t do it properly, you can’t conclude much of anything from the residual because it contains some of the forcing.

      • JimD, “. If you want the real natural oscillations, you have to do a better job than that of subtracting the forced part. ”

        Unforced variability not natural oscillations. Unknown unknowns if you like. Climate model world has rules that only apply to climate model world. In the real world pooh pooh occurs. In the real world you could assume that the best estimates of “forcing” are completely SNAFU and create any reference you like aka index. One of the biggest problems with current climate science is that you have to follow a regimented path and make the “right” assumptions to get to your Eureka.

        Most Rednecks know though that there are several ways of skinning catfish. If you are into Thermodynamics you could say frame of reference selection has options.

      • If your best estimate of the forcing rate of change is that it is the same now as it was in 1900, go for it, but you have a lot of justification to do before concluding anything based on that assumption. Questions will be asked, especially if later in the paper you show that the forcing is not actually linear at all.

      • JimD, “Questions will be asked, especially if later in the paper you show that the forcing is not actually linear at all.”

        There are going to be a whole bunch of questions asked, that’ fer sure.

        Sensitivity really boils down to heat retention and the oceans are in charge of most of that. You have 3 major ocean basins, North Atlantic, North Pacific and southern hemisphere oceans with heat capacity ratios of 1:2:4 and there take some time for these basics to equalize. That equalization process creates the oscillations and you have rough time scales of 60 to 120 years for a set of cycles to work through the system. So “forcing” 300 to 600 years ago could still be working its way through.

        I completely understand that these planetary timescales make you a bit uncomfortable.

      • So the point is, if you already have the forcing variation over time why not just use that information to detrend the temperature instead of a poor linear approximation to it?

      • JimD, “So the point is, if you already have the forcing variation over time why not just use that information to detrend the temperature instead of a poor linear approximation to it?”

        In my opinion, you use as many approaches as possible because you cannot be all that confident with any. Craig’s Scaled AMO index is an approach not the approach. I used an Indian ocean “index” because of its greater heat capacity “telecommunication”. It isn’t going to be “right” either, but it is from a fresh frame of reference. CO2 forcing is another reference if you want to tease out some of the other potential forcings. Using that, long term persistent ocean heat uptake could be adding about half of the “other” forcing. If you use enough independent as possible frames of reference the “ensemble” should converge on a valid range.

        You have to admit you might not “know” everything first which is going to be real tough for some die hards :)

      • Jim D says “So the point is, if you already have the forcing variation over time why not just use that information to detrend the temperature instead of a poor linear approximation to it?”
        The reason is because I don’t just want the temperature trend, I want to compute climate sensitivity. To do that I need the change in forcing and an independent estimate of temperature change. If I use forcing to detrend the AMO, it is no longer independent–circular reasoning, as I said before.

      • The problem is that you have used a poor approximation of the forcing to obtain a time series that you then compare with a better approximation of the same forcing. It is just not consistent with itself and the “sensitivity” that comes out of it includes, by design, the difference between these two forcings.

      • Jim D

        Write it down in equations to prove your point. It’s easy and if you are right it will show what the problem is immediately.

        On the other hand if removing the linear trend from the AMO is just taking out the 100+ year cycles, and has little to do with the more recent human forcings then we’ll see that too.

        It could be a bit of both with the more recent changes having limited weight. But until you write it out we’ll never know.

      • Why detrend anything. study the natural cycles until you really understand natural cycles.

      • Jim has a valid point, this whole process of linear “detrending” that is one of the cornerstones of mainstream climatology is nonsense unless you assume that there is a physically meaningful constant linear there to subtract.

        Jim’s argument is that it is not constant and that assuming it is will introduce a bias. That much is valid. However, here he is wrong:

        I see some confusion. To summarize, forcing varies linearly with temperature and neither have varied linearly with time, at least doubling their rates of change over the 20th century.

        There was a temperature trend in the early 20th c. that was just as strong at the trend in the late 20th c. , so Jim’s claim of it having doubled is fallacious. However, the forcing has doubled. This makes it very difficult to claim that one warming was man made without having an explanation for the other earlier warming.

        There is an even bigger problem with detrending in the presence of such a strong quasi-periodic signal. If you do not sample over an integer number of complete cycles you bias the result one way or the other with differences from where you start and end the sample. Since AMO is neither sinusoidal not perfectly regular it is impossible to correctly chose a period where the trend is not affected by where you chose to start and end the detrending.

        So Jim is right , detrending sucks, but not just for the reason he thinks.

      • climategrog, you seem to be disputing that the forcing has changed according to the curves from the IPCC plotted in the paper. The forcing has changed more simply than the temperature, but clearly not linearly. If you detrend you should use a forcing that increases like that, and what is left is some kind of natural variation. This natural variation might include upward and downward trends before and after 1950, and the amplitude could be as much as a couple of tenths of a degree. It won’t be an AMO, of course, but a combination of several variations, including solar, which is more useful to know.

      • climategrog, you seem to be disputing that the forcing has changed according to the curves from the IPCC plotted in the paper.

        You seem to be have trouble reading. Perhaps you should quote what I actually wrote rather than what it “seems” you want to read into it.

        The forcing has changed more simply than the temperature, but clearly not linearly. If you detrend you should use a forcing that increases like that,

        Ah, now we get to the heart of your problem. That is not detrending. Detrending attempts to remove some ‘secular’, long term variation with an arbitrary mathematical function, often linear, sometimes a low order polynomial. This is sometimes done to artificially make a dataset stationary prior to spectral or other analysis. It is not an attempt at attribution.

        However, this has often been abused in climatology where any and all linear trend is arbitrarily attributed to AGW and all other variability is de facto a non trending “oscillation”.

        The kind of “detrending” you suggest similarly *assumes the cause is know and is trying to fit it. At least it has the merit of being honest about what is being done. That is called a regression analysis not detrending.

        The problem with that idea is that it can lead to false attribution. For example, changes in the stratosphere suggest the major eruptions at the end of 20th c. had persistent a *warming * effect on lower climate.

        https://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
        If you regress against CO2 forcing and think that will correctly detect the magnitude of the CO2 effect, the volcanic effect will get falsely attributed to CO2. This will lead you to and exaggerated estimation of the climate sensitivity to CO2 which will fall apart in periods when there are no volcanoes affecting the chemistry of the stratosphere. eg post Y2K.

        If prefer your open approach, at least we can assess it’s strengths and weaknesses, just be clear this is called attribution and regression , not detrending.

        The trouble in climatology is that this perverse attribution process is passed off as an objective “detrending” which a priori makes any natural variability a non-trending “oscillation”.

        It is a process which induces the result, it is not investigative science.

      • climategrog, the much simpler alternative is to fit the temperature and CO2 during the period of a known accurate record of both as follows.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25
        Since we don’t know if the other forcing changes in this period are net positive or negative (although solar variation appears net negative), this represents a middle estimate of an effective transient sensitivity which is 2.4 C per doubling in this particular fit. If you don’t agree this is a middle estimate and think it must be high, you need to present a so-far-lacking good idea of some other positive natural variation in the last 60 years that just happens to be correlated with the CO2 forcing, i.e. not just a response to it. This is what it comes down to when you just look at the evidence. This is even before you come to the imbalance part of the >100% attribution argument that I have stated elsewhere.

    • Jim D: I have no idea what you are going on about. You think the AMO is an invalid index? It should be nonlinearly detrended using what? Some sort of smoothed temperature record? That is presuming something that you don’t know. We don’t know what the underlying temperature (without oscillations) signal is. You are making a vague accusation about detrending something but sorry, you are not being clear.

      • The linearly detrended version is not fit for the purpose of looking at forcing because it includes some. Maybe there are some uses, which is why they defined it, but that is not one of them. Check what Steinman et al. suggest to do instead, or at least subtract something that increases in gradient over the 20th century the way the forcing does (like Vaughan Pratt did mathematically).

      • It is unclear how the AMO could have some forcing when the index sums to 0 over the whole period and shows no trend. You need to demonstrate what you claim rather than just repeating yourself.

      • If you detrend linearly, and the forcing more than doubles over time (as in your own later figure), what you end up doing is adding a negative trend at the beginning and a positive trend at the end that is part of your “AMO”, but is really an inaccuracy of the forcing shape. The fake positive part at the end subtracts from the full trend in recent years, and reduces the apparent sensitivity. The distortion would also give you a higher sensitivity at the beginning but you are not looking at that part, so you only see the underestimated part. The average sensitivity over the whole period would be the same, but that is not what you are presenting.

      • Jim D:

        …at least subtract something that increases in gradient over the 20th century the way the forcing does (like Vaughan Pratt did mathematically).

        If the AMO represents unforced natural variation, why should it display an increased response to forcing in recent years? My impression was that the climate consensus assumed a decreasing influence from natural variation over time as forcing increases in non-linear fashion. So it seems that you would actual want to treat the AMO as CL did in his paper.

        In addition, I believe VP subtracted TSI which is not what is being discussed here.

      • opluso, all I am saying is if your goal is to remove the forcing and leave the AMO from a signal that includes both, it is more realistic to remove a component that has a higher gradient in later years than earlier years than something that has the same gradient throughout. VP in his millikelvin work used a simple mathematical function to represent the CO2 variation reasonably well. This had a gradient that increases gradually with time.

      • JIm D, he isn’t subtracting the forcing from the record. He isn’t assuming that forcing over time is constant (in fact, he shows that it isn’t in his graph [the red curve in figure 2]). .He’s subtracting the pre-defined AMO from the temperature data and showing that (temp – AMO) is closely correlated to this nonlinear forcing series.

      • craig loehle, “JimD – It is unclear how the AMO could have some forcing when the index sums to 0 over the whole period and shows no trend. You need to demonstrate what you claim rather than just repeating yourself.”

        That would be a fun exercise for JimD. Each ocean basin takes a different amount of time to recover from a cooling or warming event and it looks like the North Atlantic has the fastest recovery and largest over shoot, sort of a weakly damped, coupled oscillation pattern. Each over shoot would have some feedback which could be confused with a “forcing”. Looks like plenty of job security if your job is to separate forcing from feedback.

      • Craig,

        Neither does anyone else, except Jim D. And he only thinks he knows what he is on about.

        Keep in mind the D stands for Deflon – 100 times as dense as Teflon. Nothing gets through or sticks to it. In other words Jim D will faithfully argue his point no matter how many times people point out his errors. I for one admire his tenacity and ability to keep plowing on.

      • Jim has a valid point, this whole process of linear “detrending” that is one of the cornerstones of mainstream climatology is nonsense unless you assume that there is a physically meaningful constant linear there to subtract.

        Jim’s argument is that it is not constant and that assuming it is will introduce a bias. That much is valid. However, here he is wrong:

        I see some confusion. To summarize, forcing varies linearly with temperature and neither have varied linearly with time, at least doubling their rates of change over the 20th century.

        There was a temperature trend in the early 20th c. that was just as strong at the trend in the late 20th c. , so Jim’s claim of it having doubled is fallacious. However, the forcing has doubled. This makes it very difficult to claim that one warming was man made without having an explanation for the other earlier warming.

        There is an even bigger problem with detrending in the presence of such a strong quasi-periodic signal. If you do not sample over an integer number of complete cycles you bias the result one way or the other with differences from where you start and end the sample. Since AMO is neither sinusoidal not perfectly regular it is impossible to correctly chose a period where the trend is not affected by where you chose to start and end the detrending.

        So Jim is right , detrending sucks, but not just for the reason he thinks.

      • climategrog, he does linear detrending despite knowing that the forcing change is nonlinear and more than doubled over the century. It’s not much to ask to just use the same forcing shape for detrending as for evaluating the sensitivity. However, it would also not be original to do that, because that is what everyone else does already to get the residual variations, (Steinman, Mann, Lovejoy, Pratt, etc.), so just look at their results and find it leads to a higher sensitivity when done more correctly.

      • Jim , you are confusing detrending and attribution via regression analysis. See my reply to your last comment.

        Detrending ( which is NOAA’s doing not Craig’s idea ) is a pernicious, undeclared attempt at attribution. As you argue, it is not a very good way to go about it but that the price for not being open about the assumptions you are making.

        If the declared aim is to fit CO2 forcing ( under the assumption that nothing else could be vaguely trending upwards ) then what you suggest would be better than linear detrending.

        The problem is that climatologists are not being open and objective about the aims and the effects of removing ALL linear trend from climate variables. There is absolutely no reason to assume that no natural process can cause upward or downward variation, which is what detrending does assume.

        That is why everything becomes a trend-neutral “oscillaiton”. But it is nothing but an induced result.

  6. Craig, It seems like Vaughan Pratt did a similar thing except he took out TSI.
    I didn’t see that you commented there so maybe you didn’t see it?

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/

    If you start here and then read his response you’ll see what I’m talking about:

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/#comment-740616

    Here is the chart:

    How do you explain that?

    • ordvic: it would take me time to digest that but it seems to me it might not be inconsistent with my result. Both have a early/late change in shape. I do not invoke a 60 yr cycle per se but just the AMO itself.

      • Craig, Thanks, as you probably know I’m not very knowledgeable but I just wondered how it could be both? Can there be that much attribution with both AMO and TSI or is it just reflected like an overlap? That is what I don’t understand. I enjoyed your publication.

      • Oh I guess your answer to Jim D about detrending answers that to some extent. Sorry I’m just learning.

      • ordvic: If we assume that any 60 yr cycle must be externally forced, we might look at TSI but fail to find a cycle. This is why many assume there might be internal earth system oscillations (due to winds, currents, etc). Such cycles could be nudged/initiated by TSI changes without being correlated with TSI, and some have proposed this also.

      • Ah yes, a good explanation. I understand better now. Thanks.

      • “If we assume that any 60 yr cycle must be externally forced, we might look at TSI but fail to find a cycle.”

        That should not prevent looking elsewhere. LOD/UT1 has a close ‘match’ to Global Temperature and shows the ~60 year cycle in the data, with UT1 lag leading Temperature!

    • Vaughan Pratt also used a much better function of CO2 forcing than linear detrending. It was far superior.

      • I used total forcing based on IPCC Appendix, not CO2.

      • Not for detrending. VP used it for detrending.

      • In the time available to me trying to reply, I cannot respond to Vaughn Pratt’s post, which I missed at the time. Perhaps it is wonderful. Perhaps he and I came to similar conclusions. So I have no response to you.

      • David Springer

        Yet Loelhe’s work is published in a peer reviewed journal and Pratt’s work is not. Maybe Jim D, whoever that is, should send his criticisms to the journal. He might need to give them his name though which might be a deal breaker for the anonymous little coward.

      • Springer,

        He’s no coward. He hangs in there – like a lamprey maybe, but all the same he doesn’t let counter argument, no matter how accurate, sway him.

        Perhaps I have it wrong. D could stand for Deacon. Jim certainly exhibits the requisite amount of faith.

  7. “This corresponds to TCR=1.2 and ECS=1.5.”

    That looks spot on to me! However one of the tricks of Earth System Models (now embedded in climate models) is that they all assume that the carbon cycle will saturate with increasing CO2 concentrations. So this means that the CO2 sink efficiency should decrease with time, which essentially implies that TCR/ECS will also increase with time.

    There is as yet no evidence, as far as I know, that this is actually happening!

    You can’t win with these guys. They have everything covered !

    • Clive: In the past and currently, about half the CO2 emitted has accumulated in the atmosphere and the “rest” has been taken up by reservoirs/sinks in the ocean and on land. The land sinks are expected to begin to saturate. (As long as the deep ocean is taking up heat, I suspect it will take up CO2.) The forcing from GHGs used to calculate TCR/ECS depends on the amount of GHGs that have accumulated in the atmosphere, not the amount that have been emitted. Therefore, as best I can tell, saturation of sinks on land in the future won’t change ECS/TCR in future.

      AR5 introduced the concept of the total amount of fossil fuel that can be burned and still keep warming below +2 degC. That calculation is based on emission, but the result of the calculation isn’t called ECS or TCR.

      • Of course you are right that TCR/ECS by definition depends only on doubling atmospheric ppm. AR5 relies on Earth System Models predicting an increase in the airborne fraction, mainly due to (a) a saturation of CO2 fertilization of photosynthesis at higher CO2, and (b) an increase in soil respiration at higher temperatures.

        However as yet there is no real evidence this is happening.

      • I dont see any evidence for such saturation. I don’t even see much discussion about it. It’s like the methane emission and atmospheric concentration curves, which seem to be used to drive results in the desired directions.

      • FL, CO2 sink saturation is highly unlikely.
        Exhibit 1, the terrestrial biosphere is greening. God bless C3 plants, about 85% of all plant species.
        Exhibit 2, the ocean biosphere is nutrient limited (iron) which could saturate except that the ocean biome then nutrient shifts. Covered in essay Good Bad News.

      • Clive: As I understand it, we are currently burning enough fossil fuel to raise atmospheric CO2 by 4 ppm/yr, but we are observing a rise of only 2 ppm. Therefore, atmospheric CO2 will stabilize at the current 400 ppm if we cut emissions by only 50% – as long as sinks don’t saturate. So, the recommendation that we need to cut emissions by 80% to stabilize atmospheric CO2 – instead of by 50% – depends on the so-far-observed saturation of uptake of CO2 by sinks in these models

  8. Curious George

    Could you please show the temperature, not anomalies? I dislike the additional degrees of freedom inherent in an anomaly.

    • What I am addressing is change in temperature with change in forcing. Anomalies are what I need and what I used.

      • It is possible to supply the reference cycle(s) that was subtracted to get to the anomalies? That would allow reconstructions of temperature from anomalies without much effort on your behalf.

      • RichardH: there were no “reference cycles” subtracted. See my paper. The AMO which is an anomaly, was scaled and subtracted from the Hadley anomaly. All done in anomaly-land.

      • Curious George

        I am afraid I do not understand what you are doing. Does the anomaly graph have anything to do with temperature? Do we live in an anomaly land? (Yes we do, and a happy New Year.)

      • Curious George

        “The AMO which is an anomaly, was scaled and subtracted from the Hadley anomaly.” Let me analyze that statement. An anomaly is defined as (observation minus base). If I disregard your scaling, you did (AMO.observation – base) – (Hadley.observation – base). You have canceled the base, except the effect of scaling, and maybe some fancy detrending. You are left with a grin without a cat.

      • Sorry, George, the “base” is not the same for the two and is irrelevant. The base scales them to the same axis, then I subtract the scaled AMO from the global temperature. Not a grin without a cat.

      • Curious George

        The base is not the same for two anomalies? Then you can’t even compare them.

      • I want to subtract an index with no trend from a timeseries. You think I can’t, fine, but I did.

      • Curious George

        I am trying to understand your Figure 1. On that graph I can select two points for year 2000, I’ll call them B (black), anomaly = 0.27C, and R (red), anomaly = 0.2C. Do these two points correspond to two temperatures? Can you tell me these two temperatures?

      • Curious George

        With all due respect, you are subtracting apples from oranges. Just my opinion, no hard feelings.

      • David Springer

        He can’t give you an absolute temperature. Hadley Global is published as a temperature anomaly. AMO is published as a temperature anomaly. He subtracted apples from apples. If both series were published as absolute temperatures he might be able to do what you ask but AFAIK the absolute temperature data is not available.

      • David is correct.

        George do not fear anomalies. Subtracting a constant doesnt change the shape of the curve. using different bases doesnt change what he does.

        In a nutshell

        The hypothesis is that temperature is combination of “natural” oscilations
        and a response to human forcing.

        The problem is teasing this out.

        What would be ideal?

        1. A period of history where we have ONLY natural forcing
        2. A period where we have ONLY human forcing

        Now, period 1 EXISTS ( say pre industrial), but we dont have
        good global temperature or good estimates of all natural forcing.

        We only have a period of history where we have both forcings acting at the same time.

        How do you untangle this mess since you cant look at the separate forcings in isolation.

        A) you construct what the temperature would have looked like had only
        human forcings been present… And subtract that from the temperature.. Your residuals are the result of “natural forcing”

        B) You assume some pattern for natural oscilations and subtract that.
        You are left with human caused change.

        How do you do A? well you need a model of the climate response to human forcing..

        How do you do B? you do something like Craig did and assume that AMO pattern represents natural oscilations.

        It would be cool if we could do controlled experiments. we cant.
        hence we are left with educated guesswork.

        And yes, we can and do set policy based on educated guesswork.

      • Nice work, Steven.

      • David Springer

        Ditto what Dan Manfart said!

      • “And yes, we can and do set policy based on educated guesswork.”

        It pays to think about what the policy issue really is, the appropriate tools to sue and work back from there.

        As a general comment this is slowly evolving issue and as we go along we are learning more about what is happening. Optimum public policy is not formed by projecting what we think might happen in 2100 and act accordingly. We’ve got real options (including waiting a bit to find out what evolves), so betting the house on what we know today would be dopey.

        But it is being suggested that humans do have a hand on one lever, the amount of GHG they produce. Public policy does need to understand that because that too creates options.

        The best way to do that is probably to model the pre-1940s temps (holding out data for verification) and then use that to test whether the post 1940s temps lie outside the model expectations (taking into account the expected variability give our lack of knowledge). If they don’t we can (and should, provided the balance of costs and benefits indicate) exercise our option to wait and see what happens next.

        And in the end the fact that we have poor information about what was going on the further back in time is unlucky, but you can’t bring that back by fancy data manipulation, what we don’t know, we don’t know. We need to honestly reflect that uncertainty into our prognostications about the future (and in particular what might be causing temp changes).

        In multi-decade climate forecasting for policy making real options are much more apposite than precaution. The conditions under which we are making our decisions fit the former, not the latter.

      • Mosher, the period where we have only natural forcing is before ~1950. The alleged human effect before that is negligible. This CANNOT be controversial. If anthropogenic CO2 and other ghgs have the claimed effect (I am not convinced that it has), it only became significant after around the middle of the 20th century.

      • Curious George

        The anomaly depends on a chosen base. Select a different base, and you get a different anomaly. Steven implies that this is not the case – you will get always the same anomaly – or at least, that the differences do not matter. Did I get it right? What do I get if I subtract – let’s say a global temperature anomaly 1920-2014 for a 1980-1990 base from a global temperature anomaly 1920-2014 for a 2000-2005 base?

      • Craig: I am sorry, I missed your response to this as I got distracted elsewhere on this thread.

        So you know the sources you used (as anomalies). You know the reference cycle that was subtracted to get to their Anomalies (its somewhere in their publications).

        Without being able to compare their reference cycles then any Anomaly to Anomaly calculation leaves that question unanswered (and un-thought?).

      • George.
        Wrong.

      • I actually agree with Steve here. Anomalies do not work as you describe. Their failings often lie elsewhere. Without knowing the reference cycle they subtracted to get to what you see, then the context of the information they display is ‘lost’. Especially as you cannot compare 2 anomaly series without first comparing their reference cycles. Think relative not absolute.

      • Curious George: The base is not the same for two anomalies? Then you can’t even compare them.

        Craig is not explaining this clearly. The intercept term on the regression of AMO on temp adjusts for the difference in bases.

