Adjusting Global Temperature for ONI, TSI, and Pinatubo

[skierinvermont]

This is an update of the chart I've been posting on this forum for several years that shows temperature adjusted for ENSO, TSI and Pinatubo. I changed the method slightly this year.

 

1. I used an average of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4. I used the following sources:

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.1.1.0.annual_ns_avg.txt

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

 

2. I then adjusted this mean by .105C per degree C of the 3-month lagged annual ONI. .105C per degree C of ONI is the correlation I have previously found between the 3 month lagged ONI and global temperature. I used the most recent CPC version of the ONI from the following link:

 

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

 

3. I then adjusted the result of #2 by .15C per W/m2 of the PMOD TSI anomaly. .15C per W/m2 of TSI anomaly is consistent with the peer-reviewed consensus of about a .1-.15C global temperature change from solar min to max, which usually changes by a little over 1W/m2. PMOD data can be accessed below:

 

ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/ext_composite_d41_62_1210a.dat

 

4. I then adjusted the result of #3 for Pinatubo by adding .05 to 1991, .35 to 1992, .22 to 1993 and .1 to 1994, which is consistent with the effect of Pinatubo found in peer-reviewed literature. 

 

 

 

The result of steps 1-4 is the following chart:

[Snow_Miser]

This is an update of the chart I've been posting on this forum for several years that shows temperature adjusted for ENSO, TSI and Pinatubo. I changed the method slightly this year.

1. I used an average of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4. I used the following sources:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.1.1.0.annual_ns_avg.txt

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

2. I then adjusted this mean by .105C per degree C of the 3-month lagged annual ONI. .105C per degree C of ONI is the correlation I have previously found between the 3 month lagged ONI and global temperature. I used the most recent CPC version of the ONI from the following link:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

3. I then adjusted the result of #2 by .15C per W/m2 of the PMOD TSI anomaly. .15C per W/m2 of TSI anomaly is consistent with the peer-reviewed consensus of about a .1-.15C global temperature change from solar min to max, which usually changes by a little over 1W/m2. PMOD data can be accessed below:

ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/ext_composite_d41_62_1210a.dat

4. I then adjusted the result of #3 for Pinatubo by adding .05 to 1991, .35 to 1992, .22 to 1993 and .1 to 1994, which is consistent with the effect of Pinatubo found in peer-reviewed literature.

The result of steps 1-4 is the following chart:

So what do you think caused 2012 to be the coolest in 8 years on your chart?

[skierinvermont]

So what do you think caused 2012 to be the coolest in 8 years on your chart?

 

Well it could be either

 

1. Radiative forcing (excluding TSI) has been increasing less than expected, or not at all, the last 8 years

 

2. Additional natural variability besides ENSO, TSI, and volcanoes that my method does not account for

 

3. My method cannot perfectly account for the effect of ENSO, TSI or volcanoes. It is only a decent approximation. 

 

 

I would suggest that it is primarily #2 and #3, given the unlikelihood that radiative forcing (excluding TSI) has done anything except steadily increase. 

 

 

There have been similar 8 year periods where there is a year colder than the year 8 years prior. 2003 and 2004 were colder than 1998 and 1999. While my chart removes much natural variability, especially that associated with TSI, ENSO and volcanoes, it does not remove all. When none is removed, we find years colder than those 15+ years prior. By removing much natural variability (especially ENSO and TSI) we get a much clearer picture of underlying AGW, but not perfect.

 

While it takes ~15 years of unadjusted temperature to be 95% certain a positive trend will be measured (*NOTE not a statistically significant positive trend), it appears to take about ~10 years to be 95% certain there will be a positive trend even after ENSO and TSI are accounted for (*NOTE not a statistically significant positive trend). 

 

If the lack of warming, even after adjusting for ENSO, TSI, and volcanoes goes on for another 3 or 4 years, that would get my attention more.

 

 

 

**** I Note that the observed trend must only be positive after 15 years, or 10 years if adjusted, NOT statistically significantly positive, because of our previous discussions where you have misunderstood the statements of climatologists. 

[WeatherRusty]

Nice! The chart accounts for the known big players of natural variability to within a reasonably tight range of uncertainty. Hence, what remains in the linear trend is presumably the AGW signal of about 0.6C of warming since 1980.

 

What accounts for the remaining wiggles? Of course some of that is due to inaccuracy in accounting for the large players, while the remainder can be thought of as the accumulation of lesser variables such as changing low cloud amount in as much as that is not already accounted for inherent to consideration of ONI.

[Mallow]

So what do you think caused 2012 to be the coolest in 8 years on your chart?

