Statistical model for removing ENSO, TSI, and Volcanoes

[skierinvermont]

And what about this?

I don't know, I'm currently reading more about it. I had read Haigh's work before, but I'm waiting for more authors to chime in over the next few years. The Nat Geo article is a bit of an exaggeration of the claims compared to the actual study:

http://www.nature.co...ature09426.html

[skierinvermont]

And if you read what they say, it's quite obvious that their criticism is valid. Scafetta and West assume the climate to be driven by solar a priori and then conduct a regression against that ONE variable. This will ALWAYS tend to overestimate the influence of that variable. A regression MUST include all possible related variables.

Until someone comes along and debunks their assertions.

They won't. This is basic statistics. The criticism is clearly valid. See above. Sometimes people are just plain wrong, and this is one of those cases. Think about it.

[BethesdaWX]

Not that I haven't, but I don't know what you are specifically referring to.

This is physically impossible, as explained by numerous attribution studies including the Bernestad and Schmidt study I posted earlier. There is no physical mechanism whereby once solar activity stops rising, temperatures would continue rising rapidly, aside from a slight lag due to the oceans which would be a relatively minor factor. The atmosphere is fairly tansparent to energy and will rapidly lose or gain energy based on the radiative balance. Unless the incoming energy is increasing, or the outgoing energy decreasing, there aren't going to be large changes in temperature. The atmosphere rapidly warms or cools to equilibrium in response to external forcings. Once solar stops increasing, which it did mid-century, then so does the warming effect.

As numerous people have told you multiple times, including zucker and myself, the ENSO response is very consistent and predictable and one can arrive at a decent approximation by removing it. It's quite clear that we warm in Ninos, and cool in Ninas, and that most of this effect can be removed so as to approximate the ENSO-neutral trend.

You need to slow down and think...but Read first! You are way offline, and avoid points that change the picture. Rapid Equilibrium coincides with a negative-feedback oriented climate system... As in, the Climate System reaching rapid equilibrium to TSI in a short timespan cannot occur within a positive feedback oriented climate system... (climate system = oceans, atmosphere, everything). GCC a supposed +feedback to Warming, Oceans.

Just like how CO2 we emit, even if we stopped now, will warm the atmosphere further for decades.

The Atmosphere is not Seperate from the Oceans...they are one body since the oceans determine Atmospheric Temperatures significantly....the Oceanws hold 10000X the energy the atmosphere does.

This is about energy balance, and relativity....aka, Oceans = more powerful than atmosphere. The Suns heat buildup doesn't just heat the Atmosphere, and leave when it stops/slows....otherwise AGW is nothing to worry about since positive feedbacks cannot coincide with rapid equilibrium...AGW cannot exist unless the Climate system is rigged with +feedbacks...as in, GCC is supposed to decrease with warmer temps, causing more warming....Oceans will not release all the energy from 100 years of Historic Solar in 2 years The oceans Hold MUCH more energy than the Atmosphere. does, and a Minor rise in ocean temperature can affectthe atmosphere in a Huge way!

As for ENSO removal...AGAIN, its not Just ENSO

If we could figure out how exactly to adjust for IPO, QDO, PDO, AMO, Global SST, Global Cloud Cover/GCC, LLCC, M/ULCC, Volcanism, IOD, HLB, NAO/AO/AAO, QBO, NAM, Global Sea Ice, Global Snowcover, TSI, and Deep Ocean currents/speed, MJO, all little drivers.....Then we could remove for ENSO easily. Its not Just removing ENSO from the trend...its everything that infects the trend, which Tamino does not do. If we could measure GCC for example, we could probably determine alot more just on the one scale.

[BethesdaWX]

And skier starts posting without reading again....lovely.

I expect yet another horrendous post.

[skierinvermont]

You need to slow down and think...but Read first! You are way offline, and avoid points that change the picture. Rapid Equilibrium coincides with a negative-feedback oriented climate system... As in, the Climate System reaching rapid equilibrium to TSI in a short timespan cannot occur within a positive feedback oriented climate system... (climate system = oceans, atmosphere, everything). GCC a supposed +feedback to Warming, Oceans.

