Tom Fuller

I recently left a comment on Tom Fuller’s blog objecting to Fuller’s claim to be on the middle ground.

If Fuller is in the middle ground, then so is Inhofe — they both think that climate scientists are a bunch of frauds.

Fuller objected in a completely unrelated comment thread and derailed the discussion. I’m starting a new thread here for discussion with Fuller.

Here, in his own words, are Fuller’s beliefs about climate scientists:

I believe that a generation of climate scientists have tried to make global warming a political football, and have exaggerated or distorted the truth to push politicians into acting more robustly, and too instill a fear-driven sense of urgency in the general public.

Inhofe shares this belief with Fuller. And like Inhofe, Fuller claims that the hockey stick graph is fraudulent:

People apparently didn’t learn from the horrible example set by Michael Mann et al in fabricating a Hockey Stick chart of global temperatures that was later debunked.

You can judge for yourself whether I have fairly represented Fuller’s views.

Comments

  1. #1 Bud
    November 6, 2009

    John, to echo what Michael says above, Fuller links to realclimate under “the conventional wisdom on climate change” and has a reasonable email interview with Stephen Schneider. That’s about it as far as engagement with working professionals is concerned, as far as I can see.

  2. #2 Hank Roberts
    November 6, 2009

    > As an opinion commentator

    So who says he’s an “opinion commentator,” besides him now?
    Last I recall he was an Examiner Expert on Climate.
    Now, I see he’s changed that slightly (Pielke wannabe?)

    – “SF Environmental Policy Examiner Tom Fuller’s writing for Examiner.com on global warming issues”
    http://newsfan.typepad.co.uk/prime_time_a_new_look_at_/2009/09/seniors-and-technology-roundup.html
    “Prime Time: A New Look At Aging”

    (The latter offers a useful tidbit for John Mashey — Fuller has apparently just moved to the SF Bay Area from the UK; he’s self-identified at the above blog as a senior citizen; he may need some help getting to educational events.)

  3. #3 Hank Roberts
    November 6, 2009

    And, yeah, he’s doing research from his chair, here’s
    Blog Science Policy Research in action:

    rankexploits.com/musings/2009/reflections-on-continuuing-monckton-kerfuffle/

    “Tom Fuller (Comment#13686) May 16th, 2009 at 10:57 am
    Hi all,
    Lucia, I’m now writing on climate change issues at Examiner.com. It’s not much different from blogging–and the pay is similar (sigh).

    I’m looking for existing graphs that I can present to readers that explain what’s been going on. I don’t want to get into the Monckton controversy, but I don’t want to be grabbing charts at random because they make a point in a specific article. I’ve been burned that way once recently….”

    Yet elsewhere he’s aiming for the stars:

    “Tom Fuller says: October 9, 2009 at 8:58 pm.
    Mr. Romm, I’ll take your bet. Examiner.com is rated by Alexa as site number 151 in the U.S. and number 476 in …”
    climateprogress.org/2009/09/22/new-york-times-andrew-revkin-suckered-by-deniers-to-push-global-cooling-myt/

    Alexa is tied somehow both to Google and Amazon, but the details of what each does to rank sites aren’t public:
    blog.cirtex.com/2009/09/05/alexa-ratings-is-it-really-an-all-important-factor/

  4. #4 carrot eater
    November 6, 2009

    John Mashey, I more or less repeated your suggestion to Fuller in his comments section. If he wants to take the advice, he can.

  5. #5 John Mashey
    November 6, 2009

    re: #204 carrot eater
    Thanks. One can only try. For many people, it is much more difficult, but here, it is really pretty easy. The resources for learning are *so* rich that it amazes me when someone doesn’t take advantage of the local expertise in a turf about which they want to write. From SF, one can get to UC Berkeley by BART, and Palo Alto by CALTRAIN, after which it is about a mile walk to common seminar locations, or take the free Stanford Marguerite shuttle busses from CALTRAIN over there.

  6. #6 carrot eater
    November 6, 2009

    John, yes. one can only point things out.

    Having poked around over there, I can Tom Fuller is no Inhofe, nor a Marohasy, though he sees fit to link to the latter. He’s idiosyncratic, but perhaps Pielke-ish – “no, I’m not a sceptic, don’t call me that, now here’s a bunch of stuff from a sceptic’s point of view.” There is an influence of Steve McIntyre, as he seems fascinated and aggrieved by the alleged poor availability of data.

    Some of these guys need a bit of perspective – I don’t think there is any other field of science where so much raw data and model code is placed online, easily accessible. If you asked me for my raw data, I guarantee you it would take me a while to get it to you in a form you could understand.

  7. #7 Hank Roberts
    November 6, 2009

    Oh, wait, that Alexa thing is part of setting terms of a climate bet between JR and TF over at
    http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/22/new-york-times-andrew-revkin-suckered-by-deniers-to-push-global-cooling-myt/

    I’m clearly way out of my league and couldn’t even put stakes on the table, compared to these well-compensated climate bloggers. Sitting back, reaching for the popcorn, to watch.

  8. #8 Dave Andrews
    November 7, 2009

    Mark #153,

    Wow you’ve been getting a bashing of the sort you continually dish out!

    But just thought I would ask why you think the ‘truth’ is contained in the IPCC reports? The IPCC is basically a political process. Do you accord truth to political processes, for example, in the country in which you live? Or do you, through experience, have a more measured view of that process?

  9. #9 Janet Akerman
    November 7, 2009

    There is a fundamental flaw in your statement Dave Andrews,
    >The IPCC is basically a political process

    This line is false. The IPCC report a synthesis of peer reviewed evidence, and is fundamentally a scientific report. The Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) undergoes an another filtration where its contents are checked off by scientist and policy makers (including George Bush’s policy people).

    IPCC reports are conservative science, and the SPM contains what could not even be denied by Bush’s team.

  10. #10 John Mashey
    November 7, 2009

    re: #209 Janet

    Yes, but let us be more precise.

    The scientists in each Working Group produce

    1) A huge main report, on order of 800-900 pages, which has all the gory assessment detail, although with occasional useful short tutorials mixed in, which are helpful, as the rest of the discussions can be pretty dense for newcomers.

    2) A TS (Technical Summary): the scientists summarizing the previous, down to about 70 pages. This is what one reads for a reasonable summary of the scientists’ views.

    3) Then the political part arrives. I wouldn’t call it a filtration, I’d say:

    a) *Every* word has to be approved by *every* government representative, which ends up having deadline-driven late-night sessions. For example, they must be approved by (not random picks) Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the USA, not just (for 2001 and 2007) Bush’s team.

    I recommend Stephen Schneider’s new Science as a Contact Sport for his first-hand descriptions of these sessions, which seem quite accurate, given that I’ve heard similar stories from half a dozen other IPCC authors, and discussed this at some length (like over lunch) with a few.

    Q: Why do they (the scientists) put up with this?
    A: Having global buyin is worth something, and anyone who understands all this knows how conservative the SPM is …and can go read the TS. (Hint: one might guess why the TS got added.)

    =====
    I have some feeling for this, on a much tinier and far less important scale. About 20 years ago, computer benchmarks were a mess, sometimes making people waste time and energy chasing dumb benchmarks. (For computer folks: some computer architects got pressured often by marketeers wishing for special instructions to be added to make the universally-loathed-by-engineers “Dhrystone” run faster). A couple of us tweaked a magazine editor for using one of the sillier benchmarks. He challenged us (engineers from intensely-competing companies) to do something better

    Four of us at different companies started this (SPEC), and it only worked because the relevant engineers cooperated, and built processes fair and open enough that other companies could see we weren’t playing tricks, and the rest joined in. Engineers also cooperated to keep their *own* nervous marketeers at bay, and keep convincing their own management to keep funding this non-cheap effort … which sometimes might show that their own computers weren’t quite as competitive as they thought.

    Anyway, in the IPCC case, I’m afraid the tail-end veto may be the price of long-term support.

  11. #11 Dave Andrews
    November 10, 2009

    Janet,

    You misunderstand in a fundamental way. The IPCC was set up under UN auspices. The UN is essentially a political body. No matter the science that is done the UN filters it through its political process. You cannot separate that process from anything the UN produces.

    An example. Despite the supposed science fingering CO2 as the culprit, Pachauri is quite content to say that India needs to improve the wealth of its population and therefore needs to build lots of new coal fired power stations, despite the fact they will release much more CO2 into the atmosphere. It is up to the developed world to take appropriate, compensatory, action.

    Now, if he were being scientific in the terms you support, surely he would be saying ‘all CO2 is bad’?

  12. #12 Bernard J.
    November 10, 2009

    Dave Andrews.

    Your [last post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.php#comment-2063759) basically refutes itself.

    If the “UN scientists” can still produce a recommendation that CO2 concentration should not be allowed to remain at concentrations greater than 350ppm, irrespective of the fact that political folk each still have one of their respective eyes on their countries’ economies, then there must be grounds indeed for the science presented.