 

As skier noted: what caused 2003 to be the coolest in 7 years? TSI, ONI, and volcanoes don't account for all natural variability, even if they account for a lot of it. There's inevitably going to be "noise".

[forkyfork]

2012 still fits the trend line well

[skierinvermont]

Here is the same chart with the 1-yr lag for TSI removed. It makes most of the chart more linear, primarily by making 97-99 lower relative to 03-04. But it makes the last two years more of an anomaly. This chart suggests to me a slowing in the underlying warming rate the last 5 years. Perhaps aerosols or other natural variability.

[Snow_Miser]

I wonder how much of the variability in that chart still is due to natural variation. Skier didn't remove the PDO/AMO from the temperature trend, which are still probably responsible for a large portion of the temperature change in his chart that he posted.

[Mallow]

I wonder how much of the variability in that chart still is due to natural variation. Skier didn't remove the PDO/AMO from the temperature trend, which are still probably responsible for a large portion of the temperature change in his chart that he posted.

 

 

Anything but CO2, right?

 

Actually, the PDO trend during the time period of that chart is downward. Isn't the AMO negatively correlated to global temperatures? If so, the AMO trend would also suggest a cooling during the time period. Likely part of the PDO trend is already captured by the ONI. So... in essence, no, removing the PDO/AMO from the graph would not explain the warming trend, and in fact would likely only amplify the CO2 signal.

[Snow_Miser]

 

Anything but CO2, right?

 

Actually, the PDO trend during the time period of that chart is downward. Isn't the AMO negatively correlated to global temperatures? If so, the AMO trend would also suggest a cooling during the time period. Likely part of the PDO trend is already captured by the ONI. So... in essence, no, removing the PDO/AMO from the graph would not explain the warming trend, and in fact would likely only amplify the CO2 signal.

 

No, the PDO and AMO have a significant effect on modulating the rate of the global temperature increase, and this has been confirmed by multiple groups. Not removing them would be leaving a significant portion of natural variation in that chart.

 

Mochizuki et al. 2010

 

Our results suggest that the PDO also plays a major role in modulating the global warming trend on decadal timescales. Both the PDO and the AMOC have considerable impact on the pan-Pacific and pan-Atlantic climates and can influence a globally averaged state.

[bluewave]

No, the PDO and AMO have a significant effect on modulating the rate of the global temperature increase, and this has been confirmed by multiple groups. Not removing them would be leaving a significant portion of natural variation in that chart.

 

Mochizuki et al. 2010

 

Our results suggest that the PDO also plays a major role in modulating the global warming trend on decadal timescales. Both the PDO and the AMOC have considerable impact on the pan-Pacific and pan-Atlantic climates and can influence a globally averaged state.

 

No one is arguing that the PDO can't modulate the temperatures on a decadal time scale. But the PDO isn't responsible

for the long term warming trend caused by increasing CO2 emissions. You can see how record warm years are usually

set during El Nino years. But you will also notice that the more La Nina years occurring during the recent shift

to the -PDO show an increasing temperature trend. The last few La Nina years are clearly warmer than just a decade

ago.

 

 

The new Metoffice decadal forecast takes the colder PDO conditions into account.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

 

But the danger is that people think that a lack of big annual temperature spikes like 1998

mean the actual greenhouse warming of the earth is slowing down. Averaged out over 

the long term, these decadal temperature variations will have no importance to the big

picture of uninterrupted global warming.

[Snow_Miser]

No one is arguing that the PDO can't modulate the temperatures on a decadal time scale. But the PDO isn't responsible

for the long term warming trend caused by increasing CO2 emissions. You can see how record warm years are usually

set during El Nino years. But you will also notice that the more La Nina years occurring during the recent shift

to the -PDO show an increasing temperature trend. The last few La Nina years are clearly warmer than just a decade

ago.

 

201213_640.png

 

The new Metoffice decadal forecast takes the colder PDO conditions into account.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

 

But the danger is that people think that a lack of big annual temperature spikes like 1998

mean the actual greenhouse warming of the earth is slowing down. Averaged out over 

the long term, these decadal temperature variations will have no importance to the big

picture of uninterrupted global warming.

 

Skier claims that the PDO/AMO do not have a large influence on the Global Temperature changes over a multidecadal timeframe. I am not claiming that the PDO/AMO are responsible for the long term warming. That's a combination of the solar and anthropogenic forcings.

[Mallow]

No, the PDO and AMO have a significant effect on modulating the rate of the global temperature increase, and this has been confirmed by multiple groups. Not removing them would be leaving a significant portion of natural variation in that chart.