Just like how CO2 we emit, even if we stopped now, will warm the atmosphere further for decades.

The Atmosphere is not Seperate from the Oceans...they are one body since the oceans determine Atmospheric Temperatures significantly....the Oceanws hold 10000X the energy the atmosphere does.

This is about energy balance, and relativity....aka, Oceans = more powerful than atmosphere. The Suns heat buildup doesn't just heat the Atmosphere, and leave when it stops/slows....otherwise AGW is nothing to worry about since positive feedbacks cannot coincide with rapid equilibrium...AGW cannot exist unless the Climate system is rigged with +feedbacks...as in, GCC is supposed to decrease with warmer temps, causing more warming....Oceans will not release all the energy from 100 years of Historic Solar in 2 years The oceans Hold MUCH more energy than the Atmosphere. does, and a Minor rise in ocean temperature can affectthe atmosphere in a Huge way!

As for ENSO removal...AGAIN, its not Just ENSO

If we could figure out how exactly to adjust for IPO, QDO, PDO, AMO, Global SST, Global Cloud Cover/GCC, LLCC, M/ULCC, Volcanism, IOD, HLB, NAO/AO/AAO, QBO, NAM, Global Sea Ice, Global Snowcover, TSI, and Deep Ocean currents/speed, MJO, all little drivers.....Then we could remove for ENSO easily. Its not Just removing ENSO from the trend...its everything that infects the trend, which Tamino does not do. If we could measure GCC for example, we could probably determine alot more just on the one scale.

Yes some warming occurs after emissions stop but not nearly as much as prior to the emissions. In other words, the lag is pretty small. The lag for solar is even smaller because it's a slower acting and much smaller effect. If CO2 concentrations stop rising in 2100, we will have warmed 3C but only another .5C of warming occurs after 2100. If we were to use the same ratios, say solar caused .2C of warming from 1850-1950 and then stopped rising.. we would expect only an addition .03C of warming. In fact the ratio is likely to be even smaller since the rise in solar was much slower and smaller in magnitude.

The oceans haven't been building up and storing vast amounts of solar energy which they are suddenly going to release. That's just not how the climate system works. The rise in solar output caused a bit of warming from 1850-1950 and the oceans warmed slowly as well. Because the warming was slow and small, there isn't much lag effect.

[skierinvermont]

And skier starts posting without reading again....lovely.

I expect yet another horrendous post.

Trying to anticipate people's posts and insulting them before they have even made them is really annoying and completely unnecessary. It just creates clutter. You do this all the time. If you don't like what I have to say, you can insult it after I say it.

Will can you ask him to stop?

[tacoman25]

They won't. This is basic statistics. The criticism is clearly valid. See above. Sometimes people are just plain wrong, and this is one of those cases. Think about it.

You mean peer-reviewed scientists can be wrong and miss basic statistics?

Look at the bigger picture. That's my point.

[BethesdaWX]

Yes some warming occurs after emissions stop but not nearly as much as prior to the emissions. In other words, the lag is pretty small. The lag for solar is even smaller because it's a slower acting and much smaller effect. If CO2 concentrations stop rising in 2100, we will have warmed 3C but only another .5C of warming occurs after 2100. If we were to use the same ratios, say solar caused .2C of warming from 1850-1950 and then stopped rising.. we would expect only an addition .03C of warming. In fact the ratio is likely to be even smaller since the rise in solar was much slower and smaller in magnitude.

The oceans haven't been building up and storing vast amounts of solar energy which they are suddenly going to release. That's just not how the climate system works. The rise in solar output caused a bit of warming from 1850-1950 and the oceans warmed slowly as well. Because the warming was slow and small, there isn't much lag effect.

Read carefully please. you are still confused. First, you need to treat the Oceans and Atmosphere and 1 entity, the oceans being figuratively 1,000,000% more powerful and loaded than the atmosphere.

