Leaking Siberian Methane

[donsutherland1]

Great stuff Don, thanks. Are the coefficients for the individual variables listed in the same order that you listed the variables in each of the scenarios?

Yes.

[donsutherland1]

FWIW, the following is a graph that contrasts the 10-year moving average for ENSO and 10-year moving average for global temperatures:

Notes:

1. R3.4 refers to the 10-year moving average of the ENSO Region 3.4 anomalies

2. Anomaly refers to the 10-year moving average of the global temperature anomalies

[donsutherland1]

Huh? That Temperature Graph is BS. Can you perheps shed some light on where you got that from?

1998 was 0.3C above avg...

BethesdaWx,

As noted in the message, those are 10-year moving averages (to smooth out year-to-year fluctuations). Hence, the 1998 figure is not just 1998's anomaly (+0.56°C), but the anomaly for the 10-year period ended 1998 (+0.30°C). The temperature data can be found at: http://data.giss.nas...GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

[BethesdaWX]

BethesdaWx,

As noted in the message, those are 10-year moving averages (to smooth out year-to-year fluctuations). Hence, the 1998 figure is not just 1998's anomaly, but the anomaly for the 10-year period ended 1998. The temperature data can be found at: http://data.giss.nas...GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Oh its GISS.

kk, thanks

[donsutherland1]

Annual ENSO Region 3.4 anomalies, global temperature anomalies, and the global temperature trend line:

[BethesdaWX]

Annual ENSO Region 3.4 anomalies, global temperature anomalies, and the global temperature trend line:

Have you ever thought about using Satellite data rather than GISS? Satellite is by far more accurate, with alot more coverage....& matches up with ENSO pretty good.

Lets not forget the AMO/PDO changes, match up with the 2 "steps" being shown below.

NOAA's image... you can see the Immense dominance being shown by El Nino since the PDO went warm.

Then account solar for the Long Term... & theres your warming.

[WeatherRusty]

Thank you so very much for this analysis!

I particularly appreciate the comparison between the dummy analysis versus the all inclusive natural variables analysis. The latter being little different from the former. Then noting how the coefficient of determination for CO2 versus temp. is highly correlated. Do I have that correct?

[BethesdaWX]

Thank you so very much for this analysis!

I particularly appreciate the comparison between the dummy analysis versus the all inclusive natural variables analysis. The latter being little different from the former. Then noting how the coefficient of determination for CO2 versus temp. is highly correlated. Do I have that correct?

If you're addressing Don... hint... Don't use GISS for the global temperature trend

One important rule...don't smooth the data.

[donsutherland1]

FWIW, the 10-year moving average ENSO Region 3.4 anomalies vs. 10-year moving average UAH temperature anomalies also shows a decoupling between rising temperature anomalies and fluctuating ENSO conditions:

That trend is consistent with the comparison between ENSO and GISS anomalies. The big drawback of UAH is that the time series does not go back as far as some of the other datasets e.g., GISS.

Finally, if one sets the 10-year ENSO, UAH, and GISS anomalies all to 0 at the starting point, the trends in the UAH and GISS mirror one another:

The bottom line is that ENSO fluctuations alone do not explain the observed temperature trends in recent decades, regardless of which dataset one chooses to use.

[donsutherland1]

Have you ever thought about using Satellite data rather than GISS? Satellite is by far more accurate, with alot more coverage....& matches up with ENSO pretty good.

Of course. And the conclusions differ little (I was calculating it while you were typing this message). The drawback with satellite data is that the record does not extend very far back.

Lets not forget the AMO/PDO changes, match up with the 2 "steps" being shown below.

There is a good match. As noted earlier in this thread, the r2 for the AMO and PDO was 0.867. Certainly, natural cycles are superimposed on the longer-term climate trend. I'm not arguing otherwise.

Then account solar for the Long Term... & theres your warming.

If one adds, solar to ENSO, PDO, AMO, the r2 rises to 0.898.

[BethesdaWX]

Of course. And the conclusions differ little (I was calculating it while you were typing this message). The drawback with satellite data is that the record does not extend very far back.

There is a good match. As noted earlier in this thread, the r2 for the AMO and PDO was 0.867. Certainly, natural cycles are superimposed on the longer-term climate trend. I'm not arguing otherwise.

