Replicating McLean

26
Jul
Replicating McLean

Below are my replications of Figure 4 and Figure 5 of the controversial paper “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter.

Above is the comparison of global atmospheric temperature (RATPAC-A) with the SOI, smoothed with a flat 12 month filter.

Above is the comparison of the 12 month differences (not derivative) of global atmospheric temperature (RATPAC-A) (lagged) with the SOI, smoothed with a flat 12 month filter.

I found a 2 month lag gave an optimal alignment. The regression output below shows an R2 of 0.52. I don’t know if that is what they got for this particular data combination, but it is in the same ballpark.

source("script.R") figrep()


Call:

lm(formula = d$ddGTTA ~ d$dSOI)
Residuals:

     Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max

-0.55874 -0.08093  0.01564  0.09929  0.40064
Coefficients:

             Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)

(Intercept) 0.0085806  0.0060261   1.424    0.155

d$dSOI      0.0158019  0.0006306  25.059   <2e-16 ***

---

Signif. codes:  0 â€˜***â€™ 0.001 â€˜**â€™ 0.01 â€˜*â€™ 0.05 â€˜.â€™ 0.1 â€˜ â€™ 1

Residual standard error: 0.1447 on 575 degrees of freedom Multiple R-squared: 0.522, Adjusted R-squared: 0.5212 F-statistic: 628 on 1 and 575 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16

At this point I am satisfied that they did what they said they did, that I know what they have done, and that the correlations they report are actually there.

Tagged as:
Published by david stockwell in: All Climate Reviews Statistics
If you like this blog please take a second from your precious time and subscribe to my rss feed!

http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

David, they got an R2 of 0.68 (6 mo lag), but excluded volcano periods. Sounds like you didn’t do that. You mentioned R2=0.52.

The discrepancy in optimal delay is surprising.

You may be able to shed light on their use of temp data. In Fig 1 they show MSU. In Fig 4 they show RATPAC. In Fig 7 they show MSU and RATPAC spliced. At least for the last decade, they are all different. The MSU is annual in Fig 1, monthly in Fig 7, which may be the difference, but I wonder. In Fig 1, for the last decade, MSU temp was decidedly higher than SOI, while in Fig 7 they are not. Annual to monthly and shifting SOI wouldn’t make that difference.

I couldn’t see why the paper is talking about MSU at all, if RATPAC is what they analysed. In particular, I couldn’t see why they would claim a correlation for RATPAC but graph it for MSU as in Fig 7. It may have something to do with Lucia’s observation that the constant term in their regressions does imply a considerable trend in RATPAC. In fact, a comparison of regression slopes of SOI and RATPAC would be useful.

Anonymous

“The discrepancy in optimal delay is surprising.” Could be me, what with the lags and the differencing and all.

Nick Stokes

David, they got an R2 of 0.68 (6 mo lag), but excluded volcano periods. Sounds like you didn't do that. You mentioned R2=0.52.The discrepancy in optimal delay is surprising.You may be able to shed light on their use of temp data. In Fig 1 they show MSU. In Fig 4 they show RATPAC. In Fig 7 they show MSU and RATPAC spliced. At least for the last decade, they are all different. The MSU is annual in Fig 1, monthly in Fig 7, which may be the difference, but I wonder. In Fig 1, for the last decade, MSU temp was decidedly higher than SOI, while in Fig 7 they are not. Annual to monthly and shifting SOI wouldn't make that difference.I couldn't see why the paper is talking about MSU at all, if RATPAC is what they analysed. In particular, I couldn't see why they would claim a correlation for RATPAC but graph it for MSU as in Fig 7. It may have something to do with Lucia's observation that the constant term in their regressions does imply a considerable trend in RATPAC. In fact, a comparison of regression slopes of SOI and RATPAC would be useful.
Anonymous

Gee Nick, they explain why they use both RATPAC [I love that name, Frank would be pleased] and MSU; RATPAC data goes back further, MSU is more accurate and provides a standard for RATPAC data outside the MSU range.

You are right about the difference in lag which David finds using the same data but Trenberth et al find lags between oceanographic events and temperature responses of between 2-13 months;

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf

Still it is a pity as that dimension of climate response was a feature of the McLean paper. The paper has opened up the crucial debate about whether climate features like PDO and SOI and ENSO just creat variability in temperature or actaully produce trends; it is now accepted by both sides that over a nominated period temperature will rise or decrease due to whatever phase of these natural features is dominating during the nominated measurement period; the period from the end of the LIA is the relevant period for consideration of AGW and this graph is useful;

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/04/03/global-warming-a-classic-case-of-alarmism/

If +ve PDOs have dominated the period since the LIA then it is reasonable that the temperature trend for that period will be up. The issue is what is the best way of establishing that; David’s break paper shows that the climate shifts are best measured with the break test.