Again, you are assuming a Quick TSI peak in the Late 1950's automatically coincides with the Peak of Solar Warming to the Climate System/ Equilibrium....Rapid Equilibrium! That goes against everything the IPCC says regarding the climate system, and all their Model Predictions!

As for your errors

1) Who says solar warming stopped in 1950? The oceans hold/absorb much more energy than the atmosphere ever could regarding Solar. Its not About the Decrease in TSI from 1980-2000's...its the fact that the Climate System Continued to Absorb record amounts of energy from the Sun from 1980-2003! Who says the Planet's Nautral Equilibrium is what it was back in the 1850's? Dude, that was part of the LIA! Yeah.............Thats right, the planets natural equilibrium For Solar is rapid and is regarding A Solar Minimum.......Laughable.

The 1980's through 2000's were all above the mean solar activity we've seen in our past...rapid equilibrium is what you're assuming, quick....how long it takes the Sun's energy to Balance from the Climate system to the Sun...if its quick, it means the Atmosphere is loaded with negative feedbacks, and AGW is thus less of a worry.

"Equilibrium" is relative dude.

[tacoman25]

Yes some warming occurs after emissions stop but not nearly as much as prior to the emissions. In other words, the lag is pretty small. The lag for solar is even smaller because it's a slower acting and much smaller effect. If CO2 concentrations stop rising in 2100, we will have warmed 3C but only another .5C of warming occurs after 2100. If we were to use the same ratios, say solar caused .2C of warming from 1850-1950 and then stopped rising.. we would expect only an addition .03C of warming. In fact the ratio is likely to be even smaller since the rise in solar was much slower and smaller in magnitude.

The oceans haven't been building up and storing vast amounts of solar energy which they are suddenly going to release. That's just not how the climate system works. The rise in solar output caused a bit of warming from 1850-1950 and the oceans warmed slowly as well. Because the warming was slow and small, there isn't much lag effect.

The whole idea of oceans storing heat which they are then going to release at some point later doesn't change based on the source, though...does it? The warming from 1850-1950, which most scientists would agree at this point was primarily solar driven (or at least not CO2) was not insignificant. If increased solar energy over that time period was be absorbed by the oceans, how do you know there was little lag effect? For all we don't know about how exactly the climate system works, we do know that ocean energy storage/release is a complex process involving circulation, ENSO, upwelling, and all sorts of oceanic phases. If heat is in the pipeline due to CO2, why couldn't it have been in the pipeline due to stored solar energy in the 1950s and on?

[skierinvermont]

The whole idea of oceans storing heat which they are then going to release at some point later doesn't change based on the source, though...does it? The warming from 1850-1950, which most scientists would agree at this point was primarily solar driven (or at least not CO2) was not insignificant. If increased solar energy over that time period was be absorbed by the oceans, how do you know there was little lag effect? For all we don't know about how exactly the climate system works, we do know that ocean energy storage/release is a complex process involving circulation, ENSO, upwelling, and all sorts of oceanic phases. If heat is in the pipeline due to CO2, why couldn't it have been in the pipeline due to stored solar energy in the 1950s and on?

What I am saying is the oceans generally warm slightly slower and therefore slow down the surface warming. They don't absorb excess heat and then suddenly release it. Right now the oceans are rapidly GAINING heat not releasing it. They didn't absorb a bunch of solar heat and then start releasing it decades later.

[BethesdaWX]

Read carefully please. you are still confused. First, you need to treat the Oceans and Atmosphere and 1 entity, the oceans being figuratively 1,000,000% more powerful and loaded than the atmosphere.

Again, you are assuming a Quick TSI peak in the Late 1950's automatically coincides with the Peak of Solar Warming to the Climate System/ Equilibrium....Rapid Equilibrium! That goes against everything the IPCC says regarding the climate system, and all their Model Predictions!

As for your errors

1) Who says solar warming stopped in 1950? The oceans hold/absorb much more energy than the atmosphere ever could regarding Solar. Its not About the Decrease in TSI from 1980-2000's...its the fact that the Climate System Continued to Absorb record amounts of energy from the Sun from 1980-2003! Who says the Planet's Nautral Equilibrium is what it was back in the 1850's? Dude, that was part of the LIA! Yeah.............Thats right, the planets natural equilibrium For Solar is rapid and is regarding A Solar Minimum.......Laughable.