      • Curious George

        Steven, happy New Year to you. Thank you for an unusually detailed explanation of your position. You are wrong.

      • What would be ideal?

        1. A period of history where we have ONLY natural forcing
        All of history
        2. A period where we have ONLY human forcing
        With actual proof, zero years.

      • Curious George | December 28, 2015 at 5:16 pm | Reply
        “Could you please show the temperature, not anomalies? I dislike the additional degrees of freedom inherent in an anomaly.”

        -Should be the same degrees of freedom?

        “Does the anomaly graph have anything to do with temperature?”

        Craig Loehle | December 28, 2015 at 8:28 pm |
        ” I subtract the scaled AMO from the global temperature.”

        Wrong , see quotes

        -“David Springer | December 28, 2015 at 11:56 pm |
        He can’t give you an absolute temperature. Hadley Global is published as a temperature anomaly. AFAIK the absolute temperature data is not available.
        Steven Mosher | December 29, 2015 at 12:37 am |
        David is correct.”

        The problem, George, as you and everyone else here is aware is that there is no universally recognized Global temperature.
        For two reasons.
        One, because different measurement indices are use to estimate a global temperature and they all have different values.
        There is no universally recognized global temperature.
        You can get a satellite global temp at various levels, a TOA estimation and estimations based on inadequate sparse incomplete temperature measuring stations.
        Scientifically the earth “has” to have a global temperature and various estimates are available for scientific use.
        You can look up the temperature of the sun, The moon, Mars, the other planets and stars in space and be given a gold plated accurate temp. Not so the earth.
        Secondly, a consensus on the earths absolute global temperature would e easy to arrange. The IPCC could take Mosher and Springer and Curry and say you choose.
        They don’t.
        A global temperature tied down by rules and regulations would mean an end to adjusting the records. We would have to define, once and for all, what records are historically valid, What assumptions and adjustments are made for TOB, UHI, Kriging, wiping out of anomalous anomalies etc.
        No respecting climatologist could live with figures that could not be further fudged.

        One of the very hard to find comments on global temp [not available in WIKI] and not guaranteed accurate.
        “the first decade of the 21st century was 14.5 °C (58 °F).
        Temperature Change Since 1880
        . The average global annual temperature hovered around 13.7 °C (56.7 °F) from the 1880s through the 1910s. “

      • Curious George | December 28, 2015 at 10:22 pm |

        With all due respect, you are subtracting apples from oranges. Just my opinion, no hard feelings.

        You raise valid question.

        global mean HadCRUT is an amalgam of HadSST3 and CRUTem4 , both are global means of local monthly anomalies ( deviations ) from the annual cycle. The AMO used derived from ERSSTv3 which is an average of true SST ( not anomalies ). Simply subtracting a baseline constant does not make this the same thing as local anomalies, though the results have similar magnitudes.

        It seems that Craigh overlooked this and still does not get the point.

        HadSST is not the same as ERSST so it would be more consistent to use the same dataset for both things. Subtracting ERSST from an non-physical amalgam of SST and land air temps is even more questionable.

        As I point out above you cannot average land air and SST for energy calculations since they are not compatible media.

        perhaps a more correct way to do this would be detrend N. Atl hadSST3 and subtract it from global hadSST3. Though detrending sucks anyway as also commented above.

    • Curious: when one makes an anomaly, it has a mean of zero or some given fixed period is the zero value. So your statement about base values is not how they do it.

      • Curious George

        Craig, thanks. I agree that the anomaly has a mean of zero over the base period. I am not sure what statement about base values you are referring to. I don’t know how they do it; maybe they use daily averages, maybe monthly averages, but the principle should always be the same.

        As an anomaly for 1980-1990 base will have a mean of zero over 1980-1990, and an anomaly for a 2000-2005 base will probably have a negative mean over 1980-1990, subtracting them seems to amplify the temperature trend between the two base periods.

      • george, if you want work done a particular way why not just do it yourself and enlighten the group with what you discover rather then bleating on about not being able to make sense of somebody elses approach.

        If there is value in absolute temps then present them.

      • Anomalies are the equivalence of choosing a DC offset to bring everything to a common baseline and reducing the range to fit the page.

      • Curious George

        Humanity, I don’t want the absurd work done at all. I am trying to say that an anomaly is just a mathematical construct, introducing an additional degree of freedom, and we should not handle it as something real.

      • I disagree. It is after all a simple subtraction of a reference cycle. No complicated maths at all. Possible to completely reconstruct back to the original data if only the subtracted reference cycle was included. If that is missing then there is ‘lost’ data right there. When doing comparisons between sets of anomalies you need to be aware of any differences between the two ref cycles in order to be sure about any differences there are.

      • George

        “Humanity, I don’t want the absurd work done at all. I am trying to say that an anomaly is just a mathematical construct, introducing an additional degree of freedom, and we should not handle it as something real.”

        Anomalies do not add a degree of freedom

        Let’s do a simple anomaly for you.

        Here are the temperatures for an example station. 3 years of data

        0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2

        choose the base period as the 2nd year

        calculate the anomalies

        choose the last year as the base

        Choose years 1 and 2

        Choose all three years

        Choose the last year

        Notice how the shape of the curve doesnt change.

        Its just a DC offset as LH points out

        there are some minor technical issues with variance and the base peroid you choose, but nothing that changes the fundamental ANSWER

        Dr. Loehle’s analysis has other issues. focus on those.

        OR use berkeley earth. we dont use anomalies,

      • Thank you Steve: A good word picture I had not considered putting forward.

        I do wish to take up one point however, what you say is true for a single anomaly series. When talking about more that one, extra steps may need to be taken.

  9. I appreciate your efforts. It gives me something to think about. Many thanks.

  10. ‘No support fo accelerating warming can be seen in
    these results after 1970.’

    AMO an inconvenient index for the models’ accelerating
    warming.

    • It will get more interesting as Arctic ice recovers. For whatever reasons (there are likely a few including poleward seawater heat transport), the qualitative Arctic late summer sea ice extent seems to echo very nicely, and in phase, the AMO. Recovering sea ice puts a BIG dent in CAGW.

      • big dent will will get lots of filler putty and paint
        from Karl’s Bodyshop
        if sea ice blocks Charleston, it will be blamed on CAGW

      • True, if arctic sea ice recovers. How about a bet that September 15
        Arctic sea ice in 2024 will be less than in 2014.

      • Hey eli,

        how about a bet the Redskins will win a Super Bowl sometime between now and 2024? (or within 30 years of that date – to give a nod to climate model error bars).

      • ER, you are consitionally on. Even odds that sea ice recovers/ does not recover in a mere ten years from 2014. JC to hold the bet cash til then ( or any other trusted intermediary by mutual agreement, like my banking agents or yours). Cause surely you want to put up now, since you are so sure about AGW.

        One final point to my accepting your bet challenge. Most past such public bets have been largely symbollic. What say we make your proffered challenge serious. Suggest any serious dollar amount. Perhaps $10,000? Or anything you feel comfortable with that is higher, but not lower. Which is also why my other condition was that you and I would publically post the bet cash up front to a mutually agreed escrow agent. You are on, given my quite reasonable and financially prudent simple conditions. And I figure that at present lowish interest rates (~3% retail) I just made at least $8600 off you in 2024 depending on how the escrow agent performs. Easy, peasy. By the Rule of 72, that is a sweet more than twice the present interest rate market return on investment, with (my bet) zero downside. You on?

      • Rud,
        I would take the rabbit’s bet. Considering the real possibility that sea ice extent is quasi-periodic…..

      • Have to agree on a sea ice metric.

      • David Springer

        Oh Rud! You are SO manly. I do declare I’m feeling the vapors coming on. Be still my beating heart.

      • Oh, and on your alternative proposed 2014 to 2015 ice extent bet you have already lost according to DMI 30%. Too unfair for me to take such a sucker bet from you. Skeptics have minimum fleecing standards.

      • David Springer

        Give it up everyone for Rud “The Donald of Climate Etc” Istvan!

      • “True, if arctic sea ice recovers. How about a bet that September 15
        Arctic sea ice in 2024 will be less than in 2014.”

        No bet required for me. You have placed the stake in the ground. Were the data falls will be up to it.

  11. Where’s JCH, to tell us that AMO doesn’t mean diddly; just the PDO?

    • Joel: Just to preempt such concerns, I do mention in my paper that others have used the PDO or ENSO for similar analyses, but no one has tried the AMO. I note the ambiguity re which index captures natural variability best or if they are unique.

      • Craig, not commenting on the paper or others input, just noting that a lot of comments have been made and NOT a PEEP from JCH. Hope he is OK. Not like him to let a discussion of AMO go so long without saying only PDO counts and AMO doesn’t means “beans”!

      • JCH, got the corresponding actual temperature plot for this plot?
        Heaviest snowfall “evah” in SE NM (USA) – State-of-Emergency.
        Getting to be a bit chilly over all of the US now

        Map of today’s info centered on JCH’s beloved Pacific Ocean; actual and anomaly per NOAA

      • cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific

        The negative trend likely extends back to around 1985.

      • From “cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific” that JCH posted above
        our model reproduces the annual-mean global temperature remarkably well with correlation coefficient r = 0.97 for 1970–2012 (which includes the current hiatus and a period of accelerated global warming). Moreover, our simulation captures major seasonal and regional characteristics of the hiatus, including the intensified Walker circulation, the winter cooling in northwestern North America and the prolonged drought in the southern USA. Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability (bold is my emphasis)

      • And exactly how did the AMO cause a hiatus? Can you imagine an ever cooling Eastern Pacific offsetting anthropogenic warming… since 1985?

      • JCH,
        I quoted from the abstract of the paper you posted. You need to take your questions up with the authors of the paper, not me. Or explain things about the content and your pro/con of that paper to the readers of this blog that answer or oppose the Qs you just asked.

      • I agree with them. Always have. I just do not think the AMO has any gas at all. No power. No apparent mechanism equal to the task; lots of serendipity. The PDO, on the other hand, is a beast mechanism.

      • The negative trend likely extends back to around 1985.

        1976

      • The PDO, on the other hand, is a beast mechanism.

        Almost sounds as if you could actually identify causation.

      • Hmm. The PDO shows power movement in that hemisphere (vertical) but is not a good match for energy transfers between the Equator and the Poles (North in particular)..

        The AMO is all about that.

      • From http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/154984/

        JMW comments; some simple observations – Pacific Ocean 2x area of Atlantic, but 2-2/3 volume; PO bigger and badder, but not 10x fold. Each has a very different shape, hence, flows (probably makes PO even badder); different water-land interfaces. Pacific has ring of fire. Atlanta has mainly a mid-ocean ridge; receives more freshwater from terrestrial runoff than any other ocean region. So, very different beasts affecting the land masses around them and vise versa. West-to-east winds, but oceans influence westward into land masses, too. How far will the Pacific influences travel to Europe and Asia across the Atlantic. How many of the Atlantic hurricanes are induced by the flows in the Pacific.

        The spatial distribution of ocean regions and continents is unevenly arranged across the Earth’s surface. In the Northern Hemisphere, the ratio of land to ocean is about 1 to 1.5. The ratio of land to ocean in the Southern Hemisphere is 1 to 4. This greater abundance of ocean surface has some fascinating effects on the environment of the southern half of our planet. For example, climate of Southern Hemisphere locations is often more moderate when compared to similar places in the Northern Hemisphere. This fact is primarily due to the presence of large amounts of heat energy stored in the oceans.

      • PDO goes down; GMST flattens: PDO goes up; GMST shoots off like a rocket: PDO goes down; GMST goes down right with it: meanwhile, the AMO goes up; nothing happens: ENSO goes El Nino; GMST goes up. Smells like Pacific all around the world to me.

      • “PDO goes down; GMST flattens…. “That depends on if you think energy flows to the North Pole are important or not. The Pacific does a real bad job of that.

      • “This fact is primarily due to the presence of large amounts of heat energy stored in the oceans.”

        That should be inertia surely?

      • JCH,
        might want a process engineer (or plumber) to tell us how much of the Arctic Ocean warmth (melting) is due to influx from the No Pacific vs the No Atlantic. Maybe you are thinking atmosphere transfer instead of water flux.

      • My point precisely.

      • One would NOT guess that neither Greenland’s behavior nor Arctic Ice have much-a-do with PDO, but lots to do with AMO. The Atlantic can set up a flow in and out. The Pacific thru a one-way alley.

      • You might like to add to that diagram where the ocean cills are. They rather do impact the exchange of water N-S as well

      • RichardLH,
        Sills added to the figure as well as denoting that the Bering Sea separates the Pacific Ocean from the Bering Strait.

    • While graphs may be presented in delta 0.1degC as JCH has chosen, should we be looking at things at finer than several delta degC considering the uncertainty in all of the measurements? Note that on the delta 5oC scale that NOAA presented, there is little anomaly difference (almost all white) in the oceans (note the equatorial green west of SA that corresponds to the dark blue JCH’s plot). My question: at what level of “finer detail” of the temperature anomaly does the informational graph become “absurd”. Seems better to do as NOAA has done here or maybe a “little finer” to emphasize the oceans as they are NOT changing much!

  12. Willis Eschenbach

    Thanks for an interesting paper, Craig. However, there is a fundamental misunderstanding which has unknown effects on your conclusions. You say (emphasis mine):

    3. Results
    The AMO index (Fig. 1(b)) was found to have a periodicity of 67.8 years. The linear trend was nearly flat with 95% confidence intervals that included zero, so no warming trend was evident in this index. The sum of all AMO values is zero.

    and

    4. Discussion
    The cycle evident in the AMO index (Fig. 1) is not present in the natural forcings time series used by IPCC AR5, is not well-captured by GCM simulations [15] and shows no linear trend by itself, and thus likely represents an internal climate oscillation, as argued by Chylek et al.[16] and Wyatt and Curry[5].

    In other words, you are advancing the lack of a trend in the AMO Index as evidence to support your views.

    Sadly, I fear you have misunderstood the AMO Index. From the ESRL website where you got your data (emphasis mine):

    Method [ for calculating the AMO ]:
    Use the Kaplan SST dataset (5×5).

    Compute the area weighted average over the N Atlantic, basically 0 to 70N.

    Detrend that time series

    Optionally smooth it with a 121 month smoother.

    I note that they also link to a version which is not detrended.

    For those who require unaltered data, the following is an “not detrended” version of the N. Atlantic monthly averages with the 1951-1980 NOAA ERSST climatology added back in.
    N. Atlantic SST averages, unsmoothed & not detrended (1856 to present) and the climatolgy used (from the NOAA ERSST V2 SST, interpolated to a 5×5 grid).

    Regards,

    w.

    • Yes, I know that they created the AMO to have no trend, I just showed that this is the case for readers unfamiliar with the AMO. Not sure what your point is.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        Thanks, Craig. Sorry for the lack of clarity. My point was that you were using the lack of a trend to buttress your argument that it represents an internal climate oscillation, viz:

        The cycle evident in the AMO index (Fig. 1) is not present in the natural forcings time series used by IPCC AR5, is not well-captured by GCM simulations [15] and shows no linear trend by itself, and thus likely represents an internal climate oscillation.

        You are using the lack of a trend to justify the “thus” in that statement.

        You also said:

        The linear trend was nearly flat with 95% confidence intervals that included zero, so no warming trend was evident in this index.

        I don’t understand that. How on earth could a “warming trend” be evident in a detrended index? And why would you need a confidence interval on a detrended index?

        Perhaps you can understand my confusion.

        In friendship,

        w.

      • Willis: as I noted before, I was double-checking for no trend in the AMO for the benefit of reviewers. I am treating the AMO like the PDO–as a possible index to some sort of climate oscillation due perhaps to wind/water circulation patterns. It is a hypothesis. I noted literature positing links between the AMO and other ocean circulation phenomena. Still not clear what your point is. As an index I wanted it detrended.

      • I made the same point as Willis, in a post above before reading his comment here. I make the same point that you don’t seem to get: there is no “thus” as you wrote in the paper. It is defined that way, so the fact that there is no trend does not “support” any conclusion about the nature of AMO.

        It is simply ASSUMED to be an internal oscillation and calculated on that basis.

        From the paper:

        … so no warming trend was evident in this index. The sum of all AMO values is zero.

        This does not sound like you understood what AMO was writing the paper. It is hardly worth reporting that no trend is “evident” unless you thought it possible that there was one.

        The result of subtracting the AMO from the Hadley data (Fig. 2) shows the adjusted temperatures to have reduced variability, especially at the scale of decades.

        AMO is part of the data set that you subtracted it from , so obviously there will be some correlation and if you subtract some scaled down version of it you will reduce the variability in the data.

        The optimal scaling for the AMO index to convert it to
        comparable °C was 0.625.

        Since N. Atlantic is much less than 62.5% of world oceans this does show some globally common variability. However, land temps in much of Europe and beyond are dominated by N Atl SST. and land temps change about twice as much and SST and carry undue weight in land+sea datasets which is why averaging the two is NOT VALID when assessing the effects of forcings.

    • His point is:”Thanks for an interesting paper, Craig. However, I am smarter than you are and you are wrong.”

  13. If I understand well, your 0,8ºC sensitivity obtained by detrending AMO seems to agree quite well with what is well known from the CO2 saturation effect. Even by NASA since several decades ago: http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/pdf/klima/rasool_schneider_1971.pdf

  14. Craig Loehle,

    You wrote –

    “Mark,
    I scaled it simply by finding the scale factor that would reduce variance in the result the most. For some random reason the review process was easy. Mainly editorial.”

    A couple of comments.

    Scaling in order to achieve a particular minimum or maximum result is not terribly useful.

    You do not know what causes the supposed oscillation. You give no reason for not adding, multiplying, or dividing, rather than subtracting. Why prefer one to the other?

    The review process might have been easy because Horizon Research Publishing might be a scam publisher. It appears on more than one list of scam publishers. If you received an email resembling this one, you have quite possibly been scammed –

    “Dear Dr. X,

    I am Rachel Green, an editorial assistant of the Sociology and Anthropology (ISSN: 2331-6187). It is an international, open access, peer reviewed journal launched by Horizon Research Publishing, USA. Till now, 3 volumes 21 issues have been published. To increase the influence of this journal, the Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Seung-jun Moon, authorizes me to invite you to be the reviewer of this journal on the basis of your research expertise and your academic experience.

    Responsibilities / Benefits of Reviewers:
    1) Keep up to date on the research in your field;
    2) Get the advice and feedback from journal editors;
    3) Your name would be listed in the journal website;
    4) Provide an honest and constructive suggestion for improving the manuscript;
    5) Complete reviews within the deadline.

    If you would like to give your consent to be a reviewer of this journal, please reply and then the Appointment Letter will be sent to you.

    Look forward to hearing from you soon.

    Best Regards

    Rachel Green
    Editorial Assistant
    Editorial Board of Sociology and Anthropology”

    At least one of the URLs used by hrpub is registered in China, and the US contacts details don’t inspire confidence. Of course, people are free to donate money to anyone they choose. Just a heads-up to anyone who wants to get a paper published with minimum fuss, for the payment of a small fee.

    But back to sciencey stuff like forcings and warming.

    The longest term (and shortest) data series relating to the Earth’s surface comprises precisely two data points.

    The first is the surface maximum – apparently when the Earth was created. I don’t know the temperature to any particular level of precision, but it was high enough that the surface was molten. Pick a suitable figure.

    The second point is the surface temperature now. Once again, you may pick a suitable figure. I can state with certainty that the surface on average is no longer molten, therefore the long term average of the Earth’s surface temperature shows cooling.

    Inserting extra data points due to oscillations, kriging, interpolation, guesstimations, calculating Venus trine Mars, will not help at all. The surface has cooled. No dispute, unless you are of the Warmist persuasion. Warmists have a demonstrated tendency to gullibility.

    On the other hand, if you can give a reason for observed warming in the last 100 years or so which involves anything other than the knowledge that burning stuff generates heat, and thermometers react to heat, I would be interested.

    Colour me unimpressed – CO2 warms nothing, and sciencey stuff like forcings exists only in the fevered imaginations of the science semi-literate.

    Cheers.

    • Mike Flynn: I did not pay a fee. No it is not a top-tier journal but I don’t care. Not a scam–they do have a journal. CO2 does not cause any warming? Sorry, don’t agree.

    • Craig Loehle,

      I am surprised. From the journal site –

      “For authors, only some fundamental costs like editing, production and peer- review are included to maintain normal operations of our company. These Article Processing Charges(APC) are only used to support publishers . . . ”

      Maybe I confused you by referring to your payment to enable publication as a “fee”. My apologies if this was the case. My suggestion was merely that Horizon Research Publishing accepts papers from anyone prepared to pay, by the look of some of the stuff they have accepted.

      As I said, you may publish where you wish. Bottom feeding peer reviewed journals are now a dime a dozen, and represent a good money making opportunity in the vanity press sphere.

      I notice my other comments appear beneath your notice. Typical Warmist deny, divert, obscure, tactics. Denying the Earth’s surface has cooled won’t change the fact.

      Whether you agree with me or not about the non-warming powers of CO2 is just as irrelevant as whether you agree the Earth’s surface was once molten. Facts are facts. Nature doesn’t give a toss about our opinions!

      Cheers.

    • John Carpenter

      “The longest term (and shortest) data series relating to the Earth’s surface comprises precisely two data points.

      The first is the surface maximum – apparently when the Earth was created. I don’t know the temperature to any particular level of precision, but it was high enough that the surface was molten. Pick a suitable figure.

      The second point is the surface temperature now. Once again, you may pick a suitable figure. I can state with certainty that the surface on average is no longer molten, therefore the long term average of the Earth’s surface temperature shows cooling.” – Mike Flynn

      So according to that logic (you included the shortest data series as a possibility), everyday is cooler than the last, every hour is cooler than the last, every minute and every second is cooler than the last. A demonstrably false proposition nearly every temperature cycle of every day. You know the temperature flucuates hour to hour, day to day, month to month, year to year, decade to decade and century, millennium etc… This does not fit with your two point linear trend of cooling at any length term data series. A molten earth billions of years ago when no life inhabited the planet bears absolutely no relevance to the climate differences of today and climate differences of both a warmer and cooler planet earth we know existed in the past.

      • John Carpenter,

        You must be a Warmist. Deny, divert, obscure.

        First, you deny the Earth has cooled.
        Second, divert by telling me what you claim my statement means, totally ignoring day and night, winter and summer, and so on.
        Third, obscure by bringing in climate differences, and claiming the Earth was both cooler and warmer in the past, without a shred of actual evidence, just strident Warmist assertions.

        But if you want to believe that making any sort of nonsensical claims can show that the Earth has warmed since its creation, good for you! It hasn’t, of course, but Warmists simply deny facts. You’re probably gullible enough to believe things can be warmed by wrapping them in CO2. It’s a pity nobody has actually managed to do it. I’m sure CO2 flasks would be cheaper to make (and more robust) than vacuum flasks, but there is one minor problem. They don’t work.