If one adds, solar to ENSO, PDO, AMO, the r2 rises to 0.898.

What is the r2? (not quite familiar with that term ) Another impact that we need more research into is the 3% GCC drop, and if it is related to GGR fluctuations.

One thing I'm strongly against, its smoothing the data, because it distorts what could be a basis of conclusion... the fact that temps have been flat since the late 90's UAH/RSS wise, and have actually cooled a bit since 2002.

Either way. thankyou for the analysis

[WeatherRusty]

The bottom line is that ENSO fluctuations alone do not explain the observed temperature trends in recent decades, regardless of which dataset one chooses to use.

Don,

Thanks for making the case and helping to confirm that ocean cycles are not influencing the long term trend in global temperature and that the laws of thermodynamics are not in need of revision.

[BethesdaWX]

Don,

Thanks for making the case and helping to confirm that ocean cycles are not influencing the long term trend in global temperature and that the laws of thermodynamics are not in need of revision.

Who is arguing that the long term changes are caused by oceans? As far as I've seen, no one here has, or even could possibly claim such.

[nzucker]

No it doesn't it confirms my point. The 90s were the pinnacle of ENSO dominance and the downwards trend since then has had a cooling effect. Don's regression analysis confirms my assertion that the decline in ENSO has had a net cooling effect from the 1990s to the 2000s.

It doesn't even seem as if you are following the specifics of the argument here. Nobody is disputing that the upwards trend in ENSO enhanced warming in the 80s and 90s. The point of contention is 1) whether the 2000s were as ENSO dominant as the 1990s (ANSWER: NO) 2) Whether the aforementioned decline in ENSO has had a relative cooling effect (ANSWER: YES). Both of my assertions that ENSO has 1) declined from the 1990s to the 2000s and 2) that this decline from very high levels has had a net relative cooling effect, are confirmed by the statistics Don has provided. Try to follow along instead of inserting irrelevant and off topic comments which are obviously just trolling.

I was following but the one point I dispute is my belief in the tendency for ENSO-dominated stretches to have a cumulative effect. Sure, there's probably a bit of cooling influence from the fact that the 2000s averaged less +ENSO than the 1990s, and we surely agree on that, but there's also the fact that we've basically been in the same El Niño pattern for 30 years until now...and these things add up. Also, the long multi-year El Niño between 2002 and 2005 might have caused a spike in global temperatures and accumulating of heat in the higher latitudes, as the 2005 GISS analysis shows along with the high arctic temperatures that year. Same reason the 1950s cooled as there was such a long streak of La Niña events that the effect became exponential in some ways.

So we don't completely disagree on the main points, but we see it a little different in that I'm more a "cycles" kind of guy.

[BethesdaWX]

I was following but the one point I dispute is my belief in the tendency for ENSO-dominated stretches to have a cumulative effect. Sure, there's probably a bit of cooling influence from the fact that the 2000s averaged less +ENSO than the 1990s, and we surely agree on that, but there's also the fact that we've basically been in the same El Niño pattern for 30 years until now...and these things add up. Also, the long multi-year El Niño between 2002 and 2005 might have caused a spike in global temperatures and accumulating of heat in the higher latitudes, as the 2005 GISS analysis shows along with the high arctic temperatures that year. Same reason the 1950s cooled as there was such a long streak of La Niña events that the effect became exponential in some ways.

So we don't completely disagree on the main points, but we see it a little different in that I'm more a "cycles" kind of guy.

Agree with this. ENSO definitely Not responsible for the warming we've seen since the LIA, but there is no doubt the +PDO/+AMO, & the more frequent resulting El Nino's make it harder for Global Temps to drop during the 40 year phases.

We have cooled a bit since 2002 using UAH/RSS obs.

[donsutherland1]

What is the r2? (not quite familiar with that term )

r2=coefficient of determination. It shows the strength of the relationship between one linear variable and other.

Another impact that we need more research into is the 3% GCC drop, and if it is related to GGR fluctuations.

I don't have a dataset for that variable, so I can't include it.

One thing I'm strongly against, its smoothing the data, because it distorts what could be a basis of conclusion... the fact that temps have been flat since the late 90's UAH/RSS wise, and have actually cooled a bit since 2002.

