Part 2 of We Now Control Weather – Extreme Heat Events, Dirty Weather, Climate Disasters
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
This video is the second in the series of videos titled We Now Control Weather – Extreme Heat Events, Dirty Weather, Climate Disasters. The post that introduces Part 1 is here. The series are being prepared in response to James Hansen’s extreme heat events, Al Gore’s dirty weather, and Kevin Trenberth’s climate disasters videos that appear on YouTube. They all claim the weather we’ve been seeing recently can be attributed to manmade global warming. Unfortunately for those three gentlemen, who seem to believe more in climate models than observational data, the global sea surface temperature records do not agree with the models. That is, the global sea surface temperature records for the past 30 years indicate that Mother Nature is responsible for the warming, not manmade greenhouse gases. And that’s the topic of this video—the natural warming of the sea surface temperatures during the past 30 years. This video, like my book, lets the sea surface temperature data indicate and describe how it has warmed.
If you’ve ever run across one of my posts at a WattsUpWithThat or at many other climate change/global warming blogs or have seen me arguing with a proponent of anthropogenic global warming, and you’ve wondered what I was yakking on and on about El Niño this and La Niña that, this is definitely a video for you to watch.
I will be providing a third video in this series to illustrate and explain how we know the warm water released by an El Niño is created naturally. That video will also address questions received in response to this one. If there’s enough time, we’ll take a look at ocean heat content data to show how Mother Nature is responsible for its warming as well. If not, we’ll look at it in the part 4.
This video, Part 2, is less than 25 minutes long, so it’s something you could watch during your lunch break, or over dinner, or during a lull in your normal TV viewing schedule. I’ve decided against allowing YouTube to place advertising before the videos or to include any of those semi-transparent banners that obscure the view, but I have added a quick note about donations/tips at the end. They are very much appreciated.
Enjoy.
Links: I referred to a number of posts toward the end of the video. Here’s a link to the post Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About El Niño and La Niña… It provides a detailed overview of my book Who Turned on the Heat? The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit, El Niño-Southern Oscillation. And here’s a link to Part 1 of my January 2009 cross post at WattsUpWithThat, which was my first post on this topic, and here’s Part 2. I’ve revised the data presentation since then to make it much easier to understand, primarily with how the oceans are subdivided. The dataset I used in that post has since been discontinued by NOAA, which is why I switched to the NOAA Reynolds OI.v2 data. The third post referred to in the video was The Warming of the Global Oceans – Are Manmade Greenhouse Gases Important or Impotent?
DATA SOURCES
I used the NOAA NOMADS website for the Reynolds OI.v2 data. But it and the HADISST data from video 1, along with the multi-model mean of the CMIP3 and of the CMIP5 climate model outputs (TOS) presented in this video, are available from the KNMI Climate Explorer. They’re provided so you can verify the graphs in this video.
Thanks, Anthony.
A UK County Council leader has publicly challenged the warmists in his blog and then in a full council meeting, which has been picked up by the press.
Sound-minded people could pitch in to the debate on the newspaper website
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridge/Global-warming-a-theory-by-bourgeois-left-wingers-16102012.htm
or on his personal blog
http://nickclarkeconservative.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/global-warming-the-king-is-not-wearing-any-clothes/
Any comments would be welcome and might prevent it just being a horde of Cambridge-centric warmists getting all the debate action.
Excellent work! Let’s extract a predictive model from the empirical data and test it.
Thanks for the second video Bob. I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed but I can understand most of it.
BTW I’m surprised that after every Bob Tisdale post here that responders don’t include people like Leif or Willis and even Anthony doesn’t seem to want to get personally involved in Bob’s conclusions either.
Perhaps I’m wrong but Bob has given his explanation for the slight increase in temp over the last 100+ years but very few prominent people seem to come onto this site and either agree or disagree.with his conclusions.
Then one day if he’s proven to be correct there will have been countless billions $ flushed down many drains for a bit fat zero return.
Of course simple kindy maths shows us there is nothing we can do about the mitigation of AGW, but that’s another story. Problem is China, India and the non OECD won’t play ball.
Good presentation, but you mis-understand how GHGs warm the oceans. They do so by impeding cooling. So the failure to lose the heat gained from El Ninos is what GHG warming predicts. Although any cause of atmospheric warming would have the same effect, and probably cloud changes as well.
What I find significant is that it appears El Ninos are driven by East Pacific Ocean temperatures. This would explain why the EPO hasn’t warmed, while the rest of the world’s oceans have.
One other point. North Indian Ocean temperatures are strongly influenced by the strength of the Indian Monsoon, which is driven by summer temperatures in Central Asia. For that reason I wouldn’t draw any conclusions from North India Ocean temperatures without factoring in the strength of the Monsoon.
My takeaway from Bob Tisdale’s presentation is this: Oceanic warming is so lumpy/spotty, and so secondary to ENSO & AMO pulses, that it’s a bad fit with warmist theory, which would seem to prescribe something smoother and more evenly distributed. Trenberth’s attempt to wave the lumpiness & ENSO-secondariness away as mere noise is unconvincing. Rather, that noise seems to be the signal, for the most part.
