2011 Global Temperatures

[BethesdaWX]

Skier...

Do you know what a "model training period" is? He is using data before 1960 to base the model predictors off of afterwards in that period. Look up the PDO anomalies from 1900-1960... positive from approximately 1900-1950, the negative from 1950 thru 1960.

So of course the qualitative forcing from the PDO will be positive!

[skierinvermont]

Last 50yrs of warming predicted by natural cycles:

http://wattsupwithth...natural-causes/

Predicting Northern Hemispheric Warming Since 1960

Since most of the recent warming has occurred over the Northern Hemisphere, I chose to use the CRUTem3 yearly record of Northern Hemispheric temperature variations for the period 1900 through 2009. From this record I computed the yearly change rates in temperature. I then linearly regressed these 1-year temperature change rates against the yearly average values of the PDO, AMO, and SOI.

I used the period from 1900 through 1960 for “training” to derive this statistical relationship, then applied it to the period 1961 through 2009 to see how well it predicted the yearly temperature change rates for that 50 year period. Then, to get the model-predicted temperatures, I simply added up the temperature change rates over time.

The result of this exercise in shown in the following plot.

What is rather amazing is that the rate of observed warming of the Northern Hemisphere since the 1970’s matches that which the PDO, AMO, and SOI together predict, based upon those natural cycles’ PREVIOUS relationships to the temperature change rate (prior to 1960).

Again I want to emphasize that my use of the temperature change rate, rather than temperature, as the predicted variable is based upon the expectation that these natural modes of climate variability represent forcing mechanisms — I believe through changes in cloud cover — which then cause a lagged temperature response.

This is powerful evidence that most of the warming that the IPCC has attributed to human activities over the last 50 years could simply be due to natural, internal variability in the climate system. If true, this would also mean that (1) the climate system is much less sensitive to the CO2 content of the atmosphere than the IPCC claims, and (2) future warming from greenhouse gas emissions will be small.

<!– This entry was posted on Sunday, June 6th, 2010 at 6:51 AM and is filed under Blog Article. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. –>

The first part of your post concerns a simple statistical "model" made by Spencer. You didn't provide the link for it so I will:

http://www.drroyspen...climate-cycles/

What is interesting about this model is that if you extend the parameters of his model past 2010 it would predict infinite warming based on natural cycles alone. Clearly there is an error in methodology. I will explain what that error is.

Basically he uses the period 1900-1960 to "train" his model. There are three variables involved (PDO, SOI, AMO). Yearly values of each index are correlated to yearly change rates in temperature. However, because the model training period of 1900 to 1960 shows net warming, yearly PDO, SOI, AMO values will correlate on average to temperature change values that are greater than zero. In other words, a PDO value of zero will correspond with a slight increase in temperature in his model. A PDO values of +1 will correspond to a larger temperature increase than a -1 PDO value will correspond to temperature decrease. Therefore, his model will predict infinite warming based on natural cycles which average to zero.

This is all an artifact of the fact that the training period of his model 1900-1960 showed net warming. He needs to detrend the temperature data for the training period of his model. He should also detrend the AMO, PDO, SOI data. The problem is he is taking a period of net warming to train his model. Therefore his model will always project more and more warming over time.

This is why even though the PDO, AMO were both positive in the 40s, his model predicts global temperatures much higher at present based off similar values of the AMO and PDO.

The second half of your post shows a graph of U.S. temps (USHCN) vs the AMO and PDO. I am not interested in U.S. temps. I am interested in global temps.

Global temperatures do not have a significant correlation to the AMO. Global temps fell in the late 40s when the AMO was positive. They rose in the 70s when the AMO was falling.

[BethesdaWX]

Notice his model predicted cooling from 1960-1976, that is 16 years with your "infinite warming" scenario. Heres the problem.

There is one crucial aspect you miss. The PDO/AMO were positive all this time until 2006-07, the warming being used is a selective base period, based on what global temps did in response to the PDO/AMO cycles. You seem to not recall the data being taken into account as well.

Using past data & the correlation of that past data to the measured global temperature anomalies...to make a prediction on the future.

Do you know what a "model training period" is? He is using data dervied before 1960 to base the model predictors off of afterwards in that period of interest. Look up the PDO anomalies from 1900-1960... positive from approximately 1900-1950, the negative from 1950 thru 1960.

So of course the qualitative forcing from the PDO will be positive!