So what is your view on David’s break paper Nick?

http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

Coho, I saw that, but where does MSU fit into the analysis? They haven’t in fact used it to check RATPAC. And inaccurate or not, it’s RATPAC that they analysed. They seem to only use MSU in plots, when RATPAC is the one that actually relates to what they’ve calculated. And I’m still curious about how recent MSU came down to SOI level oner the last decade in Fig 7. I hope David duplicates that Fig.

I’m slow to comment on breakpoint stuff. It seems too like chartism to me.

Anonymous

The Chow test differs from charting as there is a measure of significance, which things like crossovers, and breakouts etc don’t have. The assertion involved is that an underlying parameter (a mean value or coefficient) has changed suddenly, reflecting a switch to a different state.

When I was modelling biodiversity, the major advance was that much better prediction could be obtained with a combination of discrete and continuous models. It would be interesting the the same applied to the climate system, with some measure of discrete ‘states’, combined with continuous evolution, being an optimal description.

cohenite

Gee Nick, they explain why they use both RATPAC [I love that name, Frank would be pleased] and MSU; RATPAC data goes back further, MSU is more accurate and provides a standard for RATPAC data outside the MSU range.You are right about the difference in lag which David finds using the same data but Trenberth et al find lags between oceanographic events and temperature responses of between 2-13 months;http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298…Still it is a pity as that dimension of climate response was a feature of the McLean paper. The paper has opened up the crucial debate about whether climate features like PDO and SOI and ENSO just creat variability in temperature or actaully produce trends; it is now accepted by both sides that over a nominated period temperature will rise or decrease due to whatever phase of these natural features is dominating during the nominated measurement period; the period from the end of the LIA is the relevant period for consideration of AGW and this graph is useful;http://joannenova.com.au/2009/04/03/global-warm…If +ve PDOs have dominated the period since the LIA then it is reasonable that the temperature trend for that period will be up. The issue is what is the best way of establishing that; David's break paper shows that the climate shifts are best measured with the break test. So what is your view on David's break paper Nick?
Nick Stokes

Coho, I saw that, but where does MSU fit into the analysis? They haven't in fact used it to check RATPAC. And inaccurate or not, it's RATPAC that they analysed. They seem to only use MSU in plots, when RATPAC is the one that actually relates to what they've calculated. And I'm still curious about how recent MSU came down to SOI level oner the last decade in Fig 7. I hope David duplicates that Fig.I'm slow to comment on breakpoint stuff. It seems too like chartism to me.
davids99us

“The discrepancy in optimal delay is surprising.” Could be me, what with the lags and the differencing and all.
davids99us

The Chow test differs from charting as there is a measure of significance, which things like crossovers, and breakouts etc don't have. The assertion involved is that an underlying parameter (a mean value or coefficient) has changed suddenly, reflecting a switch to a different state.When I was modelling biodiversity, the major advance was that much better prediction could be obtained with a combination of discrete and continuous models. It would be interesting the the same applied to the climate system, with some measure of discrete 'states', combined with continuous evolution, being an optimal description.
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

I’ve also done a replication of Fig 4. You can see it here. It plots SOI and RATPAC temp against time, using the same scaling as the paper. SOI is black, RATPAC red. But I also plotted the linear regressions. You can see that, on this scale where the variations are well matched, the slopes are not. In deg C/yr units, the slope of the RATPAC fit is 0.016, while the slope of the SOI line is 0.0030. SOI does not ‘explain” the trend of the RATPAC data.

http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

OK, that messed up. Sorry. The image is here.