    Think about it Dave… Why would the scientists say what they say if their respective politicians want quite the opposite? Or are you subscribing to the Global Conspiracy of Scientists/Global Conspiracy for a One World Government conspiracies?!

  13. #13 Bernard J.
    November 10, 2009

    Dave Andrews.

    Your [last post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.php#comment-2063759) basically refutes itself.

    If the “UN scientists” can still produce a recommendation that CO2 concentration should not be allowed to remain at concentrations greater than 350ppm, irrespective of the fact that political folk each still have one of their respective eyes on their countries’ economies, then there must be grounds indeed for the science presented.

    Think about it Dave… Why would the scientists say what they say if their respective politicians want quite the opposite? Or are you subscribing to the Global Conspiracy of Scientists/Global Conspiracy for a One World Government conspiracies?!

  14. #14 luminous beauty
    November 10, 2009

    >Pachauri is quite content to say that India needs to improve the wealth of its population and therefore needs to build lots of new coal fired power stations, despite the fact they will release much more CO2 into the atmosphere. It is up to the developed world to take appropriate, compensatory, action.

    Squiggy isn’t quite representing [Pachauri](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7267/full/4611054a.html) accurately.

    But, then, that’s why we [love him](http://popup.lala.com/popup/649362801599712824).

  15. #15 Janet Akerman
    November 10, 2009

    Dave, its tiresome to see you continue to wilfully distort arguments. For example:

    >*Now, if he were being scientific in the terms you support, surely he would be saying ‘all CO2 is bad*

    What would be scientific about that statement you just made up (above).

    Don’t be a jerk Dave.

    And you say; *”UN filters it through its political process. You cannot separate that process from anything the UN produces.*”

    But as I mentioned above the UN is disproportionately accoutable to the US. And as I’ve hinted to you [elseware](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/levitt_and_dubner_liken_climat.php#comment-2057013) the US is dispropotionately influced by concentrated wealth, and the fossil fuel corporations are the most profitable industry in history.

    (Thanks to John Mashey for the detailed clarification of IPCC process).

    The IPCC synthesise the best science available (see John’s post) and only the most conservative, undeniable points get through the filters of the US and other fossil influenced policy checkers who review the SPM.

    I’ll put it in simple terms Dave, the IPCC reports contain undeniable and conservative science (that is science). Science that could not be removed by the disproportionate influence of fossil fuel concentrated wealth and power.

    Now if you want to argue that all science is political, then we could go there, but that would weaken your argument further as the political process is disproportionately influenced by concentrated wealth.

  16. #16 Michael
    November 11, 2009

    Dave Andrews is right. You can’t get science out of a policitical body.

    Same with the CSIRO – it can’t do science because it was set up by govt and is funded by govt. All it’s findings will be strained through a political filter.

    What we need is pure science. Universities are funded by govt too, which makes all their findings tinged by politics.

    We need pure irrefutable science.

    That is science untainted by govt funding, or tax payer funding.

    We need science unsupported and unfunded, then we will be able to trust it – it will be pure science.

    I have the answer – blog science. It is completely without any visible, or invisible, means of support, so is irrefutable.

    Just like this comment – made without any funding of any sort it is pure and irrefutable.

  17. #17 Dave Andrews
    November 11, 2009

    Michael,

    Nice bit of satire but totally irrelevant. CSIRO is NOT the UN.

    Janet,

    If you do not like the fact that the US is the major funder of the UN perhaps you could suggest it relocates to Sydney and that the Australin public pick up the tab. I am sure they would be very grateful for your suggestion.

  18. #18 Dave Andrews
    November 11, 2009

    Bernard J,

    Surely it is Hansen and supporters who have promoted the 350ppm scenario and not the IPCC?

  19. #19 Janet Akerman
    November 11, 2009

    Nice run away Dave Andrews. I take it you had no response to the point at issue.

  20. #20 D
    November 12, 2009

    Janet,

    And what point was that exactly? Mmmm, its all the fault of the US which is in thrall to big coal. Yawn….sigh!

    You have a very limited world view.

  21. #21 Bob Tisdale
    November 12, 2009

    Craig Allen: Excuse me for the late reply, but I’m not a regular visitor here and just discovered that my name had been mentioned.

    Thanks for the quote out of context. The entire quote should have read:

    As you imply, global temperature variations are dictated by ENSO. This is confirmed by Knight et al (2009) “Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?”:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatures_09.pdf

    They write, “El Nino–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08 +/- 0.07 deg C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the “ENSO-adjusted” trend) is 0.00 +/- 0.05 deg C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.”

    So there hasn’t been the anticipated rise in global temperature because, after you remove the effects of ENSO, the trend is zero. Therefore, if this year is a record year, it should be attributable to ENSO, not AGW.

    Also note that Knight et al (2009) assume the relationship between ENSO and global temperature is linear. It is not.
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/relationship-between-enso-and-global.html

    Michael: I’m not sure what you were trying to communicate here with, “Does this also appply to 1998, and we can now expect the cooling-in-the-10yrs-from-1998 crowd to issue statments that 1998 was an ENSO artifact and hence there was no ‘global cooling’ in those subsequent 10 years, but in fact a warming?”

    If you had read what I had written in the link that Craig Allen had provided, your comment may have pertained to the subject at hand.

  22. #22 Janet Akerman
    November 12, 2009

    Dave Andrews @220,

    You’ve a [short memory](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.php#comment-2056559) Dave. A tactical method of retreat I can see.

  23. #23 Chris O'Neill
    November 12, 2009

    Bob Tisdale:

    So there hasn’t been the anticipated rise in global temperature because, after you remove the effects of ENSO, the trend is zero

    if you ignore the Arctic as HadCrut3 does. The Arctic has warmed much faster than the rest of the world over 1999-2008 inclusive. HadCrut3 ignores this.

  24. #24 Bernard J.
    November 12, 2009

    Bob Tisdale.

    I am curious…

    …exactly where does all the heat come from that accumulates in the atmosphere over multiple ENSO/PDO cycles? If it’s not from the action of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, then there must be another source somewhere.

    And how is the equilibrium restored after the atmospheric heat accumulation peaks? That is, what phenomenon/phenomena control the atmospheric accumulations/dispersions at the super-ENSO/PDO scale?

    How is the evidence for such phenomena/mechanisms reflected in the physical record, including the distribution of snow around the planet, and the retreat/advance of glaciers?

    Most interestingly for an ecologist such as myself, how is the evidence for such phenomena/mechanisms reflected in the biological record, including the phenological responses of species, and the distributions of species and their ecosystems?

  25. #25 Bob Tisdale
    November 13, 2009

    Bernard J: You asked, “I am curious…

    “…exactly where does all the heat come from that accumulates in the atmosphere over multiple ENSO/PDO cycles? If it’s not from the action of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, then there must be another source somewhere.”

    An overview of the processes are discussed in this post:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/global-temperatures-this-decade-will-be.html

    There are links to more detailed discussions at the bottom of the page.

  26. #26 Bob Tisdale
    November 13, 2009

    MarkB: You wrote, ” Tisdale still fails to understand that ENSO is a short-term fluctuation (kind of like the seasons in relation to hemispheric temperatures), and the trend in the last 30 years has been slightly downward.”

    Actually, MarkB fails to comprehend the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO events that are evident in the instrument temperature record.
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/global-temperatures-this-decade-will-be.html

  27. #27 sod
    November 13, 2009

    sorry Bob, but you fail to explain the mechanism of that “multi year after effect”. it is just a guess and nothing more.

    if i combine an oscillation with a linear trend, and i “spike” a few oscillation, we will get a “step” impression, simply for mathematical reasons. (the step will look better. while the upward linear trend will look wrong, when focusing on a period starting with the spike)

    the idea that el nino events suddenly became the driving force of climate in the 20th century doesn t hold water. sorry.

  28. #28 Bob Tisdale
    November 13, 2009

    sod: Good to hear from you. Long time. You wrote, “sorry Bob, but you fail to explain the mechanism of that ‘multi year after effect’. it is just a guess and nothing more”

    Apparently with your 46 second peak at the webpage, assuming it was you who visited from deltoid, you failed, first, to read the post and, second, you failed to read the posts linked to it.

    Regards

  29. #29 sod
    November 13, 2009

    i followed all your links, as i expected them to be different.

    i also read your “article” on WuWt.

    again: any upward trend with a spike will make steps look good. your argument is weak at best.

  30. #30 sod
    November 13, 2009

    oh and Bob, i just noticed that i still have one window of your site open.

    so i guess you did indeed look at the time it took me to close your site, when i noticed that the link in your second post was the same as the one in your first…

  31. #31 Dave Andrews
    November 13, 2009

    Janet 222,

    My memory is so short I can’t even remember your name, nor register the fact that you never respond directly to anything anyone says, but always avoid the issue.

  32. #32 Chris O'Neill
    November 13, 2009

    Bernard:

    “…exactly where does all the heat come from that accumulates in the atmosphere over multiple ENSO/PDO cycles? If it’s not from the action of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, then there must be another source somewhere.”