@Philip Bradley
Hi Philip. You write “how GHGs warm the oceans. They do so by impeding cooling. So the failure to lose the heat gained from El Ninos is what GHG warming predicts.”
can you help me understand how this happens please? What GHGs are we talking about. Is it CO2 that is preventing heat loss from the ocean or are you including water vapour? I can understand the insulating effects of clouds but have a little trouble understanding how trace gasses which have differing properties of absorption at differing wavelengths are able to prevent heat loss from the ocean to the atmosphere.
Your comment appeared to be quite absolute so I’d appreciate if you could explain the process in a manner a layman can understand.
Thanks in advance.
Philip Bradley says: “Good presentation, but you mis-understand how GHGs warm the oceans. They do so by impeding cooling.”
The data indicates that greenhouse gases do nothing more than add to evaporation. There is no evidence of a greenhouse gas signal in the sea surface temperature or ocean heat content data.
Phillip Bradley: Further, climate model outputs represent how the sea surface temperatures of the global ocean would warm IF they were warmed by greenhouse gases. Sea surface temperatures in climate models that are forced (forced being the key word) by greenhouse gases simulate a relatively uniform warming among the ocean basins, inasmuch as the zonal-mean trends of satellite-era sea surface temperatures are basically the same for all ocean basins:
http://i56.tinypic.com/t4wpys.jpg
While in the real world they are not similar because the sea surface temperatures are not forced to warm. The warming is process related and the primary process is ENSO:
http://i53.tinypic.com/24zf4f9.jpg
Those two graphs are from the following post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/part-1-%e2%80%93-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-versus-ipcc-hindcastprojections/
Yeah, Bob, sorry to be a pain. Don’t worry, getting dazed and confused in Excel is mandatory!
Could you address this question please, when you state there is no trend in the ” East Pacific”,
are you sure you are not just talking about the tropics (20S to 20N), in which case you would be right.
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&op1=14tave&op2=none&month=jan&year=1983&fmonth=sep&fyear=2012&lat0=-20&lat1=20&lon0=-180&lon1=80&plotsize=800×600&title=&dir=
zootcadillac says:
October 16, 2012 at 5:57 pm
can you help me understand how this happens please? What GHGs are we talking about. Is it CO2 that is preventing heat loss from the ocean or are you including water vapour? I can understand the insulating effects of clouds but have a little trouble understanding how trace gasses which have differing properties of absorption at differing wavelengths are able to prevent heat loss from the ocean to the atmosphere.
More than half the sun’s energy that reaches the surface enters the oceans. In order for the oceans not to get hotter and hotter, that energy must be transferred back to the atmosphere (and from there to space).
On average the atmosphere above the oceans is a little less than 2C cooler than the sea surface. And it is this temperature difference that allows the oceans to lose heat to the atmosphere. (avoiding the complexities of evaporation)
As GHGs warm the atmosphere they decrease the temperature difference with the ocean surface and hence slow (impede) the loss of heat from the ocean surface. Of course, anything that warms the atmosphere would have the same effect. With a partial exception for increased solar irradiance as that would also additionally warm the oceans.
here’s another CAGW extreme disaster!
16 Oct: Bloomberg: Dawn McCarty/Craig Trudell: Electric Car Battery Maker A123 Systems Files Bankruptcy
A123 Systems Inc., the electric car battery maker that received a $249.1 million federal grant, filed for bankruptcy protection and said it would sell its automotive business assets to Johnson Controls Inc…
The 30 largest consolidated creditors without collateral backing their claims are owed a total of more than $161 million, according to court papers. U.S. Bank NA, as trustee, is listed as the largest unsecured creditor with a claim of $142.8 million, according to court papers…
A123, which received a $249.1 million federal grant in 2009 to build U.S. factory capacity, needed a financial lifeline after struggling with costs from a recall of batteries supplied to Fisker, the plug-in hybrid luxury carmaker…
A123 has used $132 million of the $249.1 million grant awarded by the U.S. in 2009 toward building the two Michigan factories, the Energy Department said today in a posting on its website. A123 was required to spend up to one dollar of its funds for every incentive dollar received from the government, according to regulatory filings. The company also received a $6 million grant from the George W. Bush administration in 2007…
A123 has posted at least 14 straight quarterly losses. Its shares had fallen 85 percent this year to 24 cents as of yesterday’s close in New York.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-16/electric-car-battery-maker-a123-systems-files-bankruptcy.html
——————————————————————————–
Phillip Bradley: Further, climate model outputs represent how the sea surface temperatures of the global ocean would warm IF they were warmed by greenhouse gases. Sea surface temperatures in climate models that are forced (forced being the key word) by greenhouse gases simulate a relatively uniform warming among the ocean basins, inasmuch as the zonal-mean trends of satellite-era sea surface temperatures are basically the same for all ocean basins:
‘Forced’ is just the term from the Forcings Model of climate. It just means a change in forcing results in a change in the climate. I make no comment on whether this correct or not.
The real issue here is you are confusing causes with mechanisms.
For the purposes of this discussion, we can define causation as, a change in A results in a change in B.
You haven’t shown any change in ENSO. Therefore, you can not claim ENSO is a cause.
Just watched the debate. Everybody loves coal this cycle. Didn’t they read about the ice record?!
Thanks for the answer Philip. It appears you don’t actually know or are unwilling to say.