Nick Stokes

I've also done a replication of Fig 4. You can see it <img src=”http://i30.tinypic.com/192xz.jpg” border=”0″ alt=”Image and video hosting by TinyPic”>here. It plots SOI and RATPAC temp against time, using the same scaling as the paper. SOI is black, RATPAC red. But I also plotted the linear regressions. You can see that, on this scale where the variations are well matched, the slopes are not. In deg C/yr units, the slope of the RATPAC fit is 0.016, while the slope of the SOI line is 0.0030. SOI does not 'explain” the trend of the RATPAC data.
Nick Stokes

OK, that messed up. Sorry. The image is here.
Anonymous

Nick are you sure you’ve got the right off-set for the SOI?

http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

I believe so. I just matched the nominal zero of SOI with the zero of the RATPAC anomaly, as I think they did. Anyway, the data curves are meant to be the same as their Fig 4, and although my R skills did not extend to aligning the aspect ratio, I think you’ll find it is the same.
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

Maybe you meant time offset? Their Fig 4 does not have one, as I understand. Time offset would make the variations line up better, but won’t change the regression slope.

cohenite

Nick are you sure you've got the right off-set for the SOI?
Anonymous

Nick; just because the SOI and temp data have different slopes doesn’t preclude a trend relationship; for instance, are the slopes constant over smaller intervals or for -ve and +ve SOI values; the lag factor appears to be constant so if the slope ratio is similarly constant then that would lend some credence to the thesis.

http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

No, it undermines their thesis, which is whispered in the paper but megaphoned in the press release. Namely, that SOI explains so much of the variation that there is no room for a temperature trend due to GHG. But we have a temp trend, and it isn’t explained by SOI.

cohenite

Nick; just because the SOI and temp data have different slopes doesn't preclude a trend relationship; for instance, are the slopes constant over smaller intervals or for -ve and +ve SOI values; the lag factor appears to be constant so if the slope ratio is similarly constant then that would lend some credence to the thesis.
Nick Stokes

I believe so. I just matched the nominal zero of SOI with the zero of the RATPAC anomaly, as I think they did. Anyway, the data curves are meant to be the same as their Fig 4, and although my R skills did not extend to aligning the aspect ratio, I think you'll find it is the same.
Nick Stokes

Maybe you meant time offset? Their Fig 4 does not have one, as I understand. Time offset would make the variations line up better, but won't change the regression slope.
Nick Stokes

No, it undermines their thesis, which is whispered in the paper but megaphoned in the press release. Namely, that SOI explains so much of the variation that there is no room for a temperature trend due to GHG. But we have a temp trend, and it isn't explained by SOI.
Anonymous

The paper only claims 72% for the MSU variance and 68% for the longer RATPAC data with an understandably higher 81% for tropical temp variation; that leaves 28%, 32% and 19% of varaition unexplained. I’d like to see a pro-AGW paper extract a % of not only trend but variation [because if there is a component of variation not explained by natural factors what is causing it?] which is due to AGW. A number of papers and commentators have removed ENSO and volcanoes but none, as far as I know, have removed SOI; or are you saying that any trend must be caused entirely by AGW? If so, over what time period? This in fact is a issue treated in David’s paper; the so-called Keenlyside effect where masking of the trend occurs when natural variation is opposite to the alleged AGW trend; the corrollary is that when variation is sympathetic to trend shouldn’t that trend be magnified; where is the evidence for that?
cohenite

The paper only claims 72% for the MSU variance and 68% for the longer RATPAC data with an understandably higher 81% for tropical temp variation; that leaves 28%, 32% and 19% of varaition unexplained. I'd like to see a pro-AGW paper extract a % of not only trend but variation [because if there is a component of variation not explained by natural factors what is causing it?] which is due to AGW. A number of papers and commentators have removed ENSO and volcanoes but none, as far as I know, have removed SOI; or are you saying that any trend must be caused entirely by AGW? If so, over what time period? This in fact is a issue treated in David's paper; the so-called Keenlyside effect where masking of the trend occurs when natural variation is opposite to the alleged AGW trend; the corrollary is that when variation is sympathetic to trend shouldn't that trend be magnified; where is the evidence for that?
Anonymous

Sorry, disregard that; SOI is used in the paper as an equivalent for ENSO.
cohenite

Sorry, disregard that; SOI is used in the paper as an equivalent for ENSO.
Anonymous

Is there evidence that the rate of change of the main variables is similar over the time examined? I’d be worried about lag adjustment until I was sure, especially on smoothed or annualised data. I’m thinking that the SST changes that are an indicator of SOI etc are influenced by the extent of upwelling of hot or cold water, which might happen at a different rate and bya different mechanism than radiative heating/ cloud cooling. Those graphs look to me as if they have stretch as well as lag.
sherro

Is there evidence that the rate of change of the main variables is similar over the time examined? I'd be worried about lag adjustment until I was sure, especially on smoothed or annualised data. I'm thinking that the SST changes that are an indicator of SOI etc are influenced by the extent of upwelling of hot or cold water, which might happen at a different rate and bya different mechanism than radiative heating/ cloud cooling. Those graphs look to me as if they have stretch as well as lag.
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

David,
If you’re trying to replicate their plots using MSU data, you’ll need to know that they have not used the file they said they used. That was the mid-troposphere data, which would have been the wrong thing. They have used lower troposphere data. which is here.