    Bob Tisdale:

    An overview of the processes are discussed in this post:…

    Those processes don’t say anything about how you avoid a long-term violation of the first law of thermodynamics, i.e. where has all the extra heat come from?

  33. #33 Bob Tisdale
    November 13, 2009

    Chris O’Neill: You asked, “Those processes don’t say anything about how you avoid a long-term violation of the first law of thermodynamics, i.e. where has all the extra heat come from?”

    The Pacific Warm Pool stores warm water to depths of 300 meters between El Nino events. The El Nino redisribute that warm water across the surface of the equatorial Pacific, releasing heat into the atmosphere, and the El Nino redistributes the warm water within the Pacific and Indian Ocean basins, raising their OHC and SST, but dropping the OHC of the tropical Pacific. The El Nino also changes Hadley and Walker Circulation, cloud cover and wind stress which raise temperatures remote to the tropical Pacific.

    During the subsequent La Nina, the tropical Pacific Cloud cover drops and the tropical Pacific OHC is recharged, awaiting the next El Nino event.

    For more on the diabatic and adiabatic processes, refer to Trenberth et al (2002) “Evolution of El Nino–Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures.”
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf

    Refer also to Wang (2005) “ENSO, Atlantic Climate Variability, And The Walker And Hadley Circulation.”
    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Wang_Hadley_Camera.pdf

    There are numerous papers on the discharge-recharge modes of ENSO. The correlation of cloud amount and NINO3.4 SST anomalies is a very easy way to illustrate it, but if you’re looking for a more detailed discussion with other variables, refer to Clarke et al (2006) “Wind Stress Curl and ENSO Discharge/Recharge in the Equatorial Pacific”:
    http://ocean.fsu.edu/faculty/clarke/pubs/6_clarkeVG&C2007.pdf

    No laws have been broken, Chris.

  34. #34 Bob Tisdale
    November 13, 2009

    Bernard J: You asked, “I am curious…exactly where does all the heat come from that accumulates in the atmosphere over multiple ENSO/PDO cycles?”

    Refer to my response to Chris O’Neill above.

  35. #35 dhogaza
    November 13, 2009

    You’re just describing the established science on how ENSO redistributes heat during cycles, not how the extra heat enters the system. There has to be a source. It has to be a recent source timed to the beginning of the industrial age in order to explain observed recent warming.

    And then you must tell us why we can ignore CO2 physics …

  36. #36 Bob Tisdale
    November 13, 2009

    sod: You wrote, “again: any upward trend with a spike will make steps look good. your argument is weak at best.”

    It’s hard to miss the plateau in the TLT anomalies of the Mid-To-High Latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere after the 1997/98 El Nino:
    http://i37.tinypic.com/30rraky.png
    If you were to remove the effects of the Mount Pinatubo and El Chichon eruptions, you’d find similar effects, and that the majority of the increase over the term of the data occur in two steps as illustrated.

    Regards

  37. #37 dhogaza
    November 13, 2009

    Because, of course, the ocean is warming, too, not just the atmosphere. So you can’t claim that no extra energy is required because it’s being dumped into the atmosphere while the ocean’s cooling over time due to ENSO …

  38. #38 carrot eater
    November 13, 2009

    dhogaza: He needs a radiative forcing, and mentions one in passing: some change in cloud cover, induced by ENSO. It’s never going to explain what he needs it to explain, but at least there’s some change in forcing in there, somewhere.

    The problem here is a refusal to write a physical model. Somehow it’s considered more pure in certain circles if you just eyeball some data, and convince yourself of a correlation someplace.

  39. #39 Bob Tisdale
    November 13, 2009

    Chris O’Neill: You wrote, “if you ignore the Arctic as HadCrut3 does. The Arctic has warmed much faster than the rest of the world over 1999-2008 inclusive. HadCrut3 ignores this.”

    But GISS infills with 1200km smoothing, which is known to inflate the temperatures of areas where there is sparse surface temperature measurement. Where there is good coverage with surface temperature measurement, like in the central portion of North America and in Europe, GISTEMP and TLT anomalies agree quite well:
    http://i40.tinypic.com/nget8k.png

    http://i40.tinypic.com/k6ija.png

    In areas of the globe where the surface temperature measurement coverage is poor, like South America and Africa, the 1200km smoothing inflates the rise in temperature:
    http://i41.tinypic.com/16idyc7.png

    http://i43.tinypic.com/if1oh5.png

    http://i40.tinypic.com/1hb5sm.png

    Does the 1200km smoothing inflate the Arctic GISTEMP data? It might not, but you can’t assume that the 1200km smoothing over the Arctic reflects reality either.

  40. #40 dhogaza
    November 13, 2009

    dhogaza: He needs a radiative forcing, and mentions one in passing: some change in cloud cover, induced by ENSO.

    Yes, of course, yet the mainstream denialists insist that such a change will be a negative forcing.

    These guys do have a problem getting on the same page, no?

    The problem here is a refusal to write a physical model. Somehow it’s considered more pure in certain circles if you just eyeball some data, and convince yourself of a correlation someplace.

    And, of course, he has no intention on publishing, because he’d rather be right than famous or some such.

    It couldn’t be because he’d be called out as a fool and his work rejected, of course.

  41. #41 Janet Akerman
    November 13, 2009

    DA writes

    >My memory is so short I can’t even remember your name, nor register the fact that you never respond directly to anything anyone says, but always avoid the issue.

    Well finally DA has completed his descent into farce. Interesting to watch DA.

  42. #42 Bernard J.
    November 14, 2009

    Dhogaza [pre-empted](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.php#comment-2073895) one of my “what about…” questions that I was saving for Bob Tisdale.

    No matter; I am looking forward to how Tisdale has factored this into his finger-counting.

    No doubt such computing will also take into consideration what an increase in surface warmth relative to subsurface cooling (as must occur if there is an overall heat-pumping to the atmosphere) does to the continued movement of heat from the subsurface. Of course, if thermohaline mechanisms are to be called into the fray, there will no doubt also be detailed commentary on how evidence for changes in this aspect of heat transfer around the globe supports Tisdale’s theory.

    I’m still curious about the biotic and geophysical signatures that lend support to Bobby T’s ideas, and about what overall mechanism it is that prevents the ENSO/PDO ‘pump’ from ratchetting the temperature to ‘sauna’ on the dial.

    I could go on Bob, but I’m trying to establish a handle on how your model deals with various aspects of the conventional physics – and to this end I am not yet convinced that your engineering has adequately addressed the thermodynamics of AGW.

    I’m also puzzled as to how you think that so many physicists and climatologists have apparently missed the bleeding obvious, but that’s not really what this meander is about…

  43. #43 Chris O'Neill
    November 14, 2009

    Bob Tisdale:

    No laws have been broken, Chris.

    You’ve missed the point. You’ve described how heat flows forwards and backwards between various places in short-term cycles but you haven’t said anything about where the extra heat that now exists in the surface of the oceans compared with 30 years ago has come from. The surface of the oceans is now 0.4 deg C warmer than it was 30 years ago. That’s a lot more heat than is involved in any El Niño and we don’t even have much of an El Niño yet.

    You also haven’t said anything about where the ongoing extra heat is coming from that is necessary to maintain that surface temperature in the face of the extra heat loss to space caused by a higher surface temperature. Where is that heat flow coming from? It’s been continuing for the best part of 30 years (at least) so there’s no way in the world it can be coming out of an ocean below the surface somewhere. It would have frozen by now.

  44. #44 sod
    November 14, 2009

    It’s hard to miss the plateau in the TLT anomalies of the Mid-To-High Latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere after the 1997/98 El Nino:

    http://i37.tinypic.com/30rraky.png

    your graph makes my point. replace the 1998 super el nino with a normal spike, and you got the missing link between your “plateaus”.

    If you were to remove the effects of the Mount Pinatubo and El Chichon eruptions, you’d find similar effects, and that the majority of the increase over the term of the data occur in two steps as illustrated.

    this claim is complete nonsense. in your graph, the 1983 el nino looks extremely similar to the one in 1998. the idea that those two volcanoes countered your “el nino long term effect” is weak at best.

    In areas of the globe where the surface temperature measurement coverage is poor, like South America and Africa, the 1200km smoothing inflates the rise in temperature: http://i41.tinypic.com/16idyc7.png

    another bogus claim. satellites and surface stations do not measure the same thing. your graph is based on the false assumption, that any divergence between satellite results and surface stations shows an error in the surface stations. based on beliefs, and nothing more.

  45. #45 carrot eater
    November 14, 2009

    Ugh. Beyond the basic issues of conservation of energy, are you kidding me? In order to test the effect of smoothing on a data set, you compare differently smoothed values of the same dataset – omit some stations, or something. NOT compare it to some other sort of measurement (reconstructed estimates of lower troposphere temps from satellite readings) which is different for entirely different reasons.

