Well known hockeyjockey Michael Mann has a post up on Huffpo, claiming the ‘hiatus’ or ‘plateau’ in global warming which he says doesn’t exist, only happened because oscillations. To prove this he introduces a new one, which he calls the NMO. I think it stands for Numerically Magical Obfuscation.
NMO is derived from some twisty manipulation of the AMO (in blue) and the PMO (in green).
Just because Mann ‘invented’ the AMO doesn’t mean he gets to fiddle with the underlying data does it?
Here’s a simple model I created a while back which reproduces HADsst3 from monthly data, including the detrended AMO (in green) (Along with the solar integral, SOI and a lnCO2 value which is presciently in line with that measured recently in Alaska, i.e. 40% lower than the ‘standard’), as seen in the top half of the graphs below. The model result is in the bottom pane (in red). It’s an R^2=0.9 correlation with the HADsst3 data (in blue).
SST model
I obtained my AMO data from KNMI and added a repeat of the earlier 1900 peaking cycle from the end of the data. But look at the difference between the data I downloaded and Mann’s new ‘improved’ AMO. He has the latest cycle much smaller than that which peaked around 1945. My data has the later cycle similar or bit bigger than that 1945 peaking cycle.
I smell a big fat rat. Mann is massaging the previously accepted data to make it look like internal oscillations are responsible for the ‘pause’ rather than the quiet Sun and lack of enhanced greenhouse effect.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
His inclusion of Susan Solomon’s dubious cooling effect from non-stratospheric volcanos doesn’t do him any favours either.
Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog.
Definition of Mann-made science: When the fantasy doesn’t fit the data, change the data!
PMO? WTF? Renamed PDO? I dunno…
About five years ago James Hansen wrote:
‘The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.’
Click to access 20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
A decade 5 years ago = 15 years ‘flat’ global mean now.
NMO = No Material Observations?
Mann’s data, I would not give any credence to.
What he didn’t realise was that this ‘natural’ oscillation to explain the post 1998 pause in warming drives a coach and horses through the AR5 attribution statement. This depends on natural variability being precisely zero since 1950 . See fig 10.5 in AR5.
Oh, that’s neat. Mann’s NMO nicely explains the rapid 1915-1945 warming (negligible CO2), allows plenty of room for CO2 to explain most of the equally rapid 1979-1998 warming and leaves plenty of leeway to explain the ‘anomalous’ Arctic 1920-40s ice loss in terms of that huge AMO peak. The much more modest present day AMO peak of course, cannot be invoked to explain satellite era ice loss, so that must be down to CO2 as well. The piece de resistance is a precipitous decline in NMO post 1998 which can be used to explain away the hiatus and, if necessary, even subsequent cooling. The ultimate curve-fitting exercise.
The question is: how exactly did he arrive at his ‘correct’ AMO/PMO/NMO cycles? An in depth look at his methodology will surely expose the con.
Combine two or more partly or completely unknowns – and you are a magician. Dr. Mann needed to refresh his magic, as a hockey stick turned out not to be a magic wand.
I envision a crowd of wizards waving hockey sticks.
Curious George says: March 1, 2015 at 10:22 pm
“Combine two or more partly or completely unknowns – and you are a magician. Dr. Mann needed to refresh his magic, as a hockey stick turned out not to be a magic wand. I envision a crowd of wizards waving hockey sticks.”
No Wizard with a modicum of personal integrity need wave anything! All wizard hockey sticks wave themselves incessantly!
I think I would rather trust ESRL data!
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/tsanalysis.pl?tstype1=91&tstype2=0&year1=1895&year2=&itypea=0&axistype=0&anom=0&plotstyle=0&climo1=&climo2=&y1=&y2=&y21=&y22=&length=&lag=&iall=0&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&Submit=Calculate+Results
Mann explained how Steinman et al 2015 redefined the AMO in his post at RealClimate. Instead of…
1. Detrending North Atlantic SST anomaly data (NOAA ESRL method to portray AMO), or…
2. Subtracting Global SST anomaly data (60S-60N) from North Atlantic SST anomaly data (0-60N, 80W-0) (Trenberth and Shea 2005 method)…
Steinmann et al foolishly assumed climate models had meaning and they subtracted the model mean (CMIP5) of the simulations of North Atlantic SSTa from the North Atlantic SSTa data.
I discussed that in my post here:
Cheers
@ Rog
“…stratospheric volcanos…”
Patience, calm, wait …
Probably, I hypothesize a major volcanic eruption (next decade)
We must wait next major magnetic transition.
http://michelecasati.altervista.org/relationship-between-major-geophysical-events-and-the-planetary-magnetic-ap-index-from-1844-to-the-present.html
A desperate attempt to preserve some trace of a “human fingerprint” despite the overwhelming “natural variation” that can casually take over at any time.
Michele says: March 1, 2015 at 11:52 pm
@ Rog “…stratospheric volcanos…”
Patience, calm, wait …
“Probably, I hypothesize a major volcanic eruption (next decade)
We must wait next major magnetic transition.
http://michelecasati.altervista.org/relationship-between-major-geophysical-events-and-the-planetary-magnetic-ap-index-from-1844-to-the-present.html”
Hummmn! You want wait, for careful consideration. I want now, plus the popcorn concession, for excitement and profit!
Brian H says: March 2, 2015 at 12:34 am
“A desperate attempt to preserve some trace of a “human fingerprint” despite the overwhelming “natural variation” that can casually take over at any time.”
You are indeed correct. You are no fun at all!
