Another paper blames ENSO for global warming pause, calling it ‘… a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.’

English: This animation shows sea surface temp...

English: This animation shows sea surface temperature anomalies during the 1997-98 El Niño. Note the areas along the equator shown in red, where temperatures were warmer than average. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

UPDATE: Chris de Freitas responds to comments with an addendum below – Anthony

Readers may recall the recent paper that blamed “the pause” in global temperature on ENSO changes in the Pacific Ocean.

Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Xie Nature (2013) doi:10.1038/nature12534

Dr. Judith Curry called the paper “mind blowing

Now there’s another paper that reaches a similar conclusion:

Update of the Chronology of Natural Signals in the Near-Surface Mean Global Temperature Record and the Southern Oscillation Index

de Freitas and McLean, 2013, p. 237 (Int J Geosciences – open access):

“All other things being equal, a period dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like conditions will result in global warming, whereas a period dominated by a high frequency of La Niña-like conditions will result in global cooling. Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and perhaps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.”

ABSTRACT
Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index and mean global near surface temperature anomalies are compared for the 1950 to 2012 period using recently released HadCRU4 data. The method avoids a focused statistical analysis of the data, in part because the study deals with smoothed data, which means there is the danger of spurious correlations, and in part because the El Niño Southern Oscillation is a cyclical phenomenon of irregular period. In these situations the results of regression analysis or similar statistical evaluation can be misleading.

With the potential controversy arising over a particular statistical analysis removed, the findings indicate that El Nino-Southern Oscillation exercises a major influence on mean global temperature. The results show the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for mean global temperature variation, although the extent of the influence is difficult to quantify from among the variability of short-term influences.

Since the paper is open access, and available here: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=27382

Here is the link to the PDF:

deFreitas_&_McLean_IJG_2013_SOI_&_Mean_Global_Temp

This figure is interesting:

SOI-hadcrut

Figure 1. Four-month shifted SOI anomalies with monthly MGT anomalies shown for periods 1950 to1970 (a), 1970 to 1990 (b) and 1990 to June 2012 (c), where the Y-axis scale is identical in each case. The dark line indicates SOI and light line indicates MGT. Periods of volcanic activity are indi-cated (see text).

Discussion and Conclusions

The results show that, by and large, the Southern Oscilla- tion has a consistent influence on mean global tempera- ture. Changes in temperature are consistent with changes in the SOI that occur about four months earlier. The rela- tionship weakens or breaks down at times of major volcanic eruptions. Since the mid-1990s, little volcanic activity has been observed in the tropics and global average temperatures have risen and fallen in close accord with the SOI of four months earlier; although with the unexplained divergence of NH and SH average temperature anomalies modifying the earlier relationship.

The strength of the SOI-MGT relationship may be indicative of the increased vigor in the meridional dispersal of heat during El Niño conditions and the delay in the temperature response is consistent with the transfer of tropical heat polewards. The mechanism of heat transfer is likely the more vigorous Hadley Cell Circulation on both sides of the Intertropical Convergence Zone distributing warm air from the tropical regions to higher lati- tudes. The process of meridional heat dispersal weakens during La Niña conditions and is accompanied by a lower than normal MGT. Hadley Cell Circulation is weakened when the Southern Oscillation is in a state associated with La Niña conditions (i.e. positive Troup SOI values), but strengthens as the Southern Oscillation moves to a condition consistent with El Niño conditions (that is negative SOI values) [6,7].

The precision of the 4-month lag period is uncertain, but the credibility of a lag of some length is not in dispute. Researchers [31] found that mean tropical temperatures for a 13-year record lagged outgoing longwave anomalies by about three months, while [32] found warming events peak three months after sea surface temperature (SST) in the Niño-3.4 region. On the same theme, [33] found lags between 1 – 3 months with SST in the Niño-3.4 region for the period 1950-1999. Along the same lines [14] determined that the correlation between SST in the Niño-3 region and the MGT anomaly was optimum with a time lag of 3-6 months. The sequence of the lagged relationship indicates that ENSO is driving temperature rather than the reverse. Reliable ENSO prediction is possible only to about 12 months [34], which implies that improved temperature forecasting beyond that period is dependent on advancements in ENSO prediction.

The reason for the post-1995 period shift in the SOI- MGT relationship illustrated in Figure 1(c) is puzzling. An explanation may lie in changes in global albedo due to changes in lower-level cloud cover. In an analysis of Australian data, [34] found positive values of SOI anomalies to be associated with increased cloudiness and decreased incoming solar radiation. Data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) indicate that, from 1984 to 2005, mid-level cloud cover in the tropics was relatively constant but both lower and upper level cloud cover declined slightly. In the exotropics (latitude > 20 degrees, low-level cloud progressively decreased from 1998 onwards. It is not clear whether the change is a cause or an effect of a parallel temperature change [35]. The post-1995 shift appears unrelated to carbon dioxide increase because it occurred long after atmospheric CO2 was known to be rising. It is important to see the shift as more of discrete (i.e. step) change rather than a divergence, with the relationship reestablished after 2 – 3 years. Another possibility is that there are problems with the HadCRUT4 1.1.0 data. For example, we note that the published monthly average global temperature anomalies are not equal to the mean of the two published corresponding hemispheric values.

The approach used here avoids a focused statistical analysis of the data, in part because the study deals with smoothed data, which means there is the danger of spu- rious correlations, and in part because the ENSO is a cyclical phenomenon of irregular period. In these situations, the results of regression analysis or similar statisti- cal evaluation can be misleading. With the potential con- troversy arising over a particular statistical analysis re- moved, the findings reported here indicate that atmos- pheric processes that are part of the ENSO cycle are col- lectively a major driver of temperature anomalies on a global scale. All other things being equal, a period dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like condi- tions will result in global warming, whereas a period dominated by a high frequency of La Niña-like condi- tions will result in global cooling. Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and per- haps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.

================================================================

UPDATE: 9/5/13 4:15PM PDT Chris de Freitas asked for this addendum to be posted in response to comments/discussion – Anthony

I understand concerns of the global warming alarmists. I too have been looking high and low for evidence that human-caused carbon dioxide increase is a major driver of mean global temperature. Our current is not part of that quest.

The intention of the work reported in the paper (de Freitas and McLean, 2013) was to stay as far away as possible from statistical massaging of the data. The reason is that, in our earlier 2009 work (McLean, de Freitas and Carter – references below), we were roundly criticised for the statistical methods we used. It detracted from the main finding of the work (i.e. Fig 7), which was free from statistical massaging; namely, that ENSO accounted for a great deal of the variability in mean global temperature; similar to that reported in the more recent paper in Nature (Kosaka and Xie, 2013).

In de Freitas and McLean (2013) we also stayed away from looking for trends. Determining trends and implementing detrending procedures can be important steps in data analysis. However, there is no precise definition of ‘trend’ or any ‘correct’ algorithm for extracting it. Consequently, identification of trend in a time series is subjective because a trend cannot be unequivocally distinguished from low frequency fluctuations. For this reason, a variety of ad hoc methods have been used to determine trends and to facilitate detrending methods (which are also subjective).  As regards the correlation routine (Table 2 of our IJG 2013 paper), the idea there was to look for guidance in aligning the X-axis of Figures 1 and 3. It could have (even) been done by eye.