I used decadal moving averages, because climate is longer-term. Shorter-term fluctuations can mask the longer-term trend.

Either way. thankyou for the analysis

You're welcome.

Have a great evening.

[BethesdaWX]

r2=coefficient of determination. It shows the strength of the relationship between one linear variable and other.

I don't have a dataset for that variable, so I can't include it.

I used decadal moving averages, because climate is longer-term. Shorter-term fluctuations can mask the longer-term trend.

You're welcome.

Have a great evening.

I'm a firm believer that Solar Activity is responsible for more than 95% of our observed warming trend since the LIA,.

GCC's lowlevel decrease is a major warming factor, changes in WV that we've seen are completelyt representative of those LL changes, so its not what one would consider a "cooling" factor.

Whatever is causing these changes in GCC is another HUGE factor.... the only reasonable explanation is GCR, 3% decrease in the CC definitely have nothing to do with CO2 increase

Our understanding of the AGW theory is derivedfrom computer models, basically a hypothesis, since obseved warming is comparable with Natural factors as well.

In what we derive from, our Computer models are based upon the theory that Co2 is the underlying cause, & the feedbacks have been knowingly waaayyy to positive for a long time.

Yet, in the blatent fact that OBS are not consistant with model "scnearios", we cannot analyze why....because the computer codes are hidden!

I'm just skimming the surface here!

[skierinvermont]

Huh? That Temperature Graph is BS. Can you perheps shed some light on where you got that from?

1998 was 0.3C above avg...

Perhaps you should slow down and take some time to read and think instead of giving people a hard time. He clearly said in the post that it was a 10-yr moving average.

[BethesdaWX]

Perhaps you should slow down and take some time to read and think instead of giving people a hard time. He clearly said in the post that it was a 10-yr moving average.

BS because its GISS was my point.... think

[skierinvermont]

BS because its GISS was my point.... think

Perhaps you should explain to Don your fascinating theories on why GISS is BS.. I'm sure he would be delighted to hear them.

Also, as Don explained, his analysis doesn't change regardless of what data source is used.

[BethesdaWX]

Perhaps you should explain to Don your fascinating theories on why GISS is BS.. I'm sure he would be delighted to hear them.

Also, as Don explained, his analysis doesn't change regardless of what data source is used.

Yes... if you smooth the data. If you don't then it aint the same. Read my post on the previous page in response do Don... on why the Warming we've seen is Not due to Co2.

[BethesdaWX]

NOAA's image... you can see the Immense dominance being shown by El Nino since the PDO went warm.

Then account solar for the Long Term... & theres your warming.

I'm a firm believer that Solar Activity is responsible for more than 95% of our observed warming trend since the LIA,.

GCC's lowlevel decrease is a major warming factor, changes in WV that we've seen are completelyt representative of those LL changes, so its not what one would consider a "cooling" factor.

Whatever is causing these changes in GCC is another HUGE factor.... the only reasonable explanation is GCR, 3% decrease in the CC definitely have nothing to do with CO2 increase

Our understanding of the AGW theory is derivedfrom computer models, basically a hypothesis, since obseved warming is comparable with Natural factors as well.

In what we derive from, our Computer models are based upon the theory that Co2 is the underlying cause, & the feedbacks have been knowingly waaayyy to positive for a long time.

Yet, in the blatent fact that OBS are not consistant with model "scnearios", we cannot analyze why....because the computer codes are hidden!

Thus.... the notion that our warming is caused by CO2 is simply Hypothesis... & is not supported!

[skierinvermont]

Brilliant.. you solved global warming.. thermodynamics be damned!

[BethesdaWX]

Brilliant.. you solved global warming.. thermodynamics be damned!

Its all there for you to read. My Hypothesis appears to have more support from OBS... as for Models, AGWers can claim victory... from their own hypothesis.

I clearly stated I;d change sides if I'm disproven in 30 years (barring solar changes)... but that will have to wait awhile until all the players return to the field.

[beneficii]

I clearly stated I;d change sides if I'm disproven in 30 years (barring solar changes)... but that will have to wait awhile until all the players return to the field.

Then why do you keep having this discussion with us? Just wait.

[donsutherland1]

GCC's lowlevel decrease is a major warming factor, changes in WV that we've seen are completelyt representative of those LL changes, so its not what one would consider a "cooling" factor.