The 1980's through 2000's were all above the mean solar activity we've seen in our past...rapid equilibrium is what you're assuming, quick....how long it takes the Sun's energy to Balance from the Climate system to the Sun...if its quick, it means the Atmosphere is loaded with negative feedbacks, and AGW is thus less of a worry.

"Equilibrium" is relative dude.

To add onto the Above, not only were 1980-2003 much above the Mean solar output from the Sun-Earth ( in relative equilibrium), but it occured with the +PDO occuring while the Oceans were already Heated from the High Solar from 1920-1960.

GCC according to the IPCC is supposed to Decrease in response to allow more solar energy in, warming the planet further.

[skierinvermont]

To add onto the Above, not only were 1980-2003 much above the Mean solar output from the Sun-Earth ( in relative equilibrium), but it occured with the +PDO occuring while the Oceans were already Heated from the High Solar from 1920-1960.

GCC according to the IPCC is supposed to Decrease in response to allow more solar energy in, warming the planet further.

What I am saying is the oceans generally warm slightly slower and therefore slow down the surface warming. They don't absorb excess heat and then suddenly release it. Right now the oceans are rapidly GAINING heat not releasing it. They didn't absorb a bunch of solar heat and then start releasing it decades later.

[tacoman25]

What I am saying is the oceans generally warm slower and therefore slow down the surface warming. They don't absorb excess heat and then suddenly release it. Right now the oceans are rapidly GAINING heat not releasing it. They didn't absorb a bunch of solar heat and then start releasing it decades later.

So what part of that negates the possibility that the oceans were slowly warming and gaining extra energy during the big solar increase from the mid 1800s to the mid/late 1900s?

And the oceans DID release a bunch of heat during the last +PDO phase, when Ninos predominated and surface temps warmed more rapidly. They are always releasing some heat.

[BethesdaWX]

Skier,

You realize if the Oceans warm Slightly, the Atmosphere warms more significantly.....right? What did we go over regardng relative and non-relative equilibrium?

Relative sun-earth equilibrium is not the LIA solar output...sorry. 1980-2000 saw the Oceans continue to absorb more and more solar energy in "hyperactivity"....the climate system includes the oceans...

[skierinvermont]

So what part of that negates the possibility that the oceans were slowly warming and gaining extra energy during the big solar increase from the mid 1800s to the mid/late 1900s?

And the oceans DID release a bunch of heat during the last +PDO phase, when Ninos predominated and surface temps warmed more rapidly. They are always releasing some heat.

No, on net the oceans have consistently been gaining heat since at least 1900 due to increasing downward LW and SW radiation. Just look at an OHC reconstruction.

[tacoman25]

No, on net the oceans have consistently been gaining heat since at least 1900 due to increasing downward LW and SW radiation. Just look at an OHC reconstruction.

You aren't grasping what I'm saying. Just because they have been gaining heat does not prevent them from also releasing previously stored heat.

And the fact that they have been gaining heat since at least 1900 indicates that increased solar activity does in fact result in latent heat storage in the oceans.

[skierinvermont]

You aren't grasping what I'm saying. Just because they have been gaining heat does not prevent them from also releasing previously stored heat.

Yes it does. It indicates that the atmosphere continues to warm the ocean, not the other way around.

[tacoman25]

Yes it does. It indicates that the atmosphere continues to warm the ocean, not the other way around.

Every time there is an El Nino, the ocean warms the atmosphere. That is heat being released. Just because heat has continued to accumulate in the ocean does NOT mean it isn't also being released, and we don't know the life cycle of heat storage in the oceans.

You have also chosen to ignore my point about accumulating heat in the ocean since at least 1900 pointing towards latent heat storage from solar input.