The overriding message is this. Climate is never constant; it is always cooling or warming. Various things cause these trends. Ever since I began studying climate 40 years ago I have been looking for patterns along with possible mechanisms and explanations. I have not had great success; if fact nobody has, and we have all been wrong once or twice. Notwithstanding that, our IJG (2013) paper shows that ENSO correlates well with global temperature. A possible reason (as described) is enhanced (or reduced) Hadley circulation, which increases (or decreases) the effectiveness of meridional heat transfer from the vast tropical zone of surplus towards the poles. It could be that the same process causes vast amounts of stored ocean heat to be fed into the atmosphere over extended periods (or moved back into the ocean over lengthy periods) The result is planet-wide warming (or cooling). If this persists, we get decadal scale global warming (or cooling) trends.

Like the work of Kosaka and Xie (2013), our IJG (2013) and earlier work (2009) shows that the current (or past hiatus), or multi-decadal-scale cooling or warming (‘climate change’), are possibly a reflection of natural climate variability tied specifically to ENSO decadal-scale processes. I assume these are superimposed upon what seems for the moment to be the less potent CO2-caused warming, and likely other less potent mechanisms as well.

Whether the ENSO-caused multi-decadal trends are internal or forced is unknown. My guess is that cooling and warming trends we see, or hiatus, are probably due to natural internal variability rather than a forced response. But we don’t know.

Chris de Freitas

de Freitas, C.R. and McLean, J.D., 2013. Update of the chronology of natural signals in the near-surface mean global temperature record and the Southern Oscillation Index. International Journal of Geosciences, 4(1), 234-239.
Open access at:
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=27382&

McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter, 2009b. Correction to ”Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature”, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D20101, doi:10.1029/2009JD013006. ISSN 0148-0227

McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter, 2009a. Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637. ISSN 0148-0227

About these ads
This entry was posted in ENSO, Global warming and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

211 Responses to Another paper blames ENSO for global warming pause, calling it ‘… a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.’

  1. tallbloke says:

    Good to see some professional climatologists waking up to what Bob Tisdale and many more of us have been telling them for years. ENSO is cumulative on longer timescales than modelling parameters allow. Which means 50 years of strong solar forcing and it’s amplification by cloud changes in the late C20th are the primary cause of the now ended warming period.

  2. omnologos says:

    expect lots of scrambling wrt CO2 emissions affecting ENSO…

  3. Stephen Richards says:

    I haven’t found the obligatory ” the warming will resume 50 fold” at the end. Did I miss it?

  4. Michael Gersh says:

    Apparently the effort to blame the recent warming on human activities took too long, and natural variability is asserting itself, thus falsifying the AGW dream of the watermelons to use a natural warming period as a route to global socialist domination.

  5. Peter Miller says:

    Hmm, natural climate cycles, who would have thought it?

    Remember, these are banned by global warming fanatics.

  6. vukcevic says:

    An out of ordinary English (CET) early summer in somwhat less ordinary year
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Dmax.htm

  7. Green Sand says:

    “Another possibility is that there are problems with the HadCRUT4 1.1.0 data. For example, we note that the published monthly average global temperature anomalies are not equal to the mean of the two published corresponding hemispheric values.”

    Shouldn’t this have been clarified with the compilers of the data set prior to publication? If the authors are thinking of taking up this issue with the UKMO they might also consider checking for any variability in the relationship of land to ocean in the data, hemispherical and/or global.

    Overall very interesting should provoke a few “debates”!

  8. “The mechanism of heat transfer is likely the more vigorous Hadley Cell Circulation on both sides of the Intertropical Convergence Zone distributing warm air from the tropical regions to higher lati- tudes. ”

    and

    “Data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) indicate that, from 1984 to 2005, mid-level cloud cover in the tropics was relatively constant but both lower and upper level cloud cover declined slightly.

    According to my New Climate Model high solar activity such as was observed in the late 20th century causes the jets and climate zones to shift poleward and the circulation to become more zonal.

    The subtropical high pressure cells widen latitudinally and the enhanced descent within those regions reduces cloud cover as was observed.

    Now the opposite is occurring and the changes are correlated to the decline in solar activity from the late 90s onward.

    The climate shift of 1995 or thereabouts was the opposite of the late 70s climate shift.

    The sun is clearly driving changes in global air circulation and thus global albedo as per my model:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/

    Doesn’t the 1995 shift also fit with our HenryP’s observations?

    Anyway, there is now a plethora of recent papers which are consistent with my hypothesis but inconsistent with CO2 having the primary influence.

    The fact seems to be that higher solar activity gradually skews ENSO in favour of warm El Ninos due to lower global albedo and more solar energy getting into the oceans.

    The opposite when the sun is quiet.

    And it operates in accordance with the millennial solar cycle as per the Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages, MWP, LIA and the Current Warm Period.

    It is no coincidence that all those strong El Ninos of the recent warming spell have now faded away at the same time as the sun became less active, the jets became more meridional, global cloudiness increased, the tropospheric warming stalled and the stratosphere stopped cooling.

  9. Bob Tisdale says:

    “All other things being equal, a period dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like conditions will result in global warming, whereas a period dominated by a high frequency of La Niña-like conditions will result in global cooling. Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and perhaps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.”

    A step in the right direction! Let’s see if The Team jumps all over this as they did with McLean et al (2009). That would be more difficult now since the same thing is implied by Kosaka & Xie (2013) and the two recent Meehl et al papers.

  10. Bob Tisdale says:

    Reblogged this on Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations and commented:

    A step in the right direction! Let’s see if The Team jumps all over this as they did with McLean et al (2009). That would be more difficult now since the same thing is implied by Kosaka & Xie (2013) and the two recent Meehl et al papers.

  11. Thousands of archaeological and other science’s papers showing mass global evidence of all the classic warm and cold periods did NOT dissuade Michael Mann in the SLIGHTEST. But this still might dissuade actual scientists…

  12. Friends:

    The paper says:

    All other things being equal, a period dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like conditions will result in global warming, whereas a period dominated by a high frequency of La Niña-like conditions will result in global cooling.

    That is a self-evident truism.
    El Niño provides a peak to global temperature and La Niña provides a dip to global temperature.

    Hence, the average global temperature over a period will be raised if “dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like conditions”.
    And,
    similarly, the average global temperature over a period will be lowered if “dominated by a high frequency of La Niña -like conditions”.

    Because peaks raise the average while dips lower the average.

    Three issues require investigation.
    1.
    Why has investigation of this self-evident truism been ignored by cliamastrologists so the work of people such as Tisdale has been side-lined?
    2.
    There is no obvious mechanism which would enable anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG, notably CO2) emissions to alter ENSO effects, so is it possible that the emissions could alter ENSO in the observed manner?
    3.
    If ENSO has such a large effect on warming and cooling then how much warming can be attributed to atmospheric CO2 concentration when there is no clear mechanism by which atmospheric CO2 concentration can alter ENSO?

    These issues should have been addressed years ago and long before the “pause” in global warming forced consideration of the self-evident truism.

    Richard

  13. rogerknights says:

    More pressure on the IPCC from “revolutionary” science findings.

  14. Greg Goodman says:

    I thought Bod Tisdale’s hypothesis was that it was both sides of the Nino/Nina cycle that produced global warming not just more El Ninos, so this is not really saying the same thing. Though, like he says, it’s a step in the right direction.