As for the AMO.....Isn't the US part of the Globe? The AMO also has an impact across Europe even more so than the US, the AMO regions go right through Europe. That has an impact on the global anomaly dude, the NH land masses contribute most of the "heat" we see.

[nzucker]

Wrong. Your lack of statistical understanding is apparent. Given enough data, statistical studies like Don's can detect even very weak correlations that are overwhelmed by other factors.

Correlation studies can detect the mere .1C effect that solar cycle has even underneath all the other much larger factors. However, no correlation with the AMO is found similar to the solar correlation. I've explained this to you before.

You're telling me the Atlantic Ocean being incredibly warm doesn't have any effect on global temps?

Forget about statistics, think logically! Large areas of warmer SSTs=warmer temperatures.

[BethesdaWX]

You're telling me the Atlantic Ocean being incredibly warm doesn't have any effect on global temps?

Forget about statistics, think logically! Large areas of warmer SSTs=warmer temperatures.

He's fighting a loosing battle here, AMO is a carbon copy of the Pacific PDO, only difference, there are 2 defined PDO's in the NH & SH in relation to the Equatorial Pacific & its ENSO phase, the PDO phase has a larger impact globally through its effect on ENSO, but again, its all relative, the PDO regiosn themselves are a huge player. AMO has a well defined NH branch, but the SH AMO is very vague.

So yes, the AMO is a smaller impact, but a major player none-the-less.

[skierinvermont]

Notice his model predicted cooling from 1960-1976, that is 16 years with your "infinite warming" scenario. Heres the problem.

There is one crucial aspect you miss. The PDO/AMO were positive all this time until 2006-07, the warming being used is a selective base period, based on what global temps did in response to the PDO/AMO cycles. You seem to not recall the data being taken into account as well.

Using past data & the correlation of that past data to the measured global temperature anomalies...to make a prediction on the future.

Do you know what a "model training period" is? He is using data dervied before 1960 to base the model predictors off of afterwards in that period of interest. Look up the PDO anomalies from 1900-1960... positive from approximately 1900-1950, the negative from 1950 thru 1960.

So of course the qualitative forcing from the PDO will be positive!

As for the AMO.....Isn't the US part of the Globe? The AMO also has an impact across Europe even more so than the US, the AMO regions go right through Europe. That has an impact on the global anomaly dude, the NH land masses contribute most of the "heat" we see.

Yes I know what a "model training period" is.. I just spelled out exactly how he does this statistically. He uses a period of net warming to train his model.. and this is why in the long term his model will predict infinite warming.

[skierinvermont]

He's fighting a loosing battle here, AMO is a carbon copy of the Pacific PDO, only difference, there are 2 defined PDO's in the NH & SH in relation to the Equatorial Pacific & its ENSO phase, the PDO phase has a larger impact globally through its effect on ENSO, but again, its all relative, the PDO regiosn themselves are a huge player. AMO has a well defined NH branch, but the SH AMO is very vague.

So yes, the AMO is a smaller impact, but a major player none-the-less.

It's not a carbon copy.. the PDO is a EOF analysis while the AMO is simple linear detrending. One effects ENSO.. the other not so much. One is a much larger area. One has a statistical correlation to global temperatures, the other does not.

[BethesdaWX]

It's not a carbon copy.. the PDO is a EOF analysis while the AMO is simple linear detrending. One effects ENSO.. the other not so much. One is a much larger area. One has a statistical correlation to global temperatures, the other does not.

Are you crazy? AMO is not linear trending, its a 30yr oscillation of its own.

It has a smaller effect on the globe, but its there....larger impact on the arctic FYI. Submarines surfaced in the arctic during march if the 1950's... no way we do that now lol.

AMO is an oscillation just like the PDO, only MORE extreme

It has a major impact.

[BethesdaWX]

Yes I know what a "model training period" is.. I just spelled out exactly how he does this statistically. He uses a period of net warming to train his model.. and this is why in the long term his model will predict infinite warming.

His model predicted cooling from 1960-1976, that is part of the prediction.

The net warming is due to the factors he used, PDO/AMO/ENSO.

Add in solar, bingo, there you go.

[skierinvermont]

Are you crazy? AMO is not linear trending, its a 30yr oscillation of its own.

Guess you didn't read what I have been posting. I said the method of developing the index is based on simple linear detrending of Atlantic SSTs. The PDO index calculation uses an EOF analysis which is much better.

[skierinvermont]

His model predicted cooling from 1960-1976, that is part of the prediction.

The net warming is due to the factors he used, PDO/AMO/ENSO.

Add in solar, bingo, there you go.