With that proviso, I’ve duplicated Figs 1,4 and 7 and added regression lines. Fig 7 is a mishmash. They seem to have separately fitted the scales for 1958-1979 (RATPAC) and 1980-2008(MSU), giving the impression of just one fit. This makes any inference about temperature jumping over a 1976 break worthless.

That said, the plots with regression lines show the same as I illustrated with Fig 4. There is a good visual match of the oscillations, but an uptrend in temperature not matched by SOI.
Nick Stokes

David,If you're trying to replicate their plots using MSU data, you'll need to know that they have not used the file they said they used. That was the mid-troposphere data, which would have been the wrong thing. They have used lower troposphere data. which is here.With that proviso, I've duplicated Figs 1,4 and 7 and added regression lines. Fig 7 is a mishmash. They seem to have separately fitted the scales for 1958-1979 (RATPAC) and 1980-2008(MSU), giving the impression of just one fit. This makes any inference about temperature jumping over a 1976 break worthless.That said, the plots with regression lines show the same as I illustrated with Fig 4. There is a good visual match of the oscillations, but an uptrend in temperature not matched by SOI.
Anonymous

Nick,’

In your figure 4 your Y axis is labelled SOI and the authors’ is a rate of change of SOI. Is this a nomenclature difference or a calculation difference?

http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

Sherro, no, Fig 4 in McLean et al is SOI. Fig 5 is the “derivative”. There is a mistake in my fig 4 – the SOI axis numbers should be opposite sign. But it’s the same graph of the same quantity as in Mclean et al,

sherro

Nick,'In your figure 4 your Y axis is labelled SOI and the authors' is a rate of change of SOI. Is this a nomenclature difference or a calculation difference?
Nick Stokes

Sherro, no, Fig 4 in McLean et al is SOI. Fig 5 is the “derivative”. There is a mistake in my fig 4 – the SOI axis numbers should be opposite sign. But it's the same graph of the same quantity as in Mclean et al,
http://www.timcurtin.com/ Tim Curtin

Mauna Loa Observatory was selected for the first systematic measurements of atmospheric CO2 because of its situation at about 3,500 metres on a mainly dormant volcano far from local influences from power stations, airports, and the like. But although it provides the core data on atmospheric CO2 levels for all the work of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and people like the 16 co-signatories of the article in Sydney Morning Herald (Raupach et al., August 1), Mauna Loa’s temperature data is never mentioned let alone analysed by the IPCC or Mike Raupach and his associates. Could that be because it shows virtually no relationship between changes in CO2 and temperature? Regressions confirm this, with adj R2 of 0.08 for year on year changes in temp against yony changes in CO2 at Mauna Loa of all places. t=2.5 but not significant. Durbin Watson is 2.5 so no auto correlation. Plotting Mauna Loa temps since 1955 also shows virtually no trend from 1955 to 1977 or from 1981 to 2005. see also Fig.3 showing no real trend in temperatures at Mauna Loa after the PDO shift in 1978.

Suspicion that Mauna Loa temperatures are in effect censored is heightened when apparently (Steve Mc) the sole source utilised by NASA’s James Hansen (head of GISS) for all temperatures in Hawaii is Honolulu Airport, where temperatures have indeed soared since 1960 (Fig.4). That is related not so much to CO2 as to the arrival of Boeing 707s then and 747s later, with their huge output of heat as ever more of them land, take off, and taxi endlessly on its tarmac. It appears GISS similarly uses Nairobi’s Kenyatta International Airport temperarture data to represent the whole of East Africa. Again airports which like this one process at least a million passengers a year yield a very satisfying (for GISS) upward trend, thus Christy (2009, at http://www.climateaudit.org) has shown that this airport’s data is not confirmed by the internationally renowned data sets from Nairobi’s actual met. station.

It would be great if we could assemble 2 temperature data sets, one for airports, the other for non-airports and plot both against CO2.

http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

This is just a muddled rant. I’ll respond to one claim that’s obviously wrong – that the IPCC does not deal with Mauna Loa CO2 measurements. Firstly, there’s nothing special about Mauna Loa. There is a large network of high quality CO2 monitoring stations eg Scripps , giving essentially concordant results. There’s also a satellite measuring program (with maps).