        Even trying to use CO2 as an insulator is an exercise in futility. The only people who don’t realise this are Warmists.

        If you want to dispute what I write, just quote me, and provide facts. I’m not always right, but Warmists can’t seem to produce facts – just more assertions based on fantasy.

        Cheers.

      • John Carpenter

        Flynn

        “First, you deny the Earth has cooled.”

        No… Read harder

        “Second, divert by telling me what you claim my statement means, totally ignoring day and night, winter and summer, and so on.”

        No… Write better

        “Third, obscure by bringing in climate differences, and claiming the Earth was both cooler and warmer in the past, without a shred of actual evidence, just strident Warmist assertions.”

        Uh No… There is plenty of evidence to support both cooler ice ages and warmer ice free periods in the past.

        “But if you want to believe that making any sort of nonsensical claims can show that the Earth has warmed since its creation, good for you! ”

        Of course the planet has not warmed to a temperature exceeding the likely temperature at the time of formation… A true but irrelevant point to the discussion of present climate discussions. The planet has warmed and cooled in the time period of when it became habitable for life. You can not deny that fact. Then again, you probably will.

        “You’re probably gullible enough to believe things can be warmed by wrapping them in CO2. It’s a pity nobody has actually managed to do it.”

        That’s not how it works.

        My suggestion to you is to read more and comment less.

      • David Springer

        Hey Flynn, is the molten surface of the earth and observation or are you parroting an assumption from some model of planetary formation?

      • David Springer

        The first Bugs cartoon landed in moderation. I thought *surely* Curry won’t approve it. But she did. It’s times like this I realize I’m not right quite 100% of the time. 98.7% at the moment. Roughly.

      • good grief, i deleted a bugs cartoon! I will fish it out right away

      • can’t find it, pls post again

      • good grief, i deleted a bugs cartoon! I will fish it out right away

        Oh, is that how one goes about pointing out that somebody’s a nut without getting your comment deleted?

        OhBoyOhBoyOhBoyOhBoyOhBoyOhBoy…

      • David Springer

        Is the referenced molten surface of the earth an actual observation?

      • John Carpenter,

        There is precisely no evidence whatsoever to show that the Earth has either warmed or cooled due to the action of CO2.

        If you accept the Earth has indeed cooled, as you now imply, then you agree with me. Any perturbations along the way do not change the fact.

        Obviously the Earth has been warmer in the past, as it cooled from its molten state. As to a completely frozen, or iceball Earth, this would appear to be a physical impossibility. Ice exposed to maximum equatorial insolation at sea level cannot remain frozen. You may care to try the experiment if you wish.

        So far, you have not provided any facts to back up your assertions. Global warming due to the influence of CO2 is nonsense. Just saying the planet has warmed and cooled does not make it so, unless you are talking about ephemeral effects such as those due to the Earth’s rotation, and its progression in its wobbly orbit around the Sun.

        Fact – the Earth has cooled. You may consider this fact irrelevant if you wish. It won’t change it.

        I have considered your unsolicited advice, and accorded it the mindfulness it so richly deserves.

        Cheers.

      • David Springer,

        You asked –

        “Is the referenced molten surface of the earth an actual observation?”

        I can’t help you. You could ask someone who was there at the time. I assume your question was not serious, but an attempt at a gratuitous insult. Sorry, but I decline to take offense, unless you can provid a logical reason why I should do so.

        Cheers.

      • John Carpenter

        Flynn,

        “There is precisely no evidence whatsoever to show that the Earth has either warmed or cooled due to the action of CO2.”

        Yes there is, I will not do your homework. But this is shifting the goal posts of what you originally said, which was that you only need two data points to show a long term cooling trend.

        “If you accept the Earth has indeed cooled, as you now imply, then you agree with me. Any perturbations along the way do not change the fact.”

        Yes, the earth has cooled in the past. The perturbations along the way are what the climate discussion is all about, which is why starting from a molten earth state has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.

        “As to a completely frozen, or iceball Earth, this would appear to be a physical impossibility. Ice exposed to maximum equatorial insolation at sea level cannot remain frozen.”

        You offer no experimental evidence that this assertion is true.

        “Just saying the planet has warmed and cooled does not make it so, unless you are talking about ephemeral effects such as those due to the Earth’s rotation, and its progression in its wobbly orbit around the Sun.”

        Glad to see you are recognizing there are ephemeral effects like temperature fluctuations from factors like the earths orbit that can send the planet into and out of ice ages. These ephemeral effects are what the discussion is all about. So the two point data set that explains everything does really capture that part. Which is why it is irrelevant to the discussion of recent climate history.

        “Fact – the Earth has cooled. You may consider this fact irrelevant if you wish. It won’t change it.”

        You have not offered any evidence this assertion is true. You may care to experiment if you wish.

      • John Carpenter

        oops,
        … doesn’t really capture that part.

      • OK. So entropy wins in the end. Nothing new there. There are wriggles on the way. Nothing new there. Some of those wiggles are big, some are small. Nothing new there. So where’s the CO2? Mostly at the bottom of the ocean, locked in insoluble rock with a large chuck of the rest in soluble rock on Land. A tiny bit it still in liquid/gaseous state the rest is in Nature.

        Why everybody demands that it drives temperature is the mystery.

      • John Carpenter

        “Why everybody demands that it (CO2) drives temperature is the mystery.” -RichardLH

        I don’t know about everybody, but I never made any demands about whether CO2 drives temperature. I happen to agree with the science behind the GHE, but that in no way becomes a demand about the magnitude of its influence on temperature. The question is to what extent does CO2 influence the temperature? Flynn says 0. Most all climate scientists do not agree with that, including Curry, Peilke, Christy, Mcintyre and many others that contribute here. Flynn says the earth has cooled from a molten state. I say so what. That is irrelevant to the past/present temperature fluctuations for the relevant time when the planet has sustained life. Flynn uses his argument as an absolute truth to assert CO2 thus has no effect. Flynn offers zero evidence to support his theory but demands evidence from everyone else who claims CO2 has an effect. He is presented with evidence all the time, yet he does not accept it. Flynn wants an experiment to show how the GHE warms the planet. There isn’t one, because it’s observational science. I want Flynn to show me an experiment that the earth was molten in the past. He can’t. Yet he still believes that to be true. How does he know the planet was molten in the past? How was Flynn able to look deep into the past to know that?

        Why does the temperature fluctuate? Craig Loehle has an idea and has presented it. He wrote a paper and got it published. Is it the absolute truth? No. Is it part of the puzzle… maybe. Why the temperature fluctuates is a mystery that many people are working on to figure out. Do human activities influence it now? That’s another piece to the puzzle that has to be figured out. Flynn doesn’t understand any better than anyone else and probably knows much less than the climate scientists he derides, yet he does know with absolute certainty CO2 has 0 effect. He can’t provide any evidence for that assertion. Flynn saying the earth was molten in the past vs not molten now shows a cooling trend is not evidence or a plausible retort that CO2 has no effect on temperature no matter how bad he wants that to be true.

        Flynn needs to read more and comment less.

      • Agreed. Though I usually say, type less, think more.

      • “How does he know the planet was molten in the past? How was Flynn able to look deep into the past to know that? ”

        That’s a little too far. Drill down a tiny way and it’s still there. Are you saying it isn’t?

      • “Why everybody demands that it drives temperature is the mystery.”

        Classic Strawman.

      • John Carpenter –

        ==> “Flynn needs to read more and comment less.”

        I’m curious about that that means…

        Clearly he doesn’t “need” to do so, and I’d say that the chances of him doing so are exceedingly small.

        Perhaps you would prefer that he read more and comment less? If so, why? And why do you engage with him if you’d prefer that he do that (engaging with him obviously encourages him to comment more)?

        I think that Mike serves as a pretty good example of one brand of climate combatant – an apparently highly educated and smart individual who thinks that he understands the science better than almost all the other highly educated and smart climate combatants, whom he seems to derive satisfaction from insulting.

        Is there something in particular about him relative to many other climate combatants, that says that he “needs” to read more and comment less?

        Here’s why I ask:

        I read Judith and other “skeptics” argue quite frequently about how discussing the “consensus” viewpoint is antithetical to science* But then I read the arguments of someone like Mike, and not being able to understand the science myself, I think that he seems like a smart and knowledgeable person. Now his propensity for making bad arguments in areas where I can assess the underlying reasoning doesn’t make me particularly inclined to have a strongly favorable opinion of the probabilities associated with the veracity of his more technical arguments as compared to those (relative few) climate combatants who don’t make bad arguments in other areas – but such a measure is a problematic way to assess his technical arguments (i.e., just because he makes bad arguments in other areas doesn’t speak directly to the veracity of his technical arguments)….

        So are you saying that he should read more and comment less, with the follow-on implication that I should dismiss his views as uninformed, because his view is not in line with the “consensus” view here at Climate Etc.?

        I am kind of surprised to read you make such a statement, because I generally find your arguments well-thought out, and I find the whole “you need to read more and comment less” kind of argument to be unimpressive (it looks to me like a fallacious appeal to self-authority).

        *(when they aren’t arguing about the precise quantification of the prevalence of shared view among climate science experts, that is).

      • Joshua:

        Mike Flynn has two important points (as I recall).

        1. The Earth has cooled from when it had a molten surface.
        2. If you surround something with CO2, the surrounded object will not be warmed.

        Since both of these are true, I often wonder why people don’t agree with Mike about these points.

        I have not done the experiment myself – but have no doubt that without shining light on the object surrounded by CO2, that the gas, by itself, will not warm the object (just as Mike says).

        The question would be, if you shine light on the object surrounded by CO2 – how much warmer would the object be then if surrounded by some other gas (such as Oxygen or Nitrogen). Again, I have not done that experiment – but I expect that the CO2 will in fact radiate some of the light back onto the object and “warm” it – like a blanket reflecting body heat (infrared radiation) back onto the body.

        I don’t think Mike would necessarily even disagree with this point.

        So I often wonder why other posters don’t agree with Mike’s points.

        Mike seems very smart to me as well.

      • “Why everybody demands that it drives temperature is the mystery.”

        Still convinced that Nyquist has no role to play in Climate Science?

        Even though what you do is based on it?

        Ever thought that Finite Element Analysis is a re-statement of Nyquist?

        More samples, better data?

        In 4D.

      • David Springer

        The earth’s core is getting hotter due to radioactive decay inside a super duper insulator of miles and miles of cold rocks. If it was getting colder magma plumes would not have motive force to break through to the surface.

        Not all models of planetary formation are created equal but they are ALL models nonetheless. What do we think of toy models of the earth here, boys and girls? LOL

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget

      • Oops. missed the

        “Classic Strawman.”

      • John Carpenter

        Josh-ua

        I wrote a lengthy reply to your comment that is now in deep moderation. Hopefully it will make it out the other side. :)

      • David: The observation that a cooling hot ball of rock will form a skin as things progress to entropy is hardly new.

      • The real question is what the heat does to the weather and whether that is good or bad. The answer seems to be “irrelevant”.

      • And irrelevant.

      • irreverent might be closer. Belief rather than science.

  15. Willis Eschenbach

    The North Atlantic covers about 10% of the planetary surface. So what you’ve done is selected a part of the earth’s surface area, detrended its temperature history, weighted that temperature history equally with the global temperature history, and subtracted the detrended version from the global average temperature.

    Now, here’s the first point. The global average temperature from which you are subtracting the detrended AMO index still contains the undetrended AMO index. Which means that you are subtracting a scaled version of the AMOI index from itself.

    Next, the choice of the particular 10% is totally arbitrary. Others have suggesting using e.g. the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in the same fashion. Your exact same argument can be applied equally to the PDO.

    And since it applies to both, we could use both indices together. Why not? It would remove more of what you call the “internal climate oscillation”.

    And since you could use any arbitrary part of the world of any given area, detrend its temperature record, and call it “internal oscillations”, how can we know if your choice of the size and location of your favored 10% is the right one?

    Which leads me to my main objection. I don’t see how the detrended average of an arbitrarily chosen area of the planet can be said to represent some kind of “natural” component that is an “internal climate oscillation”, as opposed to an “anthropogenic” component.

    Best regards to you,

    w.

    • Willis: I did not choose an “arbitrary” part of the ocean. The AMO and the PDO are what appear to be persistent patterns. In an earlier paper we documented that the PDO can be seen in geologic records going back hundreds of years (or longer). Internally or externally forced? I don’t know. But they don’t match closely with TSI. Could I have used the PDO? Maybe, but I tried the AMO. Only so many hours in a day. Do note that I cited papers showing that the AMO has plausible links to ocean circulation on a large scale, and also links to Arctic weather.

    • Hi Willis. You wrote: “Your exact same argument can be applied equally to the PDO.”

      In reality it can’t. The PDO is not detrended sea surface temperature data from the North Pacific, north of 20N, where the AMO is detrended SSTa from the North Atlantic (0-70N, 80W-0). The PDO is the 1st PC of the North Pacific SSTa, with the global SSTa removed from each 5×5 grid. The PDO is actually inversely related to the detrended sea surface temperature data from the North Pacific, north of 20N.

      You wrote, ” I don’t see how the detrended average of an arbitrarily chosen area of the planet can be said to represent some kind of ‘natural’ component that is an ‘internal climate oscillation’, as opposed to an ‘anthropogenic’ component.”

      Let’s assume that the model mean of the outputs of the CMIP5 climate models represents the forced component of climate models. Both Gavin Schmidt and NCAR have made that argument.

      To contradict your anthropogenic component argument, we can subtract global SSTa from North Atlantic SSTa using a sea surface temperature dataset and using the CMIP5 model mean. That method of illustrating the AMO (North Atlantic SSTa minus global SSTa) was first proposed by Trenberth and Shea in 2006:

      That graph is from the post here:
      https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/questions-the-media-should-be-asking-the-ipcc-the-hiatus-in-warming/

      Cheers.

  16. The problem with linear de-trending of AMO is that it assumes implicitly that the warming trend is linear over the entire timespan of detrending. But that assumption is clearly untrue, because warming has accelerated since the mid 19th century. Thus the linear detrending is inadequate to remove the temperature signal from AMO during the acceleration period — which is precisely the post-1970 period. The net result is that by removing the linearly-detrended AMO (with its residual warming signal) from global temps, you’re also removing part of the global warming signal since 1970. It is therefore not surprising that, after this adjustment, the remaining signal shows less warming than the actual data. It has to, because you just subtracted it out.

    • Please note that the adjusted temperature data shows the same century trend as the IPCC: about 0.8deg C/100 yrs. So the new data does not show “less warming” but rather enables me to remove some of the possible spurious wiggles due to internal oscillations and see the anthropgenic trend better.

      • The linear trend between 1970 and 2014 in HADCRUT4 (which is what you use) is 0.165 +/- 0.029 C/decade. About 1/2 of your 0.083 in the paper for the same period. By referring to the century trend, you are including the earlier 70 years when the temperature rise was lower. This is technically known as the apples oranges gambit.

      • David Springer

        Eli predictably joins the knee-jerk reaction crowd. It kind of makes me wonder if they realize that this does not change either the observed TCS nor the warming trend over the entire HadCru global temperature series or whether they simply don’t know the trend in that record. Eli points to the most recent 35 years of the record despite the AMO being a 67-year cycle. Is he dense or what?

        When the fruitloop fringe of both camps jumps up and down on a paper it’s a great indicator that the paper has merit IMO.

      • Eli: Hello again. Just as the estimated temperature field relies heavily on Nyquist but that is not acknowledged.

      • eli rabett, “The linear trend between 1970 and 2014 in HADCRUT4 (which is what you use) is 0.165 +/- 0.029 C/decade. About 1/2 of your 0.083 in the paper for the same period. By referring to the century trend, you are including the earlier 70 years when the temperature rise was lower. This is technically known as the apples oranges gambit.”

        The uncertainty of the earlier 70 years is larger than any conclusion you can make for the last 50 years so assuming there is no evidence of a 0.6 to 0.9 C per century long term trend would also be an apples and oranges gambit. Of course you could cherry pick your paleo I guess which has even larger uncertainty.

  17. I have done some minor research into the N. A. SST and its derivative index that we know as the (wrongly named) AMO index.
    As far as I see it, the N.A. SST is responding to some other event, at to it specific rate, while the N.A. SST effect on the N. Hemisphere’s land temperature depends on the meandering of the polar jet stream. Even the CET, which sits next door to it, it has an unconvincing correlation to the AMO index (when winter to winter or summer to summer are compared). What the effect is on the expanses of the N. Pacific and its temperatures I am not sure, and even less about any global effect.

  18. Sure, the century trend has to be pretty close to the same, since the AMO has been linearly detrended over much the same timescale. But that simply hides the fact that linear detrending removes too much warming signal early, and too little warming signal late, because of the acceleration.

    There are two ways to remedy this defect that occur to me immediately:
    (a) Since you’re concerned with the 1970-2015 period, de-trend AMO over that period only.
    (b: more complicated, but more generally useful) Don’t use linear de-trending at all. Instead, run a LOESS smooth over the AMO data and de-trend compared to the smooth.

  19. Jim D: please read what captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3 said. He captured it well.

  20. Craig: I would prefer to see the graphs for this information presented in a slightly more logical manner. On the left-hand vertical axis, I’d prefer to see temperature (anomaly) and on the right vertical axis the original units of the factor influencing GMST. For AMO, we could see temperature anomaly attributed to the AMO on the left and the detrended AMO index on the right (and a conversion factor somewhere). For anthropogenic forcing, the forced temperature anomaly on the left and the forcing (in W/m2) on the right (and the conversion factor, presumably TCR). One could have graphs for ENSO, volcanic aerosols, and/or TSI. Finally, the sum of whatever factors are postulated to contribute the “modeled” temperature anomaly overlaid with the observed temperature anomalies and a graph of residuals.

    The advantage is that one will clearly see the impact of all factors measured in degC on the same full scale vertical axis. The amount of warming/cooling contributed by AMO is presumably much smaller than contributed by anthropogenic forcing. The contributions of ENSO and TSI would likewise be small. Volcanos could be more significant.

    • Well, interesting suggestions, but too late.

      • Also Figure 4A and 4B are identical. I wonder if this paper had any reviewers to pick such things up.

      • 4a and 4b are not identical. the total anthropogenic and CO2 forcing are very similar.

      • It is claimed that the two are ‘similar’. However there appears to be no attempt to predict what effects, if any, the known 60 year cycle will cause.

        It is a pragmatic observation that UAH/RSS are demonstrating a sub-sampled view of just that 60 year wave. Too short to tell right now. But that observation stands none the less.

    • franktoo,

      You wrote –

      “Volcanos could be more significant.” Just so, particularly those volcanos under the roughly 70% of the Earth’s surface covered by ocean, or those covered by ice several kms thick.

      But after all, it’s only heat. Won’t affect thermometers, surely? Only CO2 can do that, according to Warmists! Denialist fatheads!

      Sorry about that, got carried away.

      Cheers.

  21. Hi Craig. You used the ESRL AMO data in an analysis of HADCRUT4 data. You may want to check your results using a HADSST3-based AMO, which is detrended North Atlantic SSTa. Two reasons: First, the ESRL AMO data uses a combination of Kaplan SST and Reynolds OI.v2 SST data, both of which are not included in HADCRUT4. HADSST3 data are included in HADCRUT4. Second, HADSST3 data have been tweaked for ship-buoy biases, while the ESRL AMO data have not. This has a major impact on the AMO after the late 1990s. See Figure 1.

    Figure 1

    Both of those AMO datasets are detrended sea surface temperature anomalies for the North Atlantic, for the period of 1856-2014, for the coordinates of 0-70N, 80W-0. The differences are easier to see with the data smoothed with 5-yr filters, Figure 2.

    Figure 2

    For example purposes, I used both 1856-2014-based AMO data in linear regression analyses (off-the-shelf “Analyse-It For Microsoft EXCEL” software) with the HADCRUT4 data from 1900 to 2014. See Figure 3, which includes the ESRL and HADSST3-based AMO-adjusted HADCRUT4 data. My results using the ESRL AMO data appear to be a little different than yours. But they are noticeably different using the HADSST3-based AMO data, especially in recent decades, which is to be expected with the ship-buoy bias adjustment in the HADSST3 data.

    Figure 3

    For the period of 1900 to 1969, which was one of the periods discussed in your paper, the two AMO-adjusted results show similar linear trends, as shown in Figure 4. But the trends are slightly lower than the trend you indicate in your paper.

    Figure 4

    However, for the other period discussed in your paper, 1970 to 2014, the two AMO-adjusted HADCRUT4 data show very different results, which, again, is what we would expect with only one SST dataset having a ship-buoy bias adjustment. See Figure 5.

    Figure 5

    With the HADSST3-based AMO, there is a noticeably lower trend in the AMO-adjusted HADCRUT4 data. In fact, with the HADSST3-based AMO, the trend from 1970 to 2014 is slightly lower than the trend from 1900 to 1969.

    Cheers.

    • Thank you Bob. With your figure 5 red line, there would be very low climate sensitivity. It looks like the alternate AMO index you propose only differs after about 2001, at about a 0.1 deg downshift. This causes the big difference in trends. I will ponder this.

      • Hi Craig. Thanks for your reply. The HADSST3-based AMO is not an alternate AMO index. It’s the proper AMO index to use with HADCRUT4 data. There are very noticeable differences between sea surface temperature datasets, especially now with all of the additional bias-tweaking.

        Cheers.

  22. From Wikipedia,

    “Assuming that the AMO continues with its quasi-cycle of roughly 70 years, the peak of the current warm phase would be expected in c. 2020,[14] or based on its 50–90 year quasi-cycle, between 2000 and 2040 (after peaks in c. 1880 and c. 1950).”

    Assuming, roughly, and quasi-cycle. This is Warmist fact, apparently. One might just as well examine cycles derived from Fourier analysis of past stock prices, predict the future from them, and go forth to accumulate a vast fortune.

    Wishful thinking. Climate science. The dim leading the gullible.

    Cheers.

    • Curious George

      Quasi-science.

    • Mike Flynn,

      “…One might just as well examine cycles derived from Fourier analysis of past stock prices, predict the future from them…”

      Funny you should mention that. T. W. Korner, in his textbook “Fourier Analysis”, has a section entitled “Are share prices in Brownian motion?”.

  23. No some, not Eli to be sure, might think that this is a bit ad editores, but Horizon Research, appears to be, well not of the first rank of scientific publishers. As a matter of fact, they appear to be a trap for the unwary, a vanity press operation that provides “peer review”.

    In keeping with the tradition established by Bjorn Lomborg, they are operating out of a drop box in California that is the postal address of about 250 companies, mostly Chinese.

    OTOH, they appear only to be charging $200/paper for article processing charges, well worth it for a front page post at Climate Etc.

    • According that famous professor rating website, your chem class at that third-tier university is a trap for the unwary, prof. rabbeticus halpernicus.

      • David Springer

        Someone once asked is our children learning? It may just hinge the answer to “Is our professors teaching?”

        http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=543236

        It doesn’t appear there are many teaching moments in this professor’s classroom. What a surprise. Not.

