Guest post by Bob Tisdale
http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf
As noted in the title, it fails to address the multiyear effects of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events on global temperature.
Other than explosive volcanic eruptions, El Nino-Southern Oscillation events have the greatest impacts on global climate on annual and multiyear bases. The year-to-year global temperature impacts of ENSO events are clearly visible in a comparative time-series graph, Figure 1. Also visible are the overriding effects of the 1982 El Chichon and 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruptions.
http://i44.tinypic.com/144ag5f.jpg
Figure 1
The multiyear impacts of the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Nino events on Northern Hemisphere Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) are clearly visible in the TLT Time-Latitude Plot available from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). Refer to Figure 2 and 3, which are from my post “RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude Plots…Show Climate Responses That Cannot Be Easily Illustrated With Time-Series Graphs Alone.”
http://i44.tinypic.com/16leq39.jpg
Figure 2
#########
http://i41.tinypic.com/2vwzmdj.jpg
Figure 3
A seldom-discussed, naturally occurring oceanic process called Reemergence (Refer to my post “The Reemergence Mechanism”) provides the mechanism by which the global oceans integrate the effects of ENSO events. And it only takes the cumulative effect of a very small portion (0.0045 or less than ½ of 1%) of the monthly ENSO signal, as shown in Figure 4, to reproduce the Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomaly curve.
http://i42.tinypic.com/iom6ab.jpg
Figure 4
YET HOW MANY TIMES DOES THE USGCRP REPORT MENTION THE EL NINO-SOUTHERN OSCILLATION?
The USGCRP mentions “El Nino” nine times in the body of the 196-page report, but those references only pertain to global temperature on one occassion. The first reference, however, states that ENSO is independent of human activities.
On page 16, during a discussion Natural Influences, they wrote, “The climate changes that have occurred over the last century are not solely caused by the human and natural factors described above. In addition to these influences, there are also fluctuations in climate that occur even in the absence of changes in human activities, the Sun, or volcanoes. One example is the El Niño phenomenon, which has important influences on many aspects of regional and global climate.” [My emphasis.]
They acknowledged that ENSO is independent of anthropogenic influence. That’s significant.
On page 17, in the text of the comparative graph of “Global Temperature and Carbon Dioxide”, they wrote, “These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Niños, La Niñas, and the eruption of large volcanoes.” [My emphasis.]
Yet they fail to note the multiyear and cumulative effects of ENSO.
Page 36, during a discussion of Pacific Hurricanes, they write, “The total number of tropical storms and hurricanes in the eastern Pacific on seasonal to multi-decade time periods is generally opposite to that observed in the Atlantic. For example, during El Niño events it is common for hurricanes in the Atlantic to be suppressed while the eastern Pacific is more active. This reflects the large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns that extend across both the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans.” [My emphasis.]
That quote is important in many contests. Much can be inferred from it. Yet they fail to acknowledge the multidecadal epochs when El Nino or La Nina are dominant. These epochs are visible in a time-series graph of smoothed NINO3.4 SST anomalies, Figure 5.
http://i43.tinypic.com/33agh3c.jpg
Figure 5
On page 38, under the heading of Snowstorms, they wrote, “The northward shift in storm tracks is reflected in regional changes in the frequency of snowstorms. The South and lower Midwest saw reduced snowstorm frequency during the last century. In contrast, the Northeast and upper Midwest saw increases in snowstorms, although considerable decade-to-decade variations were present in all regions, influenced, for example, by the frequency of El Niño events.” [My emphasis.]
And again, they infer multidecadal influences of ENSO, but the USGCRP have failed to account for it in their attribution of global temperature change.
There are further references of El Nino and La Nina events on pages 81, 147, 148, and 152, as they pertain to tuna stock, droughts, coral reefs, and coastal currents. No need to repeat those in this post.
CLOSING
Like the IPCC, the USGCRP either fails to accept the significant multiyear and cumulative impacts of ENSO on global temperatures or they chose to ignore them in their presentation of the causes of global temperature change.
Posted by Bob Tisdale at 8:42 PM
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Please don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.
or they chose to ignore them in their presentation of the causes of global temperature change.
doesn’t fit the fantasy.
Bob, thank you, clear and concise as always.
The nino3.4 anomaly correlation to global SST is striking but the upward departures of Global SST seem to coincide with the progression of solar cycles.
Following Willis’ thermostat hypothesis’, I wonder if this could this be due to the cloud cover being suppressed in extra-tropical regions and so not reacting to extra heat input in the same way it does at the intertropical convergence zone.