    He may correct me if I’m misrepresenting his ideas but I thought the Tisdale hypothesis was periods of increased El Nino/Nina amplitude or frequency caused more solar to be captured by the oceans and then put out into atmosphere.

    As I’ve said many times, that sounds very credible and leads to some further questions:

    What frequency of Nino/Nina is climate neutral, above which warming occurs, and then the key question : what is causing / controlling El Nino.

    This is the mechanism , not the cause.

  15. Sceptical lefty says:

    Pardon me for being sceptical, but the recent run of “It’s not quite as bad as we thought” papers suggests to me an attempt to construct an escape route. If timed correctly, there should be enough papers predicting an impending cold snap to salvage the shaky credibility of the climate-change industry when it becomes impossible to deny (you need to be careful with that word) that warming has ceased. Somehow, whatever happens will be bad and ALL OUR FAULT.

    I suppose I need to work on my faith.

  16. steveta_uk says:

    Mr Lefty, I suspect that a sufficient weight of papers will shift the length of the allowable “hiatus” to 30-40 years, and as already implied by Patchauri, this means we cannot say “global warming is finished” until about 2035, by which time most of these scam artists will be retired.

  17. Greg Goodman says:

    “The relationship weakens or breaks down at times of major volcanic eruptions. Since the mid-1990s, little volcanic activity has been observed in the tropics and global average temperatures have risen and fallen in close accord with the SOI of four months earlier; ”

    …. except for the biggest event : Pinatubo when it did not diverage at all but had show a strong divergence just before in 1989-90 , oops. And in 1998 when there was not volcanoes.

    As I’ve show in detail before any correlation between climate and volcanism is greatly exaggerated and is more likely due to coincident changes happening at the same time and often just _before_ major eruptions.

  18. Greg Goodman says:

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=312

    Effect of volcanism is restricted to extra-tropical zones and is far less than what is usually attributed.

    The approximate coincidence in time of other natural cycles and El Chichon and Mt P events has provided an excuse to exaggerate volcanic impact that thus pump up AGW to compensate.

    This idea is so entrenched now that a study including graphs that do not show a consistent correlation still manages to report one.

    At least they are broadening the scope of investigation and its getting published. A step in the right direction, as Bob says.

  19. mycroft says:

    Now we see why Jones was wishing for STRONG El Nino in ClimateGate emails,the team knows what exactly cause’s warming but ideology getting in the way of science!

  20. vukcevic says:

    ……the ENSO is a cyclical phenomenon of irregular period. In these situations, the results of regression analysis or similar statistical evaluation can be misleading.

    Greg Goodman says:
    September 3, 2013 at 2:20 am
    and then the key question : what is causing / controlling El Nino.

    the ENSO is indeed a cyclical phenomenon of irregular period, but it is the cause?
    Not exactly known, since there is a strong random component to it, which may not be fully understood, but for time being ignored by the climate ‘scientist’ (with an odd but notable exception).
    Simple analysis of the subequatorial tectonics points towards real driver of the ENSO events:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ENSO.htm
    It is my view that the science of geology will eventually provide the answers.

  21. Greg Goodman says:

    We start with 12-month running means of the data. This
    approach can minimise significant data and give undue
    emphasis to insignificant data, so it is used here simply to
    establish a contextual record. To allow for the radiative
    effects of atmospheric aerosols and particulate matter
    from volcanic emissions, data for the period of volcanic
    eruptions was removed along with the data for the sub-
    sequent 12 months; the latter being required in order that
    the 12-month running means do not include data from
    periods of volcanic activity. These omissions are made
    because we have reservations about the accuracy of
    compensatory temperature adjustments for the cooling
    influences of emissions of sulphurs and silicates, and the
    period of that compensation, which according to [30] can
    be for up to 3 years after eruption.
    Derivatives of the Troup SOI and MGT are used to

    =========

    Oh man. When will climate science ever get beyond running means as their sole data processing technique.

    They are at least aware that it’s bad (glimmer of hope) but still use it ! 12m running means of monthly running means. Shakes head.

  22. Gary Pearse says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 3, 2013 at 1:48 am

    “Friends:

    The paper says:

    All other things being equal, a period dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like conditions will result in global warming, whereas a period dominated by a high frequency of La Niña-like conditions will result in global cooling.

    That is a self-evident truism.”

    Richard, the “all other things being equal” makes it a truism but don’t jump so high. What I see here is that ENSO is a very strong driver of world temps, even though all things are NEVER equal. “Ceteris parabus” is used so much in economics that it has spilled over into this paper. The authors are being unnecessarily pedantic here. You should be aware of the ceteris parabus fallacy.

    “A ceteris paribus fallacy is based on an assumption that all else is equal in a particular analysis or will remain equal if a particular variable is changed. An “all else is equal” reduction is sometimes a useful way to predict the impact of making a particular change, but in the real world, there are many times when it can’t even assume a hint of a shade of a glimmer of validity. There are simply too many variables with inter- and co-dependencies. One example is comparing the events of two different slices of time to come to the conclusion that one person was a better President than another.”

    http://boards.fool.com/ceteris-paribus-fallacy-26270295.aspx

    Now, good paper, but shame shame on De Freitas and McClean for not referencing Bob Tisdale who has been the lone voice in the wilderness for over a decade on this. Gentleman, drop the pompous and unnecessary “all other things being equal” (your discomfort in NOT using the term ceteris paribus shows by using the awkward wordy substitute) and add Bob Tisdale’s name as a reference (several times)- it is your biggest reference. I’m always suspicious of plagiarism when such a well known player in this game is ignored. I’ve taken to calling the tropical thunderstorm air conditioning that cools hot bands in SST the “Eschenbach Effect” and from now on I will be referring to the ENSO “control knob” as the “Tisdale Effect” and I want all other serious skeptics to do the same. A raspberry also for Judith Curry for being “blown away” without also mentioning the “Tisdale Effect”. Comon’, after all the ugly abuse heaped on skeptics who have been rebuilding a totally corrupted and broken science, are we just going to hand all these fruits over???

  23. Greg Goodman says:

    “The method avoids a focused statistical analysis of the data, in part because the study deals with smoothed data, which means there is the danger of spurious correlations, and in part because the El Nino Southern Oscillation is a cyclical phenomenon of irregular period.”

    So knowing they may be introducing “spurious correlations” they do a study of correlation coefficient to establish the lag and correlation of the two datasets.

    Three does appear to be a correlation, it’s unfortunate that they leave it so open by not employing a better method.

  24. Bloke down the pub says:

    The reason for the post-1995 period shift in the SOI- MGT relationship illustrated in Figure 1(c) is puzzling. An explanation may lie in changes in global albedo due to changes in lower-level cloud cover.

    Or, heaven forbid, the explanation may lay with someone at the Met having put a thumb on the scales post 1995 in order to keep the meme alive.

  25. Gary Pearse says:

    Another note. What are the GACS (golden age of Climate Science – the hockey team fantasy, IPCC, etc.) going to do now? Are they going to continue to sit on the sidelines as spectators of the development of real climate science, their grotesque contributions going out in pieces with the tide? Since climategate, followed by realization of the dreaded hiatus and the emergence of real science, these guys have been deafeningly quiet in the field of climate literature (a few painful, hysterical cameo appearances and a lot of gassy speeches with tin badges and awards). I don’t think they have it in them. Science wasn’t their specialty anyway.