[skierinvermont]

Every time there is an El Nino, the ocean warms the atmosphere. That is heat being released. Just because heat has continued to accumulate in the ocean does NOT mean it isn't also being released, and we don't know the life cycle of heat storage in the oceans.

You have also chosen to ignore my point about accumulating heat in the ocean since at least 1900 pointing towards latent heat storage from solar input.

The ocean isn't warming the atmosphere in El Ninos, the atmosphere is continuing to warm the ocean, just not as fast. More of the heat that the earth accumulates in a single year is accumulated in the atmosphere during El Ninos.

Yes the high solar warming added to the OHC of the oceans 1900-1950.. but that doesn't make surface air temperatures any higher today.

[BethesdaWX]

The ocean isn't warming the atmosphere in El Ninos, the atmosphere is continuing to warm the ocean, just not as fast. More of the heat that the earth accumulates in a single year is accumulated in the atmosphere during El Ninos.

Yes the high solar warming added to the OHC of the oceans 1900-1950.. but that doesn't make surface air temperatures any higher today.

Excuse me? You just blew a Gasket to the debate. Its Both FYI. You need subsurface warmth for an El Nino, and that is provided by the Climate system. If the Climate system needs to release heat, it will do so in an El Nino when both Atmosphere and Ocean are in Tandom.

Again, you are assuming a Quick TSI peak in the Late 1950's automatically coincides with the Peak of Solar Warming to the Climate System...Maybe the peak of absorbtion rate but still above normal absorbtion....Equilibrium....Rapid Equilibrium is what you're assuming! That goes against everything the IPCC says regarding the climate system, and all their Model Predictions!

Who says solar warming stopped in 1950? The Climate System has been absorbing solar Hyperactivity until about 2002. The oceans hold/absorb much more energy than the atmosphere ever could regarding Solar. Its not About the Decrease in TSI from 1980-2000's...its the fact that the Climate System Continued to Absorb record amounts of energy from the Sun from 1980-2003! Who says the Planet's Nautral Equilibrium is what it was back in the 1850's? Dude, that was part of the LIA! Yeah ............the planets natural equilibrium For Solar is rapid and is regarding A Solar Minimum.......Laughable.

The 1980's through 2000's were all above the mean solar activity we've seen in our past...rapid equilibrium is what you're assuming, quick....how long it takes the Sun's energy to Balance from the Climate system to the Sun...if its quick, it means the Atmosphere is loaded with negative feedbacks, and AGW is thus less of a worry.

"Equilibrium" is relative dude.

As for ENSO removal...AGAIN, its not Just ENSO

If we could figure out how exactly to adjust for IPO, QDO, PDO, AMO, Global SST, Global Cloud Cover/GCC, LLCC, M/ULCC, Volcanism, IOD, HLB, NAO/AO/AAO, QBO, NAM, Global Sea Ice, Global Snowcover, TSI, and Deep Ocean currents/speed, MJO, all little drivers.....Then we could remove for ENSO easily. Its not Just removing ENSO from the trend...its everything that infects the trend, which Tamino does not do. If we could measure GCC for example, we could probably determine alot more just on the one scale.

[skierinvermont]

Excuse me? You just blew a Gasket to the debate. Its Both FYI. You need subsurface warmth for an El Nino, and that is provided by the Climate system. If the Climate system needs to release heat, it will do so in an El Nino when both Atmosphere and Ocean are in Tandom.

The oceans do not release net heat during El Ninos. The reason the subsurface gets hot during El Ninos is that upwelling slows. This allows for the atmosphere to heat the upper layers of the ocean. The tropical pacific is a massive heat sink in both El Ninos and La Ninas.. it is just less of a heat sink during El Ninos. We also know from sea level altimetry and ARGO that the oceans are a net heat sink even in El Ninos.

[BethesdaWX]

The oceans do not release net heat during El Ninos. The reason the subsurface gets hot during El Ninos is that upwelling slows. This allows for the atmosphere to heat the upper layers of the ocean. The tropical pacific is a massive heat sink in both El Ninos and La Ninas.. it is just less of a heat sink during El Ninos. We also know from sea level altimetry and ARGO that the oceans are a net heat sink even in El Ninos.