    It’s a bit ironic that the guys who love raw data and hate any sort of math or model also love satellite readings that require knowledge of radiation physics and a lot of math to convert to temperatures.

  46. #46 Bob Tisdale
    November 14, 2009

    Bernard J, Chris O’Neill, and sod: You’ve been busy replying to my earlier comments. I could respond to your arguments individually, but that would be a waste of my time and yours. Regardless of what I write, you are not going to accept it. I know that; you know that. However, the answers to the majority of your objections are included in the discussions of the papers I linked in my November 13, 2009 8:29 PM comment. Here they are again:

    For more on the climate responses to diabatic and adiabatic processes caused by El Nino events, refer to Trenberth et al (2002) “Evolution of El Nino–Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures.” http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf

    Refer also to Wang (2005) “ENSO, Atlantic Climate Variability, And The Walker And Hadley Circulation.” It provides a detailed discussion of how El Nino-caused changes in Hadley and Walker circulation, wind stress and cloud cover cause SST anomalies to rise outside of the tropical Pacific. Corrected link:
    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Wang_Hadley_Camera.pdf

    The discharge-recharge modes of ENSO are discussed in Clarke et al (2006) “Wind Stress Curl and ENSO Discharge/Recharge in the Equatorial Pacific”: http://ocean.fsu.edu/faculty/clarke/pubs/6_clarkeVG&C2007.pdf

    I’ll add another paper that illustrates the changes in tropical Pacific Downward Shortwave Radiation that take place during ENSO events. It’s Pavlakis et al (2008) “ENSO Surface Shortwave Radiation Forcing over the Tropical Pacific”:
    http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/6697/2008/acpd-8-6697-2008-print.pdf

    Regards

  47. #47 carrot eater
    November 14, 2009

    Well, this is going in circles. “Here’s some papers about ENSO.” Yes, we know. They don’t support what you’re trying to get ENSO to do.

  48. #48 luminous beauty
    November 14, 2009
  49. #49 sod
    November 14, 2009

    look Bob, you are supposed to give the source of a claim or argument by a “citation”. typically that involves one or more papers, authors, years and PAGE NUMBERS. have you ever heard of this before?

    the questions you were asked, were pretty specific. unless you can be a little more detailed, i will assume you made those things up.

  50. #50 sod
    November 14, 2009

    just to save others the work: none of the papers with a working link will give any results, when you search it for the term “step”.

  51. #51 dhogaza
    November 14, 2009

    Tisdale’s practicing classic crank science stuff. There’s a reason he’s ignored outside WUWT…

  52. #52 carrot eater
    November 14, 2009

    It’s the problem of never quantifying anything. Yes, Trenberth finds diabatic responses. You can’t just say that, and then stop.

  53. #53 Chris O'Neill
    November 14, 2009

    Bob Tisdale:

    I could respond to your arguments individually, but that would be a waste of my time and yours.

    You’re wasting time anyway. I’m asking a simple question and you just jump around from assertion to assertion. I just want to know WHERE the enormous new heat flow is coming from. “Where” means a place, such as within the oceans somewhere or within the atmosphere through a change in the radiation that passes through it. “Where” is a pretty simple concept. How much time compared with all the time you’ve spent so far does it take to name a place where this heat flow is coming from? A name is all we need.

  54. #54 carrot eater
    November 14, 2009

    Changes in cloud cover is the only thing he could possibly come up with, I think. Beyond the sloshing around of heat that gives the wiggles in the surface temperature record, ENSO does have a slight forced component; Trenberth (he linked one of Trenberth’s papers) goes into that – worth looking at. Too bad that forced component is completely inadequate to explain the last 30 years.

  55. #55 luminous beauty
    November 14, 2009

    >Too bad that forced component is completely inadequate to explain the last 30 years.

    Of the opposite sign. Also.

  56. #56 Bob Tisdale
    November 15, 2009

    Bernard J, Chris O’Neill, sod, and now luminous beauty: Let me address your complaints one at a time, using the papers I linked in earlier replies. This initial reply is for those who are skeptical that El Nino events warm the oceans remote to the Pacific through processes other than heat transfer. Later it also discusses the heat exchange from the tropical Pacific to the extratropical Pacific and Indian Oceans. For those of you who understand this, please have patience; I’ll address the other concerns in subsequent replies. The second of these replies will hopefully come tomorrow.

    The first complaint was that the global oceans are warming. Dhougaza wrote, “Because, of course, the ocean is warming, too, not just the atmosphere.” Chris O’Neill wrote, “The surface of the oceans is now 0.4 deg C warmer than it was 30 years ago.” There were similar questions. For those complaints I provided two papers Trenberth et al (2004) and Wang (2005). Let’s concentrate first on Wang (2005), “ENSO, Atlantic Climate Variability, And The Walker And Hadley Circulation.” The link I provided is modified by this website so you’ll have to use the following google link. Wang (2005) is the first link there:
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=ENSO%2C+Atlantic+Climate+Variability%2C+And+The+Walker+And+Hadley+Circulation.&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

    Wang et al describes how sea surface temperature can and do rise in response to El Nino events in areas of the global oceans remote to the tropical Pacific. He concentrates on the Tropical North Atlantic and the Western Hemisphere Warm Pool. In the Abstract he writes, “The chapter also discusses a tropospheric bridge by the Walker/Hadley circulation that links the Pacific El Niño with warming of the tropical North Atlantic (TNA) and the WHWP.” For those who want the details, he provides the detailed discussion in subchapter 8 on page 22. His Summary and Discussion includes, “ENSO shifts the western Pacific heat source and atmospheric convective activity and then affects global atmospheric circulation. During El Niño, the equatorial Pacific Walker circulation is observed to be weakened. The anomalous meridional Hadley circulation in the eastern Pacific shows the air rising in the tropics, flowing poleward in the upper troposphere, sinking in the subtropics, and returning to the tropics in the lower troposphere. The anomalous Hadley circulation in the western Pacific is opposite to that in the eastern Pacific, indicating a weakening of the western Pacific Hadley circulation during El Niño. The NCAR/NCEP reanalysis field also shows that El Niño weakens the Atlantic Hadley circulation, consistent with an earlier result of Klein et al. (1999) that is inferred from correlation maps of satellite observations, and with the direct circulation analyses of Mestas-Nuñez and Enfield (2001) and Wang (2002a). Wang (2002b, c) and Wang and Enfield (2003) suggest that following El Niño winters in which the Atlantic Hadley circulation is strongly weakened, the decreased subsidence over the subtropical North Atlantic results in the late winter weakening of the NE trades off Africa, the associated spring TNA warming (Enfield an Mayer 1997 and others), and the large summer warm pools (Wang and Enfield 2001).”

    Again, Wang (2005) explains how El Nino events can and do raise SST in an area remote to the tropical Pacific. The response of the North Atlantic to ENSO can also be seen in a comparison graph of NINO3.4 SST anomalies and North Atlantic SST anomalies that I borrowed from an old post.
    http://i38.tinypic.com/detuzc.jpg

    Side Note: The North Atlantic, of course, is also impacted by the AMO, which imposes an additional increase in SST anomalies over the term of the OI.v3 SST dataset. The impact of the AMO can be seen in a comparison graph of North Atlantic SST anomalies linear trends and the SST anomalies linear trends of the other ocean basins:
    http://i40.tinypic.com/259xuh5.jpg

    Let’s move on to Trenberth et al (2002) “Evolution of El Nino–Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures.”
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf
    In it, Trenberth et al provide broader discussions of how ENSO events can and do impact global LST and SST. The paper deals with the period of 1950 to 1998, which obviously will not include the multiyear aftereffects of the 1997/98 El Nino that is evident in the data, but it does reinforce Wang (2005). In the abstract Trenberth et al write, “However, most of the delayed warming outside of the tropical Pacific comes from persistent changes in atmospheric circulation forced from the tropical Pacific. A major part of the ocean heat loss to the atmosphere is through evaporation and thus is realized in the atmosphere as latent heating in precipitation, which drives teleconnections. Reduced precipitation and increased solar radiation in Australia, Southeast Asia, parts of Africa, and northern South America contribute to surface warming that peaks several months after the El Nino event. Teleconnections contribute to the extensive warming over Alaska and western Canada through a deeper Aleutian low and stronger southerly flow into these regions 0–12 months later.”

    So there are El Nino-induced processes other than heat transfer that cause warming outside of the tropical Pacific.

    Back to the oceans: They go on further on page 7 under the heading of 3.3. Evolution of Spatial Patterns, paragraph 27 to document the lag correlations between NINO3.4 SST anomalies and the SST anomalies of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. Throughout the rest of the paper they discuss the processes that cause the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans to respond to El Nino events. These descriptions and discussions make up the body of the paper, so it’s not practical to reproduce all of it here.