I understand the energy budget and I understand heat-transfer from the oceans to the atmosphere but merely saying that ‘GHGs warm the atmosphere’ is simply repeating the AGW hypothesis whilst offering no empirical evidence to prove it. Still unsure what GHGs you are talking about and what properties they have which is observed to be warming the atmosphere and shown to be statistically significant.
I know the theory and I fully agree that there are gases in the atmosphere that contribute some statistically insignificant warming effect but outside of water vapour I have yet to see anyone who posits the theory show me any actual observed evidence that trace gases are driving temperature rather than, as the ice core data show, being released as a result of the increase in temperature born of natural variability.
It’s all very well saying “this is what’s happening and this is why, but you have to trust me because it only exists in this computer algorithm I wrote fed by data I have adjusted from the observed” but for me, I like to know how it works and be able to see evidence of it working.
One of the answers I get from people when asking them how they know that “global warming’ is a man-made occurrence, is, “Thousands of scientists can’t be wrong, they have proved it with peer-reviewed papers” when what they should be saying is ” I have no idea so I just get my information from the mainstream media and trust that my taxes are being used to save us from a threat I’m guilty of aiding”.
The general public accept the theory as they have already bought the fear and in the face of catastrophe they would rather warming is a human creation because ‘if we broke it we must be able to fix it’. Natural processes need adaptation not mitigation.
Great Job on the presentation !
It would be a wonderful thing to have an interactive exchange for everyone on the same subject.
So many questions, and so little opportunity to ask about such tough ones anywhere aside from here!
Thank you !
Think about it………….
Philip Bradley says:
October 16, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Responding to:
zootcadillac says:
October 16, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Says Philip:
“As GHGs warm the atmosphere they decrease the temperature difference with the ocean surface and hence slow (impede) the loss of heat from the ocean surface.”
It sounds like you just made that up. How about this: As GHGs warm the atmosphere they increase the temperature difference with the cooler air above and because warm air is more buoyant than cool air the warm air rises faster, and is replaced by cooler air from above. Warmer air at the water surface allows more evaporation and that also causes more buoyant air. These normal processes give this lower region of Earth’s atmosphere its name, that is, the Troposphere**. The processes works mostly from conduction and convection and contributes to Earth’s energy balance by carrying energy away from the surface. A warmer lower layer of air should just speed the process.
____
**The term troposphere was first used in 1902 by Léon Philippe Teisserenc de Bort, a french meteorologist who was a pioneer in the use of meteorological balloons.
http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/wxfacts/Troposphere.htm
“The term troposphere was first used in 1902 by Léon Philippe Teisserenc de Bort, a french meteorologist who was a pioneer in the use of meteorological balloons.”
I think that soon there will be a paper from the warmist’s camp, where they “will find new knowledge” about conduction and convection. It will be unprecedentet and “unevoquival” ( or something like that ).
And they will need lots of tax-money for that super-duper computer hidden out there in the desert.
After 100’ds of billions of dollars, they will discover that, awwgh, it was the sun, the watercycle and coriolis behind it all. Damn!
But of course, they will say, it was worth it all, because we did what we thought was best at the time.
X Anomaly says: “Could you address this question please, when you state there is no trend in the ‘East Pacific’,
are you sure you are not just talking about the tropics (20S to 20N), in which case you would be right.”
X Anomaly, the maps in the video showed the East Pacific, from pole to pole, with the coordinates of 90S-90N, 180-80W. The corresponding graph showed it has a linear trend of 0.007 deg C/decade trend (no smoothing):
http://i48.tinypic.com/6nrnv5.jpg
The Eastern Tropical Pacific (20S-20N, 180-80W) that you illustrated, on the other hand, has a significantly negative trend of -0.081 deg C/decade (no smoothing):
http://i47.tinypic.com/34r9gub.jpg
So the source of any warmed water is below the surface of the West Pacific (subsequently brought to the surface and “sloshed” about. It presumably cools by convection and radiation, etc. The original warming of the subsurface Pacific must therefore be radiation absorption, mediated by cloud cover.
Great video, I understood it. No Homer Simpson moments.
When the DVD of the BOOK comes out I’ll buy it.
I laud the efforts of nearly everyone on this string for writing posts about science. Scientific information was shared. The science discussion was civilised. Posters asked polite, scientific questions and received respectful answers.
My view is that Mr Tisdale has some way to go before he meets exacting scientific standards for demonstrating the causality that lies at the heart of his la Nina/el Nino climate variability theory. I trust my summary represents his theory fairly.
Unfortunately, there were two politically-motivated posts that rather pollute the rational scientific discussion with unfunny sarcasm using non-scientific terms. I do not support censorship, self- censorship or cyber bullying with the intent to shut down discussion. Therefore, IMHO, such posts should be tolerated.
Perhaps, to save the precious time of serious scientific posters, non-science posters who want to play political games could put a little topic flag on their post headings: ‘non-scientific post follows’.
IMHO, the two peccant posts are:
pat says:
October 16, 2012 at 6:37 pm
here’s another CAGW extreme disaster!
Sarcasm says:
October 16, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Just watched the debate. Everybody loves coal this cycle. Didn’t they read about the ice record?!
Philip Bradley: Have you been hanging out at SkepticalScience? You seem to be trying their lame arguments. Example:
Philip Bradley says: “You haven’t shown any change in ENSO. Therefore, you can not claim ENSO is a cause.”