 

Mochizuki et al. 2010

 

Our results suggest that the PDO also plays a major role in modulating the global warming trend on decadal timescales. Both the PDO and the AMOC have considerable impact on the pan-Pacific and pan-Atlantic climates and can influence a globally averaged state.

 

Uhh, where did I say otherwise? My point was that if anything, the trend induced by PDO changes over the past 32 years (the years on skier's chart) would be negative. Which implies that the CO2 impact must actually be even larger than that shown by his chart.

[forkyfork]

No one is arguing that the PDO can't modulate the temperatures on a decadal time scale. But the PDO isn't responsible

for the long term warming trend caused by increasing CO2 emissions. You can see how record warm years are usually

set during El Nino years. But you will also notice that the more La Nina years occurring during the recent shift

to the -PDO show an increasing temperature trend. The last few La Nina years are clearly warmer than just a decade

ago.

 

201213_640.png

 

The new Metoffice decadal forecast takes the colder PDO conditions into account.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

 

But the danger is that people think that a lack of big annual temperature spikes like 1998

mean the actual greenhouse warming of the earth is slowing down. Averaged out over 

the long term, these decadal temperature variations will have no importance to the big

picture of uninterrupted global warming.

how can you not attribute much of the supposed "flatlining" to la nina after looking at that graph?

[Snow_Miser]

Uhh, where did I say otherwise? My point was that if anything, the trend induced by PDO changes over the past 32 years (the years on skier's chart) would be negative. Which implies that the CO2 impact must actually be even larger than that shown by his chart.

 

It wouldn't be negative over the late-20th Century. Skier did not remove these factors from his chart, and thus there is still a strong natural signal in the temperature chart he made.

[bluewave]

how can you not attribute much of the supposed "flatlining" to la nina after looking at that graph?

 

Exactly. There will always be short term variations while the long term greenhouse warming continues.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u_0JZRIHFtk

[Mallow]

It wouldn't be negative over the late-20th Century. Skier did not remove these factors from his chart, and thus there is still a strong natural signal in the temperature chart he made.

 

Yes it would.

[Snow_Miser]

Yes it would.

to

 

No it wouldn't. The climate system doesn't equilibriate instantaneously to a forcing.

[Mallow]

No it wouldn't. The climate system doesn't equilibriate instantaneously to a forcing.

 

PDO peaked around 1985, skier's chart peaks in 2010.

 

So there's a ~25 yr lag to the PDO's impacts on global temperatures? And what, pray tell, is the mechanism by which a 25 year lag is realized? Not to mention lag-correlations of the timeseries of PDO and global temperatures have found no such lag.

 

I don't mind if you keep digging your hole, though.

[bluewave]

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/

 

 

An interesting result is the time lags found. For volcanic eruptions the resulting cooling lags by about half a year, whereas the warming associated with El Niño events lags the multivariate ENSO index by 2–5 months. For ENSO the largest lag is found in the lower troposphere, whereas for solar forcing the lag in the surface data is larger. This is consistent with ENSO forcing the climate system from below (via ocean heat release) while solar irradiance forces the system from the top. The lags found here are consistent with those from Lean and Rind (2008) for the longer period 1889–2006, namely 6 months for volcanoes, 4 months for ENSO and 1 month for solar variations.

[The_Global_Warmer]

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/

 

 

An interesting result is the time lags found. For volcanic eruptions the resulting cooling lags by about half a year, whereas the warming associated with El Niño events lags the multivariate ENSO index by 2–5 months. For ENSO the largest lag is found in the lower troposphere, whereas for solar forcing the lag in the surface data is larger. This is consistent with ENSO forcing the climate system from below (via ocean heat release) while solar irradiance forces the system from the top. The lags found here are consistent with those from Lean and Rind (2008) for the longer period 1889–2006, namely 6 months for volcanoes, 4 months for ENSO and 1 month for solar variations.

 

 

I concede I didn't expect ENSO lag to be so large.

 

 

But the solar lag makes sense and it's funny.  Some here say solar lag is years or decades.

 

 

Heat is always being radiated from something.  Turn down solar and a cooling effect should appear quickly.

[skierinvermont]

It wouldn't be negative over the late-20th Century. Skier did not remove these factors from his chart, and thus there is still a strong natural signal in the temperature chart he made.

 

Over the period of my graph, 1980-2012, the effect would be negative. Moreover, the primary effect of the PDO is through altered ENSO state, which my chart does account for. Outside of the warming effect of El Ninos associated with +PDO, a +PDO probably causes cooling due to the dominance of negative SSTAs in the north pacific. 