That would seem to be a confirmation of the Shaviv solar amplification theory and the Svensmark GCR cloud seeding theory. The equatorial region is less affected by the cyclical fluctuation in GCR incidence which rises and falls with the solar cycle.
High solar activity – less GCR’s and cloud seeding in the extra-tropical regions, leading to increased surface reaching insolation at higher latitudes relative to the ITCZ.
Of course weather changes are taking place fast. Summer season is becoming longer in Lahore, Pakistan. Previously I lived in Tarbela Dam for 25 years. It was excellent weather having rains, sand free winds, greenery and tropical forests. Forests diminished gradually from there.
Do we know what causes ENSO?
From a comment I posted at CA:
I like this quote: \”Roughly one-half of the carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning remains in the atmosphere after 100 years, and roughly one-fifth of it remains after 1,000 years.90\” page 40…
Now from the slope of monthly Mauna Loa data, when the signal is maximum negative (usually in September), I show a slope of roughly -25ppm per year (for a short time). This means the sink outweighed the source by the maximum amount, and the system exchanges CO2 at an extremely high rate. It does this all the time, we are seeing a difference in source and sink as the maximum rates, but the exchange rate MUST always be very high, not just in September.
Point 1 is that such a half life is impossible while still showing a signal that sharp at Mauna Loa, otherwise it would be much more filtered. An older chart I made also shows how fast CO2 reacts to temperature, even when heavily smoothed, so I seriously doubt CO2 has a life of more than a few, single digit years at most. http://home.comcast.net/~naturalclimate/CO2_growth_vs_Temp.pdf
Point 2: They claim a half life of 100 years from the first statement. I thought this was debunked years ago, but I\’ll work with it. Half life is described as AmountFuture=AmountPresent*e^-(tx) where t in this case is years and x must be 0.006931472. (same as -ln(.5)/100)
CO2(100)=CO2Now*e^-(100*.006931472), or 1 * e^-.6931472) = .5 in 100 years. Good.
CO2(1000)=CO2Now*e^-(1000*.006931472), or 1 * e^-6.931472) = 0.000976562, or 0.097%, NOT 20%. This also means one time constant is 144 years, and there are 6.93 time constants in 1000 years. 6.93 time constants will never yield 20% in a decaying process, it will always yield 0.097%.
Just one small example of politicians masquerading as scientists. Looking for other gross errors…
Of course weather changes are taking place fast. Summer season is becoming longer in Lahore, Pakistan. Previously I lived in Tarbela Dam for 25 years. It was excellent weather having rains, sand free winds, greenery and tropical forests. Forests diminished gradually from there.
BTW I love your blog!
On page 13 the report states \”Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7ºF. \”
I am sure they came up with that some place. But, I go to US Historical Climate Network.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/usa_monthly.html#map
and randomly picked three midwest cities and NOTHING that is out of the ordinary comparing the last 30 years to the 1930\’s and 1940\’s.
http://nofreewind.blogspot.com/2009/06/have-midwest-winters-grown-shorter-and.html
Dear friends,
what will warmists do when farmers or anyone else SUE them for deception, COLD weather unsuspecting victims, poverty due to warming taxes, money waste and so on?
Talking of Climate Change impacts, \”Organisers of the London Olympics have begun advertising for meteorologists to predict weather patterns in 2012. \” in the UK Telegraph.
http://tinyurl.com/ljsak8
Anyone care to have a go? My guess is it will be \’unpredictable\’. Do I get the job?
“the cumulative effect of a very small portion (0.0045 or less than ½ of 1%) of the monthly ENSO signal, as shown in Figure 4, to reproduce the Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomaly curve.”
Is the 0.0045 figure a best fit value or from some other basis? Are the “graphs” showing northward dissipation qualitative or quantitative? If the latter, there may be a basis for calculating the rough volume and heat content of El Nino/La Nina events. If this volume and heat content is already known then the effect on average SST should be calculable. Another thing: these ocean heating/cooling events are almost universally acknowledged to be of major importance in earth weather and climate (I’m not a meteorologist but everything I’ve read seems to acknowledge this). What causes them seems to be a mystery and to me heavy lifting on this subject should be big priority. In an earlier post I supplied a possible source – not from without but from within. The geothermal heat gradient has been looked at and discarded as being to weak and it would appear to be so on average (0.075watts/mE2). But guess where the the highest flux has been determined – the east central Pacific where it is 5 times as high. See the link below and scroll down a few clicks to the heat flow map.
http://geophysics.ou.edu/geomechanics/notes/heatflow/global_heat_flow.htm
Now imagine the currents from the NH and SH converging along the equator and gathering this into an east-west axis along the equator. Also consider multiyear cumulative heating of the seawater 3-5 years at the seafloor before it rises up to form an El Nino event. This would be 0.35w/mE2 day and night (x2 for day and night)(x4years, say) accumulates to about 3w/mE2. Now gather it up with the currents to a narrow zone…
I think this may make an interesting post if someone had the time to flesh it out.