I have been illustrating, animating and discussing cause and effect for 3 ½ years. Where have you been? I seem to recall your comments on those threads, but maybe I was wrong.
Also, I’m not sure what you mean “that I haven’t shown any change in ENSO.” ENSO is a process that is continuously varying or changing. It creates warm water in the tropical Pacific during La Nina events and it releases that warm water during El Nino events. The process of ENSO released sufficient warm water from below the surface of the western Tropical Pacific during the 1986/87/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Nino events to raise the sea surface temperatures of the South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific about 0.24 Deg C since 1984:
http://i46.tinypic.com/2hh2dmf.jpg
Why? The sea surface temperatures of the South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific fail to cool during the La Nina events of 1988/89 and 1998/99/00/01:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/figure-x.png
Why? As discussed and illustrated in dozens of posts before this one, there’s warm water left over from strong El Nino events. The following animation illustrates the Rossby wave returning leftover warm water from the 1997/98 El Nino back to the western tropical Pacific:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/animation-3-1.gif
You can also watch the impact of the Rossby wave and the returned leftover warm surface waters on the East Indian-West Pacific sea surface temperatures in this animation:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/east-indian-west-pacific-97-thru-012.gif
Additionally, the sea surface temperatures of the South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific cool between the major El Nino events:
http://i49.tinypic.com/15ft2cl.jpg
Consider this, Philip. If the South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific cooled fully during the La Nina events of 1988/89 and 1998/99/00/01, the sea surface temperatures there would be similar to those of the East Pacific. That is, they wouldn’t have warmed in 30 years:
http://i48.tinypic.com/6nrnv5.jpg
After you fully consider this reply, Philip, let me know, and we can discuss the North Atlantic.
Howskepticalment says: “My view is that Mr Tisdale has some way to go before he meets exacting scientific standards for demonstrating the causality that lies at the heart of his la Nina/el Nino climate variability theory. I trust my summary represents his theory fairly.”
Welcome, Howskepticalment. You appear new here, unless you’re using a new name. The discussion in the video was a very basic overview. I have been documenting, illustrating and animating cause (ENSO) and effect (the warming of sea surface temperatures, ocean heat content, lower troposphere temperatures, land-plus sea surface temperatures) at my blog and through cross posts here at WUWT since January 2009.
I’ll borrow a paragraph from a past post to give you an overview:
ENSO is a coupled ocean-atmosphere process that periodically releases naturally created warm water from below the surface of the western tropical Pacific and discharges heat to the atmosphere during an El Niño. The phrase “coupled ocean-atmosphere process” refers to the fact that many ocean and atmospheric variables in the tropical Pacific interact with one another. For that reason, a number of tropical Pacific variables are impacted directly by ENSO, including sea surface temperature, sea level, ocean currents, ocean heat content, depth-averaged temperature, warm water volume, sea level pressure, cloud amount, precipitation, the strength and direction of the trade winds, etc. I have presented the effects of ENSO on each of those variables in past posts. And since cloud amount for the tropical Pacific impacts downward shortwave radiation (visible light) there, I’ve presented and discussed that relationship as well. I’ve presented videos to show the impacts of ENSO on ISCCP Total Cloud Amount data (with cautions about that dataset), CAMS-OPI precipitation data, NOAA’s Trade Wind Index (5S-5N, 135W-180) anomaly data, RSS MSU TLT anomaly data, CLS (AVISO) Sea Level anomaly data, NCEP/DOE Reanalysis-2 Surface Downward Shortwave Radiation Flux (dswrfsfc) anomaly data, Reynolds OI.v2 SST anomaly data and the NODC’s ocean heat content data.
That is, I use data to support what I present.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask them. To give you an overview of the detail I’ve brought to the discussion, refer to the table of contents in the preview of my book:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/preview-of-who-turned-on-the-heat-v2.pdf
It’s likely I’ve already answered any question you may have. The following post provides an overview of the book:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/everything-you-every-wanted-to-know-about-el-nino-and-la-nina-2/
Regards
zootcadillac says:
October 16, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Thanks for the answer Philip. It appears you don’t actually know or are unwilling to say.
I understand the energy budget and I understand heat-transfer from the oceans to the atmosphere but merely saying that ‘GHGs warm the atmosphere’ is simply repeating the AGW hypothesis whilst offering no empirical evidence to prove it. Still unsure what GHGs you are talking about and what properties they have which is observed to be warming the atmosphere and shown to be statistically significant.
As I said. Emphasis added.
As GHGs warm the atmosphere they decrease the temperature difference with the ocean surface and hence slow (impede) the loss of heat from the ocean surface. Of course, anything that warms the atmosphere would have the same effect.
If you thought I was expressing an opinion on whether GHGs were the cause of atmospheric warming, I thought I was clear, I wasn’t.
If you are arguing the near surface atmosphere hasn’t warmed that is a different discussion.
Brian H says: “So the source of any warmed water is below the surface of the West Pacific (subsequently brought to the surface and “sloshed” about. It presumably cools by convection and radiation, etc.”
The oceans release heat primarily through evaporation.
Brian H says: “The original warming of the subsurface Pacific must therefore be radiation absorption, mediated by cloud cover.”
And the variations in cloud cover are caused by the trade winds, which are caused by (and cause) the temperature difference between the east and west tropical Pacific (Bjerknes feedback).