  26. “Bob Tisdale who has been the lone voice in the wilderness for over a decade on this”

    Not the lone voice but certainly the most industrious and influential voice as regards ENSO.

    I think Bob has avoided stretching the thermal effects of the ENSO phenomenon to longer multidecadal periods of time and so far as I know does not propose solar influences affecting the changing relative dominance of El Nino and La Nina over successive positive and negative phases of the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation ( PMO – not PDO which latter is merely an artefact of surface pressure differentials).

    It is that changing longer term relative dominance between El Nino and La Nina over centuries that gives upward stepping from one positive phase of the PMO to the next (LIA to Current Warm Period) and, presumably downward stepping from one negative phase to the next ( MWP to LIA).

    That longer term relative dominance on a multidecadal and centennial timescae is what appears to be linked to solar activity with the shorter term interannual ENSO oscillation itself being merely an internal system phenomenon with no necessary long term thermal implications.

  27. Gary Pearse:

    Thankyou for your post addressed to me at September 3, 2013 at 3:03 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/another-paper-blames-enso-for-global-warming-pause-calling-it-a-major-control-knob-governing-earths-temperature/#comment-1406574

    It is too long for me to quote it here but I have provided a link to it so others can jump to it for reference.

    Firstly, I am fully aware of the ceteris paribus fallacy. Indeed, I stated – and explained – that the point I quoted is a “self-evident truism”, and if all other things were not “equal” then (as you agree) it could not be self-evidently true.

    However, that does not diminish my concluding point which was

    These issues should have been addressed years ago and long before the “pause” in global warming forced consideration of the self-evident truism.

    And you emphasise the work of Bob Tisdale. But I did that, too. It was the first of my “These issues”.
    I wrote:

    Three issues require investigation.
    1.
    Why has investigation of this self-evident truism been ignored by cliamastrologists so the work of people such as Tisdale has been side-lined?

    So, I welcome your interest in my post, but I fail to see what you think was wrong about it.

    Your post concludes by asking

    Comon’, after all the ugly abuse heaped on skeptics who have been rebuilding a totally corrupted and broken science, are we just going to hand all these fruits over???

    On this I think we disagree.

    I don’t care who gets the credit for correcting the science.
    I care that the science gets corrected.

    For example, Salby has raised awareness of the uncertainties concerning the carbon cycle. But, except for a minor point concerning soil moisture, his work only repeats some of the work we (i.e. Rorsch, Courtney & Thoenes) published in 2005. I don’t care that few refer to our work: I applaud that Salby has raised the awareness which our papers failed to raise.

    And credit often does not go where it is most deserved in science. For example, most people know the Nobel Prize was awarded to Crick & Watson for unravelling the DNA molecule, but Rosalind Franklin did the most important part of that work and few remember her.

    I say REJOICE at our starting to get the science corrected, and don’t cavil about who gets credit for what because that could hinder the correction.

    Richard

  28. Greg Goodman says:

    ” The reason for the post-1995 period shift in the SOI-
    MGT relationship illustrated in Figure 1(c) is puzzling.
    An explanation may lie in changes in global albedo due
    to changes in lower-level cloud cover. In an analysis of

    …Another possibility is that there are
    problems with the HadCRUT4 1.1.0 data. For example,
    we note that the published monthly average global tem-
    perature anomalies are not equal to the mean of the two
    published corresponding hemispheric values.
    The approach used here avoids a focused statistical”

    Ah, at last some recognition that there may be “issues” with these much adjusted datasets.
    And the recognition that changes in cloud cover may be a player.

    I think the method is poorly constructed but this paper is probably more important for throwing the door open to searching for real causation.

    Finally and end to “stochastic plus CO2″ mantra and an acknowledgement that maybe all “internal variation” doesn’t just average out.

  29. They would have found if they had investigated it, that global temperature anomalies are also closely correlated to LOD Length Of Day. This is because LOD and tidal forcing are major component of ENSO.

  30. bit chilly says:

    could someone please head over to the septic science blog,and advise them over the implications of the paper.even the authors seem to be pushing it supports cAGW in some way.
    my own personal opinion after reading many abstracts on climate related subjects recently is very little credence should be given to any of them.
    the fact a layman can see glaring errors and inconsistences in most of them suggests if there were active research going on by unbiased scientists ,the rebuttals of these papers would severely out number the papers themselves.
    the utter garbage assumption written about supposed ocean acidification (largely model based as usual ) is the current cause of my current state of near apoplexy :)
    instead of performing ice smashing rescues,the admiral makarov should be dropping off a whole bunch of pseudo scientists including the septic science team to commiserate with the pair of french idiots that believed the hype about arctic ice melt and require rescuing,at someone elses expense.

  31. Ian Wilson says:

    De Freitas and McClean have not cited the huge contribution that Bob Tisdale has made to our understanding of the ENSO phenomenon and its effects on the world mean temperature.

    Unfortunately, De Freitas and McClean scientific ethics are also called into question by other things that they have done in relation to their 2013 publication.

    I believe that De Freitas and McClean obtained a copy of a manuscript that I had submitted for inclusion a special edition of Energy and Environment to be published in 2013. I submitted this manuscript to E & E in September 2012. I believe that De Freitas and McClean were given access to this manuscript sometime in either September or October 2012, without my knowledge or permission.

    A month and half after they were given access to my manuscript, they submitted their paper for publication. Here is the chronology for their 2013 paper.

    Received November 22, 2012; revised December 20, 2012; accepted January 15, 2013

    In their 2013 paper, De Freitas and McClean DID NOT mention a link between the relative frequency of El Ninos/La Ninas and global temperature until the last couple of paragraphs of their paper repeated here:

    “With the potential controversy arising over a particular statistical analysis re- moved, the findings reported here indicate that atmospheric processes that are part of the ENSO cycle are collectively a major driver of temperature anomalies on a global scale. All other things being equal, a period dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like conditions will result in global warming, whereas a period dominated by a high frequency of La Niña-like conditions will result in global cooling. Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and perhaps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.”

    Nor did they make any OVERT effort in their paper to provide evidence that would required to establish such a link. {Note: I acknowledge that their paper presents evidence that establishes a link between the SOI and world mean temperature – but it does not establish a link between the relative frequency of El Ninos/La ninas and world mean temperature}.

    I believe that De Freitas and McClean added these concluding remarks after seeing my submitted manuscript.

    My paper was eventually published in June 2013 in a special edition of E & E entitled:

    Mechanisms of Climate Change and the AGW Concept: a critical review
    Edited by [the late] Arthur Rörsch and Peter A. Ziegler
    Are Global Mean Temperatures Significantly Affected by Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric Tides?
    Ian R.G. Wilson
    Volume 24, Number 3 – 4 / June 2013

    In my paper, I gave full recognition to Bob Tisdale’s important work. Something that De Freitas and McClean completely failed to do. The main purpose of my E & E paper was to highlight the work that Nikolay Sidorenkov and I had done on lunar atmospheric tides in the Southern Hemisphere. I decided to present this work in a context that was based upon Bob Tisdale’s and some of my own work on the relationship between the relative frequency of El Ninos/La Ninas and global temperature.