“(which we term the Northern Hemisphere Multidecadal Oscillation or “NMO”) is found to result from a combination of the AMO and PMO. ” — Mann
Now observe the figure, around 1945 the NMO leads AMO and PMO yet is stated as a combination of.
How does cause and effect work there?
Overlay, not as neat as I like. It’s an awkward image file, dirty hence the poor result.
Novel here is that this is properly scaled, not fudged and was done by C code I wrote last year for the Chilbolton exercise, that including OCR. The trace facility is incomplete, needs to call a new function in place of the existing trivial code and be passed instructions on what kind of trace match is wanted, perhaps with tolerances. Not that hard to do some of it.
C is part of a Lua library so using it is trivial.
local raw = getfile(arg[1]) — arg[1] is the .png filename
local t, err=lode.decode(raw) — t contains the image as bit planes and other info
t.trace_colour= tocolour({68,68,68}) — does one trace on intensity
local o, err=lode.trace(t) — o is the result, x, and y min, y average, y max
And then write out the result, in this case to file and import to spreadsheet where scaling can be done.
tchannon,
Cause = gubmint funding
Effect = Junk Science
“Where is Michael Mann’s AMO data from?”
Not data.
Rather data minus false-assumption-based modeling.
This isn’t a new avenue.
This is round 2.
Doesn’t everyone remember round 1?
When Mann attacked Wyatt’s Stadium Wave?
Mann’s modeling is based on 4 fundamentally false assumptions.
I have reason to suspect that he knows the truth.
MMMO (Model-Mannipulated Multidecadal Oscillation) is based on fundamentally false spatiotemporal assumptions about insolation forcing that demand violation of basic geometric axioms plus one or both of the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum.
The residuals catastrophically fail even the most elementary diagnostics.
“
P'(s,t) = ( { |A(t)-B(s,t)| * [ A(t)*B'(s,t) + B(s,t)*A'(t) ] } – { [ A(t)*B(s,t) ] * [ ( A(t)-B(s,t) ) * ( A'(t)-B'(s,t) ) / |A(t)-B(s,t)| ] } ) / ( A(t)-B(s,t) )^2
A(t) ≠ B(s,t)
A = solar cycle length nearest-harmonic
B = a given internal cycle period
P = beat period
s = space
t = time
‘ indicates rate of change
^ indicates exponentiation
It’s important to recognize that the effect of changing solar cycle frequency is generalizable even with incomplete knowledge of Earth’s internal cycles.
”
I’ve scattered illustrations in comments here:
A) https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/gerry-pease-sc23-24-longest-peak-to-peak-solar-cycle-length-since-dalton-minimum/
B) https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/agu-presentation-argues-that-ne-pacific-centennial-trend-is-mostly-natural/
EOF1 does NOT match CO2.
It matches the sunspot integral.
EOF2 is ENSO.
The next EOF is NOT MMMO.
It’s solar cycle deceleration.
I challenge Matthew England, Willie Soon, & Mike Mann to get serious.
Enough with the games.
All of you.
Bob, thanks for the link and the explanation of what Mann and co. have actually done. Explains why their ‘new improved’ AMO/PMO/NMO fits so well with the assumption that recent warming of the Pacific/Atlantic is due almost entirely to CO2 forcing – precisely because they used CMIP5 as the principal basis to construct their ‘real’ oscillations!
Definitely smoke and mirrors and a prime example of circularity.
No doubt Mann privately has a hearty laugh at his innumerate political masters for their inability to realize he isn’t even being serious. ((April Fools))
Rial (2004): “the climate system transforms the amplitude modulated insolation into frequency modulated fluctuations of global ice mass.”
Rial was writing about 400ka.
Did you know?
The sunspot record can be recovered from instrumental climate records.
I’ve given all the information needed to deduce this corollary.
‘What is the primary driver behind Europe’s variability, i.e. what causes periods of cold winters and periods of milder winters? The main drivers, Kowatsch and Kämpfe conclude, are oceanic cycles.’
http://notrickszone.com/2015/03/03/european-institute-for-climate-and-energy-ocean-cycles-are-main-driver-no-relationship-between-arctic-sea-ice-and-european-winters/
‘EIKE warns that the climate system is much more complicated than meets the eye: “Still the complicated and yet to be researched relationship between ocean currents, AMO, sea ice and large weather patterns have with a high probability an impact on Europe’s climate and weather, and there exists no easy explanations”.
Apart from the ones promoted by over-zealous warmists?
The sun is the source of energy & forced synchrony.
Spatiotemporal insolation fields shape general circulation (including ocean circulation).
Problems with saying “ocean cycles” without being more specific:
1. It’s overused & underwhelming. It doesn’t explain anything.
2. It plays into the lukewarmist uncertainty campaign, which thought-polices people to believe that all climate variations other than CO2 (“ocean cycles” included) average to zero.
Multidecadal-to-centennial ocean cycles are governed by the sunspot integral & solar cycle deceleration. Longer-term ocean cycles are governed by orbital parameters (which determine spatiotemporal insolation fields).
‘all climate variations other than CO2’
alleged variations 😉
Paul V: “Multidecadal-to-centennial ocean cycles are governed by the sunspot integral & solar cycle deceleration. Longer-term ocean cycles are governed by orbital parameters (which determine spatiotemporal insolation fields).”
And also perhaps, mid term ocean cycles are governed by externally imposed changes in Earth’s rotation rate.
Rial (2012): “simple rules at the heart of climate’s complexity”
A raspberry from Judith Curry – ‘Bottom line: The pause in global warming is NOT finally explained.’
http://www.thegwpf.com/latest-attempts-to-explain-global-warming-pause-fall-flat/