    With respect to heat transfer, in the Discussion Section, page 13, first subsection, Role of the Tropical Pacific Ocean, paragraph 37, Trenberth et al further describe, “The evolution of ENSO in the tropical Pacific Ocean illustrated here supports much of that previously described by Barnett et al. [1991], Zhang and Levitus [1996], Tourre and White [1995], Giese and Carton [1999], Smith [2000], and Meinen and McPhaden [2000] in the way that anomalies of subsurface ocean heat content in the western Pacific develop as they progress eastward across the equatorial Pacific, often with a dipole pattern across the Pacific, and then with anomalies progressing off the equator to higher latitudes. Zhang and Levitus [1996] found links only to the North Pacific, perhaps reflecting the available data, while our results reveal strong links to both hemispheres. The SST evolution lags somewhat behind that of the subsurface ocean and is damped by surface fluxes and transports out of the region by the atmosphere, emphasizing the dominant role of the surface wind stress and ocean dynamics and advection in producing the local ocean heat content and SST anomalies. This damping of the ocean signal, however, forces the atmospheric anomalies. Moreover, this aspect also emphasizes that in cold La Nina conditions the surface fluxes of heat are going into the ocean relative to the mean and are warming the ocean, although not locally as the heat is redistributed by currents.”

    I’m sure you can find other discussion of the diabatic and adiabatic processes throughout the paper. But El Nino events do cause SST anomalies outside of the tropical Pacific to rise. These can be seen in comparison graphs of NINO3.4 SST anomalies and the SST anomalies of the ocean basins. (North Atlantic comparison is shown above.)

    Northeast Pacific vs NINO3.4
    http://i33.tinypic.com/w8w1hg.jpg

    Southeast Pacific and South Atlantic vs NINO3.4
    http://i35.tinypic.com/mtwh9x.jpg

    West Indian Ocean vs NINO3.4
    http://i34.tinypic.com/33udefq.jpg

    East Indian and West Pacific vs NINO3.4
    http://i33.tinypic.com/2cparf4.png

    In summary, through changes in atmospheric circulation and through the redistribution of heat by ocean currents, El Nino events cause SST anomalies to rise.

    Next on my list is the discussion of ENSO discharge/recharge. Trenberth et al provide an overview of this on page 16, paragraph 57, for those who want to read ahead.

  57. #57 Bernard J.
    November 15, 2009

    Bob Tisdale.

    Your last post would have been as usefully presented with you second last paragraph only:

    …through changes in atmospheric circulation and through the redistribution of heat by ocean currents, El Nino events cause SST anomalies to rise.

    However, in your catalogue of various diabatic processes you have not explained exactly how much heat is transferred to the atmosphere from ‘wherever’, nor have you explained how the transfer of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere is sustained over multiple cycles of the periodic phenomena that you invoke, your pending discussion of “ENSO discharge/recharge” notwithstanding.

    For the benefit of the audience here, can you quantify, over time, the various components of the heat budget involved in your model, and include the extra heat determined by physics to be ‘trapped’ as a consequence of increased atmospheric CO2?

    Without such a budget, even a thousand references that simply discuss uncontroversial diabatic processes will still not support your contention that the observed warming is simply a result of ENSO et al.

    I’m also still interested to see your list of references that document the geophysical and the biological signatures of the warming/cooling ‘supercycle’ that your claim necessarily implies. Given the extraordinary biotic and abiotic changes observed over the last 50 years or more, and if such are merely products of a natural super-periodicity, there must be some profoundly blind scientists in the world…

    Seriously mate, if you are so convinced of your physics, and if you understand it as well as you seem to be implying, you should be able to spell it all out in a post no longer than the last one of yours. For the moment though, it seems that you are still skirting around the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

  58. #58 Bob Tisdale
    November 16, 2009

    Bernard J: You wrote, “However, in your catalogue of various diabatic processes you have not explained exactly how much heat is transferred to the atmosphere from ‘wherever’, nor have you explained how the transfer of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere is sustained over multiple cycles of the periodic phenomena that you invoke, your pending discussion of “ENSO discharge/recharge” notwithstanding.”

    Before I address your concerns, let me provide you with a condensed version of what I had intended to present in my discussion of ENSO discharge and recharge cycles. It’s still a lengthy discussion, though, even in its condensed form. It addresses the other half of ENSO, the La Nina event. It does capture some of the things that concern you about my observations.

    Trenberth et al (2002) “Evolution of El Nino–Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures”…
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf
    …briefly describes how La Nina events recharge the heat that had been discharged from the tropical Pacific during El Nino events. On page 16, paragraph 57 they write, “The negative feedback between SST and surface fluxes can be interpreted as showing the importance of the discharge of heat during El Nino events and of the recharge of heat during La Nina events. Relatively clear skies in the central and eastern tropical Pacific allow solar radiation to enter the ocean, apparently offsetting the below normal SSTs, but the heat is carried away by Ekman drift, ocean currents, and adjustments through ocean Rossby and Kelvin waves, and the heat is stored in the western Pacific tropics. This is not simply a rearrangement of the ocean heat, but also a restoration of heat in the ocean.”

    Note that the area referenced with “west Pacific tropics” is the Pacific Warm Pool.

    So the La Nina restores the heat discharged by the El Nino. This can be illustrated with a comparison graph of NINO3.4 SST anomalies and Ocean Heat Content of the tropical Pacific. The discharge and recharge can be seen if you focus on the major ENSO events that aren’t impacted by volcanic aerosols:
    http://i36.tinypic.com/eqwdvl.png

    The recharge is accomplished by changes in cloud amount. The “relatively clear skies” in the above quote from Trenberth et al refers to the decrease in cloud amount during the La Nina phase of ENSO. (I do realize that carrot eater will be dismayed by this. He wrote, “Changes in cloud cover is the only thing he could possibly come up with, I think.” But it’s not something I “came up with”; it’s the way the coupled ocean-atmosphere ENSO process works.) The coincidence between NINO3.4 SST anomalies and Tropical Pacific Cloud Amount can be seen in a comparison graph.
    http://i35.tinypic.com/4rxele.jpg
    And to quote Trenberth again, “Relatively clear skies in the central and eastern tropical Pacific allow solar radiation to enter the ocean, apparently offsetting the below normal SSTs…” So it’s an increase in Downward Shortwave Radiation (due to the decrease in cloud amount) that recharges the tropical Pacific OHC.

    Trenberth et al did not quantify the amount of heat restored during the La Nina phase, but if you’d like an order of magnitude for the amount of heat discharged and recharged during major El Nino and La Nina events, you could look at the comparison graph of NINO3.4 SST anomalies and Tropical Pacific OHC and key off the 1972/73, 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Nino events. Here’s the graph once again:
    http://i36.tinypic.com/eqwdvl.png

    The next logical point to address would be how much of the ocean heat recharge during the La Nina events could be attributable to the constantly increasing Downward Longwave Radiation from Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases and how much could be attributable to the rise in Downward Shortwave Radiation from the decrease in cloud amount. This unfortunately raises the debate about the impacts of Downward Longwave Radiation (DLR) and Downward Shortwave Radiation (DSR) on OHC. DSR (visible light) penetrates and warms the ocean for 100+ meters, while DLR (infrared) only penetrates the top few centimeters. But the argument has been presented that DLR, through mixing caused by waves and wind stress turbulence, would warm the mixed layer of the ocean. This in turn would impact the temperature gradient between the mixed layer and skin, dampening the outward flow of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. The end result according to the argument: OHC would rise due to an increase in DLR caused by increases in greenhouse gas emissions. However, looking at the Tropical Pacific Ocean Heat Content data again…
    http://i36.tinypic.com/eqwdvl.png
    …it displays decadal and multidecadal periods of decreasing OHC, not gradually rising OHC as one would expect. The heat lost during these long-term decreases is replaced and additional heat is added during two multiyear periods that coincide with the multiyear La Nina events of 1973/74/75/76 and 1998/99/00. As discussed above, La Nina events have been established by Trenberth et al as the periods of OHC recharge. The decadal and multidecadal declines in tropical Pacific OHC with the short-term recharges do not appear to be consistent with what should be expected if DLR had a measureable effect on OHC.

    BTW: You can duplicate any of the graphs I’ve presented with data available online. SST, TLT, OHC data, etc., are all available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

    It is often assumed that the effects of El Nino events on global temperatures are countered by La Nina events. That is, while an El Nino results in a rise in global temperature, a La Nina event results in a proportional decrease in global temperature. SST anomalies for most of the ocean basins, or portions thereof, do show comparable responses to La Nina events. Here are the graphs again:
    Northeast Pacific vs NINO3.4
    http://i33.tinypic.com/w8w1hg.jpg
    Southeast Pacific and South Atlantic vs NINO3.4
    http://i35.tinypic.com/mtwh9x.jpg
    West Indian Ocean vs NINO3.4
    http://i34.tinypic.com/33udefq.jpg

    But any claim that La Nina events are the opposite of El Nino events is purely an assumption. It is not based on the instrument temperature record. In fact, Trenberth et al and SST anomaly data for another area of the global ocean contradict this assumption.