The IPCC deals with this in detail. There’s a whole chapter 3 of AR3 on atmospheric CO2, including 3.5 specifically on measurements.

http://www.timcurtin.com/ Tim Curtin

Nick Stokes either you can’t read or you were drunk. Of course CO2 is measured at Mauna Loa, and so are temperatures, but it is the latter that are never discussed. Sober up or go back to school for remedial reading.

Anonymous

Try again Tim with an argument.

Anonymous

David S: the argument I am trying to make is that the IPCC et al have a hypothesis that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (hereafter [CO2]) is correlated with global mean temperature (GMT). The IPCC’s AR4 stated that it was more than 95% “confident” that this is the case and that therefore global warming is a function of [CO2]. The upcoming Copenhagen Conference is wholly dependent on this correlation being correct. When we then find that the IPCC’s norm for [CO2] measurements is those at Mauna Loa, and we also find virtually no correlation of temperatures at Mauna Lo with [CO2] then by both Einstein and Popper the hypothesis fails. The reason it fails is because while temperatures are indeed correlated with anthropogenic causes, that cause is not [CO2] which is nothing more than a minor by-product of human activity involving large usage of energy apart from that deriving from fossil fuels. For example we none of us need eat or drink the output of burning fossil fuels unless our food and drink are processed using fossil fuels. However ALL of what we eat and drink has as its main constituent the carbohydrates emerging from use of [CO2] in the photosynthesis process which produces all of what we eat in its primary form – and is the source of all human energy and activity. That activity is what produces warming, measurable now even at South Pole where the US et al have built a sizable town.

And that is why the plan at Copenhagen to coerce the whole world to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions by at least 60%, i.e. to 40% of the 2000 level, is so dangerous, because that level of around 2-3 Gt is below the current annual growth of new utilization of CO2 emissions now at a level of 6 GtC p.a., which has kept pace with those emissions since 1958, resulting in aggregate absorption since 1958 of 57% of total emissions from fossil fuels etc.

I hope I do not need to go on, but do please note that the history of mankind is based on use of energy in all its forms, not just fossil fuels. The reason there is no correlation between [CO2] and temps at Mauna Loa is clearly not because of the absence of CO2 but because of the absence of any significant economic activity there using energy in any form.

It follows that the IPCC’s scientists have misdirected themselves, to the delight of all too many Green groups who are at the end of the day more opposed to human economic activity in general than they are to global warming.

http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

Total non sequitur. The temperature at Mauna Loa is not global temperature.

Anonymous

Nick, where did I say the temperature at Mauna Loa is “global”? What I did say and I repeat is that it is very odd that (1) temps at Mauna Loa are ignored by GISS and Hadley in their stats on GMT; (2) there is no correlation between CO2 at Mauna Loa and temps at Mauna Loa; (3) there is also no correlation between CO2 at ML and temps at Honolulu Observatory; (4) there is – oh frabjous day at GISS and Hadley! – a great correlation between CO2 at ML and temps at Honolulu Airport, Bingo!

What has happened is that CO2 has been deemed to be the source of AGW as measured mostly at airports, when in reality the trend in GMT if any is due to human economic activity (industrial, agricultural, etc) that is associated with CO2 but not caused by it. CO2 is merely a minor and incidental by-product of human economic activity with a relationship to temperature only in the general area where such activity is occurring.
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

“IPCC et al have a hypothesis that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (hereafter [CO2]) is correlated with global mean temperature (GMT).”
…
“we also find virtually no correlation of temperatures at Mauna Lo with [CO2] then by both Einstein and Popper the hypothesis fails.”
Anonymous

Exactly. Nick what is your problem with that? Mauna Loa provides a perfect example of Karl Popper’s black swan. End of IPCC.

