What do you make of the Thompson paper removing the ENSO signature from the global temperature data?

Question

RealClimate did a nice entry on this paper which contains a graph showing what the global temperature would look like without the El Nino Southern Oscillation signature.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/

As you can see, the warming trend remains roughly the same, but the 1998 temperature spike is no longer there. There is still a warming trend over the past decade, but as with the non-corrected data, it's not terribly significant.

What do you make of these results?

Answer 1

It is a shame the paper uses the instrumental surface record, being that is has urbanization effects, station dropout problems etc.

Answer 2

Mostly interesting to scientists, not a big deal.  No fundamental change to the long term data, over just using the 5 year average.

Here, it's just an excuse for people to criticize the well verified temperature record.

Watch the deniers coming in and saying the second graph shows global warming has stopped.

Answer 3

as we say in the statistics biz, these are both 'gee whiz' graphs-they are small sections of a larger graph...neither are particularly meaningful....it is just this type of 'climate change' data that is rampant, and not correlated to the theory...good question

Answer 4

Almost there....now increase the interval on the x-axis and shorten it on the y-axis....

Presto!  Another hockey stick.

Some people never learn.

Answer 5

Good intentions, but the surface temperature data used is basically worthless.  If that data is thrown out, it would be interesting to see the reaction of the AGW proponents when the trend shows a drop in temps.

Bob, let me state it this way.....'the graphs are worthless'.

Bad Data = No science.

Answer 6

Actually, it is very important for two reasons:

(1) It clarifies the data by removing a spike that arguably should not have been there in the first place. This makes the trend data appear to be more reliable as a whole, and removes some objections.

(2) Ironically, it will probably serve to temper the enthusiasm of wild-eyed believers, whose support is of dubious value anyway.

I'm not saying the movement to control climate change does not need enthusiastic support - to the contrary, almost any attempt to influence the masses is doomed without it - but the credibility of any scientific inquiry is unfortunately linked to the company it keeps.

I appreciate the measured tone of your question as well as the refinement of the graphed data, and I hope to see more of the same. The closer we get to a straight line, the closer we will come to the critical mass of consensus.

Without a doubt, spikey graphs have produced over-reactions on both sides of the debate, and may have cost precious time. If some projections are correct, the conditions are already in place to liberate sequestered CO2.

Meanwhile, there are still objections to deal with.

One, regarding calibration of thermometers, can easily be discarded as the likelihood of all calibrations drifting in one direction is insignificant enough to be statistically irrelevant.

Another, regarding the growth of urban and suburban infrastructure around measuring points during the time the sample data were recorded, IS relevant to the extent that it admits temperatures are rising where we live due to man-made activity, and we are increasingly living everywhere..

On this last point, I have a question for the skeptics: Who cares if the temperature is going down where nobody lives? This is a quality of life issue for those of us who aren't anti-social. If you are stuck with a large vehicle you are having trouble selling right now, that's your problem, not mine.

Today's transportation system was brought to you by people who care about the world outside their own personal interests, and it can - and will - be taken away by the same kind of people, if the rest of us do not learn to use it responsibly.

Answer 7

They really didn't have to do anything. The polar ocean anomaly is what seems to confuse both sides of the issue. Hence the distinction between land and water as one respondent has already mention. If my memory serves me correctly both NASA and NOAA did the same. I just see it as tabulations without fanfare.

Answer 8

It's a bit like saying, if you hadn't flunked the mid-term, you'd have gotten a B for a final grade.

If you just omit the results that don't match your thesis, then you can make it look like you were right.   No kidding, really?

I never really understood the whole notion of "corrected data" in any discipline.    Oh I understand if there's a suspicion that the data is no good, but eliminating outliers for outliers' sake is illogical.   It's like removing food and energy prices from the inflation rate.

"It clarifies the data by removing a spike that arguably should not have been there in the first place. This makes the trend data appear to be more reliable as a whole, and removes some objections."  - that makes no sense at all.    Are you folks suggesting that it was not, in fact, that hot in 1998?

If you're not, then how can you argue that the "spike.... arguably should not have been there in the first place....."

Answer 9

The temperature is not correct. The thermometers are not calibrated . The data is trash , any charts showing temperatures from many years ago ..