    ABSTRACT

    Wilson and Sidorenkov find that there are four extended pressure features in the summer (DJF) mean sea-level pressure (MSLP) anomaly maps that are centred between 30 and 50° S and separated from each other by approximately 90° in longitude. In addition, they show that, over the period from 1947 to 1994, these patterns drift westward in longitude at rates that produce circumnavigation times that match the 18.6 year lunar Draconic cycle. These type of pressure anomaly pattern naturally produce large extended regions of abnormal atmospheric pressure that pass over the semi-permanent South Pacific sub-tropical high roughly once every ~ 4.5 years. These moving regions of higher/lower than normal atmospheric pressure increase/decrease the MSLP of the semi-permanent high pressure system, temporarily increasing/reducing the strength of the East-Pacific trade winds. This leads to conditions that preferentially favor the onset of La Niña/El Niño events that last for approximately 30 years. Wilson and Sidorenkov find that the pressure of the moving anomaly pattern changes in such a way as to favor La Niña over El Niño events between 1947 and 1970 and favor El Niño over La Niña events between 1971 and 1994. This is in agreement with the observed evolution of the El Niño/ La Niña events during the latter part of the 20th century. They speculate that the transition of the pattern from a positive to a negative pressure anomaly follows a 31/62/93/186 year lunar tidal cycle that results from the long-term interaction between the Perigee-Syzygy and Draconic lunar tidal cycles. Hence, the IPCC needs to take into consideration the possibility that long term Lunar atmospheric tides could be acting as a trigger to favor either El Niño or La Niña conditions and that these changes in the relative frequency of these two type of events could be responsible for much of the observed changes in the world mean temperature during the 20th century.

  32. bit chilly says:

    sorry forgot to add reference link to discussion between papers authors and judith curry.
    http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/08/30/xie-reacts-on-curry/

  33. Greg Goodman says:

    richardscourtney says: “I don’t care who gets the credit for correcting the science.
    I care that the science gets corrected.”

    Totally agree. There’s not limit to what a man can achieve so long as he does not mind who gets the credit. ;)

    For example, Salby has raised awareness of the uncertainties concerning the carbon cycle. But, except for a minor point concerning soil moisture, his work only repeats some of the work we (i.e. Rorsch, Courtney & Thoenes) published in 2005.

    Do you have a link to Salby’s work? His Hamburg vid was interesting but after years of talk I’ve not found anything published (even on the internet).

    Don’t be too humble to provide a link to you paper if it covers similar ground.

  34. MattN says:

    Once again, this surprises NO ONE who has actually been paying attention. But you know that they will just say that CO2 is influencing, if not outright controlling ENSO. I am 100% positive I remember reading a statement from Gavin on Reallywrong Climate years ago where he stated that the PDO was permanently positive now due to CO2.

  35. Bruce Cobb says:

    So, how many “major control knobs” are they talking about now? Surely (to them) CO2 is still one, but what else? Volcanoes? Soot? Sun? I mean, what’s the hierarchy now? Climastrology just got a whole lot more confusing, with CO2 having to give up at least part of its “control knob” duties.
    On a related note, they can’t seem to decide whether Sandy-type storms in the future will become more prevalent or less. I mean, what good is Climastrology if it can’t decide these things?

  36. bit chilly says:

    ian wilson,i fear that mere observed events without support of some sort of model with spurious inputs may not sit well within modern climate “science”.
    is your full paper available online,this is a subject that interests me greatly as someone that is a lifelong angler.

  37. Ian Wilson says:

    Here is the Introduction to my paper:

    1. INTRODUCTION
    The El Niño/La Niña–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a quasi-periodic climate pattern
    in the sea-surface temperatures (SST) and sea-levels of the tropical Pacific Ocean that
    takes place roughly once every three to seven years [1], [2], [3]. The IPCC AR4 WG1
    report [2] readily accepts that ENSO events involve large exchanges of heat between
    the ocean and atmosphere that have an effect upon global mean temperature.
    An El Niño event occurs whenever the sea-surface temperature anomaly in the zone
    of the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean referred to as Niño 3.4 [extending from 5 S to
    5 N and 120 W to 170 W] is ≥ +0.5 °C for a period longer than seven to nine months
    [1], [4], [5]. These events are considered to be an abnormal state of the ENSO [1]. In
    contrast, a La Niña event occurs whenever the sea-surface temperature anomaly in the
    Niño 3.4 zone is ≤ -0.5 °C for a period longer than seven to nine months [1], [4], [5].
    These events are considered to be an exaggerated state of the ENSO neutral phase [1].
    The PDO index is defined as the leading principal component of the North Pacific
    monthly sea-surface temperature variability north of 20N latitude, for the period from
    1900-93 [6], [7]. The PDO resembles a long-lived El Niño/La Niña-like pattern in the
    sea-surface temperatures of the North Pacific Ocean [8], [9], [10], [11]. Long-term
    observations indicate that it is characterized by positive and negative phases. During,
    its positive phase, sea-surface temperatures are unusually warm in the Eastern
    Equatorial/Tropical Pacific, while they are unusually cold in the far Northern Pacific
    Ocean. In contrast, during its negative phase, the reverse is true.
    Some [1], [12], [13] have argued that the PDO is a low [temporal] frequency
    residual of random changes in ENSO activity on multi-decadal timescales. Indeed,
    Power et al. [13] have used simple stochastic AGM models with built-in non-linear
    climate processes (e.g. the integrating effect of upper ocean mixing layers in the North
    Pacific) to show that the PDO can appear to modulate ENSO tele-connections with
    other climate systems, even if the PDO itself largely reflects unpredictable random
    changes in the relative frequency and/or strength of El Niño and La Niña events over
    inter-decadal timescales [14].
    This paper argues that the IPCC needs to consider the possibility that the relative
    frequency and/or strength of El Niño and La Niña events is not random on interdecadal
    timescales but that it is significantly influenced by long-term Lunar
    atmospheric tides.
    In section 2, we investigate the claim by Wilson [15] , Tisdale [1], and subsequently
    by de Freitas and McLean [16], that much of the observed changes in the global mean
    temperatures during the 20th century can be explained by changes in the relative
    frequency and/or strength of El Niño compared to La Niña events. In section 3, we
    discuss the results of Wilson and Sidorenkov [24] that shows that there is a large N=4
    longitudinal standing wave-like pattern in the mean sea-level pressure (MSLP)
    anomalies of the Earth’s Southern Hemisphere that is propagating around the Earth
    from east to west, once every 18 years. Wilson and Sidorenkov [24] claim that this
    standing wave-like pattern is associated with long-term lunar atmospheric tides that
    are being driven by either the 18.0 year Saros cycle or the 18.6 year lunar Draconic
    cycle. They propose that interaction between this propagating standing wave-like
    pattern in the MSLP and the semi-permanent South Pacific sub-tropical high is
    498 Energy & Environment · Vol. 24, No. 3 & 4, 2013
    responsible for the observed changes in the relative frequency and/or strength of El
    Niño events compared to La Niña events. Finally, in section 4 the conclusions are
    discussed.
    The IPCC now recognizes that the apparent modulation of ENSO events by the
    PDO significantly modifies regional tele-connections around the Pacific Basin in such
    a way that they affect the evolution of the global mean temperature on inter-decadal
    timescales [2]. They also acknowledge that long-term changes in global surface
    temperature caused by the PDO/ENSO phenomenon considerably complicate the
    process of identifying and quantifying that part of the global mean temperature
    increase that is caused by anthropogenic factors [2]. Hence, it of the utmost
    importance to determine the mechanism that is responsible for these changes.