Whatever is causing these changes in GCC is another HUGE factor.... the only reasonable explanation is GCR, 3% decrease in the CC definitely have nothing to do with CO2 increase

By any chance, do you have a link to the datasets from which the cloud cover graphs were constructed? I would be interested to seeing how things change if that data is incorporated into my spreadsheet.

[skierinvermont]

By any chance, do you have a link to the datasets from which the cloud cover graphs were constructed? I would be interested to seeing how things change if that data is incorporated into my spreadsheet.

Be careful - there have been many problems with cloud cover data. There have been many satellites used and it is difficult to calibrate them to one another so make sure the data set is reliable.

[donsutherland1]

Be careful - there have been many problems with cloud cover data. There have been many satellites used and it is difficult to calibrate them to one another so make sure the data set is reliable.

I agree about the reliability. Hopefully, if a link to the datasets is provided, those datasets will contain the necessary technical information to assess the reliability of the dataset. I'm concerned also that the dataset is just too recent to be of much use (if the dates on the graphs are indicative). Right now, I'm fairly confident that the earlier statistical assessments won't change materially even if the cloud cover data is included.

[BethesdaWX]

"How" they were measured was with satellite data, which is by far superior in measuring climate than any other method we have............Are you wondering which satellites were used, or how they exactly measured it?

The point demonstrated, feedbacks are a big deal, and they are the reason for the improper forecasts being made by computer models... this is why all climate models need to be redone... this isn't directed as much toward Co2 as it is how the climate interacts to keep equilibrium.

The notion that our warming is CO2 related is easy to idealize when the data is smoothed into 10yr incriments, as shown in your post. If you were to not use 10yr incriments to do such, you'd see global temps, even as they rise since the late 1700's, are not following Co2, but rather the Sun. I'm talking pre-adjustement.

Its very complicated, Co2 being a trace Gas at 0.038% of the atmosphere.....about 2/3 of the warming shown on modeling is due to incorrect feedback equations that have been debunked by OBS... its not long before the idea that Co2 is warming the earth will debunk itself through OBS.

[donsutherland1]

"How" they were measured was with satellite data, which is by far superior in measuring climate than any other method we have............Are you wondering which satellites were used, or how they exactly measured it?

If multiple satellites were used, then there would be some need to ensure that the calibration was consistent. For now, I'm looking for the dataset for the cloud cover graphs.

The notion that our warming is CO2 related is easy to idealize when the data is smoothed into 10yr incriments, as shown in your post. If you were to not use 10yr incriments to do such, you'd see global temps, even as they rise since the late 1700's, are not following Co2, but rather the Sun. I'm talking pre-adjustement.

Year-to-year changes, not to mention those on even shorter timeframes, are largely products of synoptic patterns e.g., the December 2010 temperature anomalies for the Northern Hemisphere were largely AO driven. Hence, were I to run the statistics for year-to-year temperature changes, I would expect the coefficient of determination for CO2 to be lower. I'll run those statistics tonight using the year-to-year data.

Climate is a longer-term issue. I used 10-year moving averages simply because there wasn't enough data to use even longer-duration moving averages. Were there more data points for all the forcings (natural and CO2), I would have used 30-year moving averages. Unfortunately, there are not.

Its very complicated, Co2 being a trace Gas at 0.038% of the atmosphere.....about 2/3 of the warming shown on modeling is due to incorrect feedback equations that have been debunked by OBS... its not long before the idea that Co2 is warming the earth will debunk itself through OBS.

The marginal increase in atmospheric CO2 almost certainly is more relevant than the fact that CO2 is a trace gas and will almost certainly remain a trace gas. More likely than debunking a contribution from CO2, I suspect scientists will refine their estimates of the contribution made by CO2 vs. natural forcings. I make no predictions about the direction of those refinements, but will note that the seemingly intriguing flip from direct to indirect relationships or vice versa between some natural forcings and global temperatures when CO2 is introduced into the mix, might hint toward a larger role for CO2 down the road. Given the lack of data, I hesitate to reach such a conclusion at this point in time, but it is not implausible. I'll wait for more scientific research and also a larger sample before reaching a firm conclusion on that issue.