Because the model is trained by a period of net warming, it will predict infinite warming over time. Yes, when the PDO/AMO/SOI drop it will show a temporary decrease. But the increases will be bigger than the decreases forever, so it will show infinite warming in the long run. This is because the "training period" is a period of net warming.

[BethesdaWX]

Guess you didn't read what I have been posting. I said the method of developing the index is based on simple linear detrending of Atlantic SSTs. The PDO index calculation uses an EOF analysis which is much better.

What does this have to do with the AMOs impact on global temps?

Stay on topic.

[skierinvermont]

What does this have to do with the AMOs impact on global temps?

Stay on topic.

It was one of many reasons I gave for why the AMO index doesn't have the same impact the PDO does. Because it is based on linear detrending of Atlantic SSTs, the AMO index will become more and more positive as the earth warms.

The main reasons the AMO is different is 1) it shows no statistical correlation with global temperatures 2) it doesn't affect ENSO the way the PDO does 3) it's a much smaller area than the Pacific 4) it's not even a very good index because it is based on linear detrending and not an EOF analysis. An EOF analysis would be more accurate.

[BethesdaWX]

It was one of many reasons I gave for why the AMO index doesn't have the same impact the PDO does. Because it is based on linear detrending of Atlantic SSTs, the AMO index will become more and more positive as the earth warms.

The main reasons the AMO is different is 1) it shows no statistical correlation with global temperatures 2) it doesn't affect ENSO the way the PDO does 3) it's a much smaller area than the Pacific 4) it's not even a very good index because it is based on linear detrending and not an EOF analysis. An EOF analysis would be more accurate.

AMO doesn't show statistical correlation because its overwhelmed by PDO. That still doesn't mean it has no effect. A Cold PDO/Cold AMO timeframe is colder then a -PDO/+AMO timeframe by a good margin.

Notice the bulk of the warming over the past decades hit exactly when the AMO went positive.

Yes, we all agree it has less effect than the PDO. However, it still has an effect, especially when its record breaking warm.

hence, an uber warm AMO is enough to alter my guess from -0.15C to around 0.

[nzucker]

AMO doesn't show statistical correlation because its overwhelmed by PDO. That still doesn't mean it has no effect. A Cold PDO/Cold AMO timeframe is colder then a -PDO/+AMO timeframe by a good margin.

Notice the bulk of the warming over the past year hit exactly when the AMO went positive.

Yes, we all agree it has less effect than the PDO. However, it still has an effect, especially when its record breaking warm.

hence, an uber warm AMO is enough to alter my guess from -0.15C to around 0.

The AMO is certainly much less of an influence on climate than the PDO, which controls ENSO, the main driver of short-term variations in global temperature. There's obviously some connection, though, between a warm Atlantic and a warm Earth. And you have a great point about the arctic: the arctic was actually starting to cool a few years ago when we had a -AMO, and then temperatures skyrocketed as the AMO went positive.

This is why I think the coldest years globally will be around 2015-2020. We'll be deep into a Dalton-like solar minimum with an extreme -PDO/-ENSO regime as well as a -AMO. I believe these factors will overwhelm the background influence of carbon emissions in the short-term. Therefore, I see the cryosphere being the healthiest and the world the coolest in the 2020s, in contradiction to what many climate scientists say. I believe the changes we're seeing in our own climate this winter are a harbinger of better things to come.

[Mallow]

Because the model is trained by a period of net warming, it will predict infinite warming over time. Yes, when the PDO/AMO/SOI drop it will show a temporary decrease. But the increases will be bigger than the decreases forever, so it will show infinite warming in the long run. This is because the "training period" is a period of net warming.

This.

It was one of many reasons I gave for why the AMO index doesn't have the same impact the PDO does. Because it is based on linear detrending of Atlantic SSTs, the AMO index will become more and more positive as the earth warms.

The main reasons the AMO is different is 1) it shows no statistical correlation with global temperatures 2) it doesn't affect ENSO the way the PDO does 3) it's a much smaller area than the Pacific 4) it's not even a very good index because it is based on linear detrending and not an EOF analysis. An EOF analysis would be more accurate.

... and this.

As skier says, since the "model" is based on temperature change WRT indices, and the "average" temperature change over the training period is positive, if you take the "model" out long enough it will predict an ever-rising temperature. In a way, this is accurate to a point--it's basically a proxy for the AGW trend, at least until we finally reach an equilibrium and stop warming.