  38. Ian Wilson says:

    bit chilly says:
    September 3, 2013 at 4:13 am

    You can get my [open access] paper on lunar atmospheric tides at

    Wilson, I.R.G., Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric Tides in the
    Southern Hemisphere, The Open Atmospheric Science Journal,
    2013, 7, 51-76
    http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V007/TOASCJ130415001.pdf;

    Unfortunately, the E & E paper is behind a pay wall at:

    http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/03n7mtr482x0r288/?p=4f7ceeef456146b5947dffa1622b0a9c&pi=11

  39. This ‘relative dominance’ aspect is not new.

    “The ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) Cycle has been heavily investigated for many years but seems to be looked at as a freestanding phenomenon that just redistributes heat around the globe, sometimes warming and sometimes cooling.

    I think that is wrong. I believe that ENSO switches from warming to cooling mode depending on whether the sun is having a net warming or net cooling effect on the Earth. Thus the sun directly drives the ENSO cycle and the ENSO cycle directly drives global temperature changes. Indeed, the effect appears to be much more rapid than anyone has previously believed with a measurable response occurring within a few years of a change in solar energy input. Indeed I see some evidence for the proposition that for various reasons cooling occurs faster than warming but I will save that for another time.

    It was no coincidence that during the years from 1975 to 2000 we had a strong emphasis on El Nino with warming-also known as a period of positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and now, with an emphasis on La Nina we have cooling or at least a stall in the warming (a period of negative PDO).

    As regards the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that is simply a periodical change in the predominance either of El Nino (positive mode) or of La Nina (negative mode). El Nino events can occur in a positive PDO mode and vice versa.

    I believe that both ENSO and PDO are manifestations of the same process and are directly driven by shifts in the balance of heat output from the sun as it switches to or from net warming and to or from net cooling effects on the Earth.”

    from here:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/global-warming-and-cooling-the-reality/

    originally published 2008 at climaterealists.com

    Though now I would say that the change in relative dominance of El Nino / La Nina is attributable not to solar power output per se but to the way atmospheric chemistry involving ozone changes so as to affect global cloudiness and albedo.

    The idea of relative dominance of El Nino / La Nina being carried across successive Pacific Multidecadal Oscillations over centuries as a result of solar influences is I think new and unique to me but I will stand corrected if someone else can be shown to have said it sooner.

  40. Bob Tisdale says:

    Greg Goodman says: “I thought Bod Tisdale’s hypothesis was that it was both sides of the Nino/Nina cycle that produced global warming not just more El Ninos, so this is not really saying the same thing.”

    From the Introduction of “Who Turned on the Heat?”:

    Climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cannot match the sea surface temperature records that show how often and how strongly ENSO events have occurred since 1900. Climate models can’t even simulate the ENSO events since the start of the recent warming period in the mid-1970s. However, the models need to be able to mimic the historical instrument-based ENSO records. In fact it’s critical that they do, and it’s easy to understand why. The strength of ENSO phases, along with how often they happen and how long they persist, determine how much heat is released by the tropical Pacific into the atmosphere and how much warm water is transported by ocean currents from the tropics toward the poles. During a multidecadal period when El Niño events dominate (a period when El Niño events are stronger, when they occur more often and when they last longer than La Niña events), more heat than normal is released from the tropical Pacific and more warm water than normal is transported by ocean currents toward the poles—with that warm water releasing heat to the atmosphere along the way. As a result, global sea surface and land surface temperatures warm during multidecadal periods when El Niño events dominate. They have to. There’s no way they cannot warm. Conversely, global temperatures cool during multidecadal periods when La Niña events are stronger, last longer and occur more often than El Niño events. That makes sense too because the tropical Pacific is releasing less heat and redistributing less warm water than normal then.

    See the preview of “Who Turned on the Heat” here:
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/preview-of-who-turned-on-the-heat-v2.pdf

    That was also discussed in the following post:
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/el-nino-southern-oscillation-myth-3-enso-has-no-trend-and-cannot-contribute-to-long-term-warming/

    PS: Thanks for the typo “Bod Tisdale”. It made me laugh. It’s actually “Round Bod” Tisdale, but I’m trying to lose the roundness.

  41. This 2009 WUWT thread from Bob Tisdale is highly pertinent:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/misunderstandings-about-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation/

    especially my post thus:

    Stephen Wilde says:

    April 29, 2009 at 9:56 am

    “I think this is still skating round the issue.

    That issue is whether the ENSO cycle is sufficient on it’s own to account for observations without requiring any separate input from independent oceanic variations.

    From the links provided I get the impression that there is doubt and that there are differences of opinion on the matter.

    For my part I cannot envisage there being no independent input from ocean variability.

    Nor can I see how ENSO variability alone could give rise to phase shifts at 30 year intervals with a complete cycle of twice that.

    It seems to me that the logical solution is that ENSO contributes air induced variations over short periods of time, separate oceanic cycles contribute their own independent variations over longer periods of time and the general underlying trend is dependent on slow long term changes in solar output over many solar cycles.

    On that basis one can explain the short term climate consequences of individual El Nino and La Nina events, the 30/60 year longer term variations in the dominance of El Nino and La Nina and also the slow rise in global air temperatures since the little ice age.

    Indeed, one can also account for the stepped upward temperature movement when each positive longer term oscillation leaves the air temperatures a little higher than the one before as during the 20th Century.

    Now if the sun were to go into a long term cooling trend (albeit very slow) then I would expect to see stepped downward temperature movements develop but it would take two more 30 year phase shifts for that to become apparent.

    In the meantime a coincidence of weaker solar cycles and negative oceanic phases (especially if in all the oceans at the same time) would be capable of giving us a large a downward shift in temperatures as we saw a large upward shift in temperatures during the recent warming when we had both a more active sun and positive oceanic phases.

    ‘Large’ being a relative term of course. I’m quite sure that natural forcings can do far more than our records to date have ever noted.”

  42. Ian Wilson says:

    Stephen Wilde said:

    “Nor can I see how ENSO variability alone could give rise to phase shifts at 30 year intervals with a
    complete cycle of twice that.”

    But the natural Lunar Perigee cycle of 31 years (1/2 cycle) / 62 year (full cycle) can!

  43. Ian Wilson:

    I am replying to your post at September 3, 2013 at 4:03 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/another-paper-blames-enso-for-global-warming-pause-calling-it-a-major-control-knob-governing-earths-temperature/#comment-1406594

    You say

    I believe that De Freitas and McClean obtained a copy of a manuscript that I had submitted for inclusion a special edition of Energy and Environment to be published in 2013. I submitted this manuscript to E & E in September 2012. I believe that De Freitas and McClean were given access to this manuscript sometime in either September or October 2012, without my knowledge or permission.

    At this point I need to state that I am a member of the Editorial Board of E&E.

    E&E maintains the highest standards of conventional peer review and demands disclosure of source data.

    An author accepts that a paper will be put to peer review by submitting a paper for publication in E&E. An E&E Editor presents a submitted paper for peer review to experts in the field discussed in the paper. It is proper practice for the reviewers to be anonymous and, therefore, the authors of papers are not informed of whom the reviewers may be.

    Some less scrupulous journals have adopted the practice of informing authors of reviewers prior to peer review. This has corrupted the review process by enabling authors to object to reviewers or to engage directly with reviewers instead of engaging with review comments. The corruption has resulted in what is often called ‘pal review’.