      • Meh. I don’t care for Eli much either but Rate My Professor is stupid. It’s not a random sample, nor are there enough people for it to mean anything. If you notice, about 1 or 2 students per year choose to comment out of 30 to 125 in the class. Gen. Chem is notoriously hard for many people. At my own university, 30-35% drop out and do not take Gen. Chem. II So having a few people who do poorly in a difficult class (when mommy and daddy told them they were plenty smart to be a doctor) write an anonymous, unhappy review does not mean much.

      • David Springer

        Huh. I took Gen Chemistry I and II in college and had no problem with it. They were not the easiest courses but I don’t recall the dropout or failure rate being very high. The most surprising failure rate I observed was in Formal Logic 101 in my freshman year (1978). I got a perfect score on every test without much effort. Most of the class failed. I think the Boolean Algebra course the military put me through in 1975 helped a lot. I aced that too and set a record completion time in the self-paced program.

    • David Springer

      Yes Eli. This probably wasn’t what Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth meant when Phil wrote: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

      What do you think they meant by that? Not that I respect your opinion or anything I’m just trolling for some laughs.

      • David Springer

        Pal review is evidently okay but no review is not okay. Is that how it works in the esteamed halls of climate science?

    • Pal review ain’t any kind of review at all, at all.
      Kinda’ like how kleptocrat dictators gives gifts
      ter the mates who keep them in power.

    • Ah so the Rabbit arrives much like in Alice in Wonderland without a care in the world (or good glasses so it would seem).

    • Eli:

      Did I miss your reply to Rud? You must not have replied in line under his offer…

  24. There are several legitimate limitations to this paper. You have pointed out none of them.

  25. David Springer

  26. Do something like this to see how different the last period is from the other:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1957/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:1956/offset:0.4

  27. Craig and others: It seems to me that one should subtract the much larger influence of forcing agents before trying to characterize the role of AMO in GMST. After subtracting the large forced bias in the record, there may be no need to use an AMO index that has been detrended. Of course, we don’t know precisely how to remove the influence of forcing agents, but it certainly appears possible to explore subtracting Forcing*TCR from the historical record using a range of possible TCRs – say 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, and 2.1 degC/doubling – before abstracting an AMO index from the historical data. This appears superior to merely relying on an AMO index created via a linear detrending step. If the amplitude of the AMO index’s contribution to GMST is relatively independent of TCR, the detrending issue could be avoided.

    However, the AMO index’s contribution to GMST will probably be dependent on the choice of TCR. In that case, one could choose the value (or range of values) for TCR that results in zero trend over various 68-year periods when the AMO is might be expected to have no slope: Peak-to-peak and trough-to-trough across each oscillation.

  28. Having in mind Dr. Loehle’s qualification:
    It is not claimed here that the AMO is unique in capturing internal variability. Rather, this initial effort seeks to open this line of enquiry to reducing the uncertainty due to internal variability.
    I think as an academic exercise is fine, but in my view is misleading because it
    a) reinforces the view that the CO2 is the underlining cause of the temperature rise
    b) by assuming that the variability in the N. Atlantic temperature is somehow composed of two independent components, one represented by linear upward trend and the other by its de-trended derivative known as the AMO.

    It is far from certain that either of the above is true representative of the reality.
    The ‘linear’ upward rise appears to be the part of two (taking a longer term view) closely spaced pulses one starting in the mid 1920’s followed by another in the mid 1970s.

    The above graph illustrates the point.
    If the ~100 year long initial section of the N. A. SST data is moved forward by about 65 years, it can be clearly seen that two sections are nearly identical (R^2 >0.7, statistically significant) with a single uplift of about 0.2C..

  29. AMO discussion brings to light all the not-even-wrongness of the AGW “science”. I’m lovin’ it!

  30. Craig,

    You don’t need any AMO indices and scaling for this. Just use a global temperature index, detrend it and subtract it from the original (not detrended) one. The result will be basically the same.

    • Not really. The North Atlantic is a small percentage of “global” mean temperature. If you created a Global – AMO mean temperature then you could compare the two in order to estimate the impact of AMO on variability. Scaling AMO just estimates about the same thing. With interpolation you cannot really produce a Global – AMO product so you are kind of stuck with the less than desirable method. It would be better to create a totally new index, but you are stuck with convention.

    • edimbukvarevic: you and others assume that every part of the ocean follows the global temperature slavishly. This is not so. The better known PDO for example shows parts of the ocean cooling while the global temp is warming, for example.

      • Indeed. Energy flows through the system are complex, quasi chaotic, and over very long timescales in most cases. Probably doesn’t help either side to draw final conclusions.

      • RichardLH: and I am certainly not drawing any final conclusions. I explicity state in the paper that this is exploratory.

      • Craig, I don’t assume that. I draw attention to the similarity between the pattern known as AMO (North Atlantic SST) and global (or even hemispheric, tropical, land…) temperature indices. Here in comparison to hadcrut4 SH for example:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4sh/detrend:0.76/plot/hadcrut4sh/detrend:0.76/trend/plot/esrl-amo

        The pattern called AMO seems to be global.

        PDO is different animal – it’s not a pure temperature index like the others, but it seems to be global too. It correlates with the derivative (slope) of AMO and other pure temperature indices.

      • …This is not so. The better known PDO for example shows parts of the ocean cooling while the global temp is warming, for example. … – Professor Loehe

        What is the the PDO better known than?

        Natural variability, in order to be variable, has to be capable of a cycle: for instance, cooling the Eastern Pacific Ocean, a vast geographic area, over decades, while ACO2 warmed the globe.

      • I was stating that the PDO is better known to people than the AMO, perhaps not, just my impression. Natural variability need not create a cycle (though if it does it will be easier to detect)–it could create noise or chaos or a quasi-cycle (not exactly obeying a fixed period). The sunspot cycle appears to be a quasi-cycle for example. It is persistent, roughly the same length each time but not exactly.

      • Graig: I wasn’t passing judgement on what you’ve done. Sorry if I gave that impression.

      • Craig

        When you refer to the AMO are you also referring to the associated parameters, such as what used to be called the Gulf stream, plus the persistent South Westerly winds? All of these have an effect on climate of the region and due to its geographical position the British Isles has been said by some to be a reasonable proxy for global temperatures.

        Or are you using a narrower definition?

        tonyb

      • climatereason: The AMO is based on temperatures in a part of the ocean. It does not incorporate the gulf stream etc but is influenced by currents.

      • Craig

        Thanks. I have Lambs diagram of the number of days of South Westerly winds experienced by the UK from 1349. At their maximum extent They correlate pretty well with warm ‘MWP’ periods and their absence with periods of LIA type cold weather.

        Will the SW winds have affected the AMO, or will the evolving AMO affect the number of South Westerly winds?

        tonyb

      • climatereason: there is an interaction of winds and ocean temperatures. A warm pool will cause rising air (and conversely) and thus heat disparities create high and low pressure systems. On the other hand, winds can create warm/cold pools and upwelling. When these two work together, a persistent warm or cool pool can be created. When they do not, it dissipates. This is (along with larger scale features like jet stream and gulf stream, rivers of air and water respectively) how something like the AMO is created.

      • “…quasi chaotic…”

        I have a hunch the energy flow is quasimodal. Can anyone back me up on that?

  31. further to my comment above:
    One major error that is continuously perpetrated by numerous analyses of the climate data is based on the idea that the N. Atlantic surface temperature is somehow made of two independent components: linear uptrend and oscillating components.
    They are inseparable consequence of the natural events occurring in the region. Two other data sets that demonstrate falsehood of the above separation are the tectonic records, and magnetic field variability in the area; neither of two could be caused by the minor changes in the temperature records and even less by changes in the miniscule concentration of CO2.

    I do not suggest this be a ‘trick’ of the AMO’s well known ‘inventor’, but it came mightily handy to separate two, and ‘reinforce’ the CO2 role in the temperature rise. Many, be it the ‘grandies’ or the ‘minnows’ of the climate science have fallen for it.
    Not that I expect the host of the blog, the author One major error that is continuously perpetrated by numerous analyses of the climate data is based on the idea that the N. Atlantic surface temperature is somehow made of two independent components: linear uptrend and oscillatory component.
    They are inseparable consequence of the natural events occurring in the region. Two other data sets that demonstrate falsehood of the above separation are the tectonic records, and magnetic field variability in the area; neither of two could be caused by the minor changes in the temperature records and even less by changes in the miniscule concentration of CO2.

    I do not suggest this be a ‘trick’ of the AMO’s well known ‘inventor’, but it came mightily handy to separate two, and ‘reinforce’ the CO2 role in the temperature rise. Many be it the ‘grandees’ or the ‘minnows’ of the climate science appear to have fallen for it.
    Not that I expect the host of the blog, the author of the paper, one or two other distinguish commentators, or for that matter anyone else would agree.

    • Sorry, it appears I did a double ‘paste’ click

      • vukcevic: I do not dismiss your work at all, just wanted to clarify what is proven vs what is an assertion. Much is assumed about the climate and little is proven.

      • It would be fair and correct to assume that I ‘know next to nothing’ about climate. Having some time to spare, I look at the data, look at something that may be controversial (no point of just agreeing with what is already known) and using graphs (mainly to disguise the lack of knowledge) come here and at the WUWT, you might say as a bit of a ‘devil’s advocate’. Perhaps some of my assertions might come closely to the reality, possibly could be totally baseless, I have no idea which one could be in which category.

      • I find myself in the same sort of place. I only barely grasp some of the more detailed equations. But that is not what I do. I look for assumptions that make DIGO more likely. (Data In – Garbage Out).

    • In a system of differential equations, if there are two independent forcings their effects will superimpose and be separable if there is not too much noise. This is how Fourier analysis works. For them to be non-separable there must be an interaction term of some sort. You have not demonstrated non-separability, just asserted it. A chemical reaction may be non-separable but a temperature driven system with ocean currents does not seem to me to meet this interaction criterion for non-separability.

      • You have not demonstrated non-separability, just asserted it.

        Clouds.

      • AK: clouds–maybe.

      • Clouds are the “elephant in the room” mechanism. But for any complex non-linear system, “non-separability” should be the default assumption. Until you’ve proven the opposite, assuming it is unwarranted.

        I would say your “clouds–maybe” is sufficient admission that this is true. “Maybe” means you can’t simply assume the opposite.

        Of course, such an assumption, while unwarranted, is perfectly reasonable for a speculative hypothesis.

        IMO.

      • Dr. Loehle
        Thank you for your reply.
        Non-separability, indeed I did not demonstrated it, and I doubt that it can be done.
        I made the assertion as just another step towards the (quote) “initial effort seeks to open this line of enquiry to reducing the uncertainty due to internal variability”.

        My comment was mainly related to the earlier post (but it ended in a wrong place).
        As I implied there, if second natural driving pulse came a decade later, whole of the upward trend (from 1860 to 2015) would disappear (I do suggest to reproduce that graph)
        That being a pure conjecture, we have to look to the past for the guidance, but since there is no data for the SST prior to 1850, I offer two other N. Atlantic events: CET and the cumulative volcanic data, using as a catalyst the sunspot cycles series, all going back to 1660.

        They all display a variability similar to that of the N.A. SST from around 1850 to the present time, but that is as far as it goes, the linear upward component is not present in any of them prior to 1850’s, the overall upward movement is only due to the last section. It may be possible to postulate (by using mathematic’s equations or Fourier transform if you wish) that ‘the separability’ exists, but I am not convinced.
        Alternatively and more preferably, you can dismiss the whole lot as irrelevant to the “initial effort (that) seeks to open this line of enquiry to reducing the uncertainty due to internal variability”

  32. The less we know about a subject, the more we have to say about it.

  33. By first detrending temperature with AMO and then fitting forcing to temperature, you are not treating AMO and forcing equal in their ability to explain temperature changes. This wouldn’t be a problem if AMO and forcing were uncorrelated, but they are correlated.

    What you should have either done was perform a simple linear regression with both forcing and AMO as explanatory factors, or you should have included a quadratic or maybe even a cubic temperature term in your initial fit with AMO in order to prevent the AMO from messing up the long term acceleration of the temperature series. Because you have done none of these, I suspect, based on time series regressions I have done, that you are overestimating the effect of AMO by a factor of about 2.

    Other issues:

    Your definition of transient climate response is wrong. From wikipedia:
    “A measure requiring shorter integrations is the transient climate response (TCR) which is defined as the average temperature response over a twenty-year period centered at CO2 doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year.”
    The transient climate response involves a scenario when the change in forcing over time is linear for 70 years, yet there is acceleration in the forcing time series and you only use a time period of 40 years to get your 1.21 TCR value. Because of this, your estimate is biased low.

    “The total uncertainty in this analysis is not fully quantifiable.”
    It is quantifiable, but I get the impression that you are too lazy to do it. At the very least, indicate the error in the TCR and ECS due to the fit of forcing to temperature. It’s not even that hard; just perform a linear regression and then multiply the standard error of the forcing coefficient by 1.96 to get your 95% confidence interval for the forcing coefficient. You can mention that there are other sources of error and that the model is very simplistic so the uncertainty mentioned underestimates the true uncertainty, but at the very least indicate the model uncertainty.

  34. Craig Loehle | December 29, 2015 at 11:14 am |
    “If we assume that any 60 yr cycle must be externally forced, we might look at TSI but fail to find a cycle.”

    Agree there (I’m back again, sorry being a nuisance), except it is not 60 years, it varies between 50+ and 70 years.
    Geologists will confirm that secular variability in the earth magnetic field is related to the earth’s internal movements. One particular area that shows distinct presence of ’60 year cycle’ stretches from NW United States all the way to NE Canada.
    Some time ago, with a very different purpose in mind, I looked at the field variability at location of the Yellowstone caldera, available from the NOAA’s geomagnetic calculator. Although minor in relation to the main field, ‘bingo’, spectral analysis shows distinct 60 year component.

    Even greater surprise is the clear presence of the solar 22 year magnetic cycle. Having in mind graphs in my comments above, it may not be so surprising after all.

  35. I think JimD might be concerned that using a linear trend can obscure the recent warming slow down. Karl 2015 does this in their recent paper with the New Karl Land and Ocean temperature series – though using better time period comparisons even with linear trends will show a signicant slow down.

    I used Singular Spectrum Analysis in obtaining non linear trends with the New Karl series and those trends show more clearly and emphatically the recent warming slow down in the Karl series – both New and Old,

  36. If you simply linearly detrend Atlantic temps to obtain an estimate of the AMO, you end up conflating natural variability with a forced response. Linear detrending implicitly assumes that forcings have increased linearly over the period in question, but this is clearly incorrect; forcings have increased much faster between 1970-present than, say, 1880-1930.

    I wrote a post about this a few years back, and suggested a difference method of calculating AMO (similar to how the PDO is calculated), where you look at the difference between the AMO and non-AMO region SSTs. It has a large impact on the results in the past few decades:

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-and-modern-warming/

    • Zeke: While that is a useful idea, it does presume certain things about what the “proper” AMO index is. I am using the index that is in common use, not creating a new one.

      • The index is indeed in common use, but it’s not commonly considered independent of the rest of global SSTs. If part of the recent AMO peak is forced rather than natural variability, it somewhat detracts from your findings regarding implied sensitivity.

        As I suggested in my post back in 2011, due to large changes in rate of growth in radiative forcing since 1970 “the AMO in its readily available form is not particularly useful for assessing the degree of natural (unforced) variability during the last few decades in the North Atlantic.”

      • To put it another way, if I linearly detrended global SSTs from 1850-present and examined the residuals, they certainly would be correlated with global surface temperature, but would not represent unforced variability. The same is true when we pick a subset of global SSTs (e.g. the AMO). To effectively determine the unforced component you’d need to remove the forced response rather than a simple linear detrending.

      • I interpret the pattern of the AMO, which is that the series of decadal-scale ups and downs appear similar, to qualitatively refute the assertion that linear detrending is invalid.
        When you get your improved index published I will be happy to give it a test drive.

      • Zeke Hausfather:

        Are you also saying that Trenberth & Shea (image reposted below) did not successfully remove recent forcing from the AMO cycle?

        Compared to the final image in your post (shown below) at the Blackboard, T&S seemed to remove the recent increase from natural variability that your image suggests has occurred. Am I misreading your results?

        T&S: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL026894/full

        ZH: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-and-modern-warming/

      • opluso: yes, thank you for the graph. Looks like bias removed to me.

      • opulso:
        Trenberth & Shea did indeed remove forcing from AMO, but they did NOT do it with linear regression. They did it by removing the global SST, which works, and which answers Zeke’s objection (and mine, which is essentially the same objection).

      • If you want to subtract a trendless AMO cycle in order to leave the forced component then how much does it really matter which way you produce the trendless cycle?

        The differenced ZH version above requires an additional step to remove the forcing trend while the standard AMO Index used by CL already displays no trend. However, the T&S and CL versions look quite similar to me.

        Is this distinctioning without a differencing?

        In any event, CL stated his goal is “to open this line of enquiry to reducing the uncertainty due to internal variability”? Seems that he was quite successful in that regard.

      • Opluso,

        Indeed, Trenberth and Shea published a difference-based AMO index back in 2006 that is very similar to my difference-based one, and is not linearly detrended like the ones used by Dr. Loehle. As Trenberth mentions, “However, previous AMO indices are conflated with linear trends and a revised AMO index accounts for between 0 and 0.1°C of the 2005 SST anomaly. About 0.45°C of the SST anomaly is common to global SST and is thus linked to global warming and, based on regression, about 0.2°C stemmed from after-effects of the 2004–05 El Niño.”

        In both my differenced series and Trenberth, the AMO is in a positive phase in recent years. It’s just that the positive phase is much less pronounced than in a simple linear detrended AMO index.

        Detrended (what Loehle uses):

        Differenced (what I and Trenberth used):

        It would be interesting to see how his results might change when using Tranberth’s revised AMO index.

      • Thanks ZH. It will be interesting to see the possible TCR ranges from various AMO analyses.

    • Zeke: An interesting post. I have always considered detrending with a linear slope to be bad science. Differencing seems to be much more supportable, scientifically speaking.

  37. Craig – You have made (at least) two basic assumptions – (1) a linear trend since 1970 and (2) apart from the linear trend everything possible is AMO.

    I appreciate that you are looking at something other than CO2, but what you are doing with the AMO is basically what the IPCC do with CO2 : assume that it is the principal driver, then curve fit. Your result is probably nearer the truth than theirs, but I’m still unconvinced. Why am I unconvinced? Because there are clearly other important climate drivers, as evidenced by the last 10k years of Greenland ice cores and by the last ~400k years of Antarctic ice cores. It makes no sense, to me, to try to boil the whole thing down to one factor (plus an unexplained linear trend), thus leaving a zero residual for everything else. That “everything else” has driven the whole of climate for a very long time. It makes no sense to suddenly reduce it to zero now.

    • I am not getting rid of “everything else”. If other factors are operating too slowly to detect over the period I study, or act as random noise over that period, I can justify estimating the anthropogenic effect and trend. I DO NOT claim my result is the end of science and everyone should go home. I just think it is interesting.

      • Anybody notice the filled beaches in Nu Jorsey? Waters from VA south to FLA are very nice for swimming! The Atlantic seems to be circulating clockwise very nicely. Downdrag from the Pacific?

    • Selection of de-trending component can give surprising results. I normalised CO2 concentration to N. Hemisphere CruTem4, then used it as a de-trending variable.
      Result is here

      I have no idea what degree of CO2 sensitivity that would represent.

    • It is interesting that the detrended CRUTEM4 NH land leads the AMO index by about a decade. This also predicts that the AMO index is not going anywhere but up in the next decade judging by CRUTEM4. The 30-year smoothed indices show it most clearly.
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/mean:120/mean:240/plot/crutem4vnh/detrend:0.8/mean:120/mean:240/offset:0.5

      • You will be more likely to be close to what happens if you take some long period (as long as possible – I use SG if you look at my R) to try and see what will happen in the near future.

        Like all such beasts, as you add new data the ends of the line move up and down for the bit outside the annual Gaussian. So in all cases it is indicative, not certain.

        UAH/RSS show what ‘could’ be the appropriate portion of some ~60 year signal in the data. Of course nothing is certain. We do not have the data capture window length to say yes or no right now.

        But, like it or not, the possibility is there.

        P.S. I do notice that, despite making my data and methodology no-one has is any scientific way challenged them. The R is there. The data sources I used are there.

        Any ‘proof’ that what I did was wrong?

      • The AMO most likely cannot go down. How is this not obvious to people? The physical mechanism that causes it to go down has already done its thing, and it did not go down. This is what happens when you pick a light weight to fight a heavy weight. And this failure to takes its customary bow, the cycle, occurred in spite of the fact that the PDO was negative and ENSO was dominated by La Nina? Lol, the AMO is a feckless ocean cycle.

      • The Arctic seeks to disagree.

      • stevenreincarnated

        JCH, I just checked the ocean heat content for the N Atlantic 0-700m on climate4you. It doesn’t appear to have stopped dropping quite yet.

        So what would you expect from a drop in poleward ocean heat transport:

        A drop in water vapor as you lose the dynamic portion.
        A drop in ocean heat content.
        An increase in albedo in the tropics from increased cloud cover.
        An increase in albedo from recovering sea ice.

        All I can say is watch the data and we will all find out together but it isn’t time to start the 3 count until that ocean heat content stops dropping.

        The arcticle you linked to looks like a CYA attempt to me in preparation for the warming causes cooling argument. The problem is the drop in OHT is an order of magnitude larger than what the hosing in the Arctic should have caused, it doesn’t explain away the multitude of papers that indicate OHT has actually been increasing for the last ~250 years, and it is impossible to attribute the secular warming trend caused by the change in OHT because the data is sparse.

      • Jim D, the land index “leads” because of less termal inertia than the sst index. Regarding the AMO index going anywhere but up – in your AGW dreams only. In reality, AMO is plateauing already and its linear trend is negative since ~1998.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/plot/crutem4vnh/detrend:1.26/plot/crutem4vnh/detrend:1.26/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:1998/trend

      • I agree it is thermal inertia. You will find that the “skeptics” of the stadium-wave kind don’t like this explanation because it implies that both are responding to external forcing changes rather than everything being paced by the AMO. This becomes even more clear if you look at undetrended data that shows land temperatures rising twice as fast as ocean temperatures since 1980.

      • “In reality, AMO is plateauing already and its linear trend is negative since ~1998.”

        So the heat ‘pulse’ that melted the ice is tailing off then?

      • No, the Eastern Pacific’s downward pull on GMST, including that of the North Atlantic, flattened the AMO just as it flattened the GMST, and that ended near the end of 2013.

      • Hmm. The PDO is a reflection of the balancing of power over that vertical hemisphere and thus is well represented in GT.
        The AMO is not in that league.
        But the required energy flow up through the Atlantic to the North Pole must show up somewhere in the data. The AMO seems the logical choice.

      • Anybody notice the filled beaches in Nu Jorsey? Waters from VA south to FLA are very nice for swimming! The Atlantic seems to be circulating clockwise very nicely. Downdrag from the Pacific?