[skierinvermont]

No it wouldn't. The climate system doesn't equilibriate instantaneously to a forcing.

 

Nobody said it equilibriates immediately to a forcing. But if a negative forcing is applied, cooling commences immediately, even if the full cooling effect is not realized for 5, 10, 30+ years (depending on the size of the forcing). For example, Pinatubo applied a negative forcing. The climate cooled immediately, reaching its full cooling effect of nearly .5C within 1 year. It then began to re-warm as the forcing dissipated.

 

 

Are you suggesting that when Pinatubo causes cooling, cooling begins immediately, but when the sun or the PDO cause cooling, warming doesn't even begin for 30 years, and then magically all of a sudden warming starts?

 

 

I'll refer you again to my thread on "magic lags" created by deniers. 

[Snow_Miser]

PDO peaked around 1985, skier's chart peaks in 2010.

So there's a ~25 yr lag to the PDO's impacts on global temperatures? And what, pray tell, is the mechanism by which a 25 year lag is realized? Not to mention lag-correlations of the timeseries of PDO and global temperatures have found no such lag.

I don't mind if you keep digging your hole, though.

I didn't say there is a 25 year lag, don't misrepresent my position.

Maybe you can explain the physical mechanism for an instantaneous equilibrium between the PDO and global temperature?

[Snow_Miser]

Nobody said it equilibriates immediately to a forcing. But if a negative forcing is applied, cooling commences immediately, even if the full cooling effect is not realized for 5, 10, 30+ years (depending on the size of the forcing). For example, Pinatubo applied a negative forcing. The climate cooled immediately, reaching its full cooling effect of nearly .5C within 1 year. It then began to re-warm as the forcing dissipated.

Are you suggesting that when Pinatubo causes cooling, cooling begins immediately, but when the sun or the PDO cause cooling, warming doesn't even begin for 30 years, and then magically all of a sudden warming starts?

I'll refer you again to my thread on "magic lags" created by deniers.

You mischaracterize my position.

I didn't say there wasn't an immediate temperature response, I said that equilibrium is not immediate. So Mallow's assumption that because the PDO went from positive to slightly less positive in the late-20th century, the PDO would have exerted a cooling influence on temperatures simply holds no water.

The PDO and the solar forcing were positive forcings beforehand. Even if the level of that forcing went down slightly, but the climate did not equilibriate to that forcing, you would still see warming. The only thing that's magical is your side claiming that an instantaneous equilibrium should be met. Mallow claims that since the PDO trend was negative from 1985-2000, we should have seen cooling instead of warming. Just simply wrong.

[Mallow]

I didn't say there is a 25 year lag, don't misrepresent my position.

Maybe you can explain the physical mechanism for an instantaneous equilibrium between the PDO and global temperature?

 

For someone who claims their position has been misrepresented, you sure do a lot of that yourself. First you make the erroneous assertion that I stated anything about whether or not the PDO/AMO actually do have an impact on global temperatures, and then you claim I stated there is zero lag between PDO and global temperatures.

 

Re: the ~25 year lag, it's physically required to explain the opposing direction of skier's graph and the PDO, and the lack of even a remote slowing in the "warming" until the last couple years. Even if you invoke the idea that, like with CO2, the temperature response to the PDO might be not fully expressed til years later, if you stopped (for example) pumping CO2 into the atmosphere now, the warming would slow down almost immediately, certainly not 25 years later. That effect doesn't even require you to reduce the CO2 forcing. PDO "forcing" peaked around 1985, and has been decreasing ever since. Taking the most liberal approach, I won't even require that the temperature begin decreasing shortly thereafter... as long as it slows down. But it doesn't. Until (and probably not actually until, since two years a trend does not make) 2010.

 

Now let's throw all that out, since the PDO does not create a long-term energy imbalance like CO2 does (it simply redistributes heat), so is not analogous to CO2 forcing! Therefore, the lag between the peak of the PDO and the peak of global temperatures as forced by the PDO would exactly describe the lag between the two variables. So yes, even if unintentionally, by suggesting that the PDO explains a large portion of skiers graph, you are asserting that the lag between the PDO and global temperatures is ~25 years.

 

 

 

 

"Mallow claims that since the PDO trend was negative from 1985-2000, we should have seen cooling instead of warming. Just simply wrong."

 

No, I claim that since the PDO trend was negative from 1985 - 2012, we should have seen cooling much sooner than starting in 2010. Which is, quite simply, accurate.

 

 

Soooo done arguing the same thing over and over again. I'm out. Have a good day.