Roger Knights says: “Trenberth’s attempt to wave the lumpiness & ENSO-secondariness away as mere noise is unconvincing. Rather, that noise seems to be the signal, for the most part.”
The noise is an aftereffect of the process of ENSO. Trenberth should understand that.
In the study of global warming as presently constituted, use of the term “noise” is inappropriate as noise is a statistical concept but the study references no statistical population.
Terry Oldberg says: “Excellent work! Let’s extract a predictive model from the empirical data and test it.”
Problem: There’s no way to predict ENSO, even a few months in advance as this year’s false start to an El Nino has shown.
Bob Tisdale says:
October 17, 2012 at 3:37 am
Philip Bradley: Have you been hanging out at SkepticalScience? You seem to be trying their lame arguments. Example:
Philip Bradley says: “You haven’t shown any change in ENSO. Therefore, you can not claim ENSO is a cause.”
I do read Skeptical Science occasionally, and generally they are pretty good on the science. The problem at SS is, to use Steve McIntyre’s term, they hide the pea. That is, they try and misdirect you away from the real issue(s).
The issue here is determining causation – what causes what. And you think describing a mechanism equates to discovering a cause. It doesn’t.
The only thing that has bothered me in this whole process is “How does the warm water get into the subsurface western Pacific to begin with?” Is there a cloud modulation issue here that needs to be explored or what? The ENSO may be the driver of ocean surface temperatures, but what drives the ENSO? I think if we can find a data-driven, testable hypothesis to explain that, we can pretty much drive a rosewood stake through the CAGW vampire’s heart.
I appreciate that Bob has had to do a lot of compression to present his case in what is a very short time frame relative to the complexity of the arguments.
That said, I find that to my mind there is a gap in the logic of the response of the ‘rest of the world’ oceans to ENSO. If the rest of the world oceans simply hoard a large part of the heat released during an ENSO I have two questions:
1) Where does the constant additional heat come from?
2) Why is it that the rest of the world oceans have not superheated throughout geological time from the heat that is constantly (relatively speaking) being added?
Thanks for the hard work Bob.
Good presentation Bob, you express it all in a way that is easily accessible without too much knowledge of climate or science.
However, I think there are a couple flaws in your arguments.
1, “Its Natural”. ENSO is ocean currents , oceans are natural there ENSO warming is “natural”. There is an inherent assumption here that you may not realise.
ENSO is not a source of energy is a *mechanism* by which energy is transferred, so we have to ask where is the energy coming from. Is there a depletion of ocean heat content over this time? No, East Pacific OHC is rising as well.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/6-east-pacific.png?w=640&h=433&h=433
So ENSO is redistributing part of that increase in heat energy. That does not tell us where that energy comes from or whether its cause is “natural” or human induced. Note, I’m not arguing either way , just pointing out you are jumping the gun in concluding it is natural simply because the ocean currents are “natural”.
2. East Pacific hasn’t warmed therefore CO2 is irrelevant.
You have shown that ENSO cycle is capable of absorbing energy during La Nina and dumping it out into SST and the atmosphere during El Nino. This a strong feedback mechanism by which it regulates its surface temperature. This region is the heart of a powerful climatic negative feedback , that is why it is more stable than other regions.
Any heating, by whatever means, will get exported to the wider Pacific Ocean and then to rest of the world by the ENSO mechanism. That does not mean this region is not getting any heating. Indeed the OHC shows that it has been building up heat as well. You cannot conclude CO2 is not partly responsible.
I think a lot of what you are putting forward about ENSO mechanism is correct but you are confusing the mechanism of heat redistribution with the source of the heat.
If you want to talk about rate of change you would be better looking at rate of change not the time series. [You can do this in Excel since it is simply the difference of each successive pair of points]
Here is rate of change of global ocean heat content , where I have detected underlying cycles (which can be linked to factors of solar origin) and a linear increase in rate of change (which one could speculate is in part be due to CO2)
http://i48.tinypic.com/zx1d9k.png
Having removed the cycles and linear components we see what remains.
http://i49.tinypic.com/2vjqvpl.png
The volcanoes you talk about in your presentation are clearly visible, what you do not notice is the equally important recovery periods after each eruption. This is ENSO in action. ENSO is a strong negative feedback that causes the climate system to recover the energy it lost in cooling due to the volcanoes.
Let’s look at this same graph superimposed on (inverted) Nino3.4:
http://i45.tinypic.com/2mgr13q.png
Remember ENSO heats the surface but in terms of OHC it is an ocean cooling process.
Here we see the larger ENSO swings pumping heat back into the climate system after each eruption. This is short term recovery and contrary to usual climate theory that says volcanic cooling is countered by the constant effect of GHG warming (amplified up by “something” we don’t quite know).
This observation removes the need for exaggerating the known, true CO2 forcing by an unproven positive feedback producing fictitious “climate sensitivity” and also gets around Kevin Trenberth’s “missing heat” problem, since without the amplified CO2 there is NO missing heat.
The linear trend may be longer term climate cycles on the centennial scale that cannot be clearly detected from the short period of data available and/or some CO2 forcing.
[Final note the spike around 2002 is probably a data discontinuity that I have discussed elsewhere with the help of your regional graphs.]
Don’t feel that you have to reply to any of this , since our exchanges are not usually that fruitful, I’m not asking for a response. I’m just pointing out parts of your argument where I think you are overstating what is shown by the data.
