Anthony Cox
![]() |
Shag on Rock Apologies to Josh |
This idea has been around for yonks.
Cohenite looked at the idea in 2008. Basically the technique is detrend
for all natural factors by removing the estimate of their temperature effect
and what is left should be the pure
AGW signal.
Lots of people have done
this; the original paper was Keenlyside et al in 2008. Easterling and
Wehner in 2009 extended this concept to the usual grotesque AGW
exaggeration. The previous Keenlyside et al effort
predicted masking of underlying AGW due to SST driven natural variation. Unfortunately,
when the ENSO is removed from temperature trends there is no post 2000
underlying AGW. Easterling and Wehner revisit this trainwreck of an idea to
prove that future cooling will still have underlying AGW. Their null hypothesis
[NH] really settles the matter. The NH is that there will be an “equal
percentage of statistically significant positive and negative trends” [p6].
This is high order virtual reality; the concept of the 100 year flood explains
why. Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] climate phases have greater probability
of floods during a negative phase during which time [about 30 years] there may
be several 1 in 100 year floods. During the positive, El Nino dominated PDO
phase there will most likely be no 1 in 100 year flood.