YES!

Bingo, thats the point. The Oceans have a Net Heat/Energy Balance relative to that of the Atmoshere, which you and I both agree I'm sure. During El Nino's, when you have warmer waters, (as you said, oceans are less of a heat sink when they're warm), the net balance of heat energy that is absorbed into the oceans is less...AKA, they give up their potential storage.

Hovever.......

The PDO, on the other hand, its energy comes from Flipping/oscillating deep Ocean Currents (so we assume), and is a Direct Ocean - to - atmosphere phenomenon (yes of course there are feedbacks)...as in, it affects the atmosphere directly, Global Cloud Cover, etc. AMO is the same way....PDO is tied to ENSO because the ocean currents during a La Nina often reflect/support the divergence. We don't know enough about them yet, but we hopefully will in due time.

[skierinvermont]

bump for taco

[tacoman25]

I thought this deserved its own thread so that I can make modifications and so that the discussion of this doesn't get mixed up in several different threads.

I finally got around to statistically removing ENSO, TSI, and Volcano variation from the temperature series 1980-2010. I used the skierinvermont^TM temperature index (Average of HadCRUT/GISS 60S-60N with UAH at the poles) which I believe to be one of the most accurate ways to estimate surface temperature. Yearly temperature anomalies were adjusted by -.105C for each 1C of ONI (3 month lag), and by the proposed -.18C for each W/m2 anomaly of TSI found in Camp and Tung 2007. The years 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 were adjusted by +.05, +.35 +.22 and +.1C respectively to adjust for Pinatubo. The result of removing the ENSO, TSI, and volcanic variation is a much more consistent temperature series that shows much more steady increase. Obviously not all variation can be removed because of unexplained variation and the interaction of factors, but much of it can be removed by using accepted relationships between ENSO, TSI, volcanoes and temperature which constitute the 3 strongest, most consistent, and predictable short-term effects on temperature.

The following graph is ENSO, TSI, and Volcano adjusted (blue line) along with a 5 year smoother (red line).

Per your graph, 1998 to 2010 showed about .15C rise...which would equate to about .12C/decade rise.

[skierinvermont]

Per your graph, 1998 to 2010 showed about .15C rise...which would equate to about .12C/decade rise.

I have run the trend analysis and the 1998-2010 trend is .23C/decade.

[tacoman25]

I have run the trend analysis and the 1998-2010 trend is .23C/decade.

It would depend on what smoother you use. Going directly from 1998-2010, it is much lower. I would like to see what published paper produces those same results.

[skierinvermont]

It would depend on what smoother you use. Going directly from 1998-2010, it is much lower. I would like to see what published paper produces those same results.

I'm not using a smoother. I am performing a linear regression, the standard method for calculating trend lines.

.23C/decade 1998-2010.

Other studies which have used the same method as me (independently arriving at the same conclusion):

http://sciences.blog...2009-2019-2.pdf (Lean and Rind 2009 in GRL)

http://tamino.wordpr...-earth-warming/ (Tamino on his blog.. he said he was submitting for publication)

[tacoman25]

I'm not using a smoother. I am performing a linear regression, the standard method for calculating trend lines.

.23C/decade 1998-2010.

Other studies which have used the same method as me (independently arriving at the same conclusion):

http://sciences.blog...2009-2019-2.pdf (Lean and Rind 2009 in GRL)

http://tamino.wordpr...-earth-warming/ (Tamino on his blog.. he said he was submitting for publication)

Well, it's interesting because Real Climate's ENSO-corrected graph from a couple years ago didn't show nearly the rise yours does. It flattened out. Granted, it didn't consider TSI, but that wasn't even considered significant enough to significantly alter trends. So something doesn't add up.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Will someone post the current numbers pertaining to this thread?

I Thank You in Advance...we could really use a streamlined source for this.

[Sunny and Warm]

holy crap, I never suspected that Skier was a Tamino disciple. Talk about whack jobs. Now I'm embarrassed for you. Tamino has been beaten more times than a dead horse.