    I provided a quote from Trenberth et al above in an earlier comment. Here it is again. The caps are mine for emphasis. “The evolution of ENSO in the tropical Pacific Ocean illustrated here supports much of that previously described by Barnett et al. [1991], Zhang and Levitus [1996], Tourre and White [1995], Giese and Carton [1999], Smith [2000], and Meinen and McPhaden [2000] in the way that anomalies of subsurface ocean heat content in the western Pacific develop as they progress eastward across the equatorial Pacific, often with a dipole pattern across the Pacific, AND THEN WITH ANOMALIES PROGRESSING OFF THE EQUATOR TO HIGHER LATITUDES. Zhang and Levitus [1996] found links only to the North Pacific, perhaps reflecting the available data, while our results reveal strong links to both hemispheres. The SST evolution lags somewhat behind that of the subsurface ocean and is damped by surface fluxes and transports out of the region by the atmosphere, emphasizing the dominant role of the surface wind stress and ocean dynamics and advection in producing the local ocean heat content and SST anomalies. This damping of the ocean signal, however, forces the atmospheric anomalies. MOREOVER, THIS ASPECT ALSO EMPHASIZES THAT IN COLD LA NINA CONDITIONS THE SURFACE FLUXES OF HEAT ARE GOING INTO THE OCEAN RELATIVE TO THE MEAN AND ARE WARMING THE OCEAN, ALTHOUGH NOT LOCALLY AS THE HEAT IS REDISTRIBUTED BY CURRENTS.”

    The North and South Equatorial currents travel from east to west. The Kuroshio Current in the North Pacific and the East Australia Current in the South Pacific then carry the warm water poleward. The obvious area then for this transported surface and subsurface ocean heat to make its presence known would be the West Pacific Ocean. There also appears to be a similar response in the East Indian Ocean, so I’ve combined the two into one SST anomaly dataset. The redistribution of ocean heat within the Pacific during the El Nino and then during the subsequent La Nina is easily seen in the failure of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans to respond fully to the 1998/99/00 La Nina event. (I’ve been calling these effects step changes, something sod disagrees with, but I have explained in posts at my website that I use the term for simplicity sake. Technically, they would be referred to as residuals.)
    http://i33.tinypic.com/2cparf4.png

    This redistribution of heat during the 1997/98 El Nino and 1998/99/00 La Nina can also be seen in the video I created that uses the SSH animation from JPL. The video is called The Lingering Effects Of The 1997/98 El Nino:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uv4Xc4D0Dk

    Note that in the comparison graph above the East Indian and West Pacific Ocean SST anomaly data does not respond fully to the 1988/89 and 1998/99/00 La Nina events. If the global response to an El Nino was countered by the response of the La Nina, the SST anomalies of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans would have reacted fully to the La Nina events. Again, the instrument temperature record does not support the common notion that La Nina events are the same as El Nino events. It may be true for some areas of the global ocean and for some El Nino events, but it is not true for all.

    In summary: Warm water that was once briefly stored in the tropical Pacific (in the Pacific Warm Pool) was redistributed to the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans during the El Nino, carried there by ocean currents, where it raised SST anomalies. (This is an acknowledged process of ENSO.) AND during the La Nina events, the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans were provided with additional warm water, carried there by ocean currents, which helped to maintain the SST anomalies of that portion of the global ocean at the elevated levels. (This is also an acknowledged process of ENSO, as is the following.) AND as the La Nina event is helping to maintain the SST anomalies of the East Indian and West Pacific Ocean at the elevated levels, it is also recharging the OHC of the tropical Pacific to the levels they were at before the El Nino events that initiated the processes. Therefore, there are gains in the global ocean heat content that result solely from the redistribution of warm water and the recharge during those specific El Nino/La Nina events.

    Consider now that most GCMs used by the IPCC do not bother to model ENSO. How then could they attempt to duplicate that increase in the global surface temperature created by those specific El Nino/La Nina events? And the GCMs that do attempt to model ENSO, they do not create these multiyear aftereffects.

    That’s enough for today. I’ll try to address more of your concerns about my observations next time, hopefully tomorrow, maybe the next day.

    Regards.

  59. #59 Chris O'Neill
    November 16, 2009

    Bob Tisdale:

    In areas of the globe where the surface temperature measurement coverage is poor, like South America and Africa, the 1200km smoothing inflates the rise in temperature:…

    For the southern Africa UAH graph in http://i40.tinypic.com/1hb5sm.png to be correct, there would have to be a substantial cooling within the interior of southern Africa but as the RSS satellite map shows, there are very few places with any cooling anywhere within southern Africa and the vast majority of it is warming. So either the UAH figures have something wrong with them, or your derivation of those graphs is wrong.

    Does the 1200km smoothing inflate the Arctic GISTEMP data? It might not, but you can’t assume that the 1200km smoothing over the Arctic reflects reality either.

    The GISTEMP interpolation in the Arctic assumes that temperatures within the Arctic are more closely related to surrounding station temperatures in the Arctic than to the average temperature of the whole world. I’ve never heard of any evidence against this assumption.

    In any case, most likely the October HadCrut3 temperature will show that its global temperature estimate will give a positive trend for the period since 1998. Thus the “cooling since 1998″ meme is about to be consigned to the ashheap of history.

  60. #60 Mark Byrne
    November 16, 2009

    Chris,

    >*Thus the “cooling since 1998″ meme is about to be consigned to the ashheap of history*

    To be replaced by another meme, cooling since 2011. What is the average period between new global record highs over the past 30 years? Eight years? So we’ll hear the same “cooling” meme until we cook.

  61. #61 Chris O'Neill
    November 17, 2009

    Bob Tidsdale:

    The end result according to the argument: OHC would rise due to an increase in DLR caused by increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

    As indeed it does.

    However, looking at the Tropical Pacific Ocean Heat Content data again… http://i36.tinypic.com/eqwdvl.png …it displays decadal and multidecadal periods of decreasing OHC, not gradually rising OHC as one would expect.

    One would expect a much higher noise-to-signal ratio for a small fraction of the world’s oceans compared with all the oceans together. Well I would. Don’t know about Bob though.

  62. #62 Chris O'Neill
    November 17, 2009

    My last posting should have had another quote format:

    Bob Tidsdale:

    The end result according to the argument: OHC would rise due to an increase in DLR caused by increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

    As indeed it has.

    However, looking at the Tropical Pacific Ocean Heat Content data again… http://i36.tinypic.com/eqwdvl.png …it displays decadal and multidecadal periods of decreasing OHC, not gradually rising OHC as one would expect.

    One would expect a much higher noise-to-signal ratio for a small fraction of the world’s oceans compared with all the oceans together. Well I would. Don’t know about Bob though.

  63. #63 carrot eater
    November 17, 2009

    Chris O’Neill: “The GISTEMP interpolation in the Arctic assumes that temperatures within the Arctic are more closely related to surrounding station temperatures in the Arctic than to the average temperature of the whole world. I’ve never heard of any evidence against this assumption.”

    The word ‘anomaly’ needs to be inserted with ‘temperature’ throughout.

  64. #64 carrot eater
    November 17, 2009

    Bob Tisdale: I’m well aware cloud cover changes give a bit of forced signal with ENSO (reply 238). I’ve been wondering when you’d get around to quantifying it, instead of merely noting its existence. And by the way, when does your ENSO ratchet stop?

    I haven’t the time for a long reply, so I’ll make it a succinct one: Trenberth, whom you use so heavily, estimates an amount of the recent global warming that can be attributed to ENSO. His estimate is very small compared to the total magnitude of observed warming. Explain why you come to a different conclusion.

  65. #65 sod
    November 17, 2009

    Bob has written two extremely long replies, without addressing anything important.

    the questions are simple:

    where does the energy come from?

    what is the source for the decade long after effect of some el nino s?

    why so el nino s have such an effect only now? when will they end heating the earth?

    i would prefer less words they seem to bne there to add triviality and confusion, not to enlighten your readers). a simple citation of the source of your arguments would be enough.

  66. #66 luminous beauty
    November 17, 2009

    >However, looking at the Tropical Pacific Ocean Heat Content data again… http://i36.tinypic.com/eqwdvl.png …it displays decadal and multidecadal periods of decreasing OHC, not gradually rising OHC as one would expect.

    The underlying trend of OHC is positive. The underlying trend in

  67. #67 luminous beauty
    November 17, 2009

    >However, looking at the Tropical Pacific Ocean Heat Content data again… http://i36.tinypic.com/eqwdvl.png …it displays decadal and multidecadal periods of decreasing OHC, not gradually rising OHC as one would expect.

    You are just so wrong. It shows decadal periods of increasing and decreasing OHC. The underlying trend of tropical OHC (multidecadal) is positive, i.e., gradually rising.