    You also say

    I believe that De Freitas and McClean added these concluding remarks after seeing my submitted manuscript.

    I acknowledge your belief but I do not know how you, I or anybody else could verify it. It is a serious accusation.

    And you say

    My paper was eventually published in June 2013 in a special edition of E & E entitled:

    Mechanisms of Climate Change and the AGW Concept: a critical review
    Edited by [the late] Arthur Rörsch and Peter A. Ziegler
    Are Global Mean Temperatures Significantly Affected by Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric Tides?
    Ian R.G. Wilson
    Volume 24, Number 3 – 4 / June 2013

    Yes, it was, and I think it is a good paper.

    Arthur Rörsch is yet another of the deceased colleagues I have been privileged to know. We conducted joint research and co-authored scientific papers. I consider it to be an honour to have been associated with him.

    Arthur was one of the greatest and most honoured scientists of his nation, the Netherlands. He had extreme integrity. I would require much clear evidence before I would countenance the idea that he was involved in anything less than the highest form of propriety in the process of publishing your paper.

    Richard

  44. Ian Wilson said:

    “But the natural Lunar Perigee cycle of 31 years (1/2 cycle) / 62 year (full cycle) can!”

    Yes indeed but it doesn’t do anything for the longer term cycling from before the Roman Warm Period to date.

    For that centennial scale background trend leading to steps up or down in global air and sea surface temperatures we have to vary the amount of solar energy entering the oceans and since TSI varies so little we have to look at the effect of cloudiness and albedo and infer that they can be solar driven.

  45. Greg Goodman:

    I am replying to your post at September 3, 2013 at 4:04 am.

    I hope you will accept that this is a brief reply because a more serious matter has arisen in this thread and I want to be careful not to confuse anything I say in this thread with that.

    You ask

    Do you have a link to Salby’s work? His Hamburg vid was interesting but after years of talk I’ve not found anything published (even on the internet).

    Don’t be too humble to provide a link to you paper if it covers similar ground.

    Salby’s paper passed peer review more than a year ago but has not been published. I do not know why, but I do know that nefarious methods can be used to block publication of papers; see
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

    I have good reason to suspect any blockage to publication would be removed if he were to withdraw it and then submit it to E&E.

    Our pertinent paper is behind a pay wall and was published in E&E. I am now on the Editorial Board of E&E so I cannot provide a copy of it. However, I gave a presentation on it at Heartland 1, and that paper is almost entirely a ‘cut & paste’ from the paper which interests you. I will send you a copy of that if you email me at richardscourtney@aol.com . It covers everything (and more) in Salby’s later work except that Salby makes a novel investigation of soil moisture.

    Richard

  46. Richard M says:

    I’ve been a big supporter of Tisdale for a long time because his ideas are logical and supported by the data. I would hope he gets the recognition he deserves.

    As a little addendum I have stated a theory a couple of times that is relevant. The periods of higher frequency El Niño events (generally tied to +PDO) actually cool the oceans while the opposite, more La Niña events (-PDO), warms the oceans. It’s just a simple extension of Bob’s claims for individual ENSO events. Essentially, it just says there’s a longer term residual effect from the individual events.

    The reason this may be important is the alarmists have been trying to claim the energy from the CO2 GHE has been going into the deep oceans recently. However, if I am right, the warming of the deep ocean warming is simply another effect of the coupled ENSO/PDO phenomena.

  47. Jay Pugh says:

    I truly enjoy these papers stating that cooling in the Tropical Pacific, more La Nina events, are responsible for the pause (or dare I say a reversal) in Global Warming. However, it this were true wouldn’t the opposite also be true, that more El Nino events would be responsible for Global Warming.

  48. Thanks, Anthony.
    Yes, finally we have proof!
    I have shown this using the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI).

  49. Bill Illis says:

    The ENSO is, indeed, a very important process impacting Earth’s climate.

    But it does not have an accumulating impact or step changes. An El Nino or a La Nina phase only lasts for 3 months to 12 months at a time. After which, the opposite phase often occurs.

    The ENSO provides its impact on an continuous basis with a 3 month lag with no accumulation. All of the major atmospheric processes including water vapor, OLR, temperatures, cloud cover, precipitation, follow this pattern.

    Now there can be a little extra impact (just a small amount) when there is a series of El Ninos or La Ninas in a row. But there are only 3 or 4 short periods when this has occurred – (1906-1911), (1939-1944), (1974-1979) (perhaps 1987-1998).

    This paper does not go far enough back into the temperature history to see this.

    So this chart below is the actual Nino 3.4 Index going back to 1871 (let me know if you find periods which provide a multi-decadal trend). It is up and down so fast, it does not result in long periods of warming or cooling.

    http://s12.postimg.org/t38c0hril/Nino_3_4_1871_2013.png

    If one wants to ascribe longer cycle impacts, one needs to move to the AMO 30 year up and down cycle (or the PDO which is not that good at representing the temperature history but is used by some).

  50. rgbatduke says:

    Richard, the “all other things being equal” makes it a truism but don’t jump so high. What I see here is that ENSO is a very strong driver of world temps, even though all things are NEVER equal. “Ceteris parabus” is used so much in economics that it has spilled over into this paper. The authors are being unnecessarily pedantic here. You should be aware of the ceteris parabus fallacy.

    “A ceteris paribus fallacy is based on an assumption that all else is equal in a particular analysis or will remain equal if a particular variable is changed. An “all else is equal” reduction is sometimes a useful way to predict the impact of making a particular change, but in the real world, there are many times when it can’t even assume a hint of a shade of a glimmer of validity. There are simply too many variables with inter- and co-dependencies. One example is comparing the events of two different slices of time to come to the conclusion that one person was a better President than another.”

    http://boards.fool.com/ceteris-paribus-fallacy-26270295.aspx

    Ah, well said indeed. Not that skeptics have the market cornered on ceteris parabus — it is the very foundation itself of the GCMs and every single picture ever portrayed of a curvilinear trend fit to e.g. temperature. Indeed, when watching climate science it is useful to keep a logical fallacy bingo sheet handy:

    http://lifesnow.com/bingo/

    Sadly, ceteris parabus doesn’t seem to be on the list for LFB — you should send a note to the authors asking them to add it and pointing out that it is needed for those seeking to play the game in climate science. Ceteris parabus is indeed perfect for those who seek to omit variables, linearize and otherwise oversimplify the solution to a set of two coupled Navier-Stokes (nonlinear, chaotic) partial differential equations describing a thermally driven non-equilibrium environment on the surface of an oblate spheroid in an highly eccentric orbit around its primary heat source while it rapidly rotates on an axis tipped by some 22 degrees relative to the elliptic plane so that coriolis forces deflect the air and water flowing over its rough and textured surface to generate an ever changing pattern of clouds that may or may not be coupled in some speculative way to the every changing pattern of activity in the magnetohydrodynamic solution in the convective/radiative zone of the heat source itself, a pattern laid down by fusion activity in its core several hundred thousand years ago plus a most complex non-Markovian time evolution ever since. And oops, I forgot to mention precession of the axis of the spinning spheroid, the bobbing of that spheroid up and down across the ecliptic plane, the effect of its surprisingly nearby satellite, its passage through galactic arms, or a variety of chemical, biochemical and geological drivers that act on timescales ranging from daily through geological time.