Owen in Ga says:
>>
The only thing that has bothered me in this whole process is “How does the warm water get into the subsurface western Pacific to begin with?” Is there a cloud modulation issue here that needs to be explored or what? The ENSO may be the driver of ocean surface temperatures, but what drives the ENSO? I think if we can find a data-driven, testable hypothesis to explain that, we can pretty much drive a rosewood stake through the CAGW vampire’s heart.
>>
Bertram Felden says:
1) Where does the constant additional heat come from?
You are both touching on the same issues I highlighted. The key question is always where is the energy coming from. ENSO is simply the mechanism.
I think major tropical volcanoes are part of the answer ironically. It is fairly well accepted that they affect atmospheric climate and cause an initial surface cooling and loss of heat content.
Recovery of OHC seems linked to subsequent La Nina phases.
Philip Bradley says: “The issue here is determining causation – what causes what. And you think describing a mechanism equates to discovering a cause. It doesn’t.”
Please explain your logic since the supposed effects of greenhouse gases that you described earlier involves a mechanism.
But not only have I described the mechanism, I have supported it with numerous datasets, all agreeing with my interpretation and presentations.
P. Solar says: “ENSO is not a source of energy is a *mechanism* by which energy is transferred, so we have to ask where is the energy coming from. Is there a depletion of ocean heat content over this time? No, East Pacific OHC is rising as well. http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/6-east-pacific.png?w=640&h=433&h=433”
It is best to use tropical Pacific ocean heat content during a discussion of ENSO, P. Solar. That way you can see the interaction of El Niño and La Niña events:
http://i46.tinypic.com/2uf5283.jpg
Or:
http://i49.tinypic.com/n343fo.jpg
And I’ve described ad nauseum the process through which ENSO creates that warm water. I’m sure you’ve read nd commented on those posts, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing this up.
P. Solar says: “However, I think there are a couple flaws in your arguments.”
Once again, you’re making erroneous assumptions about my arguments. As noted in my reply to you above, this time you’ve used the wrong dataset in a discussion of ENSO. If you had asked a question, instead of telling me that I’m wrong, you might have received a more civil response from me.
Owen in Ga says: “The only thing that has bothered me in this whole process is ‘How does the warm water get into the subsurface western Pacific to begin with?’ Is there a cloud modulation issue here that needs to be explored or what?”
Very astute. It is one of the basic functions of ENSO. First, ENSO is a coupled ocean-atmosphere process, where sea surface temperatures, trade winds, cloud cover and visible sunlight entering and warming the tropical Pacific, etc., all interact. La Niña is an exaggerated ENSO-neutral phase and relatively easy to describe. The temperature gradient between the east and west tropical Pacific is greater than normal during a La Niña. As a result (and because) the trade winds are stronger then. With the stronger trade winds, the cloud cover is pushed aside to allow more downward shortwave radiation (visible sunlight) to enter and warm the tropical Pacific. The warm water accumulates to depths of about 300 meters in the western tropical Pacific in an area known as the Pacific Warm Pool. That warm water is released occasionally during a La Niña event. Most La Niña events that follow El Niño events only recharge part of the warm water released by the El Niño before it. However, during 3-year La Niña events, ENSO creates an additional supply of warm water, from which the subsequent El Niño events can feed.
http://i46.tinypic.com/2uf5283.jpg
Notice the upward spike in 1995/96. That was caused by excessively strong trade winds only in the western tropical Pacific during the 1995/96 La Niña. It fueled the warm water for the super El Niño of 1997/98. See:
http://lightning.sbs.ohio-state.edu/geo622/paper_enso_McPhaden1999.pdf
McPhaden writes: “For at least a year before the onset of the 1997–98 El Niño, there was a buildup of heat content in the western equatorial Pacific due to stronger than normal trade winds associated with a weak La Niña in 1995–96.”
That is, all of the warm water that was released by the 1997/98 El Niño was created in one year. It also caused a very obvious upward shift in the ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific.
Owen in Ga says: “The ENSO may be the driver of ocean surface temperatures, but what drives the ENSO? I think if we can find a data-driven, testable hypothesis to explain that, we can pretty much drive a rosewood stake through the CAGW vampire’s heart.”
I’ve been driving that stake for 3 ½ years. While we know ENSO is natural, it’s chaotic. The oscillation in El Niño-Southern Oscillation is erroneous. ENSO is not an oscillation. The Southern Oscillation was discovered decades before it was associated with El Niño and La Niña events, which are not cyclical or oscillatory. No one can predict it. All we can do is study its aftereffects.
Bertram Felden says: “1) Where does the constant additional heat come from?”
Bertram, please refer to my reply to “Owen in Ga” above this one.
Bertram Felden says: “2) Why is it that the rest of the world oceans have not superheated throughout geological time from the heat that is constantly (relatively speaking) being added?”
I can’t give you an answer on geological time scales because I don’t study them. How about I offer an explanation of how the global sea surface temperatures will stop warming?
For that to happen, we need an end to the very large El Nino events (have they ended? I don’t know), which cause the upward steps, and we need the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation to peak and then start to cool.