  68. #68 luminous beauty
    November 17, 2009

    >(I’ve been calling these effects step changes, something sod disagrees with, but I have explained in posts at my website that I use the term for simplicity sake. Technically, they would be referred to as residuals.)

    Technically, they would be referred to as teleconnections, I believe.

  69. #69 sod
    November 17, 2009

    so this [post](http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/08/did-9798-el-nino-cause-step-change-in.html) is the source of your “step change theory”?

    a post in which you admit that you have difficulties handling trend lines with EXCEL?

    i am shocked.

  70. #70 Chris O'Neill
    November 17, 2009
    Thus the “cooling since 1998″ meme is about to be consigned to the ashheap of history

    To be replaced by another meme, cooling since 2011.

    At least this will be the first time they’ll have said something on this issue that is no longer true and we’ll be able to beat them over the head for it. This last “cooling” period was unusually long because 1998 was so unusually warm so there’s not likely to be a so-called “cooling” period longer than 7 years for a long time. “Cooling for the past 7 years” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it as “cooling for the past 10 years”.

  71. #71 sod
    November 17, 2009

    i do agree Chris, but i am not so optimistic.

    it is good fun at the moment, to point out that there is NOT cooling over the last 10 years. (you really need to start at the top of 1998 to get a long cooling trend in anyone of the datasets, and 1998 to now just isn t 10 years any longer…)

    but denialists tend to just shrug it of as a minor error.

    losing Hadcrut, they have just one more reason to switch to UAH data….

  72. #72 carrot eater
    November 17, 2009

    Chris O’neill: They’ll never stop picking out ‘cooling’ from the middle of a warming trend. Remember that gibberish about comparing Jan 2007 to Jan 2008? We’re dealing with people who’ll do comparisons like that, and think them meaningful.

  73. #73 carrot eater
    November 17, 2009

    Re 269: Ugh, that’s where the step-change idea came from?

    Bob Tisdale, try this: Repeat that trick with the RSS data. Instead of picking the 1998 El Nino as the dividing point, pick some other dividing points, randomly. Add linear trendlines on other side of the dividing point. See what you get.

    In fact, please do this.

    By the way, for your Excel problem: just plot two different data series, one before the breakpoint, the other after.

  74. #74 MarkB
    November 17, 2009

    #240,

    “And, of course, he has no intention on publishing, because he’d rather be right than famous or some such.”

    Seems like any individual with a climate contrarian view and a clever argument can become more popular than most of the thousands of “consensus” scientists doing real research. That’s the nature of any scientific topic that has policy implications. You don’t become notable for spending time understanding physics and acknowledging radiative forcing of greenhouse gases or climate feedbacks. You gain prominence for claiming the recent rapid warming trend is caused by underseas volcanoes, ENSO, or benthic bacteria and that scientists are perpetuating a hoax.

    “It couldn’t be because he’d be called out as a fool and his work rejected, of course.”

    Bob’s assertions are picked apart here, but blog comments aren’t really seen as such, so one can dismiss them as a difference of opinion and carry on as if their unpublished blog science is robust and no one’s ever debunked it. The critical expert evaluation one receives in the realm of published science perhaps intimidates some who might be afraid of having their house of cards, built on the base of the blogosphere, toppled. If shoddy work is submitted for review, perhaps the best case for the author is that all reviewers point out the problems and reject the submission quietly, and work is revised until (if ever) it is more robust. If the shoddy work does get published (happens on occasion…see McLean et al.), the author has to be prepared for their work to be exposed publicly through formal refutations.

  75. #75 Chris O'Neill
    November 17, 2009

    it is good fun at the moment, to point out that there is NOT cooling over the last 10 years. (you really need to start at the top of 1998 to get a long cooling trend in anyone of the datasets, and 1998 to now just isn t 10 years any longer…)
    but denialists tend to just shrug it of as a minor error.

    I think when they know that the “cooling” period is actually a bit longer than 10 years then they can easily come back and say “OK, 11 years. So what?” That argument is about to die.

    losing Hadcrut, they have just one more reason to switch to UAH data….

    So they’ll be losing some territory and only fighting from a fraction of a fraction of the data.

    They’ll never stop picking out ‘cooling’ from the middle of a warming trend. Remember that gibberish about comparing Jan 2007 to Jan 2008?

    This trend in HadCrut3 has a higher level of credibility than those comparisons. Once the HadCrut3 trend goes positive, attention can be concentrated on the more ridiculous arguments which, even though there are always credulous people around, will be seen to be ridiculous by a greater number of people.

  76. #76 Mark Byrne
    November 17, 2009

    Chris,

    I recall you’ve ancipated this for a while, do you expect the HadCRT [Oct data](http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3gl) to come out soon?

  77. #77 Chris O'Neill
    November 18, 2009

    do you expect the HadCRT Oct data to come out soon?

    The last one (Sept) didn’t come out until the 4th of November which is the latest I’ve ever seen it come out. The one before that (Aug) was out on the 17th of September.

  78. #78 carrot eater
    November 18, 2009

    Oh, don’t play their stupid games with them, waiting for each month’s data to come out as if it means something, and then drawing linear trendlines through short periods with a R^2 of 0.12 and thinking that means something. They’ll always find something nonsensical to say, so I wouldn’t wait eagerly for one of those things to require amendment.

  79. #79 Bob Tisdale
    November 18, 2009

    carrot eater: You wrote, “By the way, for your Excel problem: just plot two different data series, one before the breakpoint, the other after.”

    That’s understood. In fact, Figures 3&4 of the early post that sod linked were prepared that way. The difficulty is in the presentation when both datasets are plotted on the same graph. When EXCEL adds the linear trends to two short-term datasets, it presents the linear trends over the combined terms of both datasets, from the start of the first dataset to the end of the latter dataset. In other words, they overlap. I didn’t want the overlapping trends.
    http://i48.tinypic.com/i6cv1y.png
    The question, how would I snip the trend lines to only the shorter-term periods so that they don’t overlap?

    #####

    luminous beauty: You wrote, “Technically, they would be referred to as teleconnections, I believe.”

    Trenberth et al in their summary refers to them as residuals, I believe. The following quote is from their paragraph 52:

    “Although it is possible to use regression to eliminate the linear portion of the global mean temperature signal associated with ENSO, the processes that contribute regionally to the global mean differ considerably, and the linear approach likely leaves an ENSO residual.”

    And as I’ve shown, there are ENSO residuals, just as they suggest.

    You wrote, “You are just so wrong. It shows decadal periods of increasing and decreasing OHC. The underlying trend of tropical OHC (multidecadal) is positive, i.e., gradually rising.”

    Yes, there is an overall positive trend. I could have prefaced the description you object to with something to the effect of, “while the overall trend of the tropical Pacific OHC dataset is positive…”, but it would not have changed what the graph displays. For the decade from 1963 to 1973, OHC anomalies drop gradually from ~0.04 GJ.m^2 to ~-0.3 GJ.m^2, and for the two decades from 1977 to 1997 (1999), OHC anomalies drop gradually from ~0.16 GJ.m^2 to ~-0.12 GJ.m^2 (~-0.16 GJ.m^2). During the multiyear (4-year) period between them, from 1973 to 1977, OHC anomalies rose from ~-0.3 GJ.m^2 to ~0.16 GJ.m^2; this appears to be a recharge caused by the multiyear 1973/74/75/76 La Nina. I have not found a paper that addresses the sudden upsurge in 1995, so what transpired during the period of 1995 to 2001 is open to multiple interpretations. Now the questions at hand, starting now, will the tropical Pacific OHC anomalies respond in a similar decadal or multidecadal decline as it has in the past or will it increase gradually? I guess we’ll have to talk about it in a decade.

    #####

    Sod: You asked, “where does the energy come from?”

    As discussed in my “two extremely long replies,” the energy comes from the increase in downward shortwave radiation, caused by, as Trenberth et al described, “Relatively clear skies in the central and eastern tropical Pacific allow solar radiation to enter the ocean.” As I clarified, this was due to “the decrease in cloud amount during the La Nina phase of ENSO.”

    You asked, “what is the source for the decade long after effect of some el nino s?”
    I should have clarified this. As noted in my comment above, I’ve been calling these effects step changes, something you disagree with, but I have explained in posts at my website that I use the term for simplicity sake.

    Here’s a link to one such post:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/global-temperatures-this-decade-will-be.html
    I wrote, As you will note, the multiyear aftereffects aren’t true step changes. The SST anomalies for the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans don’t remain at the new higher temperatures indefinitely. They do, however, remain at higher levels (failing to respond fully to the La Nina) until the next series of lesser El Nino events drive the temperatures back up again, helping to maintain the higher levels. (The effects are easier to describe as step changes, which is why I refer to them that way.)

    You asked, “why so el nino s have such an effect only now?”

    Do you know for a fact that El Nino events are only having “such an effect only now?” You would have to prove that the multidecadal rise in global temperatures from ~1910 to ~1940 was not caused by the same effect.

    You asked, “when will they end heating the earth?”