      • The AMO most likely cannot go down. How is this not obvious to people? The physical mechanism that causes it to go down has already done its thing, and it did not go down.

        The map in the story is of anomalies for eight months of this year ( an El Nino, after all ) only. One might expect something like that to appear in the trends, but, no:

        Check back next year.

      • Jim D says: “It is interesting that the detrended CRUTEM4 NH land leads the AMO index by about a decade.”

        What utter BS:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/compress:6/scale:1.75/plot/crutem4vnh/detrend:1.3/compress:6/offset:0.65

      • What’s interesting about that WFT plot is the lack of correlation in the centre. Fits quite well at each end, just parallels in the middle.

      • Like all such beasts, as you add new data the ends of the line move up and down for the bit outside the annual Gaussian. So in all cases it is indicative, not certain.

        If you include all the ice core data for the past ten thousand years it becomes certain that we have natural, repeating, bounded cycles, it does become really certain that the next cycle is going to be at or inside or, even a little above, the bounds of the past cycles.

      • What matters is changes in direction:

        1974 to 1985

        So first, the Eastern Pacific warmed from 1974 to 1985, as did the surface of the earth. Then, from 1985 to 2014, the trend in the Eastern Pacific changed direction and it cooled: a vast area of the surface working against AGW for ~18 years.

      • But is CO2 the only card in play?

      • JCH:

        So first, the Eastern Pacific warmed from 1974 to 1985, as did the surface of the earth. Then, from 1985 to 2014, the trend in the Eastern Pacific changed direction and it cooled: a vast area of the surface working against AGW for ~18 years.

        Are you refuting Karl’s pause-buster paper? Or are the relative balances in energy/forcing coincidentally scaled to produce exactly no change in trends over your selected periods?

        …the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

      • Oplusa – not at all. While the GMST shot up, right along with the feckless and mechanism-free AMO, the Eastern Pacific, a vast area of the surface of the earth, cooled, which offset some AGW: progressively from ~1985. This based upon GMST observations that were likely wrong – to the low side. Karl fixed part of it; there are likely more upward adjustments coming. No matter what, a cooling of a vast area of the Pacific surface, the declining green trend starting around 1985, is offsetting AGW.

      • What matters is changes in direction:

        1974 to 1985

        So first, the Eastern Pacific warmed from 1974 to 1985, as did the surface of the earth. Then, from 1985 to 2014, the trend in the Eastern Pacific changed direction and it cooled: a vast area of the surface working against AGW for ~18 years.

        More evidence that this is hooey.

        Salinity anomalies in April, at least, were normal to slightly below normal for the region of cold anomaly:

        Evidently, Greenland outflow does normallyt freshen the ocean, but the extent appears to be quite restricted to the coastal area ( tight gradient of absolute salinity outward ):

      • It’s hooey that the Eastern Pacific warms during the ramp up of a positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation? LMAO.

  38. Subtracting the rescaled AMO index from the Hadley global data is not as revealing of any anthropogenic trend as is often imagined. It’s merely a crude way of reducing the multidecadal oscillations shared by both indices. But their cross-spectral coherence is not nearly high enough for a complete removal and the “trend” evident in the resulting difference series cannot be seriously attributed to putative “forcings” when the very construction of the global average fails to account for UHI and resorts to trend-producing “adjustments” of SST data, i.e., is highly unreliable.

    What is required for the purpose is far better data over a much longer time interval and the prescription of a low-pass filter to remove the pertinent multidecadal and longer natural oscillations. Spectrum analysis of GISP2 data suggests that those oscillations extend into quasi-millennial scales. Claimed “trends” of much shorter duration are but the figment of simplistic imagination.

  39. Has anyone considered that the AMO will not show up in Global Temps much as any energy goes to melt ice, which then flows as very cold water to the Equator?

    • Zeke had an estimate that the AMO might contribute 0.17C or there about to global mean. The Stadium wave paper hints that it could be more when combined with sea ice change. Then Mann created a new AMO+ to refute the Stadium Wave paper. Since interpolation methods “get” current high latitude variability but smooth the bejesus out of pre-1950 high latitude temperatures, the differences between AMO and GMST could be very interesting. Cannot have much variability when you smooth the crap out of things can ya?

    • See Fig 12 about power curves. Then think 12 month annual cycle.

      That paper says nothing about how to use Nyquist in a spatial sense. You get to replace f with Distance then.

      • Exactly. But sampling density would apply to surface temperature measurements. The takeaway from that article is that the sampling rate needed for an accurate reconstruction can be much higher than simply twice the max frequency. That should apply to space as well.

      • It does. It is just fixation blindness that means people don’t see that.

        Ah, well. Logic continues to expose the assumptions.

  40. Does it strike anyone else as bizarre that this is all about trying to understand a 0.5 deg increase (during the past 45 years) in the global temperature anomaly that may or may not be an artifice of endless manipulation of poorly acquired temperature data?

    • No that’s fairly accurately collected by hard work, just poorly distributed (and not by choice of the scientists).

      • The distribution is fine.

        Pick any random subsample of 500.

        your answer wont change

        it wont because the underlying field is spatially coherent

      • David Springer

        But Nyquist!!!

      • The distribution is crap.

        If you really wanted to know precisely the values of the air temperature round Oxford, you would need a thermometer about every 1 mile or so to even get close.

        What we have now is ‘what we got so we have to accept it’.

        That’s not science.

      • Consider carefully http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/research/climate/rms/.

        Now irrevocably polluted by UHI (have you looked at where it is?).

        In our mind lets add some desirable extra sampling points.

        We need fairly big open spaces to put them in so

        1. Port Meadow. Captures quite well the valley characteristics that do influence local temps.
        2. University Parks. Captures the ‘hill’ that Oxford sits on.
        3. Sherwell Valley. To get the other major river influence in Oxford
        4. Somewhere around Headingly, say South Park.
        5. Wytham Hill. To capture the other hill to the West of Oxford.

        need I go on?

        And they all show the same figure to 0.1 degrees? Give me a break

      • Or we could just trust the current official station for this which is more than a few miles away.

      • See entry below re: rapid fire temp collection in Los Alamos, NM today.

      • If you really wanted to know precisely the values of the air temperature round Oxford, you would need a thermometer about every 1 mile or so to even get close.

        On the other hand, if you were simply interested in how the temperature round oxford was changing with time, a few thermometers would probably suffice.

      • Provide you can bear the known and unknown uncertainces involved.
        Take great care with anomalies. They can hide if used badly more than they reveal. Not that I suggesting that they are so used, but an observation to bear in mind. As can modelling, in both directions up and down.

      • P.S. you want to guess how far away from Oxford the station that estimates what the true figure is? Look online if you are interested. It is certainly not the Radcliff.

    • Bizarre? Why would you think bizarre? In a world that puts credence in the collection of sea water in thousands of locations on thousands of boats over decades in thousands of settings with thousands of procedures using wooden, canvas or metal buckets, this is SOP. Or in the world that accepts land temperatures from hundreds of years at thousands of locations by thousands of individuals without any independent verification of the procedures used, that is A OK. Or in measuring the contribution to GMSL from Antarctica at the accuracy of 20% of the thickness of a dime per year.
      Before I started following the AGW issue, I would have thought all of this strange. But I’ve been co-opted. The precision in the science is breathtaking…….. Not.

    • Actually, it’s closer to a full degree Celsius since the sharp turning point in 1976. But you’re right about the data manipulation, which has much concealed that turning point and the previous cooling decades in the standard global average indices.

      That concealment is not just a simple matter of spatial undersampling and cannot be corrected by kriging. Mosher plainly fails to appreciate that spatial coherence is frequency dependent; high values over short intervals, such as used by BEST, by no means implies high coherence over multi-decadal and longer intervals. Bona fide data, not simplistic premises about the wide-band spectral structure, is necessary to establish long term behavior. We simply don’t have data fully adequate for that purpose.

      • john321s,

        Much as I hate to get into a pissing contest about the GMT data, I think you’re wrong on the 1 deg.

        This from Judith’s recent Senate testimony:

      • Alas, Judith’s graphs don’t show the global 1976 minimum and rely upon institutionally produced indices, which, in their eagerness to show “trend,” tend to reduce the amplitude of natural, oscillatory swings.

      • Happy NEW Yew, ALL you bloggers!

        When I looked at the graph above, I did not see a linear regression. I saw flats on either side of a rising center. Consequently, I digitized the curve and subjected the data to both linear and sixth-degree polynomial fits. Both give fairly good R2 fits, but give very different expectations for the future. The linear fit will continue merrily upward. The polynomial fix indicates that the future could very well be otherwise. (I have broken the 35-year data into 3 segments. The center portion indicates an ~12-year rise of anomaly temperature from 1990 to 2002, although it could be decal. I have not indicated why this period nor rise occurred.) . The linear fit indicates 0.17C/decade so it should be 0.95C. Since the current 12-year period has ended, the next 12 years (actually to ~2030 should be observed) will be very telling. Will the anomaly go up or down? Most likely it will not remain constant, although it could.

    • Here the rapid fire temperature data from 10 stations around Los Alamos, NM today:

  41. Richard Arrett,

    You wrote –

    “The question would be, if you shine light on the object surrounded by CO2 – how much warmer would the object be then if surrounded by some other gas (such as Oxygen or Nitrogen). Again, I have not done that experiment – but I expect that the CO2 will in fact radiate some of the light back onto the object and “warm” it – like a blanket reflecting body heat (infrared radiation) back onto the body.”

    This type of experiment was performed by John Tyndall, following up on work of a similar nature by Melloni.

    The experiments, comparing radiant energy transmitted through a vacuum as compared to a gas, is (or at least was) standard fare in University physics courses. Possibly not part of the Warmist physics curriculum, I surmise.

    In any case, Tyndall’s experiments were quite sophisticated considering the limitations of the day. They are fairly easily reproducible, but of course Warmists refuse to believe the results. Deny, divert, and obscure, seems to suit them better. I can say without fear of factual contradiction, that placing any sort of material, be it solid, gas, or liquid, between a radiative source and target, results in a reduction of energy reaching the target. Considerations of back radiation, side radiation, twirly whirly round and round radiation, of any other Warmist sciencey double speak don’t affect this fact.

    Less radiation results in less temperature. More radiation results in a higher temperature. Maximum transmission occurs in a vacuum, ie nothing at all impedes the radiation in its travel between the source and the target.

    Warmists make up physics as they go.

    For example, David Springer said this –

    “The earth’s core is getting hotter due to radioactive decay inside a super duper insulator of miles and miles of cold rocks. If it was getting colder magma plumes would not have motive force to break through to the surface.”

    You may form your own opinion. I would be inclined to agree with real scientists (like geophysicists), that after four and a half billion years, the amount of radioactivity is decreasing, as radioactive isotopes, of shorter and shorter half lives, progress along the decay series finally resulting in stable elements.

    As to super duper insulators of miles and miles of cold rocks, someone like David Springer might consider a thermal gradient of around 20 C/km to comprise a super duper insulator. I wouldn’t, and it is a fact that the deepest hole ever drilled into the crust had to stop at a depth of less than 13 km, due to excessive heat rather than excessive cold.

    Warmists cannot abide facts. David Springer and others now have to deny the Earth was created in a molten state, whereas such theory and evidence to date seems to indicate an original molten surface, followed by cooling to the present temperature.

    I’m not saying all Warmists are delusional psychotics, or complete nutters. Some are obviously just gullible and easily led. Others obviously suffer from the mental ability to discern fact from fantasy. Maybe they slept through the relevant physics lectures, and just don’t understand basic concepts. I really don’t know.

    Finally, you might notice that my assumptions about facts are rarely challenged. Warmists, in general, immediately resort to the tactics of deny, divert and obscure, or launch into ad hominem attacks, or juvenile attempts at gratuitous insults. Facts are facts. Global warming due to CO2 is nonsense.

    CO2 good. Warmists fools.

    Cheers.

      • AK,

        is this another amateurish attempt at gratuitous insult? If so, it went wide of the mark.

        Or is there some subtle Warmist fantasy message contained within? Is it a form of deny, divert, obscure? Far too clever for me! Would you care to elucidate?

        Cheers.

    • John Carpenter

      “I can say without fear of factual contradiction, that placing any sort of material, be it solid, gas, or liquid, between a radiative source and target, results in a reduction of energy reaching the target. Considerations of back radiation, side radiation, twirly whirly round and round radiation, of any other Warmist sciencey double speak don’t affect this fact.” – Mike Flynn

      “As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.” Thus in 1862 John Tyndall described the key to climate change. He had discovered in his laboratory that certain gases, including water vapor and carbon dioxide ( CO2), are opaque to heat rays. He understood that such gases high in the air help keep our planet warm by interfering with escaping radiation.(9)”

      https://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_0820

      “Warmists make up physics as they go.” – Mike Flynn

      “Without water vapor, the earths surface would be held fast in the iron grip of frost” – John Tyndall

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/

      John Tyndall was a warmist.

      “In any case, Tyndall’s experiments were quite sophisticated considering the limitations of the day. They are fairly easily reproducible, but of course Warmists refuse to believe the results. ” – Mike Flynn

      John Tyndall was a warmist…. Flynn refuses to believe Tyndalls results

      “Finally, you might notice that my assumptions about facts are rarely challenged. ” – Mike Flynn

      I challeng you Flynn about what you assume the facts to be. It appears to me you choose to assume them incorrectly.

      • John Capenter,

        First, you might care to read Tyndall’s later work – the 1905 edition of “Heat as a form of motion”. Tyndall corrected some of his earlier assumptions, based on his experimental results.

        You still haven’t contradicted my statement, in any case.

        Second, without water vapour, (or any atmosphere at all, for that matter), the Earth would be held in the iron grip of frost – just as the Moon is – except when the Sun shines, of course. Then it gets very hot, as Tyndall, being an avid mountaineer, observed.

        Third, of course I believe Tyndall’s results. Please quote the experimental results which you assert that I don’t believe. Of course, you can’t.

        Fourth, you ask me about what I assume the facts to be. Here’s one. I assume that the Earth’s surface was originally molten. Your assumption, may be that the Earth was created cold by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for all I know. I’ll stick with mine for the moment – no disrespect to his Most High Noodliness intended.

        As I’ve said before, Tyndall’s speculations are a separate matter to his experiments. He believed in the luminiferous ether, the indivisibility of the atom, the meteoric origin of the heat of the Sun, and a few other things. Of course, speculation unsupported by experimental verification, remains speculation. Wouldn’t you agree?

        Sorry, no warming from CO2. Tyndall’s experiments show no such thing. I can only assume that people who think otherwise have little to no experience of designing and performing experiments involving the type of equipment employed by Tyndall. Speculation and opinion are no substitute for experimentation.

        Do we believe in alchemy? Newton did. Do we believe in caloric? Carnot did. How about the luminiferous ether, or Kelvin’s 20 million year old Earth?

        Yeah. Right. Must all be true. Brilliant men speculated and calculated furiously! Hansen, Schmidt, Mann – their speculations must all be true – lack of any experimental support notwithstanding!

        Just keep believing. Don’t let facts get in the way.

        Cheers.

      • “Don’t feed the trolls.”

        said the troll under the bridge.

    • John Carpenter

      Flynn, I gave you some reading links above so you can sharpen your commenting skills. Hopefully that will help satisfy Joshua’s curiosity as to why I am engaging with you.

    • David Springer

      P.S. Flynn I wasn’t denying that earth had a molten surface in the past. I was pointing out that planetary formation has never been observed. The molten earth idea comes from an 19th century model of planetary formation where the inner planets form via violent collisions that happen so often the surface of the coalescing planet stays mostly molten.

      It isn’t the only model. It’s simply the only model you know about and you blindly accept it just as you blindly reject the greenhouse gas model. You’re a dimwit with delusions of scientific and engineering literacy. A typical product failure in public education. All hat and no cattle.

      Here’s another model for your edification (if that’s possible in your case):

      http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/23466.aspx

      New model provides different take on planetary accretion

      The prevailing model for planetary accretion, also called fractal assembly, and dating back as far as the 18th century, assumes that the Solar System’s planets grew as small grains colliding chaotically, coalescing into bigger ones, colliding yet more until they formed planetesimals. The planetesimals then collided until they formed planets as varied as the Earth and Jupiter.

      The model assumes that this occurred in an extremely hot (as high as 1,600 degrees Celsius) environment for the inner Solar System, fostered by a dusty, two-dimensional disk post-dating the Sun.

      The basic modern model, developed by Russian astronomer Victor Safronov, and further developed by planetary scientist George Wetherill, is called the Solar Nebular Disk Model and was made available in English in the early 1970s. It has remained essentially the same over the past 40 years.

      But not everyone is convinced the model is correct. How could such a chaotic, haphazard process as fractal assembly lead to the regularities of the Solar System with all of the planets in a single plane, rotating in the same sense, spinning and orbiting around the Sun?

      For the discontents, a new model, offered by Anne Hofmeister, PhD, research professor of earth and planetary sciences and Robert Criss, PhD, professor in earth and planetary sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, presents a different scenario. Their explanation is published in the March issue of Planetary and Space Science.

      Using classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics and mechanics, Hofmeister, with assistance from Criss, presents an accretion model that assumes a three-dimensional (3-D) gas cloud. This pre-solar nebula collapses and forms the Sun and planets at essentially the same time, with the planets contracting toward the Sun.

      The temperature is cold, not hot. The thermodynamic and mechanical model of 3-D accretion explains planetary orbits and spins, unlike the 2-D model, which does not.

      Hofmeister and Criss explain compositional gradients across the Solar System in terms of lighter molecules diffusing faster than heavier ones. The model connects planet mass to satellite system size via gravitational competition.

      Explaining planetary orbits and spins

      “This model is radically different,” Hofmeister says. “I looked at the assumption of whether heat could be generated when the nebula contracted and found that there is too much rotational energy in the inner planets to allow energy to spill into heating the nebula.

      “Existing models for planetary accretion assume that the planets form from the dusty 2-D disk, but they don’t conserve angular momentum. It seemed obvious to me to start with a 3-D cloud of gas, and conserve angular momentum. The key equations in the paper deal with converting gravitational potential to rotational energy, coupled with conservation of angular momentum.”

      No energy left over for heat

      “In the new model, heat production is not important in planetary formation,” Hofmeister says.

      Criss says the prevailing notion that gravitational collapse is a hot process is a mis-interpretation of thermodynamics. He offers an analogy of a beaker of water placed outside in the winter. It slowly starts to freeze. Freezing water actually releases a latent heat, he says, because order (ice, a crystal) is being made from disorder (liquid).

      The heat released is considerable, but it cannot warm the beaker because “it’s released only as fast as the environment will take it away,” Criss says. “If the heat would warm the water above 32 degrees Fahrenheit, the ice would melt. People clinging to the old accretion models want to make the ice and heat the beaker, too.”

      Gravitational competition

      The authors say 2-D models don’t explain why the inner Solar System is comprised of rocky planets and the outer gas giants.

      “The first thing that happens in planet accretion is forming rocky kernels,” Hofmeister says. “The nebula starts contracting, the rocky kernels form to conserve angular momentum, and that’s where the dust ends up. Once rocky kernels exist, they attract gas to them, but only if the rocky kernel is far from the Sun, can it out-compete the Sun’s gravitational pull and collect the gas, as did Jupiter and its friends.

      “But if the rocky kernel is close, like the Earth’s, it can’t out-compete the Sun. We describe this process as gravitational competition. This is why we have the regularity, spacing, and graded composition of the Solar System.”

      Gravitational competition also offers a new view of formation of the moon that does not require an extremely low probability giant impact.

      Not limited to the Solar System

      Hofmeister says there is a continuum between single stars, binary stars, multiple stars, planets and even extrasolar planets.

      “In all cases, the process is gravitational accretion of these cold, 3-D clouds making things contract and spin out, and that’s where the energy comes from,” she says. “It’s all happening in very cold temperatures, in 3-D instead of 2-D.”

      Criss says there is plenty of observable evidence that the 2-D model is wrong.

      “It patently doesn’t make sense that a bunch of random collisions between heavy, solid objects are going to produce a Solar System with planets orbiting the Sun in a beautiful plane, with everything having upright spins,” he says. “That’s like setting off a nuclear bomb and expecting all the trees in the world to end up neatly stacked.

      Moreover, the Hubble pictures show stars being born in the Eagle nebula, and they’re formed in a cold 3-D cloud.”

      • David Springer,

        You wrote –

        “P.S. Flynn I wasn’t denying that earth had a molten surface in the past. I was pointing out that planetary formation has never been observed. The molten earth idea comes from an 19th century model of planetary formation where the inner planets form via violent collisions that happen so often the surface of the coalescing planet stays mostly molten.”

        Once again, you ascribe to me things I never said. If you can quote anything I said rejecting either of the two most popular theories of the formation of the Earth, including the accretion theory I would owe you an apology. I don’t believe I do, yet,

        You may be confused because I pointed out that John Tyndall speculated that the Sun’s heat resulted from meteoric impact. It is not my fault if you cannot comprehend simple English

        At least we are now agreed that the Earth had a molten surface in the past. Good. You no longer need to adopt the Warmist denial of an original molten Earth surface. You are still attempting the divert and obscure tactics left to you.

        It matters not. I stated my assumption that the Earth was created with a molten surface. You now agree, apparently. Can we agree that as fact?

        If you can stick to my simple question, rather than fly off into diversion and obfuscation of irrelevant matters, it would be appreciated.

        Cheers.

      • The spin rate of Earth being 4.167 revolutions per second to an outside observer has been mentioned. If the answer is proved correct then everything else will be moot in less than a quarter of a second. Time will tell which is which.

      • I know this flies in the face of science…

        Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

        it’s OK.

      • I think that water came late to this party, possibly if the above is correct from melting internal ice rather than comets ‘in bound’ ala hot collision model.

      • David Springer,

        From the paper –

        “It patently doesn’t make sense that a bunch of random collisions between heavy, solid objects are going to produce a Solar System with planets orbiting the Sun in a beautiful plane, with everything having upright spins,” he says. “That’s like setting off a nuclear bomb and expecting all the trees in the world to end up neatly stacked.”

        On the other hand –

        “It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is – absurd. – R. Feynman”

        So who do you choose?

        There are a couple of incorrect claims in the first para (everything does not have upright spins. Uranus, for example, spins more or less on its side. Venus is more or less upright, but spins back to front.) It is also pushing the envelope to claim the planets orbit the Sun in a beautiful plane. I suppose it depends on your definition, but they are certainly not coplanar, which would be beautiful, if a little surprising. The assumption about heavy, solid, objects doesn’t seem to anything other than assertion. Where did the heavy solid objects come from? Spontaneous creation? The analogy to trees and atomic bombs is both silly and irrelevant.

        I’ll go with Feynman, and accept Nature as She is – absurd.

        The Earth seems to be hotter at the centre than the surface. That’s my assumption. You may consider it absurd, but so far it seems to be true – according to real scientists, anyway.