Longer answer: There are three ocean basins we need to consider. First is the East Pacific. If we “volcano adjust” that dataset, we can see that it cooled over the past 30 years, so it has not contributed to the warming:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/3-east-pac.png
The South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific cools between the major El Nino events, so without the major El Nino events, it would not contribute to the warming:
http://i49.tinypic.com/15ft2cl.jpg
That leaves the North Atlantic and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. It should peak “soon”. How soon? Dunno.
http://i48.tinypic.com/2ro1dt1.jpg
There are lots of ways heat escapes from both oceans and over land. Oceans likely lose heat relatively slowly, like they have always done. The atmosphere doesn’t hold heat worth beans without rice and sends it up and away both relatively broadly and in outgoing heat vents at the top of storm systems. Even blocking highs are not powerful enough to keep heat here. Heat always finds a way to escape the atmosphere, even in the presence of the extra teeny weeny pocka dot bikini of added anthropogenic CO2.
McPhaden writes: “For at least a year before the onset of the 1997–98 El Niño, there was a buildup of heat content in the western equatorial Pacific due to stronger than normal trade winds associated with a weak La Niña in 1995–96.”
So having noted the mechanism causing the mechanism causing the warming we get one step nearer to answering the question what was the _cause_ of the warming.
I was not using the “wrong” dataset. What I have read is that el nino 3.4 region is what is reckoned to be leading the dance so when I’m looking for patterns I go to that region and look for corresponding patterns an I find some.
Global OHC shows two fairly regular cyclic variations that seem to be of extra terrestrial origin; a much long term upward trend that may or may not be linear (I favour not but that’s for later) ; them some more residual variation that clearly shows volcanic influence and a strong resemblance to el nino 3.4
This leads me to hypothesise that the volcanic events may be triggering the changes in ENSO, that you astutely showed are not climate neutral but are causing more energy to be drawn into the system.
So finally we are at a point where I suggest we may have found a _cause_. Cooling induced by major stratospheric volcanoes may be triggering larger ENSO variations that are capable of capturing more solar energy and restoring the pre-eruption dynamic equilibrium state.
This is not contrary to what you have shown.
Thanks Bob for taking the time to add further explanation and clarification.
Bob Tisdale (Oct. 17, 2012 at 4:23 am):
An idea that has been proved to work is to view the ENSO as the carrier of a message from the future. This message is encoded in current and past values of various weather-related time series. An optimal decoder extracts the message from these time series thus making a sequence of predictions. Design features of this decoder deal successfully with the observed variability in the period of the ENSO.
This approach was first tried circa 1980 by Ron Christensen and his colleagues of the firm Entropy Limited. The “message” was comprised of a sequence of the two symbols “w” and “d” such as wdwwwdw… where “w” signified precipitation greater than the median at gauges east of Sacramento, CA and “d” signified precipication less than the median. This work produced the first successful long range weather forecasting model and uncovered the significance of the ENSO for long range weather forecasting. In following research, this idea was successfully applied to mid- to long-range weather forecasting in all of the far western states and to predicting surface temperatures as well as precipitation.
P. Solar says: “I was not using the “wrong” dataset. What I have read is that el nino 3.4 region is what is reckoned to be leading the dance so when I’m looking for patterns I go to that region and look for corresponding patterns an I find some.”
Of course you used the wrong dataset and now you’re trying to misdirect. Everyone can see it. You linked a graph of the East Pacific ocean heat content and told me I was wrong. Now, you’re discussing the NINO3.4 region, which is commonly used for a sea surface temperature-based index for the frequency, strength and duration of ENSO event, when before you were discussing an Ocean Heat Content graph of the entire East Pacific, from pole to pole. Additionally, the NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies don’t lead the dance. The trade winds of the western tropical Pacific lead the sea surface anomalies of the NINO3.4 region by a few months. Keep in mind, the trade winds in the western tropical Pacific have to relax before the warm water in the western tropical Pacific can slosh to the east during an El Nino.
P. Solar says: “So having noted the mechanism causing the mechanism causing the warming we get one step nearer to answering the question what was the _cause_ of the warming.”
Glad to see you’re starting to catch up.
Well, if you include out side the tropics as well, all the way to the north and south polar region (90s to 90n), then you clearly get warming. The video states that you don’t get warming in the East Pacific portion of the globe. This is clearly wrong.
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&op1=14tave&op2=none&month=jan&year=1983&fmonth=sep&fyear=2012&lat0=-90&lat1=90&lon0=-180&lon1=80&plotsize=800×600&title=&dir=
As you can see in the link “lat0=-90&lat1=90”.
It doesn’t matter what you do with the averaging, or whether you start at the dateline or further east. You get a significant warming trend.
It is very likely NOAA time series is right. Please check you data.
Terry Oldberg: Thanks for the introduction to Christensen and his work.
Could we assume similar or more complex statistical relationships are used in the statistical ENSO models—the models used to predict the next phase of ENSO? That devious Mother Nature created what is called a “springtime predictability barrier” to confound the models. There is a good overview of the “springtime predictability barrier” in the abstract of Torrence and Webster (1997) “The annual cycle of persistence in the El Niño/Southern Oscillation”.
http://webster.eas.gatech.edu/Papers/Webster1998c.pdf
The first two paragraphs of it read:
“A spring ‘predictability barrier’ exists in both data and models of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. In statistical analyses this barrier manifests itself as a drop-off in monthly persistence (lagged correlation) while in coupled ocean-atmosphere models it appears as a decrease in forecast skill.
