>GISS Model E Climate Simulations Part 2

>INITIAL NOTE

The following is a continuation of the thread titled “GISS Model E Climate Simulations”.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/09/giss-model-e-climate-simulations.html

GISS MODEL E CLIMATE SIMULATION WITHOUT VOLCANIC AEROSOL FORCING

In the first part of this series, I noted how the curve of the GISS Model E climate simulation with all forcings had the “appearance…of a noisy exponential curve with the effects of volcanic eruptions added.” Refer to Figure 1, in which I’ve smoothed the data to reduce the noise.

http://i33.tinypic.com/21n3z9x.jpg
Figure 1

I failed to include an illustration of that GISS Model E Climate Simulation with the volcanic aerosols removed, which also would have illustrated the effect. So I simply subtracted the smoothed data of the GISS Model E climate simulation for volcanic aerosols from the smoothed data of the climate simulation for all forcings. The result is shown in Figure 2.

http://i33.tinypic.com/ednad.jpg
Figure 2

Compared again to the GISTEMP representation of global temperature anomaly, the correlation, or lack thereof, is clearly visible.
http://i37.tinypic.com/2a68ggp.jpg
Figure 3

In the GISS Model E climate simulation data, note the obvious absence of the impacts of oceanic oscillations such as the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and the North Pacific Residual.

COMPARISON OF SIMULATION OF ALL FORCINGS AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALY

As noted in the first post of this series, with the volcanic aerosols in place, Figure 4, the variance between the GISS Model E climate simulation for all forcings and the GISTEMP global temperature anomaly curves appears to result from their failure to include oceanic variables in the simulation.
http://i37.tinypic.com/2h4aza1.jpg
Figure 4

CLOSING

ENSO, the AMO, and the North Pacific Residual contributed significantly to the warming from 1910 to 1940 and from the late 1970s to 2003, and contributed to the cooling period from 1940 to the late 1970s. The attempts by climatologists to duplicate global temperature anomaly without accounting for these oceanic oscillations is folly. Establishing a trend without the oceanic variables and extending that trend forward in time to predict the impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on future climate clearly distorts reality.