        Of course, how this came about is a matter of conjecture. It doesn’t seem to make much difference, really, does it?

        Cheers.

      • Only everything & nothing.

      • David Springer

        Flynn, I don’t accept a molten young earth as a fact. It’s a modeled conjecture. Exactly how stupid are you that I’ve repeated this several times and it hasn’t sunk in yet?

    • Sounds right.

      How about this then.

      If you have an object at a given temperature, and it is cooling by radiating heat into space – will it cool slower when surrounded by CO2, than if it is not surrounded by anything?

      Of course the CO2 is not warming the object – but is the CO2 slowing the cooling of the object?

      • Richard Arrett,

        You wrote –

        “If you have an object at a given temperature, and it is cooling by radiating heat into space – will it cool slower when surrounded by CO2, than if it is not surrounded by anything?”

        Indeed it will. Unfortunately, Warmists confuse a reduction in the rate of cooling, with an increase in temperature. An example might be to place a warm object in a vacuum flask. The object will cool much more slowly than without the insulation. It will never increase its temperature. Even filling the flask with CO2 will not cause the temperature of the object to rise.

        An interesting example is yourself. If you place yourself in a freezer room, you will cool more quickly than if you are in your house, at a reasonably comfortable ambient temperature. You will not need to generate the same amount of heat to maintain your core temperature, because you are surrounded by walls, air, furniture and so on, which are radiating heat towards you, at a temperature which is not that different to yours.

        The other trap is the Warmist ploy of inadvertently creating the one way insulator, which allows energy to warm the Earth’s surface, but somehow doesn’t allow an equivalent amount to leave. Diversion and obfuscation, using sciencey terms which are assigned odd climatological meanings, worked in the past – not so well now.

        If the Earth accumulated heat from the Sun, so that each year was a little warmer than the one before, one might reasonably assume that the Earth’s surface would be a lot hotter than four and a half billion years ago. This appears not to be the case.

        Cheers.

      • John Carpenter

        “The other trap is the Warmist ploy of inadvertently creating the one way insulator, which allows energy to warm the Earth’s surface, but somehow doesn’t allow an equivalent amount to leave.”

        That’s not how the GHE works.

        Read more, comment less.

      • John Carpenter,

        You wrote –

        “That’s not how the GHE works.”

        Here’s the BOM official definition and explanation –

        “The greenhouse effect is a natural physical process where certain trace gasses in the atmosphere, known as greenhouse gasses, warm the earth.

        When the sun’s energy reaches the earth some of it is reflected back to space and the rest is absorbed. The absorbed energy warms both the atmosphere and the earth’s surface, both of which then emit heat back toward space as long-wave radiation. This outgoing long-wave radiation is partially trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and water vapour which then radiate the energy in all directions, further warming the Earth’s surface and the lower levels of the atmosphere. Without these greenhouse gases the Earth’s average surface temperature would be about 33 degrees Celsius cooler.”

        Only works during the day, when the Sun is shining. It appears to overlook the fact that emitting heat from from the surface results in a lowering of temperature, which is not restored by returning part of the lost heat to the surface.

        Maybe you can let the Bureau of Meteorolgy how the GHE really works. Their definition doesn’t seem to be useful, does it? I’m sure the Bureau would appreciate your assistance!

        Cheers.

      • John Carpenter

        Flynn, that definition is incomplete. BOM is keeping it simple for people to understand, but it is misleading. Which may be a reason why you are stuck on the idea that the GHE defies the necessary equilibrium of incoming and outgoing energy. The correct definition would explain that in order for there to be a balance of energy, the ERL must be higher. In order for that to happen, the temperature has to be higher. TOA is the key element most GHE definitions tend to omit, though it is the most important part.

      • John Carpenter,

        You wrote –

        “TOA is the key element most GHE definitions tend to omit, though it is the most important part.”

        Are you saying that most definitions of GHE are wrong? Is the real definition so secret or so complex that it can only be understood by the likes of Hansen, Schmidt and Mann, the eminent climatologists?

        Have you let all the people promoting incomplete or erroneous definitions of GHE that they need to lift their game? Obviously, you don’t accept the validity of the IPCC definition – not sciencey enough. Have you told the IPCC the correct definition?

        Real scientists manage to define things like the second, the meter, the coulomb, the Kelvin, the Watt and so on. You can’t even define the Greenhouse Effect rigorously!

        Go on, what’s the scientifically accepted definition of the Greenhouse Effect? You really haven’t a clue, have you? Just interminable Warmist Waffling. Come back when you find a fact. Even a small one will do.

        Cheers.

      • MF is a hopeless case. Last I left him, he was still scratching his head about how the insulation in his house worked.

      • I think Flynn may be pretending not to get it. Let’s test the little rascal:

        “Warmists confuse a reduction in the rate of cooling, with an increase in temperature. An example might be to place a warm object in a vacuum flask. The object will cool much more slowly than without the insulation. It will never increase its temperature. Even filling the flask with CO2 will not cause the temperature of the object to rise.”

        Give the warm object a constant source of warming energy. We can call it the sun, or whatever. Measure temp of warm object in vacuum flask. Suspend the vacuum flask in the center of a flask filled with CO2. Will the temp of the warm object?:

        A) stay the same
        B) go down
        C) rise

      • Don Monfort,

        You wrote –

        “Give the warm object a constant source of warming energy. We can call it the sun, or whatever.” You may do as you wish. Typical Warmist response – deny my original statement by substituting your own, divert the audience by throwing red herrings around, and obscure your lack of knowledge by trying to fly off at a tangent.

        Of course if you heat something, supplying more energy than it radiates, its temperature will increase. This is called warming. If an object radiates more energ than it receives, its temperature will decrease. This is called cooling. It doesn’t matter how much CO2 you surround a cooling object with, it cools. Its temperature drops.

        This explains why the temperature drops at night. It also explains why the surface doesn’t warm unless it absorbs more energy than it it is emitting. The surface of the Moon demonstrates how much faster things happen in the absence of any atmosphere to speak of. Less CO2, both higher and lower temperatures result.

        If you read what I wrote, rather than what you wish I had written, unless you’re totally delusional, you will agree that a reduced rate of cooling does not result in a rise in temperature. That is why it’s called cooling, in case you didn’t know.

        Warmists appear to think that the fact that the Earth’s surface heats up during the day is due to the magical powers of CO2. I suppose they also think that the surface cools at night due to the magical powers of CO2.

        The Earth has a few internal heat sources. The surface has still managed to cool after four and a half billion years of sunlight, CO2, H2O, and all the other so called greenhouse gases.

        Back to your foolish thought experiment. Suspend the initial molten Earth in a vacuum (see, you don’t even need a flask). Heat it with the Sun. Surround it with a mixture of gases containing CO2.

        Wait for four and a half billion years.

        Has the Earth :

        a) warmed
        b) cooled
        c) stayed the same?

        Hmmm. Hard question. I’ll look at my feet. No molten surface there! I believe the Earth has cooled. You may think what you like. I’m right, you’re wrong. Agree?

        Cheers.

      • flynnie, flynn, flin

        Stop the clowning. I said constant source of warming energy.

        You are either not very bright, or you are very dishonest. That’s all the time I have for your foolishness.

      • That greenhouse mind picture could do with some modification to be closer to the ‘real truth’.

        Mine would be one with a badly fitting ‘roof’ with no side walls.
        Fits reality quite well and stops that ‘enclosed feeling’.

      • Don Monfort,

        You wrote –

        “Stop the clowning. I said constant source of warming energy.”

        I thought the Sun would be good enough for you. After all, it was you who wrote – “Give the warm object a constant source of warming energy. We can call it the sun, or whatever.” I did as you asked. I called it the Sun.

        Now the Woeful Woebegone Warmist complains bitterly I complied with his request. Another redefinition called for, perhaps? It’s all a bit confusing. The constant source of warming energy you called the Sun, is apparently not a constant source of energy called the Sun.

        More Warmist nonsense. Wriggly wriggly Wamist Wormism! Thanks for your unsolicited demand that I stop clowning. I wasn’t, so I hope you don’t mind if I join the vast majority of the world’s population who take no notice of your demands.

        No CO2 induced global warming. No global warming of any sort, over the long term. If you want some warming, generate some heat. Burning lots of fossil fuel will help.

        Cheers.

      • RichardLH,

        I call it the atmosphere. Mainly gas, with variable amounts of solid and liquid water mixed in. Even solid CO2 in the Antarctic. Also unknown and variable amounts of particulate matter of varying types. Some large enough to settle, some small enough to remain in Brownian suspension, dependant on temperature.

        Not all that well understood. Climatologists might claim the science is settled, but I would be surprised if they did.

        Cheers.

      • Hi Mike:

        Yes I know what it is.
        It is just the ‘mind picture’ presented is stacked to the end that was trying to be achieved. A real feeling for the forcing’s which isn’t strictly accurate in Greenhouse alone. Just trying to make it more ‘science’ than propaganda.

      • RichardLH,

        You wrote –

        “Yes I know what it is.”

        Sorry, certainly no offense intended, and I hope none taken. I apologise for appearing to challenge your visualisation. I agree with it. I’ve learnt here that some people will engage in the battle of the analogies, hoping to deny, divert, and obscure, so from time to time I try to point out that reality is a little more complicated than an amateurish computer model can probably represent.

        My sense of humour is a bit odd, I know. My remarks were addressed to a wider audience, who occasionally over simplify things just a tad – in my view anyway.

        Happy new year to you! I better go and libate a little. See? I can’t help myself! Humorous to me, maybe not to others. Oh well.

        Cheers.

      • The question whether CO2 warms or cools the planet is interesting. If all radiation were equal, then CO2 could cool the planet by reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching it. But all radiation is not equal. Only part (around half?) of the radiation reaching Earth from the sun is IR, but virtually all of the radiation re-emitted is IR. Obviously, temperatures and radiation fluctuate, but overall Earth’s temperature is stable when incoming and outgoing radiation match. The temperature is therefore stable when the outgoing IR is much higher than (roughly double?) the incoming IR. NB. the reflected radiation does not affect this equation.

        Atmospheric CO2 traps a certain proportion of the IR in both directions, sending some to Earth and some to space, thus reducing IR in both directions. But because of the different levels of outgoing and incoming IR, an increased concentration of atmospheric CO2 reduces the outgoing radiation by a greater absolute amount than it reduces the incoming radiation. Consequently Earth then warms, until balance is restored.

        OK, some more detail is needed to establish concrete figures, but the above explanation is sufficient to explain why CO2 does warm the planet.

        Earth’s surface being molten initially is irrelevant – obviously a molten surface is going to emit vastly more radiation than it can get from the sun, and therefore it cools regardless of anything that CO2 may do.

      • Mike: No offense taken. It is just the Politician in me that wants to set the agenda fairly. So far is appears to be stacked, propaganda style, in only one direction.

        Just trying to give a push into a more upright state of affairs.

        Have a good New Year.

      • John Carpenter

        “Are you saying that most definitions of GHE are wrong? Is the real definition so secret or so complex that it can only be understood by the likes of Hansen, Schmidt and Mann, the eminent climatologists?” – Mike Flynn

        Yes, most definitions that are given are over simplifications of the GHE.

        “Real scientists manage to define things like the second, the meter, the coulomb, the Kelvin, the Watt and so on. You can’t even define the Greenhouse Effect rigorously!”

        GHE is not a unit of measurement like a meter, second etc… so it’s definition is a bit more rigorous if done completely. And it has been poorly defined by many, which is what leads to total complete misunderstandings from someone like you. It is not a secret either. You can find it just as easily as I have, but you have to READ MORE and LEARN. If you want a more rigorous definition or a complete mathematical derivation, then go read Raymond Pierre Humbert.

        Quit making things up to suit your own little world. You can believe anything you want, but if you go about accusing all hard working (climate) scientists who have the highest educations from excellent schools as frauds and fakes, then be prepared to back those assertions with actual facts. You offer none. You have absolutely nothing to back up your claim. You offer absolutely zero alternative explanation. At least Clive Best tries. But you, no. If it were so simple and true that there is no GRE, then why do only a fringe group of cranks believe what you assert? If it were so simple and true, why don’t you write up your idea in the form of a proper scientific paper, like the proper scientific minds you so revere, and submit it to a proper scientific journal. Your Nobel Prize awaits you Flynn. You could be the hero of the world. But no, you won’t. First because you can’t. You have never written or published any scientific papers. Second, you know what would happen if you were able to get as far as submitting a draft for consideration. It would get rejected. It would get rejected by every single journal you would submit to. It would even get rejected by the pay to publish journal you haven taken Craig Lohle to task about.

        Flynn, you make things up to rationalize your poor understanding of science. You are so far from understanding what the actual scientific arguments are, yet you parade around here like the know-it-all in chief. Jo$shua questions my motivation as to why I would choose to engage with you at all. My reply was moderated away, oh well. So let me just say that I would like to see your level of understanding of what the science behind the GHE is about to be elevated. Don’t hide behind calling actual scientists fakes and frauds and insulting climate science as buffoonery as a mask covering your own misguided and misunderstood concepts of what the actual science is. Take the mask off and READ MORE about it. Read the hard parts. Try to understand and open your mind. I’m sure you are capable. Then you might, just might, be able to contribute here in a positive way. In a way that is constructive and additive.

        If your reply is yet another retort of similar made up hyperbole, then I am done with you. May you wallow in your world of fantasy for ever more.

      • John Carpenter – nice job.

      • RLH: That greenhouse mind picture could do with some modification to be closer to the ‘real truth’.

        If you are talking about my test for flynnie, it ain’t really a GHE mind picture. I just put his flask in another flask to test his understanding of very basic radiative physics. He has none. Why don’t you help him out? What’s the answer?

      • John carpenter –

        =>> ” If it were so simple and true that there is no GRE, then why do only a fringe group of cranks believe what you assert? ”

        Careful. Judith and her denizens get quite animated when they see an appeal to authority/reference to the prevalence of shared view among experts.

      • The GHE is best illustrated by personal experience. Even a dolt should realize that on clear dry nights it get’s cooler faster. When its cloudy or just humid the surface cools more slowly. Result, by morning when it’s supposed to be the coolest, it ain’t so cool. If you ever been sleeping in a desert, another lesson. Water vapor is the principal GHG. CO2 is another one. Get used to it. That is the GHE, boys and girls.

      • Don: The position people take when they look at something often determines what they see.

      • but if you go about accusing all hard working (climate) scientists who have the highest educations from excellent schools as frauds and fakes, then be prepared to back those assertions with actual facts.

        John, I see a lot of those sorts of accusations coming from the “skeptical” side even if they do accept the GHE. I think it is one of the most bizarre aspect of these debates. It can’t just be a disagreement over the science among scientists,,instead one side (as a group) is accused of intentionally exaggerating and making things up. Mostly speculation with little to back it up.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Joseph, I don’t really care for it either but I’m not too excited about telling the denying flat-earther oil shills they should be nicer until I find out if the moon landing was faked or not and after we have investigated them all under RICO just to see who has mob connections. I don’t want to get the ones that do angry at me.

      • What we learned about prominent climate scientists from those “stolen” “private” Climategate emails was pretty bizarre, yoey. Dr. Steven Schneider’s double ethical bind, bizarre. Dr. Peter Gleick’s criminal actions in furtherance of the cause, very bizarre. Dr. Michael Mann of fake hockeystick fame calling his colleague, Dr. Judith Curry, a serial disinformer, bizarre. Pretending that phony 97% consensus papers should be taken at face value, bizarre. The vast Big Fossil Fuel funded denier conspiracy, bizarre. The climate science establishment celebrating bad behavior by climate scientists instead of condemning it, bizarre. Pretending that the BS Paris agreement is meaningful, when everybody knows it isn’t, bizarre.

      • John Carpenter

        Joseph, I agree. Using a broad brush to color all lacks understanding by those who do it of the whole colorful landscape. There are some mainstream scientists in the field who I question based on observable behavior of theirs. However, it does not absolutely and automatically render their work as bad. The test of that will be further scientific examination. If over the long haul their work stands up to all the rigors of scientific examination, it will be hard to refute. Personalizing ideas and arguments is where most folks fall off the debate track. Choosing sides is no better.

        Scientists are humans, have human emotions, human motivations, and make human mistakes like everyone else. I am not surprised when scientists behave like humans.

      • GHE is not a unit of measurement like a meter, second etc… so it’s definition is a bit more rigorous if done completely. And it has been poorly defined by many, which is what leads to total complete misunderstandings from someone like you. It is not a secret either.

        It may not be a secret, but the actual effect cannot be rigorously described/defined without using differential equations.

        Which means that people who don’t understand differential equations aren’t going to understand the “greenhouse effect”.

        It becomes much worse for those who won’t even admit they don’t understand differential equations. Even to themselves. They take the rudimentary plain-language “descriptions”, really just vague analogies, as some sort of definition, come to whatever internal conclusions they can manage while still hiding from themselves the fact that they don’t understand the math, then try to hold “science” responsible for their own delusions.

      • Well, Steve, unfortunately if you think that scientists are making stuff up or exaggerating this implies that there is a conspiracy or coordination at some level for so many to share the same views on the science. Unlike Lewandowsky, I don’t think such conspiracy ideation. necessarily carries over to other views, but it does seem to be a commonly held view by many climate “skeptics.”

        Take the whole NOAA controversy. Rep. Smith and other “skeptics” believe Karl et al are making it up for political purposes with little evidence.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Joseph, what are you talking about? I agreed with you didn’t I? I just pointed out in a sarcastic manner that it isn’t just one side that does it. You don’t get it? Think about it a while. Consider it a bias test.

      • Which means that people who don’t understand differential equations aren’t going to understand the “greenhouse effect”.

        A greenhouse blocks convection. CO2 does not block convection. Their calling it a greenhouse effect does prove they do not know very much. Skeptics that go along with that do not know very much.

        This debate has nothing to do with real science.
        This has to do with, “are we going to let them scare us so they can tax and control us”?

      • Karl et al are making it up for political purposes with little evidence.

        Actually, they are using Model output, they have NO real evidence.

        Temperature and Sea Level are well inside the bounds of the past ten thousand years, if you use real data that has not been adjusted. When computer model output and real data disagree, it is the computer model output that needs to be fixed.

      • but if you go about accusing all hard working (climate) scientists who have the highest educations from excellent schools as frauds and fakes, then be prepared to back those assertions with actual facts.

        Actual fact: Climate Models forecast warming that Mother Earth does not match.

        More education from “excellent” schools does bring that education into question.

        I attended a lecture by Michael Mann and some of his past students were there. They did not know or even suspect the results of research done by Ewing and Donn in the 1950’s. They have no clue that it snows more when oceans are warm and that is when ice on land is replenished.

        It looks like many are in the same boat.
        All, on the consensus side have no understanding of Natural Climate Cycles.
        Many, on the consensus side have no understanding of Natural Climate Cycles.

        In 2016, all should study the natural climate cycles of the past and compare their theory with others and help resolve this.

      • A greenhouse blocks convection. CO2 does not block convection. Their calling it a greenhouse effect does prove they do not know very much.

        That’s why I make a point of putting it in “scare quotes”.

        AFAIK it’s actually named after how they once thought greenhouses worked, although the real effect doesn’t even really work that way either.

      • pope:”A greenhouse blocks convection. CO2 does not block convection. Their calling it a greenhouse effect does prove they do not know very much. Skeptics that go along with that do not know very much.”

        Can you name any climate scientist who doesn’t know that CO2 does not block convection? I’ll help you: you can’t.

  42. Dr. Loehle,
    Since we have you responding here I thought I would bring up an erroneous statement in your paper. You state:

    “Cawley et al.[27] developed a model based on the HadCRUT4 data, RCP8.5 forcings, and an ENSO index, obtaining a best-estimate for
    TCR of 1.662 (95% HPD credible interval 1.31 to 2.02°C).
    Note that if they used the substantially higher total forcings
    from the IPCC AR5 report, their TCR value would end up
    lower, perhaps close to results obtained here. Their claim of
    finding an error in Loehle’s[22] model in fact resulted from
    using a different version of the Hadley data, emphasizing
    how the underlying data keeps changing”

    There are a few points that I would like to bring up but first Cawley et al (2015) used the same temperature dataset as you did (Hadcrutv3). I have no idea why you claim that a different dataset was used when it is easily checked (and confirmed) that this is not the case.

    Secondly, Cawley et al do in fact identify a number of issues in Loehle (2014) including far too small confidence intervals and an incorrect assumption regarding the best estimates of total climate forcings (e.g. that non-CO2 forcings cancel out) since 1951. It seems weird to me that your discussion on the matter excludes these points and yet in the same vein describes discrepancies as due to simply different temperature datasets being used (they were not different).

    • Robert: You are correct. My memory did not serve me well–Cawley et al used the same data. It is not “bizarre” it is just absent minded professor problems. If you would like a correction to the journal on this small point I will be happy to submit one. email me.
      However, the non-CO2 forcings did cancel out in the prior IPCC version which is what I had previously used.

      • Well as you/they used the same data set, then the only observation for different results is that different methodologies have been used (somewhere in the details).

        Perhaps you should seek to explain that difference better in any correction as well. Why is your methodology better, what does it reveal, etc.

      • Craig No useful climate forecasts can be made without taking into account the natural millennial temperature cycle which peaked at about 2003.The situation is summarized in this exchange with Dyson.

        Climate and CO2- Exchange with Freeman Dyson
        ” E-mail 4/7/15
        Dr Norman Page
        Houston
        Professor Dyson

        Saw your Vancouver Sun interview.I agree that CO2 is beneficial. This will be even more so in future because it is more likely than not that the earth has already entered a long term cooling trend following the recent temperature peak in the quasi-millennial solar driven periodicity .

        The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale. The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html

        The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range. For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle. I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the activity peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data in 2003. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend

        There has been a cooling temperature trend since then (Usually interpreted as a “pause”) There is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018 corresponding to the very important Ap index break below all recent base values in 2005-6. Fig 13.

        The Polar excursions of the last few winters in North America are harbingers of even more extreme winters to come more frequently in the near future.

        I would be very happy to discuss this with you by E-mail or phone .It is important that you use your position and visibility to influence United States government policy and also change the perceptions of the MSM and U.S public in this matter. If my forecast cooling actually occurs the policy of CO2 emission reduction will add to the increasing stress on global food production caused by a cooling and generally more arid climate.
        Best Regards
        Norman Page

        E-Mail 4/9/15
        Dear Norman Page,
        Thank you for your message and for the blog. That all makes sense.
        I wish I knew how to get important people to listen to you. But there is
        not much that I can do. I have zero credibility as an expert on climate.
        I am just a theoretical physicist, 91 years old and obviously out of touch
        with the real world. I do what I can, writing reviews and giving talks,
        but important people are not listening to me. They will listen when the
        glaciers start growing in Kentucky, but I will not be around then. With
        all good wishes, yours ever, Freeman Dyson”

        For a simplified account see also
        http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-epistemology-of-climate-forecasting.html

    • Robert Way, it was good of you to stop by. Thank you.