[Snow_Miser]

For someone who claims their position has been misrepresented, you sure do a lot of that yourself. First you make the erroneous assertion that I stated anything about whether or not the PDO/AMO actually do have an impact on global temperatures, and then you claim I stated there is zero lag between PDO and global temperatures.

 

Re: the ~25 year lag, it's physically required to explain the opposing direction of skier's graph and the PDO, and the lack of even a remote slowing in the "warming" until the last couple years. Even if you invoke the idea that, like with CO2, the temperature response to the PDO might be not fully expressed til years later, if you stopped (for example) pumping CO2 into the atmosphere now, the warming would slow down almost immediately, certainly not 25 years later. That effect doesn't even require you to reduce the CO2 forcing. PDO "forcing" peaked around 1985, and has been decreasing ever since. Taking the most liberal approach, I won't even require that the temperature begin decreasing shortly thereafter... as long as it slows down. But it doesn't. Until (and probably not actually until, since two years a trend does not make) 2010.

 

Now let's throw all that out, since the PDO does not create a long-term energy imbalance like CO2 does (it simply redistributes heat), so is not analogous to CO2 forcing! Therefore, the lag between the peak of the PDO and the peak of global temperatures as forced by the PDO would exactly describe the lag between the two variables. So yes, even if unintentionally, by suggesting that the PDO explains a large portion of skiers graph, you are asserting that the lag between the PDO and global temperatures is ~25 years.

 

 

 

 

 

No, I claim that since the PDO trend was negative from 1985 - 2012, we should have seen cooling much sooner than starting in 2010. Which is, quite simply, accurate.

 

 

Soooo done arguing the same thing over and over again. I'm out. Have a good day.

 

The PDO became negative enough to have a cooling influence on the climate system over the last few years, and can probably explain a significant portion of the recent flatlining in temperatures. It was still having a warming influence on temperatures over the late-20th Century.

 

You are claiming that if I put a pot of water on a stove at a high flame and then reduce the flame to medium that this would somehow cause cooling.

 

It's just wrong.

[blizzard1024]

The PDO became negative enough to have a cooling influence on the climate system over the last few years, and can probably explain a significant portion of the recent flatlining in temperatures. It was still having a warming influence on temperatures over the late-20th Century.

 

You are claiming that if I put a pot of water on a stove at a high flame and then reduce the flame to medium that this would somehow cause cooling.

 

It's just wrong.

 

Here is a nice article from Dr Spencer on the PDO and its role in recent climate changes. Of course, the AGW community would never

publish this because it de-emphasizes the role of CO2 and therefore threatens research funding streams (which are drying up these days

all fields)....  http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

 

Plus you are correct. There are lags in the climate system. If CO2 warming is "in the pipeline" it assumes lags then

what makes it so magical that other features don't have lags? I never understood these arguments that when you

turn the stove off, the pot automatically cools instantly, unless of course CO2 is somehow warming the pot...then

there are lags. It's a magical substance...didn't you know this? (sarc). 

[skierinvermont]

The PDO became negative enough to have a cooling influence on the climate system over the last few years, and can probably explain a significant portion of the recent flatlining in temperatures. It was still having a warming influence on temperatures over the late-20th Century.

 

You are claiming that if I put a pot of water on a stove at a high flame and then reduce the flame to medium that this would somehow cause cooling.

 

It's just wrong.

The warming rate should have slowed immediately when the PDO sharply declined in 1999. Just like a pot when turning the stove from high to low (actually in this case it is more like putting it in an ice bath since the PDO went negative).  Instead, the warming trend remained the same right up until 2010. There is no correlation evident on my graph with the PDO, magic lags or no lags. 

 

Why? Because the PDO alters global temperature by altering the ENSO state, which my graph already accounts for. 

[BeastFromTheEast]

Here is a nice article from Dr Spencer on the PDO and its role in recent climate changes. Of course, the AGW community would never

publish this because it de-emphasizes the role of CO2 and therefore threatens research funding streams (which are drying up these days

all fields)....  http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

 

LOL

Don't expect many of us here on this SCIENCE board to take Mr. Creationist/Denier/Heartland stooge Dr. Roy Spencer too seriously..

Here are some of his gems for those of you unaware..

“It would be worthwhile for everyone to think seriously about what they believe mankind’s role on Earth is, and how much influence over nature humans should assert. Since this is ultimately and inevitably a religious question, I fear that science will be misused in the effort to disguise it as a scientific one.”

 

Indeed, I was convinced of the intelligent design arguments based upon the science alone.

More goodies below..

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

 

This guy brings his religious views into ALL of his climate "research". 

Any one who follows this hack's work is not interested in legitimate climate change discussion...