http://www.timcurtin.com/ Tim Curtin

Mauna Loa Observatory was selected for the first systematic measurements of atmospheric CO2 because of its situation at about 3,500 metres on a mainly dormant volcano far from local influences from power stations, airports, and the like. But although it provides the core data on atmospheric CO2 levels for all the work of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and people like the 16 co-signatories of the article in Sydney Morning Herald (Raupach et al., August 1), Mauna Loaâ€™s temperature data is never mentioned let alone analysed by the IPCC or Mike Raupach and his associates. Could that be because it shows virtually no relationship between changes in CO2 and temperature? Regressions confirm this, with adj R2 of 0.08 for year on year changes in temp against yony changes in CO2 at Mauna Loa of all places. t=2.5 but not significant. Durbin Watson is 2.5 so no auto correlation. Plotting Mauna Loa temps since 1955 also shows virtually no trend from 1955 to 1977 or from 1981 to 2005. see also Fig.3 showing no real trend in temperatures at Mauna Loa after the PDO shift in 1978.Suspicion that Mauna Loa temperatures are in effect censored is heightened when apparently (Steve Mc) the sole source utilised by NASAâ€™s James Hansen (head of GISS) for all temperatures in Hawaii is Honolulu Airport, where temperatures have indeed soared since 1960 (Fig.4). That is related not so much to CO2 as to the arrival of Boeing 707s then and 747s later, with their huge output of heat as ever more of them land, take off, and taxi endlessly on its tarmac. It appears GISS similarly uses Nairobiâ€™s Kenyatta International Airport temperarture data to represent the whole of East Africa. Again airports which like this one process at least a million passengers a year yield a very satisfying (for GISS) upward trend, thus Christy (2009, at http://www.climateaudit.org) has shown that this airportâ€™s data is not confirmed by the internationally renowned data sets from Nairobiâ€™s actual met. station.It would be great if we could assemble 2 temperature data sets, one for airports, the other for non-airports and plot both against CO2.
Nick Stokes

This is just a muddled rant. I'll respond to one claim that's obviously wrong – that the IPCC does not deal with Mauna Loa CO2 measurements. Firstly, there's nothing special about Mauna Loa. There is a large network of high quality CO2 monitoring stations eg Scripps , giving essentially concordant results. There's also a satellite measuring program (with maps). The IPCC deals with this in detail. There's a whole chapter 3 of AR3 on atmospheric CO2, including 3.5 specifically on measurements.
http://www.timcurtin.com/ Tim Curtin

Nick Stokes either you can't read or you were drunk. Of course CO2 is measured at Mauna Loa, and so are temperatures, but it is the latter that are never discussed. Sober up or go back to school for remedial reading.
davids99us

Try again Tim with an argument.
Anonymous

Three matters stand out for me as this discussion continues.

1. I have a difficulty distinguising static or short-term measurements from dynamic processes. I tried to show elsewhere that a hot cooking top could be either heating or cooling or unchanged, unless you look at dynamics. The dynamics can involve time, space and mechanisms.

2. If one takes a simple view that the SST at a given time is a matter of how may cold upwellings counter how many hot upwellings, it is hard to imagine Temp changes that can happen in a month because of the large power involved (as in rate of doing work). Also, upwellings require energy input or output. From whence the energy? Is it a part of the global energy budget cartoons?

3. Taking point 2 further, one can imagine a major upwelling (for lack of a better word) affecting the global SST average. But if there are semi-major ones that lead or lag the main one, graphs seeking correlations with Temp are better if the smaller ones can be dissected out and shown separately. They might all have different lags. It’s a bit hard to show them with one line on the graph. Indeed, it might be defeatist.

I’m forced to conclude that too little is known of ocean temperatures at depth, of the shape of currents and their dynamics andtheir energetics. Either that or I have not studied hard enough.

I’m reluctant to look at ocean atmosphere interactions until oceans are understood better.

http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

Upwellings don’t require much energy. On that scale, viscosity is minor. Gravity is not a factor – the sea level doesn’t change. So it comes down to kinetic energy, but the velocity can be quite small.

A lot is now known of ocean temperatures at depth. We have had XBT’s etc for years, but now there is ARGO. Computer modelling of ocean current and temperature is getting good. Here is a recent account of the discovery of a deep ocean super-gyre. The key is that the current was predicted by ocean computer models. So they looked for it, and there it was.

Ocean-atmosphere interaction is still a challenge.

http://timetochooseagain.wordpress.com/ Andrew

There’s an interesting story somewhere that apparently krill play a vital role in ocean mixing or something like that.

Might be interesting and offer a reason why PDO appears to be connected to salmon catches etc.

Conjecture on my part, though.