    I don’t make predictions or projections.

    You wrote, “a simple citation of the source of your arguments would be enough.”

    What parts of my arguments were not addressed in the papers I linked? I’ve simply presented the data discussed in those papers in ways that they did not.

    #####

    carrot eater: You wrote, “Trenberth, whom you use so heavily, estimates an amount of the recent global warming that can be attributed to ENSO. His estimate is very small compared to the total magnitude of observed warming. Explain why you come to a different conclusion.”

    Trenberth et al explain the methods used to determine the linear trend in their paragraphs 19 through 22. The assumption Trenberth et al make is that there is a linear relationship between ENSO and global temperature. The East Indian-West Pacific SST anomaly dataset disagrees with this assumption.

    #####

    Chris O’Neill: You wrote, “One would expect a much higher noise-to-signal ratio for a small fraction of the world’s oceans compared with all the oceans together. Well I would. Don’t know about Bob though.”

    The data has been smoothed with a 13-month running-average filter. Here’s the raw NODC Tropical Pacific OHC data versus NINO3.4:
    http://i46.tinypic.com/2qwejqs.png

    As I noted above in my last comment, you can duplicate any of the graphs I’ve presented with data available online. My posts usually include sources of the data at the bottom of the page. Many of them include SST, TLT, OHC data, etc., that’s available through the KNMI Climate Explorer: http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

  80. #80 carrot eater
    November 18, 2009

    Bob Tisdale: I don’t follow your difficulty. If you ask Excel to draw a trendline for a data series, it will only consider the data in that data series. If you have two data series, you’ll get two independent trendlines. You can check what it’s doing by using the slope and intercept functions on the worksheet.

    Are you complaining about the appearance of the trendline, as opposed to how it’s calculated? In terms of appearance, there is an option in there for projecting the line forwards and backwards by x units.

    In any case, if this is really how you found your step changes, please, please, please repeat the procedure at random other times, not just 1998. It’ll be enlightening.

  81. #81 luminous beauty
    November 18, 2009

    >And as I’ve shown, there are ENSO residuals, just as they suggest.

    Those are the residuals of the statistical mean of the global effects of ENSO as the sum of non-linear responses of the totality of non-local teleconnections. Non-linear responses for which, nonetheless, energy is conserved.

    What you were applying them to is the specific phenomena of teleconnections in the supra-tropical Pacific Ocean and the Eastern Indian Ocean. These likely contribute to those residuals, but residuals in and of themselves, they are not.

    You are technically wrong and misleading, a fatal flaw of both ignorance and presumptuousness. The same is true of your ‘… multidecadal periods of decreasing OHC.’ Utterly false. You may think these confused fallacies of equivocation are justifiable for simplicity’s sake, but as the saying goes, you are simply being parsimonious with the truth.

    >I’ve simply presented the data discussed in those papers in ways that they did not.

    Precisely. You are drawing maladroit and erroneous conclusions that are not justified by the data, but rather driven by your preconceptions.

    You are shameless. Go away.

  82. #82 Chris O'Neill
    November 18, 2009

    Oh, don’t play their stupid games with them, waiting for each month’s data to come out as if it means something, and then drawing linear trendlines through short periods with a R^2 of 0.12 and thinking that means something.

    Of course it doesn’t mean anything if you know what you’re doing. But we’re talking about people who behave as if they have an IQ of less than 80. Simple things mean something to simple minds, or minds that are acting simply. Sure they come up with a lot of other crap but this meme, cooling since 1998, has gained a lot of traction judging by the way it’s repeated ad infinitum.

  83. #83 carrot eater
    November 18, 2009

    Chris, they’ll just adjust the story a bit. It doesn’t matter to them. Perhaps they’ll say “but the models say that warming should proceed at 0.2C/decade. but if you a draw a line of 0.2C/decade from the peak at 1998, the temperature should be way up here. Therefore the models are wrong!”

  84. #84 Chris O'Neill
    November 18, 2009

    “One would expect a much higher noise-to-signal ratio for a small fraction of the world’s oceans compared with all the oceans together. Well I would. Don’t know about Bob though.”

    Bob Tisdale:

    The data has been smoothed with a 13-month running-average filter.

    Big deal. In case you didn’t notice, the ocean heat content in this graph is the annual values.

  85. #85 MarkB
    November 18, 2009

    “I’ve simply presented the data discussed in those papers in ways that they did not.”

    Clever politicians do the same thing. Trenberth probably wouldn’t like his work being spun and distorted in such a manner. He’s one of the co-authors of the clear refutation of McLean et al., the woeful paper weakly alleging some contribution to the long-term trend from ENSO.

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/Foster_et%20alJGR09_formatted.pdf

    In this case, Bob Carter publicly spun and distorted his own work.

  86. #86 Gaz
    November 18, 2009

    [Here](http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/Foster_et%20alJGR09_formatted.pdf) is the link to the paper referred to in MarkB’s comment at #285.

  87. #87 sod
    November 19, 2009

    Of course it doesn’t mean anything if you know what you’re doing. But we’re talking about people who behave as if they have an IQ of less than 80. Simple things mean something to simple minds, or minds that are acting simply. Sure they come up with a lot of other crap but this meme, cooling since 1998, has gained a lot of traction judging by the way it’s repeated ad infinitum.

    look Chris, you nearly convinced me, and made me feel a little bit optimistic.

    but today i stumbled over [this "the blackboard" post](http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/hadcrut-noaa-october-temperature-anomalies-lower-than-september/)

    As you can see, since Jan 2001, which I use as my preferred start date for comparing models to data, the least squares trends from NOAA/NCDC and HadCrut happen to be negative.

    my feeling is, that more and more people will prefer Jan 2001 now….

    (i actually have a certain degree of respect for Lucia, who has posted reasonable stuff in the past. but this one is utter garbage.)

  88. #88 mark mozer, ph.d.
    December 2, 2009

    so how are all you geniuses feeling about your religion under assault?

  89. #89 Janet Akerman
    December 2, 2009

    Mark Mozer (PhD), Who [wanted to portray himself](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/open_thread_33.php#comment-1967342) as the disintereted person “trying to understand”.

  90. #90 dhogaza
    December 2, 2009
  91. #91 Gaz
    December 2, 2009

    so how are all you geniuses feeling about your religion under assault?

    Not as bad as we’d feel if the science was under attack from, say, facts or something.

  92. #92 mark mozer, ph.d.
    December 2, 2009

    genius alert to janet: “disinterested” is spelled with 2 “s”‘s

  93. #93 Janet Akerman
    December 2, 2009

    Happy to stand corrected Dr Mozer. Disinterested is spelt better without typos. Though you’d be busy correcting typos and spelling mistakes on blog sites, if that is your fancy.

    I’m also happy to provide a service to readers by exposing the disingenuous posters such as your self Mark Mozer.

  94. #94 mark mozer, ph.d.
    December 3, 2009

    Ack! I’m exposed! For the record, I provided a very detailed response to all the flack stimulated by my post linked in #289, but the proprietor of this blog refused to post it. Being a good sport, I emailed Tim wishing the “senior scientist” and all the other geniuses out there my best.

  95. #95 dhogaza
    December 3, 2009

    the proprietor of this blog refused to post it.

    Oh, Tim, we can disembowel this man if you post his crap! :)

    But it’s a bit late … a psych guy pretending to disprove physics … heh.

  96. #96 Chris O'Neill
    December 3, 2009

    sod quotes:

    As you can see, since Jan 2001, which I use as my preferred start date for comparing models to data, the least squares trends from NOAA/NCDC and HadCrut happen to be negative.

    At least she points out that they’re not statistically significant. But she fails to realize that the statistically significant difference between observed trends and model trends over just 8 years and 10 months is not climatically significant.

    In any case, when they’re reduced to just arguing that the observed warming is not as great as the model predictions, their argument is far weaker than when they can say things like “it’s been cooling for the last 11 years”.

    Far right ideologues will always argue regardless of the facts. The only thing that can vary is the proportion of people sucked in by their arguments which varies with the strength of the argument.

  97. #97 Chris O'Neill
    December 3, 2009

    so how are all you geniuses feeling about your religion under assault?

    Posted by: mark mozer, ph.d.

    ^

    Is this supposed to mean you’re a genius.

  98. #98 Bernard J.
    April 23, 2010

    A big hello to all of the Air Vent readers who might have wandered over here to see what the [fuss between Tim Lambert and Tom Fuller is about](http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/a-comparison-of-tier-2-climate-weblogs/).

    With respect to one aspect of the matter, and ["nasty piece[s] of work” and “mean spirited rhetoric” aside](http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/a-comparison-of-tier-2-climate-weblogs/#comment-26269), I hope that you take the time to follow here the chronology of whom first said what, and decide for yourselves whether it was [Tim Lambert or Tom Fuller who initiated the publicity their 'private' email exchange](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.php#comment-2045224).

    Oh, and good luck with the cognitive dissonance: remember, it can be overcome.