  43. John Carpenter

    Judy, why should it still be the case that any comment with the word “Jo$hua” sends it to moderation? Surely we are beyond that now?

  44. It is strange that a few, careful, observations gets everybody in such a ‘tither’.

    The facts are that, like all good discoveries, one persons work often gets adopted by other fields, often then renamed to something different for Academia pride, sometimes unknowingly, (sometimes not?)

    This is true here for poor old Nyquist – Shannon. They must be rolling in their graves.

    If you are sub-dividing something to get a better grasp of what is going on then you are, like it or not, invoking Nyquist or one of his many shadows.

    Nyquist tells us that, when we look at capturing discrete samples (on either paper or by a machine) we are then sub-sampling that field, length, volume, mass, etc.

    The observation is that the finer we sample, in either time or space, the better the resolution is.

    There are also limits to what we can know.

    The bit everybody quotes about Nyquist revolves around what we are taught. The high frequency stuff. Great attention is paid to this. Unfortunately that is not all he/they said.

    Pop up the Academia corridors and ask a Logician, Engineer, any pragmatic scientist and ask them if what is said above is true or un-true.

    Good luck.

    Oh and if the maroon guy comes around, feed him some biscuits.

    • RichardLH,

      Witless Warmists don’t need no stinkin’ facts! Toy models and amateur computer programs will do.

      Nyquist-Shannon, and the rest? What would they know? Are they professional climatologists? Can they measure a thousand old air temperature with a piece of wood?

      Maybe you don’t realise that Michael Mann would have liked a Nobel Prize, but didn’t actually do anything deserving enough to get one!

      Oh well, everyone knows you can predict the future by adjusting the past. I’ve just cast the runes, measured and adjusted them to within 0.01 mm, and can now confidently predict the Sun will rise, the weather, (and hence the climate), will continue to change, and there’s a 50% chance of rain tomorrow.

      The BOM have just issued a forecast confirming there’s a 50% chance of rain tomorrow, so my rune measurements must be correct. As you might say, maroons!

      Cheers.

  45. P.S. It has long been recognised in science and computing that, if you wish to claim accuracy in your results, then you need at least one more decimal place to ensure rounding errors, truncations, etc. don’t play too big a part in what you see. This even goes for inside all your equations.

    So if you are claiming 0.1 degree accuracy, then you need 0,01 data input (or a claim that everything is so smooth and absolutely equally distribute either side of the chop points so as to make it unnecessary).

    Which do you claim?

    • RichardLH,

      An example of climatological metrological (Warmists obviously get metrology and meteorology confused) superiority is demonstrated in satellite altimetry. Where physical constraints might indicate an accuracy, based on frequency, surface scan speed, wave section, ionospheric and atmospheric perturbations etc., of say 1.2 m, by dint of furious averaging and unrealistic assumptions, climatologists claim an accuracy to within 0.02 m, or 20 mm.

      However, by another prestidigitorial piece of legerdemain, nonsensical 20 mm precision is magically transformed into 0.01 mm accuracy for MSL. Half a thousandth of an inch! Not bad, eh?

      Climatologists are not restrained by normal physics. They just make it up as they go along. Ah, would that normal science was so easy!

      Cheers.

      • Situational Awareness training will allow a more balanced view of what is going on, true.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Mike F,
        That is why, time and again, I call for proper treatment of the estimation of errors and confidence limits.

        A climate approach that is commonly “near enough” is not “good enough”.

        The description of how errors are treated, in a scientific paper, is one of the key pointers to the quality of the paper.
        A bad analogy – one who writes “Je parlez français.” shows, by the error, that the claim might not be credible.

    • In fairness I should observe that satellites have their problems too.

      Theirs is time sub-sampled volume integration exercise which carries its own sampling problems. All overcome by good engineering, but still present at the heart of the data. A cloud may come and go before they get to look again from a slightly different spot. A Thermometer might catch that.

  46. I don’t believe the AMO is internal variability, but a negative feedback to solar wind conditions and its effects on the NAO. With strong solar wind in the 1970’s cooling the AMO, and the weakening solar wind since the mid 1990’s warming the AMO (and Arctic), due to increased negative NAO. That increased CO2 forcing should be increasing positive NAO, is the most powerful argument that the increase in negative NAO since 1995 from weakening solar is massively overwhelming the opposite positive effects on the NAO from increased CO2 forcing:

    • “I don’t believe the AMO is internal variability, but a negative feedback to solar wind conditions and its effects on the NAO. ”

      That’s a strong claim with little linking evidence.

      • I can expand on evidence for solar wind forcing of the NAO at down to daily scales (e.g. Brian Tinsley’s papers), and evidence of greatly increased negative NAO through very specific parts of solar minima. Though one is still left with the question, why did the NAO became increasingly negative from the mid 1990’s, despite the increase in CO2 forcing which is expected to increase positive NAO? Even if it were internal variability, it is still overwhelming the expected response from an increase in climate forcing. It actually strikes me as double think to regard the NAO as forcible by GHG’s, but while regarding natural variability as non-forced.
        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html

      • I don’t doubt your coincidence, what we need is causation.

      • “I don’t believe the AMO is internal variability, but a negative feedback to solar wind conditions and its effects on the NAO. ”

        In the place of “negative feedback”, we can substitute “internal regulation” to limit, (bound), the influence of all external forcing.

      • Again, the need for how this causes change, a mechanism for the effect, needs to be laid out.

      • popes wrote: “In the place of “negative feedback”, we can substitute “internal regulation” to limit, (bound), the influence of all external forcing.”

        If that were so then there would be no strong modal behaviour of the AMO. An amplified negative feedback is a useful description. The limits are the extremes of AMOC rates, which is a dead stop, or as fast as it can possibly go.

      • For “internal regulator” you most likely need more data and a tad of climate science thermodynamics known as convective triggering temperature. With an atmosphere that has a fairly constant mass and composition, deep convection (big ass thunderstorms) tends to have a regulating impact.

      • I suppose that some of those storms could be under sampled by the satellites.

      • With “internal regulator”, there would be no multi-decadal oscillation. Anyway what I am saying is that a decrease in forcing will cause a rise in the global mean surface temperature at multi-decadal scales, which is a powerful negative feedback and not simple regulation. By at least three pathways, directly from the warming North Atlantic (AMO) and Arctic, from the associated drying of continental interior regions, and from reductions in upper troposphere and lower stratosphere water vapour coupled with increases in lower troposphere water vapour.

      • ulric, “With “internal regulator”, there would be no multi-decadal oscillation. ”

        There isn’t A regulator. The convective triggering is an atmospheric pop off valve type regulator. Multi-decadal “oscillations” are mainly ocean heat uptake/loss related and are extremely complex. Surface wise you have three primary ocean basins that cannot warm/cool at the same rate, then you have sub-surface heat exchange complicated by density/temperature gradients with a slow moving multi-depth thermo-haline circulation. Most of the ocean heat uptake is in the southern hemisphere currently due to solar precessional cycle and surface area. Most of the total heat loss is in the north Atlantic since more precipitation is likely to fall on land masses. North Atlantic precipitation transfers around 10Wm-2 or the global total or around 88Wm-2 to land. When ice sheets expand and there is more multiyear sea ice, a greater percentage of the total heat is stored longer term.

        Right now there is only about 0.6 Wm-2 imbalance in the SH, so a shift to more long term sea ice could reverse the imbalance without even considering albedo change. Since the “pop-off” tends to instigate sudden stratospheric warming events, which destablizes the polar vortex, with the right timing you can have a few decades of cooling, which if man wasn’t so good at ice breaking and snow removal could start a new mini ice age.

        The fun part is that the thermohaline impact might be felt 20 to 150 years down the road.

      • btw, the ocean part of the puzzle is so complex that a good guess is about as good as a great model and costs a lot less. :)

      • I read, I believe until around 2005, the imbalance was going into the NH oceans. This is how complicated it is: the PDO is positive and we’re fryin’.

      • JCH, “I read, I believe until around 2005, the imbalance was going into the NH oceans.”

        I believe I would forget most sources prior to 2005.

      • I think it was in a paper published in December 2015.

      • JCH then provide a link. Ocean heat uptake will be primarily in the SH though.

      • captdallas: “Multi-decadal “oscillations” are mainly ocean heat uptake/loss related and are extremely complex.”

        Shifts in NAO regime drive the AMO.

    • I think I understand what you are saying. I don’t doubt the possibility. I just need to understand how you get to there from here. That causal route that I believe is required.

      • We do not yet well understand the extent and nature of effects of the solar wind on atmospheric behavior at various altitudes and latitudes. Pinning down mechanisms precisely may be beyond our current knowledge of what could be occurring. So correlations may the best we can achieve until the physical processes are better observed and measured. Brian Tinsley’s papers have made such correlations between the solar wind and the NAO. And I have several hundred years worth of ~monthly scale correlations of planetary ordering of the solar signal, with NAO anomalies and episodes, which because of the quantity as well as the quality of correlations, imply that there must be some mechanism at play. Careful analysis of nature of these correlations may lead to a better understanding of the mechanisms, as that is where some of the best clues will likely be.

  47. Great stuff CL. The AMO is a read herring but the SST data is a great historical reference source. Try 1N to 20N westwards from the African coast, 1870 1900 mean values. An anomaly appears which defies reason since the sea currents go in various directions yet the ‘AMO’ warm effect is vectored west (ASO). AMO thing is driven by a reduction in easterly waves cloud mass allowin for more solar energy to heat the ocean surface : 85w plus = 2 kwh/m2/day.

  48. Hi has anyone complied the set of ECS values published in peer-reviewed papers over the last year or two?

    If this info is in some recent review paper or blog pls let me know via comment.

    I am curious to compare the IPCC AR5 range 1.5-4.5 C with recent derived values of ECS (over last couple of years).

    • For a complete list as of 9/2014, see essay Sensitive Uncertainty in ebook Blowing Smoke (with Judith’s foreword). I am aware of at least one other since, the 2015 Lewis paper using Bjorn Smith’s revised aerosol estimates. IIRC, it came out about ECS 1.5. It was guest posted here earlier this year.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      ybutt,
      This is incidental, but in terms of classical GHG theory, the atmosphere above the Antarctic land mass should cool as CO2 increases because its ice is the coolest region in the vertical stack –
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/abstract
      Frankly, I do not know if a negative, or even zero, sensitivity is allowed for in classical climate models.Your question might not have a simple answer if you are seeking papers that might be correct.
      Geoff

  49. FWIW, my analysis reveals that Zeke’s comments seem quite pertinent.

    (1). I obtained raw AMO data and removed average monthly values 1856-2014 to get seasonally adjusted values.
    (2). I de-trended seasonally adjusted AMO by subtracting global SSTs from two sources: ERSST4 and HADSST3. Call these results AMO-dE and AMO-dH.
    (3) Both AMO-dE and AMO-dH showed **negative** correlations with HADCRUT4.
    (4). After removing AMO-dE from HADCRUT4, regression slope between Jan 1970 and Dec 2014 was 1.84°C/century. After removing AMO-dH from HADCRUT4, regression slope over the same timespan was 1.73°C/century. This compares to an unadjusted HADCRUT4 slope of 1.65°C/century. Both AMO-dE and AMO-dH were removed using linear regression, following Loehle’s procedure.

    This shows pretty clearly that the detrending procedure for AMO is quite important here and cannot be ignored.

    • negative correlation! do tell. Detrending is the way AMO is produced. If it had a trend it wouldn’t be a oscillation. So whether detrending the north atlatic sst from 25N to 70N is or isn’t a “good” idea isn’t the point. Without n scaling if you compare a 20yr correlation of the Hadley AMO to HADSST you should get something like this.

      The correlation swings positive and negative. The positive correlation peaked in 1998 and has been decreasing. That recent decreasing period was formerly know as the “pause”. The future back in time you go prior to 1960 the less reliable the data is, however there was a peak in 1938 which also correlates with a previous “unforced” temperature anomaly.

      If instead of comparing with just HADCRT version 4 or 4.C&W you compare to a variety of regions and products you have a less that perfect reference theorized to be influenced to some degree by “unforced variability”. Now if your perfect version of a reference requires adjustments for things you “know” have greater influence, then you have no concept of what a reference should be.

    • Now since I am a crusty old thermodynamic kind of guy, I would prefer a reference that corresponds to known paleo data and the bulk of the most important surface temperature data, data that represents the most energy.

      So I would use a tropical ocean reference and compare say an Indian ocean paleo reference and determine the correlation. Then I could say that a set of ocean SST paleo reconstructions from the indian ocean averaged over 50 years should have x correlation with tropical oceans which have y correlation with global oceans. In a normal science world, that would add some credibility to the IO reconstruction of past temperatures which indicates long term persistent warming from ~1700 AD.

      Then I might say something like there is roughly a 0.5 to 0.8 C per century long term trend due to “unforced variability” and that likely TCR is around 1.1 C degrees/dbl. Of course that TCR is really dependent on what “normal” is i.e. “preindustrial”, which the CO2 reference indicates should be about 0.2 C below the 1951-1980 mean. If you think Normal is lower you would get a higher “sensitivity” but some of that might be due to unrecognized “long term unforced variability”.

      btw, I have it on good authority that there is no evidence what so ever of long term persistence and there is a majority rule issue with consensus science.

    • kap55:

      I think I got lost in your description. It seemed that your results depend upon the choice of temp series rather than the detrending procedure?

  50. A potentially more interesting question is when are the upwards facing modellers (aka the Thermometer crowd) going to reverse engineer their workings so as to provide the actual ‘weightings’ they apply to any given station round the world, year by year to the start of the record.

    Their work actually translates to that if you think about it.

    A very complex, often hidden ‘weighting’ system that for some reason they do not publish.

    • Curious George

      They are adjusting, not weighting. Weighting is a process of assigning a statistical weight to measured data. Adjusting is a process of replacing measured data.

      • No they are not. The weighting I am discussing is what the end around effect done to the data supplied is. The complex calculations are in effect a weighting applied to each station to arrive at GT.

        If they could be bothered or even realise that. Each thermometer provides a small contribution to the final result. That appears to vary down the years for individual stations. So a reverse engineering of the whole process to a single processing step. A lookup table per month to see contribution. You could file the weightings or even compare station to station how the maths has used the data.

        Now that’s QA.

        I’ll leave the wicked thoughts unwritten. This is suppose to be science not a Political fight or a religious war.

      • Richard, “I’ll leave the wicked thoughts unwritten. This is suppose to be science not a Political fight or a religious war.”

        Post normal science “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent” I believe decisions and stakes are political and/or religious. That should mean not holding back on the wicked or harsh thoughts.

      • Not going there again. Did my 12 years in local politics. Decided others could bear the burden of no real life now. Does my training there show?

      • “Does my training there show?” A bit. That’s why is great being a sarcastic redneck :)

      • I am just playing the simple logician here and so it shall remain. The occasional deflating barb for those who wish to attack. Been there done that. Got my medals for that as well. (Also the letters needed for business reasons after my name).

      • Three important things you learn in Politics.

        1. Speak well and clearly, even in ad libs.
        2. Always check your facts before you say anything
        3. Never say or think in private what you are not later prepared to defend in public.

        Good lessons.

      • Curious George

        “The complex calculations are in effect a weighting applied to each station to arrive at GT.” Why is then January 1, 1900 temperature reported in 2000 different from that reported in 2015?

      • I think I failed to convey meaning with my words.

        Step back and watch as each ‘packet’ of data works its way though that little virtual clockwork engine you call an application.

        They all follow a given path, duplication and diverting as required.

        But watch the path not the data.

        So what happens? Well each ‘packet’ of data contributes a small part to the answer, month by month.

        That is the weightings I am trying to show. 0.000001% or whatever of this months total figures.

    • You have zero clue what you are talking about.

      • Steve: Do you have a copy of your CV online somewhere? (You can post me a copy though Judith or Lucia if you like). I just need to assess your qualifications when discussing computing work.

        Did you study it as a primary course or was it just a bolt-on to the Stats course you obviously did. Just trying to gauge your knowledge in this particular discipline, that’s all.

      • I suppose my biggest sadness is how the Climate Science world is so ready to dismiss a view from outside their own discipline.
        No matter than scientific engineers and engineers who fashion the instruments they reply on rather do understand what the problems are with what they have built, its limitations and uncertainties.
        Me, I’m from one of the more recent sciences, computing. I’ve spent a working lifetime trying to figure out why what I or others thought I/they had told a machine wasn’t what the machine thought I/they said.
        An often boring and incredibly detailed task on try to balance in your head why this little virtual clockwork engine that had been carefully constructed, always fell apart on wet Wednesdays.
        A trained Logician. A training like we probably have not seen since the Greeks.
        I am the ‘Harry’ you call in, exactly like he was, to do ‘job for hire’ Implementation tasks instead of a Systems Design one you really need.
        Have multiple languages at my command, though don’t ask me to look at Fortran or R. One I mostly forgot many years ago, but, if you have the need, I can polish that up real quick if you have a job in mind you’ll pay me for. The R I’m still learning and so, although most Consultancy work is getting experience at the expense of clients, I’m too old to play that game anymore.
        My training teaches that one of the most important tasks you undertake is to try and see what, if any, assumptions have been made. They are bad, very, very bad. That’s GIGO immediately.
        Then onto DIGO. Working out why the data you supplied did not provide the results expected.
        That little virtual clockwork engine again. With tools and hints along the way as to where the problem lies. On multiple machines hooked up in an occasional connected networking world.
        A living, breathing space, with many dynamic unknowns. That may never be fully known.
        So detailed and careful also is my approach to climate science. Start from the basics and work from there.
        See what the overall effects are on the data supplied. Here it is likely to be uncertain or wrong.
        Working from experience that goes from remembering when weather charts were b/w cartoons of what we thought would happen tomorrow. Paper temperature records because that was all there was.
        And the watching the sciences based on our collective computing work spring into glorious life.
        So I think I have a right to be here. With serious question about was is being done. Expecting serious consideration instead of a servant like dismissal.

      • Steve: Whilst we at it can you please stop with the ‘drive by shooting’ style of delivery? I know you probably think of it as ‘august Don walking down the University corridors throwing tit-bits into student conversations and then sailing on down the corridor’. It may not come across as that.

        Alice in Wonderland is but a step away. Are you playing the Rabbit as well?

    • David Springer

      I believe everyone is convinced you’re babbling at this point and Mosher is no exception. Is it possible for you to go an hour without channeling Harry Nyquist? I can hear him spinning in his grave 350 miles south of me in Harlington, TX on the Mexican border.

    • P.S. See my reply to Steve above about delivery and engagement.

    • David Springer

      Blame me when you find yourself in moderation shortly after Curry wakes up. She isn’t going to appreciate your dumb ass ruining Loelhe’s thread. Who the phuck do you think you are?

    • So you the acid response as well?

      I am a person who lives in a minutes to hours response world.

      That’s how computing works.

      It’s slightly more than the Academic ‘pin something on the notice board and come back tomorrow or next week and see what was said’ view that you seem to have.

      We left the world of message boards behind us long ago.

      Try spending more time with your students. They would understand far better.

    • P.S. Lucia seems to have no problems with me. I’ll wait to see if this host feels the same.

    • David Springer

      I’m an R&D engineer (hardware/firmware/software) who worked for Intel, Microsoft, and then Dell for 25 years. I retired 15 years ago. I can run circles around you in computer science without breaking a sweat and likely have about 30 IQ points on you. Imagine that.

    • Bragging is not proof

    • Hmm. OK so I’ll brag a little as well. See https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2015/12/27/turing-computers-and-what-you-probably-do-not-know/
      for why I might have either been in competition with you or a colleague but before 2006 you would never have known.

    • And if you want a quick synopsis of the last 12 years of my career which I can talk about, I’m the tier 3/4 support of Sales guy in EMEA that you probably were talking to in a conference call when a multi-thread, multi-application, multi-computer systems you had in a mostly connected networking world wasn’t working and we were in a competitive bid against someone with a short deadline.

    • David Springer

      Trust me you were never in competition with me. Across the pond was a backwater in the hardware/OS world. Although I did help Bull (formerly Honeywell) in 1991 build a supercomputer for the currency trading room in the London office of the Bank of Paris. I was at a small company where I’d designed a single board diskless PC-compatible ethernet workstation. We put a few hundred of them in 19″ equipment racks in the back room linking them all together through their ethernet ports and when we were done it cost under $1 million and replaced a $10 million IBM mainframe that was servicing a few hundred floor traders. A fun project and I got a chance to spend a few weeks in London. I stayed in a private home that was built in the 1700’s and had a garage, formerly a stable, that was built in the 1600’s. The cobblestone road it was on was built circa 400 AD by the Romans. The owner of the home, my host, was a grandson of one of the founders of Rolls-Royce but I forget which one Charles Rolls or Henry Royce. He drove a Jaguar himself though. It was quite an experience. There was an ancient pub within crawling distance of the home built partially underground with ceilings so low I was almost bumping my head on them. People weren’t very tall a thousand years ago. I never tried driving in the UK myself. Driving on the wrong side of the road scares the bejesus out of me just thinking about it.

    • OK. So still you press forward. What I can say is the Tutte is someone I studied very carefully. I based more than one insight on his work. You may or may not know who he is. Before 2006 you won’t have. Only since then.

      A great UK thinker who you rely on more than imagine.

      And why I feel fairly confident in my ability to find long and short patterns in noisy, fading, data. Been there, done that. That knowledge works in Climate Data as well.

      Commercially, there is the story about how to undermine Fleet Street Print Unions from the inside. A working agreement with the NGA for a computer, never going to happen. Working alongside the father of laser photo-typesetting industry that started the laser printer revolution.

      MSc (Dist) obtained when I got a year salary in hand when merger/speculation overtook that company and they needed to buy out my contract and I decided the letters might be useful commercially.

      Commercial IP that is mostly in the ‘overtaken by events’ column of history, and ‘Commercial in confidence’ or OSA covers almost all I have done.

      So opaque references are often what I use.
      There are cases where I officially, publically or privately, cannot say if I agree or disagree with a point unless I can introduce it from someone else. Some times you just cannot give away knowledge.

      Others things that might be relevant. Got ‘hidden IP’ in how to build a fault tolerant, scalable, GPU style parallel computer out of standard off the shelf PCs to match the costly super-computers that everybody else uses.

      Might port that to the Pi and see how it works.
      Got more ‘hidden IP’ in high speed local networking that almost certainly will help create high speed interconnected local computing clusters with very good external bandwidth.

      Need I go on? That’s the quick version. Want more?

    • David: A P.S. I used to own a cottage who’s wall and timbers outdated the founding of the USA. The local historian was fascinated by the end walls showing conversion from sleeping lofts to upstairs rooms visible in the stone work.
      Had an inglenook fireplace with bread oven and stone seating alcove.
      Magic place that wasn’t visible on purchase, except perhaps to those with eyes to see the patterns in the plaster. Bought it as a one cold water tap, outside loo and got to bring it carefully up to modern standards.