It would be pretty easy to take out the "PDO influence" from global temperatures (find the residuals of global temperatures after taking into account the PDO correlation), and you could go from there to see how well the AMO is correlated. I suspect it would still be "not well at all".

[tacoman25]

There are statistical analyses out there to analyze multiple variables. One could pretty easily do an analysis on PDO, AMO, and global temperatures and see how well-correlated each index is, objectively. I suspect you'd find the AMO's correlation is very poor, as skier says...

But as someone pointed out above, the +AMO is clearly correlated with warmer Arctic temps...which are a big part of warm global anomalies over the past 15 years (especially for GISS the past 5-7 years).

[Mallow]

But as someone pointed out above, the +AMO is clearly correlated with warmer Arctic temps...which are a big part of warm global anomalies over the past 15 years (especially for GISS the past 5-7 years).

Is it possible that the +AMO is actually the EFFECT of the warm Arctic temperatures, and not the cause? If that's the case, the AMO could simply stay elevated.

Either way, if your implied conclusion is true then the AMO should show a decent correlation to global temperatures. If global temperatures have been warm in large part BECAUSE of the Arctic warmth, then Arctic warmth in the past should have meant warm global temperatures in the past as well. If not, then there is no real predictive power to the AMO, which would make sense given the poor correlation.

In other words, you can't just say "a warm AMO is causing the warmth THIS time, but not in the past", because then even if the AMO drops global temperatures could still remain high for "other reasons" (warmth elsewhere). Or if the AMO stays high, global temperatures could still drop for "other reasons" (based on cooling elsewhere). Either way, the AMO has no predictive power, even though some are claiming it does.

[tacoman25]

Is it possible that the +AMO is actually the EFFECT of the warm Arctic temperatures, and not the cause? If that's the case, the AMO could simply stay elevated.

Either way, if your implied conclusion is true then the AMO should show a decent correlation to global temperatures. If global temperatures have been warm in large part BECAUSE of the Arctic warmth, then Arctic warmth in the past should have meant warm global temperatures in the past as well. If not, then there is no real predictive power to the AMO, which would make sense given the poor correlation.

In other words, you can't just say "a warm AMO is causing the warmth THIS time, but not in the past", because then even if the AMO drops global temperatures could still remain high for "other reasons" (warmth elsewhere). Or if the AMO stays high, global temperatures could still drop for "other reasons" (based on cooling elsewhere). Either way, the AMO has no predictive power, even though some are claiming it does.

I think your first sentence is unlikely, simply because the AMO and Arctic have shown cyclic fluctuations in the past and what we are seeing now is likely mostly due to that. Remember, in the 1990s there was speculation that AGW was causing more Ninos (before the PDO was really acknowledged)...now it is apparent that this was mostly cyclical and we are seeing more Ninas due to the PDO going negative.

As far as correlation in the past with AMO/global temps...I believe Arctic temps were not included as much previously as they are now?

[BethesdaWX]

Because the model is trained by a period of net warming, it will predict infinite warming over time. Yes, when the PDO/AMO/SOI drop it will show a temporary decrease. But the increases will be bigger than the decreases forever, so it will show infinite warming in the long run. This is because the "training period" is a period of net warming.

It predicted cooling for the one third of its forecast! It will not show infinite warming because its basing the correlation to global temps FROM THE PDO/AMO......So, when the PDO/AMO go negative, it will predict cooling. The AMO is taken into account too bro. The fact is, the drivers were warm, and through all that time, they correlated perfectly.

Its a selective base, meaning, in that window, the correlation from the PDO/AMO to the global temperature was used...and it nailed it.

[BethesdaWX]

Is it possible that the +AMO is actually the EFFECT of the warm Arctic temperatures, and not the cause? If that's the case, the AMO could simply stay elevated.

Either way, if your implied conclusion is true then the AMO should show a decent correlation to global temperatures. If global temperatures have been warm in large part BECAUSE of the Arctic warmth, then Arctic warmth in the past should have meant warm global temperatures in the past as well. If not, then there is no real predictive power to the AMO, which would make sense given the poor correlation.

In other words, you can't just say "a warm AMO is causing the warmth THIS time, but not in the past", because then even if the AMO drops global temperatures could still remain high for "other reasons" (warmth elsewhere). Or if the AMO stays high, global temperatures could still drop for "other reasons" (based on cooling elsewhere). Either way, the AMO has no predictive power, even though some are claiming it does.