Those TLT Time Latitude plots are a very good visual tool for describing what occurs.
And very telling.
And pretty cool, too. But I digress…
Do we know what drives the ENSO oscillation? Is it just unknown? Or maybe sea monkeys doing the backstroke? Didn’t someone connect it to solar changes driving tropical cloud cover?
NEW TOPIC SUGGESTION:
Anthony, how about a new topic to discuss the USGRP report, called “what’s wrong with this report?”
Format:
1) Report Claim (reference):
2) Counter Claim:
3) Reference from literature supporting counter claim:
No other commentary allowed (except referring to other counter claims), simple point by point debunking…
REPLY: Maybe, do you think there will be enough material? 😉 – Anthony
VinceW: You asked, “Do we know what causes ENSO?”
Refer to Bill Kessler’s Q&A page:
http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/occasionally-asked-questions.html
And David Enfield’s:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/enso_faq/
Regards
Amazingly, this morning’s Wahington Post has minimalized the story and buried it on page 3.
Let’s keep writing to the editors, the legislature, and the White House. The cascade of facts is beginning to have an impact. The last place it will be felt is in the WH or the Speaker’s office. But it will be felt.
When you do write to your members, remind them of the upcoming 2010 cycle.
TinyCO2 (03:55:18)
I know wat the weather in 2012 in London wil be. IT wil rain with a periods of sun and a average tempreture of 19C wind probaly comming from south west.
Interesting post. I wish that there was more too it… By the look of the plots it seems that north does indeed get the brunt, by why does it remain for so long, it looks like the mid cooled down but the North stayed hot from late 1999 to mid 2001… During that time it seems like very little heat left the north. So why would it remain so warm there at that time?
I browsed through the document this morning and it is filled to the brim with climate alarmism. It would be a worthwhile project to go through the text and start looking at and evaluating the reference data – I’m sure there is plenty of cherry picking and outright distortion of the facts (as is usual with the AGW crowd).
Much like VinceW above, I’ve wondered what is the root cause of El Nino events? We go to great pains to point out that correlation is not causation in theAGW debate, but then assert that El Nino drives the SST anomalies. Sure, they are strongly correlated, but they could both be driven by the same, external factor. My guess is the Sun. Maybe El Nino does drive SST’s, but what drives El Nino?
I did check out Bob Tisdale’s links, but there is no root cause posited there.
Any thoughts?
Does anyone actually believe this document was for any other purpose than to promote Obama’s ideological agenda? He said he’d restore science “to its rightful place”, and that’s exactly what he did. It’s the usual suspects reviewing their own work and ignoring virtually all opposing research and observational data.
Perhaps the biggest laugh I got was the section on tropical tropospheric warming. Trashing satellite data in favor of cherry picking a set of radiosonde measurements to better support the models is the new definition of an experiment.
This report is nothing but a political document authored by the usual AGW lackeys, and hastily assembled at that.
speaking of sun spots.. Spaceweather has one forming, but its at a fairly low latitude. Another Cycle 23 spot?
I am madder about this report than anything I’ve read before. It’s full of mistakes, exaggerations and flat lies.
This has nothing to do with science and I recommend people read it to see what exactly the government is planning. This is multi-billion dollar propaganda, every graph seems cherry picked, every statement as extreme as can be made. I’m banning myself from blogging on it until I can calm down.
In the meantime, if you’re tired of being pissed off. I have an excellent guest post on the history of the Arctic ice by Tony B.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/
Unfortunately my local paper ran the Washington Post story as the lead story on the front page this morning. And over the weekend it ran the story of how we ought to paint all the buildings and roads white. I’m losing faith in my local paper. Temple, Texas
I’m not well versed enough to contribute but I’m learning a great deal. Keep up the good work everyone.
Mark Wagner (04:44:58)
Do we know what drives the ENSO oscillation? Is it just unknown?
The sun does and it’s not even up for debate in my opinion. The problem with mainstream science not understanding the reasoning, or I should say the mechanisms to consider when trying to forecast it, are that they have always failed to think “outside the box”.
But I personally know some long term proffesional forecasters who are starting to look at things differently now.