  51. I suppose my biggest sadness is how the Climate Science world is so ready to dismiss a view from outside their own discipline.
    No matter than scientific engineers and engineers who fashion the instruments they rely on rather do understand what the problems are with what they have built, its limitations and uncertainties.
    Me, I’m from one of the more recent sciences, computing. I’ve spent a working lifetime trying to figure out why what I or others thought I/they had told a machine wasn’t what the machine thought I/they said.
    An often boring and incredibly detailed task on try to balance in your head why this little virtual clockwork engine that had been carefully constructed, always fell apart on wet Wednesdays.
    A trained Logician. A training like we probably have not seen since the Greeks.
    I am the ‘Harry’ you call in, exactly like he was, to do ‘job for hire’ Implementation tasks instead of a Systems Design one you really need.
    Have multiple languages at my command, though don’t ask me to look at Fortran or R. One I mostly forgot many years ago, but, if you have the need, I can polish that up real quick if you have a job in mind you’ll pay me for. The R I’m still learning and so, although most Consultancy work is getting experience at the expense of clients, I’m too old to play that game anymore.
    My training teaches that one of the most important tasks you undertake is to try and see what, if any, assumptions have been made. They are bad, very, very bad. That’s GIGO immediately.
    Then onto DIGO. Working out why the data you supplied did not provide the results expected.
    That little virtual clockwork engine again. With tools and hints along the way as to where the problem lies. On multiple machines hooked up in an occasional connected networking world.
    A living, breathing space, with many dynamic unknowns. That may never be fully known.
    So detailed and careful also is my approach to climate science. Start from the basics and work from there.
    See what the overall effects are on the data supplied. Here it is likely to be uncertain or wrong.
    Working from experience that goes from remembering when weather charts were b/w cartoons of what we thought would happen tomorrow. Paper temperature records because that was all there was.
    And the watching the sciences based on our collective computing work spring into glorious life.
    So I think I have a right to be here. With serious question about what is being done. Expecting serious consideration instead of a servant like dismissal.

  52. C# mostly now, but other UWP work as well. Had good reason to brush up on C recently again. Back to the good old days. Not even C++ as it was not needed :-)

    • Don’t let the buffer overflow bite you in the bit.

      • jim2,

        Now you tell me! Where were you when it did?

        Grrrr!

        Cheers.

      • “…buffer overflow…”

        Avoid that chasm, stick with MASM.

      • C# being a class based language doesn’t suffer from that sort of error, the compiler catches if for you.
        Still many ways to ‘lose’ memory though. People are very inventive.

        Or did you want a snappier reply?

      • Richard, I currently program in C# also. I was referring to C.

        I’ve played around with R also. Arcane, but interesting.

      • A bit OT, but C has more than its fair share of pitfalls.
        One of the worst I’ve had is when changing one line of code made something seemingly unrelated fall over.
        Turns out, someone had made a function return a pointer to a local char array. It didn’t cause any issues whatsoever until I made my single-line change in another part of the program, which then caused an overwrite of the part of the stack in which the local char array was stored, so it fell over spectacularly.
        In embedded applications you need to pay particular attention to stuff like that.

      • peter3172,

        I feel your pain. If something can be done the wrong way in C, I’ve probably done it.

        I have the greatest respect for compiler writers. Artistic geniuses, I would call them. I once handcrafted a piece of assembler for a heavily recursive function. I was mightily impressed with myself, until I checked my brilliance by just using C, and letting the compiler optimise it.

        I lost. Badly. I won’t bore you with details, but I learnt a valuable lesson. One of many which I’ve now forgotten, of course.

        Cheers.

      • C is a hacker’s dream.

      • It’s also just about the only way of getting acceptable performance from limited processing resources

  53. Have lingered here, pondering. Is AMO typical of natural (internal) variation? Probably, but Dunno. But CL said was a speculative first effort–that is honest.
    Is natural variation part of what is not ‘observed clisci’ ? Must be, given the statistically indistinguishable temp rise form about 1920 to about 1945. Courtesy Prof. Lindzen.
    Is attribution (natural/internal v. forced (anthropogenic) a really big deal for CAGW? Yup. The whole CAGW deal depends on this assumption.
    What data do we have on attribution? Almost none (except period comparisons 1920-45 to 1975-2000). So, the CAGW edifice lacks foundations. I submit it will fall for the following basic reasons: continued ‘pause’, lack of growth of extremes, greening Earth, lack of SLR acceleration, cyclic recovery of Arctic ice, failure of COP21 to mean anything important.
    Now, that is all a bit too confusing for most pollys. So, deselect them.

  54. there is no universally recognized Global temperature.
    For two reasons.
    One, because different measurement indices are use to estimate a global temperature and they all have different values.
    Secondly,
    A global temperature tied down by rules and regulations would mean an end to adjusting the records.

    Craig Loehle
    I mean to carp, sorry.
    I think it is fantastic that you have put up this idea.
    I think it is great to try to find a measure of natural variability.
    The idea has some difficulties..
    It is fact fitting number one.
    Other people have done it in a number of ways but as you know fitting A to B and getting C is not proof that C is any more than a coincidence.
    The idea is good in that if the AMO did precisely reflect the natural variability your method would work.
    But then we would all know that the AMO was the”natural variability’.
    And we both know it is not.
    True it will respond to, reflect and show some changes with natural variability.
    But it is not natural variability which is multi factorial and will sometimes effect the AMO and other times will definitely not.
    Hence you are fact fitting an impression or idea to an anomaly which in this case shows increased warming over the particular period which you then say has to be anthropogenic.
    That’s that Garry Larsen Far Side step I’m afraid, or even worse, two steps.

    • “But then we would all know that the AMO was the”natural variability’.
      And we both know it is not.”

      I am not sure you can dismiss the natural input into the AMO this seems to imply.

      There must be something in the data that shows the varying energy flows from the Atlantic to the North Pole. the AMO seems likely to be the logical choice.

    • True, true, like Gary Larsen’s canine decoder, making Professor Schwartzmann the first scientist to decode seemingly random dog barking into meaningful speech. Turns out all of the dogs were saying, “Hey! Heh! Heh! Heh! Heh! Heh! Heh!”

  55. Geoff Sherrington

    Until a way is found to accurately and confidently separate natural variation from “forced” variation of climate, there is absolutely NO scientific justification for making expensive political decisions based on assumptions.
    When a scientist admits that the past temperature records have faults and limitations, then dismisses these by saying “But the records are all that we have, so we have to rely on them”, that is a sign of a scientist who has lost the way.
    If the data are not good enough to use, do not use them. They can have an embarrassing way of doing harm rather than good.
    This is not directed at CL, who is trying to untangle a mess.

    • “Until a way is found to accurately and confidently separate natural variation from “forced” variation of climate”

      Going to need much bigger computers to get close to that sort of confidence.

  56. Got it: you’ve done a regression on the data, deducted the unsystematic variance from the total variance, and learned that the remaining systematic variance over the period correlates with what official climate science believes is due entirely to human forcing caused by release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

  57. AK, Don Monfort et al,

    Define the GHE terms of anything you like, if you can. Use differential equations, as many as you like.

    Nobody seems to have done it. You might have noticed that the Bureau of Meteorology definition (sans requations) is dismissed as incomplete. Likewise, the IPCC definition, apparently.

    So come up with your definition, and then support your definition when people point out it doesn’t make sense.

    The belief in the luminiferous ether slowly withered as the definition of its properties became more and more improbable as objections were raised

    So fire away. It might be interesting, if a squabble breaks out amongst Warmists about the definition of something they all believe in passionately, but can’t actually define. Not surprising for a non existent effect, I suppose.

    Cheers.

    • See any good textbook on atmospheric thermodynamics.

      • For instance, our hostess’s textbook (1st edition). References to “greenhouse” occur on pages (per Reader) 352, 370,388, 393, 403, 423, 424, 425, 426, 432, 433, and 436.

      • AK,

        You wrote –

        “See any good textbook on atmospheric thermodynamics.”

        Nope. No definitions there that are any better than the usual Warmist nonsense dished up as science.

        You can’t come up with a definition. Deny, divert, obscure. You Warmists can’t even accept the definition used by climatologists, or haven’t you noticed?

        All Warmist mouth and no trousers! Come on, it’s such a simple thing – a rigorous scientific definition of the Greenhouse Effect – it would be nice to have one which quantifies the heating effect of GHGs.

        Ask good ol’ Death Trains, or the Juggler. Try the Nobel Mann. No joy? Write some differential equations. Put them into a toy computer model. See AK run!

        Just one tiny, weensy, fact would be a good start. Maybe an actual experiment? How hard can it be?

        Cheers.

      • Nope. No definitions there that are any better than the usual Warmist nonsense dished up as science.

        Which simply proves my point. You don’t understand how differential equations work, so you don’t understand the explanation, so you dismiss it as “Warmist nonsense dished up as science.” And, since you are afraid to admit, even to yourself that you don’t understand, you dismiss it as drivel. Which is obvious to anybody who does understand differential equations.

      • AK,

        You wrote –

        “Which simply proves my point. You don’t understand how differential equations work, so you don’t understand the explanation . . . ”

        Thanks for telling me what I do and don’t know. Your psychic telepathic powers need a bit of a recharge, I’d say. They might be misleading you.

        The point is you haven’t given a definition – and you don’t appear to be inclined to accept the official ones, due to their apparent incompleteness. So come on then, do us all a favour (including the IPCC), and define the GHE.

        Warmist rubbish. I ask for a definition – you attempt to divert the conversation to an “explanation”, which you don’t provide anyway. You obscure the issue by claiming that I wouldn’t be able to understand it anyway, so you refuse to provide it. You deny that the GHE is capable of being defined in the same terms as other effects – for example, the Seebeck Effect.

        Deny, divert, obscure. Waffling Warmism at its finest!

        Cheers.

      • Thanks for telling me what I do and don’t know. Your psychic telepathic powers need a bit of a recharge, I’d say. They might be misleading you.

        They aren’t. You’ve demonstrated repeatedly that you don’t understand how differential equations work, or what any explanation that depends on them is really talking about.

        The point is you haven’t given a definition – and you don’t appear to be inclined to accept the official ones, due to their apparent incompleteness.

        The “official” definition is in terms of differential equations that you’ve demonstrated you don’t understand. I linked to a perfectly good textbook with an explanation of the “greenhouse effect“, one that defines it in terms of the concepts developed there.

        I ask for a definition – you attempt to divert the conversation to an “explanation”, which you don’t provide anyway.

        Basically, what I said is that you have to understand how planetary atmosphere/ocean/land systems work, in terms of the actual math that describes them, to understand the “greenhouse effect“ in rigorous terms.

        I then linked to a perfectly good textbook that provides an explanation of the process, along with differential (and other) equations that describe how it works.

        You obscure the issue by claiming that I wouldn’t be able to understand it anyway, so you refuse to provide it.

        Since you don’t understand it, you are simply in denial that the explanation exists.

        You deny that the GHE is capable of being defined in the same terms as other effects – for example, the Seebeck Effect.

        Actually, no. The “greenhouse effect” is defined, in detail, as an effect on an infinitesimal section of the atmosphere in which the presence of “greenhouse gases“ changes the interaction with the radiation field. That effect is defined as clearly as the Seebeck Effect.

        The term is also used for the supposed effect on planetary radiation/energy balances, which effect depends on a number of other factors. Assumptions regarding how those factors change in response to changing GHG concentrations are extremely complex and most of them are unwarranted, except for tenuous hypotheses.

        Thus, I have repeatedly pointed out that “parameters” such as “equilibrium climate sensitivity” and “transient climate response” are actually myths: metaphors intended to incent certain actions or thoughts.

        The reality is that we don’t know how the planet’s climate and other systems will respond to increased CO2. To the extent the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” actually achieves closure as a number, it could actually be less than zero, although I would regard that as unlikely.

        But the actual thermodynamic effect of increased CO2 (or other well-mixed GHG’s) is accurately described in the source I linked, as well as many others.

      • That silly rant has earned you a pair of official strap-on Skydragon wings, flinny. We are fresh out right now, but as soon as the next batch comes in from the cheap toy factory in Red China they will be in the mail for you. In the meantime, you will have to make due with just your usual lip flapping.

      • AK,

        You wrote -“For instance, our hostess’s textbook (1st edition). References to “greenhouse” occur on pages (per Reader) 352, 370,388, 393, 403, 423, 424, 425, 426, 432, 433, and 436.”

        Thanks. I’ve read it. Doesn’t contain a definition of the greenhouse effect. Sorry. Just more Warmist deny, divert, obscure. Still no definition, because it doesn’t exist. You might just as well point to references about the negative effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, or the existence for the luminiferous ether. Doesn’t make either one true.

        If you ever manage to come up with a definition, let me know. I might even be able to cope with a bit a basic calculus – you never know!

        Cheers.

      • AK,

        You wrote –

        “The reality is that we don’t know how the planet’s climate and other systems will respond to increased CO2. To the extent the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” actually achieves closure as a number, it could actually be less than zero, although I would regard that as unlikely.

        But the actual thermodynamic effect of increased CO2 (or other well-mixed GHG’s) is accurately described in the source I linked, as well as many others.”

        I see a faint light dawning in your eyes. Keep going like that, and you might even abandon the Warmist fantasy world, and accept reality.

        We don’t really know. Sums it up fairly nicely. I agree.

        Cheers.

      • I see a faint light dawning in your eyes.

        Forget it, nut.

        Keep going like that, and you might even abandon the Warmist fantasy world, and accept reality.

        I’ve been saying just that, over and over again, since, AFAIK, before you ever started commenting here.

        What I don’t need is some nut like you coming along and trying to justify the same thing I’ve been saying on the basis of your denial of science. All you do is tend to discredit real skeptics by association.

      • Don Monfort,

        Surely you jest? This is your authoritative source? You must be a believer!

        So tell me, once climate change is halted, what then? A new Golden Age?

        Typical Warmist ploy. A two word command to go elsewhere! Deny, divert, obscure.

        Sorry, no CO2 warming at all. CO2 is excellent stuff. The gas of life. There should be more of it, and I’m going as hard as I can. If you figure out how to live without it, do let me know.

        Cheers.

  58. Don Monfort,

    You wrote –

    “The GHE is best illustrated by personal experience. Even a dolt should realize that on clear dry nights it get’s cooler faster. When its cloudy or just humid the surface cools more slowly. Result, by morning when it’s supposed to be the coolest, it ain’t so cool. If you ever been sleeping in a desert, another lesson. Water vapor is the principal GHG. CO2 is another one. Get used to it. That is the GHE, boys and girls.”

    So where is is the greenhouse effect exactly? You seem to be saying that at night things cool down more quickly if radiation escapes to space more quickly. I agree.

    As a matter of fact, the Moon achieves both higher and lower temperatures than the Earth at the same distance, over the same timespan, and at the same absorptivity. No CO2 or H2O there. Maybe you have a special exclusion for Luna. Just for Lunatics, perhaps.

    Try defining the GHE a little better than “things heat up, things cool down.” Show the warming power of CO2. Maybe you could start with places in the Antarctic, when the temperature is below the freezing point of CO2, let alone H2O. Maybe there is more heating effect from ice and frozen CO2, than the gaseous form. After all, a glacier is probably emitting more than 300 W/m^2 – that should warm things nicely.

    Or the Libyan desert? That gets pretty hot. Pretty cold too. The Romans made ice there. Quite a while before the Industrial Revolution, as I understand it.

    Oh well. I’ve heard a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It looks as though the world faces no particular threat from you. Phew! Saved a good worry there!

    Cheers.

      • David Springer

        There’s a major frickin’ problem in your desert hypothesis, Don. The climate type with the highest mean annual temperature is the tropical desert.

        Sure tropical deserts get colder at night than tropical rain forests. Conversely the tropical desert gets a lot hotter during the day too. Critically the tropical desert has the higher average annual temperature.

        Say it after me, Donny: clouds have a net negative feedback.

        The “why” of the matter is simple: energy in vs. energy out.

        http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/biomes/deserts.php

        Desert surfaces receive a little more than twice the solar radiation received by humid regions and lose almost twice as much heat at night.

        Warmunists don’t like talking about this but observations prove that clouds have a net negative feedback. Climate models assume they are a net positive feedback. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong. Demonstrably so.

      • David Springer

        There’s a major frickin’ problem in your desert hypothesis, Don. The climate type with the highest mean annual temperature is the tropical desert.

        Sure tropical deserts get colder at night than tropical rain forests. Conversely the tropical desert gets a lot hotter during the day too. Critically the tropical desert has the higher average annual temperature.

        Say it after me, Donny: clouds have a net negative feedback.

        The “why” of the matter is simple: energy in vs. energy out.

        http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/biomes/deserts.php

        Desert surfaces receive a little more than twice the solar radiation received by humid regions and lose almost twice as much heat at night.

        Warmunists don’t like talking about this but observations prove that clouds have a net negative feedback. Climate models assume they are a net positive feedback. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong.

      • You are pathetic, Springer. Do you you really think that clouds are a negative feedback, at night? I am talking about the desert at night, clown. Put some clouds/water vapor over the desert at night and it won’t cool down as fast as it does in the absence of the water vapor. Water vapor is a freaking so-called GHG. Get over it.

      • David Springer

        Say it after me, Donny. With emphasis this time:

        Say it after me, Donny: clouds have a net negative feedback.

      • David Springer

      • It’s possible that clouds are a net negative feedback, but we are quite sure that a clown like you can’t prove it.

        Water vapor is a so-called GHG. Only the most willfully ignorant deniers don’t get that.

      • Don Monfort says, January 1, 2016 at 12:44 pm:

        You are pathetic, Springer. Do you you really think that clouds are a negative feedback, at night? I am talking about the desert at night, clown. Put some clouds/water vapor over the desert at night and it won’t cool down as fast as it does in the absence of the water vapor. Water vapor is a freaking so-called GHG. Get over it.

        No, what you are doing is trying to justify the rGHE by appealing to the effect of WV and clouds on nocturnal cooling rates, completely ignoring the opposite effect they have during the day.

        The rGHE is supposed to affect the AVERAGE surface temperature, Monfort. So if the AVERAGE surface temperature isn’t raised by having more WV and clouds in the atmospheric column, then there is no rGHE. Get over it.

        Springer is absolutely right. Tropical deserts are hotter ON AVERAGE by several degrees than tropical rainforests. That’s an observational fact.

        So why is this? Simple, really. The more water you have in your atmospheric column (like WV and clouds over the rainforests), the less of the incoming solar heat will manage to reach the actual surface to warm it. Yes, the cooling rate during the night will also be slower, but the heat deprivation during the day proves much more important, making the AVERAGE (annual) temperature lower.

        You appear to be a “willfully ignorant denier” of this basic and well-known circumstance, Monfort … Are you?

  59. Don Monfort,

    You wrote –

    “That silly rant has earned you a pair of official strap-on Skydragon wings, flinny. ”

    Thank you so much. Of course, like all Warmist promises, the chances of actually receiving the promised Skydragon wings, are somewhere between zero, nil, and nothing. I suspect that the promised Skydragon wings, like the Greehouse Effect, exist only in the febrile convoluted fantasies of your mind.

    If you set a low bar, you should be able to jump over it, wouldn’t you agree?

    Cheers.

    • Don Monfort,

      Where are my Skydragon Wings? You promised me Skydragon Wings! You can’t be trusted. You promised the World heating from CO2. Another busted promise!

      No wonder 99.9% of the world’s population doesn’t care what Warmists think. You talk a lot, and deliver nothing at all.

      Cheers.

    • REMF

  60. AK,

    I repeat, you wrote –

    “The reality is that we don’t know how the planet’s climate and other systems will respond to increased CO2. To the extent the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” actually achieves closure as a number, it could actually be less than zero, although I would regard that as unlikely.”

    So my attempt to get a definition of the a Greenhouse Effect has resulted in no definition, claims that such a definition exists (tucked away with the hidden heat, perhaps), but that the definition would be incomprehensible to anyone other than a highly trained climatologist. Sounds like secret cult ritual business to me.

    Moving along, you claim that we don’t know how the planets climate and other systems will respond to unknown and unquantified increases of CO2. This of course implies that you don’t know the response to reductions in CO2, otherwise you would be able to know the response to an increase in CO2 levels from the reduced state to the current increase, which you have stated is unknowable.

    Now, I don’t understand what “equilibrium climate sensitivity” means in physical terms, but I believe Warmists claim that it relates to some type of temperature increase of unknown quantum, somewhere, sometime. I have seen some absurd claims that the Earth is 33 C warmer (whatever that means), due to CO2. Do you actually believe this?

    In any case, you appear to state that you don’t know what the impact of CO2 is, but you are certain it is between more than nothing, and less than nothing. I agree. Maybe you don’t actually mean what you wrote – this appears to standard fare for Warmists on occasion. All part of the Warmist deny, divert and obscure ploy.

    So it would seem that the as yet undefined greenhouse effect has an unknown impact, but you are sure it is either positive or negative. I’ve just repeated this for you in case you forgot what you wrote before. Others might have different opinions, of course.

    Cheers.

  61. David Springer

    Curry and Mann…

  62. Global warming is still a thing in 2016?

  63. Interesting choice of journal & publisher.

    One of which a disinterested party , Dr. David Sayers
    Senior Lecturer, in the Department of the Humanities, Sheffield Hallam University, UK has written :

    Warning about Horizon Research Publishing
    Dave Sayers
    5/2/14
    Hi everyone,

    This is mostly a warning for those members seeking academic employment, or who want a publication that will actually be read by anyone.

    I’ve previously warned about falling prey to questionable publishing houses.
    Personally I have no evidence of anything untoward in this case, but I would point you to the following:

    http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/05/02/horizon-research-publishing-corporation/

    Horizon also appears on the following site, which seems judiciously arranged but I can’t vouch for its accuracy:

    https://sites.google.com/site/fakeresearchjournalpublishers/

    Even if this is a legit publishing operation, the fact is — for better or worse —
    academic employers are still only really interested in established high-impact
    publishers. If you’re publishing in a brand new journal then your article will not be widely read. Meanwhile you may find yourself locked into copyright constraints preventing you from later publishing that research elsewhere…
    careful y’all out there!

    Dave
    Dr. Dave Sayers
    Senior Lecturer, Dept Humanities, Sheffield Hallam University, UK
    Honorary Research Fellow, Arts & Humanities, Swansea University, UK
    dave….@cantab.net | http://swansea.academia.edu/DaveSayers

    • Speaking of the journals makes me think of CRU emails
      and tactics used against dissenting voices re CO2 –
      AGW dangerous warming. Where editors got in the way,
      the CRU emails reveal tactics to blacklist journals or
      force editors to be fired – takes what it takes to achieve
      an uncritical scientific consensus.. Coupla quotes:

      ‘I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’
      as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we
      should encourage our colleagues in the climate
      research community to no longer submit to, or cite
      papers in, this journal.’ ( M Mann 11 March, 2003.)

      ‘I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having
      nothing more to do with them until they rid themselves
      of this troublesome editor.’ ( P Jones. March 11 2003.)

  64. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #208 | Watts Up With That?