Well, if that is true, then the Arctic has not been warming at all since the 1800's. (see below)

The PDO has a larger correlation to global temps... there are 2 PDO's, NH & SH, and they have a large impact on ENSO, which gives them dominance. The AMO is a cycle of its own.............difference is, the AMO has alot more power in the arctic than the PDO does, because the AMO/NAO correlation & the fact that it is at a higher lattitude, basically, the PDO/AMO do different things in a sense.

Submarines surfaced at the north Pole in march in the 1950's...1800's ships went further up than we can now.... both of those were +AMO's.

Again, less powerful globally, but more powerful regionally (arctic, NH)

[skierinvermont]

It predicted cooling for the one third of its forecast! It will not show infinite warming because its basing the correlation to global temps FROM THE PDO/AMO......So, when the PDO/AMO go negative, it will predict cooling. The AMO is taken into account too bro. The fact is, the drivers were warm, and through all that time, they correlated perfectly.

Its a selective base, meaning, in that window, the correlation from the PDO/AMO to the global temperature was used...and it nailed it.

The correlations to the AMO/PDO are derived from a period that showed net warming (1900-1960). Therefore, the model will predict infinite warming in the long run. Several people have already explained this to you and it really is quite simple. Calm down and think about it for a minute.

[BethesdaWX]

huh? That makes absolutely no sense.

The overall Net warming has no implications on the future forecast because the forecast is based upon the PDO/AMO value in relation to the temps, not the linear Trend upwards due to Solar, the trend isn't even factored, its the PDO/AMO anomaly in relationship to the global temperature anomaly.

Only 1/2 of the training showed warming, the 2nd 1/2 was cooling, this based on on PDO/AMO only.

This is the reason why the First 1/3 of the model forecast COOLED. It will not show more warming than cooling, because the PDO/AMO value is the basis... past trends had a +PDO, the anom was based on the relations of a +PDO to the GTA.

[skierinvermont]

huh? That makes absolutely no sense.

The overall Net warming has no implications on the future forecast because the forecast is based upon the PDO/AMO value in relation to the temps, not the linear Trend upwards due to Solar, the trend isn't even factored, its the PDO/AMO anomaly in relationship to the global temperature anomaly.

Only 1/2 of the training showed warming, the 2nd 1/2 was cooling, this based on on PDO/AMO only.

This is the reason why the First 1/3 of the model forecast COOLED. It will not show more warming than cooling, because the PDO/AMO value is the basis... past trends had a +PDO, the anom was based on the relations of a +PDO to the GTA.

He uses 1900-1960 to train the model by correlating PDO/AMO/SOI values with yearly changes in temperature. A PDO value of 1 will not correlate with as much warming as a PDO value of -1 will correlate with cooling because on average, the period 1900-1960 showed warming. He trains the model in a period that showed net warming. He needed to DE-TREND the temperatures and the PDO/AMO/SOI before training the model. I am sorry if you don't understand this, I don't know how else to explain it to you. Sit down and think about it.

[BethesdaWX]

He uses 1900-1960 to train the model by correlating PDO/AMO/SOI values with yearly changes in temperature. A PDO value of 1 will not correlate with as much warming as a PDO value of -1 will correlate with cooling because on average, the period 1900-1960 showed warming. He trains the model in a period that showed net warming. He needed to DE-TREND the temperatures and the PDO/AMO/SOI before training the model. I am sorry if you don't understand this, I don't know how else to explain it to you. Sit down and think about it.

So what? That has absolutely no implications on the future-cast after the training period, the deviation from the mean temperature (0) & the mean PDO/AMO/SOI (0), is used to make the calculation, positive or negative. The Net Warming was a result of the +PDO in the first place, its not like the base is set to a net warming scenario.

Note the +PDO anomaly through 1945, what was used was the +anom in relation to the temp...so it would make sense.

The trend is not a base, the PDO/AMO/SOI are a base, and they were positive during that timeframe, which led to warming. That +anom has to be used! Don't detrend the training period!

Again, the PDO value is positive.. its not 0! The +PDO & the warming were intercorrelated.

[skierinvermont]

So what? That has absolutely no implications on the future-cast after the training period, the deviation from the mean temperature (0) & the mean PDO/AMO/SOI (0), is used to make the calculation. The Net Warming was a result of the +PDO in the 1st place, its not like the base is set to a net warming scenario

Note the +PDO anomaly through 1945, what was used was the +anom in relation to the temp...so it would make sense.

The trend is not a base, the PDO/AMO/SOI are a base, and they were positive during that timeframe.