Anonymous

Andrew – you are on the ball! Moroever your comments point to the absurdity of Greenpeace on the one hand protecting whales from the Japanese, and on the other demanding not 80% but 100% cessation of all anthropogenic emissions of CO2 even though 57% of all such emisions since 1958 have been taken up by oceanic and terrestrial biospheres; the oceanic uptake of CO2 apart from dissolving CO2 mostly comprises photosynthesis by marine vegetation (phytoplankton) which is eaten by krill who are eaten by whales et al., but not after Greenpeace have their way. Whales will die in droves and Greenpeace will never admit responsibility. Brave new world!

sherro

Three matters stand out for me as this discussion continues.1. I have a difficulty distinguising static or short-term measurements from dynamic processes. I tried to show elsewhere that a hot cooking top could be either heating or cooling or unchanged, unless you look at dynamics. The dynamics can involve time, space and mechanisms.2. If one takes a simple view that the SST at a given time is a matter of how may cold upwellings counter how many hot upwellings, it is hard to imagine Temp changes that can happen in a month because of the large power involved (as in rate of doing work). Also, upwellings require energy input or output. From whence the energy? Is it a part of the global energy budget cartoons?3. Taking point 2 further, one can imagine a major upwelling (for lack of a better word) affecting the global SST average. But if there are semi-major ones that lead or lag the main one, graphs seeking correlations with Temp are better if the smaller ones can be dissected out and shown separately. They might all have different lags. It's a bit hard to show them with one line on the graph. Indeed, it might be defeatist.I'm forced to conclude that too little is known of ocean temperatures at depth, of the shape of currents and their dynamics andtheir energetics. Either that or I have not studied hard enough.I'm reluctant to look at ocean atmosphere interactions until oceans are understood better.
Nick Stokes

Upwellings don't require much energy. On that scale, viscosity is minor. Gravity is not a factor – the sea level doesn't change. So it comes down to kinetic energy, but the velocity can be quite small.A lot is now known of ocean temperatures at depth. We have had XBT's etc for years, but now there is ARGO. Computer modelling of ocean current and temperature is getting good. Here is a recent account of the discovery of a deep ocean super-gyre. The key is that the current was predicted by ocean computer models. So they looked for it, and there it was.Ocean-atmosphere interaction is still a challenge.
http://timetochooseagain.wordpress.com/ Andrew

There's an interesting story somewhere that apparently krill play a vital role in ocean mixing or something like that.Might be interesting and offer a reason why PDO appears to be connected to salmon catches etc.Conjecture on my part, though.
Anonymous

Tim Curtin – at Pearl Harbour airport.

My wife asked me to get a light coat from my hand luggage. She said “I think there’s a little nip in the air”.

I agreed, saying there were about 10 Jumbos of them that I could see on finals.

Yep, strange factors can affect the temp at Honolulu.
sherro

Tim Curtin – at Pearl Harbour airport.My wife asked me to get a light coat from my hand luggage. She said “I think there's a little nip in the air”.I agreed, saying there were about 10 Jumbos of them that I could see on finals.Yep, strange factors can affect the temp at Honolulu.
timcurtin

David S: the argument I am trying to make is that the IPCC et al have a hypothesis that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (hereafter [CO2]) is correlated with global mean temperature (GMT). The IPCC's AR4 stated that it was more than 95% “confident” that this is the case and that therefore global warming is a function of [CO2]. The upcoming Copenhagen Conference is wholly dependent on this correlation being correct. When we then find that the IPCC's norm for [CO2] measurements is those at Mauna Loa, and we also find virtually no correlation of temperatures at Mauna Lo with [CO2] then by both Einstein and Popper the hypothesis fails. The reason it fails is because while temperatures are indeed correlated with anthropogenic causes, that cause is not [CO2] which is nothing more than a minor by-product of human activity involving large usage of energy apart from that deriving from fossil fuels. For example we none of us need eat or drink the output of burning fossil fuels unless our food and drink are processed using fossil fuels. However ALL of what we eat and drink has as its main constituent the carbohydrates emerging from use of [CO2] in the photosynthesis process which produces all of what we eat in its primary form â€“ and is the source of all human energy and activity. That activity is what produces warming, measurable now even at South Pole where the US et al have built a sizable town. And that is why the plan at Copenhagen to coerce the whole world to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions by at least 60%, i.e. to 40% of the 2000 level, is so dangerous, because that level of around 2-3 Gt is below the current annual growth of new utilization of CO2 emissions now at a level of 6 GtC p.a., which has kept pace with those emissions since 1958, resulting in aggregate absorption since 1958 of 57% of total emissions from fossil fuels etc. I hope I do not need to go on, but do please note that the history of mankind is based on use of energy in all its forms, not just fossil fuels. The reason there is no correlation between [CO2] and temps at Mauna Loa is clearly not because of the absence of CO2 but because of the absence of any significant economic activity there using energy in any form.It follows that the IPCCâ€™s scientists have misdirected themselves, to the delight of all too many Green groups who are at the end of the day more opposed to human economic activity in general than they are to global warming.
Nick Stokes