“The ‘persistence barrier’ for ENSO indices is investigated using historical sea surface temperature and sea level pressure data. Simple statistical models are used to show that the persistence barrier occurs because the boreal spring is the transition time from one climate state to another, when the ‘signal-to-noise’ of the system is lowest and the system is most susceptible to perturbations. The strength of the persistence barrier is shown to depend on the degree of phase locking of the ENSO to the annual cycle.”
Bob Tisdale:
A short answer to your question to me follows. This is that Christensen’s rules for the construction of a model, which he calls “entropy minimax,” make it possible for one to avoid logical error. Surprisingly, at this late date in the development of the scientific method of inquiry, models that are published in peer reviewed journals and used in practical decision making are ordinarily riddled with logical errors. Climatological models are riddled with errors ( http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ ). With rare exceptions, neither referees nor editors are capable of reviewing submittals to the journals for lapses in the logic of the arguments.
For a more complete answer, you could turn to the tutorial at my website: http://www.knowledgetothemax.com. The same website also offers a bibliography and a description of the first weather forecasting model to be built under Christensen’s rules.
Thanks Bob. I appreciate the explanation. I could never quite understand the charge mechanism in this, as I didn’t realize the trade winds cleared the clouds away. That explains it quite well and also pretty well rules out “CO2 Backscattering” as the “backscattered” frequencies can’t penetrate very deeply into the water since water also has absorption peaks in those bands. CO2 as described by the alarmists could only heat a very shallow layer, whereas UV can warm football fields deep. Clearing the clouds is definitely the key. I suspect few alarmists have scuba dived (dove?) as even down 20 meters you can immediately feel when the sun goes behind a cloud.
Idle bit of curiosity on a rainy day for you Bob:
http://postimage.org/image/8yoiaq3oj/full
Off to the nearest volcano to fill up the SUV. Keep up the great work.
Bob Tisdale says:
>>
P. Solar says: “So having noted the mechanism causing the mechanism causing the warming we get one step nearer to answering the question what was the _cause_ of the warming.”
Glad to see you’re starting to catch up.
>>
As ever a smart comment that ignores the main point of what you are being told. Having ignored what I and three others here have told : that you have demonstrated the mechanism not the CAUSE, you completely ignore the rest of the post you quote from and even ignore the meaning of the line you quote and arrogantly say I’m “catching up”.
Your main claim is that ENSO is causing the warming. it is not , it is the mechanism. You even cite a paper saying ENSO is caused by winds, so what causes periodic changes in the winds?
Until you establish the CAUSE you cannot say whether is it “natural” or man made.
Y’all have a nice day, now.
X Anomaly: Your link doesn’t work, but looking at the web address reveals the problem. Instead of 80W (-80) you entered 8oE (80). That’s why you’re seeing warming. You’re looking at the East Pacific, Atlantic and West Indian Oceans.
AJB says: “Idle bit of curiosity on a rainy day for you Bob:”
Thanks, AJB. There are a number of papers and webpages about the relationship between ENSO and CO2.
Regards
P. Solar says: “Your main claim is that ENSO is causing the warming. it is not , it is the mechanism. You even cite a paper saying ENSO is caused by winds, so what causes periodic changes in the winds?”
You even misunderstand McPhaden’s discussion of trade winds. You obviously fail to recognize that ENSO encompasses a coupled ocean-atmosphere process. When he’s talking about the trade winds, he’s talking about one of the components of ENSO, because the trade winds are an integral part of ENSO. For years here at WUWT, we have been discussing the interaction between the trade winds and the sea surface temperature gradient across the tropical Pacific. ENSO basics, P. Solar. Do you believe ENSO only refers to the periodic warming and cooling of the eastern equatorial Pacific during El Nino and La Nina events? Do you understand that trade wind variations are an integral part of ENSO? Apparently not. Do you understand the coupling between the trade winds and the sea surface temperature gradient between the eastern and western tropical Pacific? Based on your challenge, apparently not. Do you understand Bjerknes feedback? Apparently not. Here’s a link to webpage that describes ENSO at a very basic entry level:
http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/occasionally-asked-questions.html
When you’re done there, then Google ENSO & westerly wind bursts, which are what cause the weakening of the trade winds and can therefore initiate an El Nino.
You, P. Solar, do have a lot of catching up to do, yet you come in here and have the gall tell me I’m wrong, when you haven’t slightest grasp of fundamentals.
Adios.
Thankyou Bob, your the man. You had me worried for a second there!
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&month=nov&year=1981&fmonth=sep&fyear=2012&lat0=-90&lat1=90&lon0=-180&lon1=-80&plotsize=800×600&title=&dir=
That is amazing there is no warming in the entire East Pacific (from the dateline!) portion of the global.
Again, Thankyou.
X Anomaly says: “That is amazing there is no warming in the entire East Pacific (from the dateline!) portion of the global.”
Don’t forget the Rest of the World. The sea surface temperatures there only warm in response to the major El Niño events, don’t cool in response to La Niña events that follow them (due to the warm water left over from the El Niño events), and don’t warm between the major El Niño events. If the Rest of the World data cooled during the La Niña events that followed the major El Ninos, would the sea surface temperature there look any different than the East Pacific?
Terry Oldberg: Thanks.