Again, the PDO value is positive.. its not 0! The +PDO & the warming were intercorrelated.

I assure you that if he had detrended the PDO values and detrended the temperature values, as he should have, then the model results would have been quite different.

[BethesdaWX]

I assure you that if he had detrended the PDO values and detrended the temperature values, as he should have, then the model results would have been quite different.

BINGO!

The Net warming we've seen over the past 200 years has nothing to do with the PDO/AMO, which are 30 year fluctuations, so removing that warming would result in the solutions making no sense, we all know the PDO/AMO are not the only contributor. You CANNOT remove that warming!

So, with the Warming over the 200yrs from the Modern Max/GCC changes, & the 30yr warmings from PDO/AMO/SOI, as shown in the model...... That matches our warming completely... no Co2 warming needed, thankyou.

The PDO/AMO do not affect the temperatures on the Long Run.....The base warming from solar is something that cannot be removed!

[skierinvermont]

BINGO!

The Net warming we've seen over the past 200 years has nothing to do with the PDO/AMO, which are 30 year fluctuations, so removing that warming would result in the solutions making no sense, we all know the PDO/AMO are not the only contributor. You CANNOT remove that warming!

So, with the Warming over the 200yrs from the Modern Max/GCC changes, & the 30yr warmings from PDO/AMO/SOI, as shown in the model...... That matches our warming completely... no Co2 warming needed, thankyou.

The PDO/AMO do not affect the temperatures on the Long Run.....The base warming from solar is something that cannot be removed!

I give up. The appropriate way to have done the analysis would have been to detrend the data before deriving the correlations.

The fact that it makes the 2000s much warmer than the 1940s even though the AMO and PDO are similar just shows the model is invalid on its face. It's a classic example of using cycles to explain long-term warming.

Peak to trough the AMO/PDO/SOI model predicts .4C of warming from 1900 to 1940s but then peak to trough it predicts 1.0C of warming from 1950s to 2000s, even though the AMO/PDO/SOI cycles are not that different from the first cycle. It predicts 2.5X times as much warming from the second warm cycle as the first, even though the cycle is not that different. This is because the model is warm biased because it is trained in a period of net warming. Maybe some of the net warming is due to the PDO generally rising from 1900-1960 (although it did crash from 1945-1960). But some of the net warming is derived from other factors such as solar and CO2. The model therefore attributes this external solar and/or CO2 warming to the PDO/AMO/SOI, which is incorrect.

[BethesdaWX]

I give up. The appropriate way to have done the analysis would have been to detrend the data before deriving the correlations.

The fact that it makes the 2000s much warmer than the 1940s even though the AMO and PDO are similar just shows the model is invalid on its face. It's a classic example of using cycles to explain long-term warming.

Peak to trough the AMO/PDO/SOI model predicts .4C of warming from 1900 to 1940s but then peak to trough it predicts 1.0C of warming from 1950s to 2000s, even though the AMO/PDO/SOI cycles are not that different from the first cycle. It predicts 2.5X times as much warming from the second warm cycle as the first, even though the cycle is not that different. This is because the model is warm biased because it is trained in a period of net warming.

Are you blind? Why would we try to correlate the PDO/AMO/SOI to all the warming we've seen? The PDO/AMO are blips on the long term warming cycle caused by Solar... they are not responsible for the LONG TERM warming cycle. Everyone knows that.

The study was designed to disprove those who give the PDO/AMO zero resposibility for the warming since 1960, not to say that all the warming we've seen Long term & Short Term is due to the PDO/AMO... that makes no sense

[skierinvermont]

Are you blind? Why would we try to correlate the PDO/AMO/SOI to all the warming we've seen? The PDO/AMO are blips on the long term warming cycle caused by Solar... they are not responsible for the LONG TERM warming cycle. Everyone knows that.

The study was designed to disprove those who give the PDO/AMO zero resposibility for the warming since 1960, not to say that all the warming we've seen Long term & Short Term is due to the PDO/AMO... that makes no sense

Well that's what the model does.. it shows all of the warming can be explained with the PDO/AMO/SOI. That's because it attributes all of the warming from 1900-1960 during the model training period to the PDO/AMO/SOI when clearly much of that warming was solar and/or CO2. That's why it shows 2.5X as much warming from 1950-2010 as it does from 1900-1945 even though the PDO/AMO/SOI cycle is fairly similar. It's a stupid model that would produce infinite warming if you extended it past 2010.

Several people have told you this. If you're not familiar enough with using the statistics, perhaps you should just take their word.