Total non sequitur. The temperature at Mauna Loa is not global temperature.
timcurtin

Nick, where did I say the temperature at Mauna Loa is “global”? What I did say and I repeat is that it is very odd that (1) temps at Mauna Loa are ignored by GISS and Hadley in their stats on GMT; (2) there is no correlation between CO2 at Mauna Loa and temps at Mauna Loa; (3) there is also no correlation between CO2 at ML and temps at Honolulu Observatory; (4) there is – oh frabjous day at GISS and Hadley! – a great correlation between CO2 at ML and temps at Honolulu Airport, Bingo!What has happened is that CO2 has been deemed to be the source of AGW as measured mostly at airports, when in reality the trend in GMT if any is due to human economic activity (industrial, agricultural, etc) that is associated with CO2 but not caused by it. CO2 is merely a minor and incidental by-product of human economic activity with a relationship to temperature only in the general area where such activity is occurring.
Nick Stokes

“IPCC et al have a hypothesis that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (hereafter [CO2]) is correlated with global mean temperature (GMT).”…”we also find virtually no correlation of temperatures at Mauna Lo with [CO2] then by both Einstein and Popper the hypothesis fails.”
timcurtin

Exactly. Nick what is your problem with that? Mauna Loa provides a perfect example of Karl Popper's black swan. End of IPCC.
timcurtin

Andrew – you are on the ball! Moroever your comments point to the absurdity of Greenpeace on the one hand protecting whales from the Japanese, and on the other demanding not 80% but 100% cessation of all anthropogenic emissions of CO2 even though 57% of all such emisions since 1958 have been taken up by oceanic and terrestrial biospheres; the oceanic uptake of CO2 apart from dissolving CO2 mostly comprises photosynthesis by marine vegetation (phytoplankton) which is eaten by krill who are eaten by whales et al., but not after Greenpeace have their way. Whales will die in droves and Greenpeace will never admit responsibility. Brave new world!
timcurtin

Nick, where did I say the temperature at Mauna Loa is “global”? What I did say and I repeat is that it is very odd that (1) temps at Mauna Loa are ignored by GISS and Hadley in their stats on GMT; (2) there is no correlation between CO2 at Mauna Loa and temps at Mauna Loa; (3) there is also no correlation between CO2 at ML and temps at Honolulu Observatory; (4) there is – oh frabjous day at GISS and Hadley! – a great correlation between CO2 at ML and temps at Honolulu Airport, Bingo!What has happened is that CO2 has been deemed to be the source of AGW as measured mostly at airports, when in reality the trend in GMT if any is due to human economic activity (industrial, agricultural, etc) that is associated with CO2 but not caused by it. CO2 is merely a minor and incidental by-product of human economic activity with a relationship to temperature only in the general area where such activity is occurring.
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

“IPCC et al have a hypothesis that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (hereafter [CO2]) is correlated with global mean temperature (GMT).”…”we also find virtually no correlation of temperatures at Mauna Lo with [CO2] then by both Einstein and Popper the hypothesis fails.”
timcurtin

Exactly. Nick what is your problem with that? Mauna Loa provides a perfect example of Karl Popper's black swan. End of IPCC.
timcurtin

Andrew – you are on the ball! Moroever your comments point to the absurdity of Greenpeace on the one hand protecting whales from the Japanese, and on the other demanding not 80% but 100% cessation of all anthropogenic emissions of CO2 even though 57% of all such emisions since 1958 have been taken up by oceanic and terrestrial biospheres; the oceanic uptake of CO2 apart from dissolving CO2 mostly comprises photosynthesis by marine vegetation (phytoplankton) which is eaten by krill who are eaten by whales et al., but not after Greenpeace have their way. Whales will die in droves and Greenpeace will never admit responsibility. Brave new world!
http://www.boots-store.co.uk ugg boots

“Here elaborates the matter not only extensively but also detailly .I support the
write’s unique point.It is useful and benefit to your daily life.You can air jordan 20 go those
sits to know more relate things.They are strongly recommended by friends.Personally

Niche Modeling

Replicating McLean

Categories

Blogroll

Advertising

Comments

Archives

tag cloud

Most commented

Copyright © 2008 - 2013 Niche Modeling