    None of the hundreds of hands of Mr. Clock stand still, and all of them affect climate, most of them in unknown or strictly speculative ways. The very presentation of a global temperature anomaly is the embodiment of ceteris parabus — pretending that the anomaly captures the aforementioned linearizable trends because (obviously) everything else is equal or ignorable.

    Sigh

    rgb

  51. Bob Tisdale says:

    Stephen Wilde says: “I believe that both ENSO and PDO are manifestations of the same process…”

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO. The PDO simply portrays how closely the spatial pattern of sea surface temperature anomalies in the North Pacific resembles the pattern created by ENSO. The reason for the difference in multidecadal variability of ENSO and the PDO is the spatial pattern of the SSTs in the North Pacific is also impacted by the sea level pressures and related wind patterns in the North Pacific.

    Additionally, (and I’ll present a post about this next month) it would be best to use the sea surface temperatures of the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension to represent the dominant variations in the sea surface temperature of the North Pacific. Note the difference in the statement. The PDO represents the dominant spatial pattern in the North Pacific, while the KOE-SST represents the dominant sea surface temperatures. And by no strange coincidence, the two datasets are anti-correlated (correlation coefficient of monthly data -0.82):
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/figure-7-41.png
    Or with the KOE data inverted:
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/figure-7-40.png

    Or on a multidecadal basis:
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/figure-7-39.png
    And with the KOE data inverted:
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/figure-7-38.png

    I’ve only detrended and standardized (and inverted) the KOE data in the above graphs, while for the PDO, JISAO goes through a very elaborate process using 3 sea surface temperature datasets, two of which are obsolete.

    The PDO is a very abstract form of the North Pacific sea surface temperature anomalies, and as a result it is very confusing to most people. The sea surface temperatures of the KOE are not an abstract.

    Regards

  52. MattN says:

    Bob said: A step in the right direction! Let’s see if The Team jumps all over this as they did with McLean et al (2009). That would be more difficult now since the same thing is implied by Kosaka & Xie (2013) and the two recent Meehl et al papers.”

    ———————————————

    I am reminded of a quote by Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

  53. Ian Wilson says:

    Richard,
    I am very sorry but as far as know Arthur Rörsch is still alive and well. In the rush to post my comment I did not notice that I had be the words “the late” in front of the wrong name. It is actually Peter A. Ziegler who recently died. Again, I am very sorry for the mix up.

    Both Arthur and Peter where excellent editors and they did an outstanding job with compiling the special edition for E & E. I do not fault them one bit. They are/[were] men of integrity and great scientists in their own fields. The leak did not come about because of any direct actions on their part. It was caused by an unintended intrinsic flaw in the review process which I cannot discuss on-line.

    I too am not that worried about who get the credit for correcting our misconceptions about the role played by the ENSO phenomenon in regulating world temperature. However, Bob Tisdale has done most of the hard yards.

  54. Rattus Norvegicus says:

    “The approach used here avoids a focused statistical analysis of the data, in part because the study deals with smoothed data” and also because last time we dealt with this subject we got taken to school.

  55. Jim Cripwell says:

    Bil Illis writes “But it does not have an accumulating impact or step changes. An El Nino or a La Nina phase only lasts for 3 months to 12 months at a time. After which, the opposite phase often occurs.”

    I take issue with this logic. The ENSO may well have a impact on global temperatures on a time scale of centuries. The full PDO cycle lasts about 60 years. Half of this time there is a predominance of El Ninos and the other half a predominance of La Ninas. So there is at least a 60 year cycle, when residuals from the PDO could be noticable in global temperatures. But we have no data as to whether the intensity of every PDO is the same. To take an analogy from solar cycles, each Schwab cycle is about 11 years, but these combine into 22 year Hale cycles. But the value of Rz of each cycle varies from 0 to over 150 on a time scale of centuries or even millenia.

    I can see no reason for supposing that the effects of ENSO cancel out as noise on a time scale measured in decades

  56. M Courtney says:

    Please avoid putting your email addresses on the web. If need be beg the moderators to put you in contact.
    Even if the address is a simple as me @ aol.

    This lack of security over email addresses has casused problems in the past.

  57. Ian Wilson:

    Thankyou very much for your post at September 3, 2013 at 6:27 am which says

    Richard,
    I am very sorry but as far as know Arthur Rörsch is still alive and well. In the rush to post my comment I did not notice that I had be the words “the late” in front of the wrong name.

    Whew! Thankyou.

    Your message gave me a shock and I was trying to find out why I had not be told the sad news when your post came through to say it was merely displaced words.

    Thankyou.

    Richard

  58. Ian Wilson says:

    Stephen Wilde said:
    September 3, 2013 at 5:42 am

    Yes indeed but it doesn’t do anything for the longer term cycling from before the Roman Warm Period to date.

    Stephen,

    It is possible that the longer term warming and cooling spells are solar driven but the shorter term 60 year ripple superimposed upon the longer term cycles is modulated by the lunar perigee cycle. One does not preclude the other.

    How else can you explain why there is much greater than chance probability of finding an extreme perigean spring-tide in the year prior to or the first year of an El Nino event than there is at other times.

  59. wayne Job says:

    It would seem that the rather shaky science of the AGW is being busted, the faith and the politics of man made global warming is another matter and will take a decade at least to destroy.
    Mean while we just pay the price and vote out the idiots. Real science will prevail but snake oil salesmen seem to have a charmed life.

  60. TRM says:

    In the hmmmmm category I searched up this older story on WUWT about ocean floor volcanoes affecting ENSO

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/do-underwater-volcanoes-have-an-effect-on-enso/

    So has any research been planned for the next el-nino to monitor the ocean floor? It would seem the obvious thing to do given that the ocean current flows from South/Central America and the heat starts there and it is on the ring of fire. I know correlation does not equal causation but it’s a darn good place to start.

    If there is a cyclic movement of magma under the planet it would be handy thing to know.

  61. Mac the Knife says:

    The ENSO meter is pegged at ’0′ – no trend. It has waffled back and forth in the neutral range for the last half year.

    Meanwhile Alaska is recording some very chilly temps for this time of year….
    http://ak-wx.blogspot.de/2013/08/record-cold-in-northern-interior.html

  62. Theo Goodwin says:

    Gary Pearse says:
    September 3, 2013 at 3:03 am

    Excellent suggestion. Let us refer to the “Tisdale Effect” and the “Eschenbach Effect” and point out that their hypotheses are testable. Also, point out that the “Eschenbach Effect” could be initially confirmed simply by setting up some cameras on the Virgin Islands.

    The “radiation-only” theorists will be along shortly to explain that ENSO cycles must average to zero over a long period of time. But notable Alarmist climate scientists, most notably Trenberth, have bolted from the “radiation-only” herd and have need to investigate processes of ocean mixing in support of the hypothesis that the “missing heat” is in the deep oceans.

    Radiation-only theorists have done their best to suppress empirical investigation of natural regularities such as ENSO and the AMO. Their day is over.

  63. Jeff Alberts says:

    Every time I see one of the temp graphs with volcanic events marked, I see no difference between those events and the noise already apparent. I don’t think volcanoes have much of an effect globally, unless it’s something like Tambora or Yellowstone, something REALLY big, The little popguns of El Chichon, Pinatubo, etc don’t seem to really do much.

  64. Bob Tisdale says:

    Stephen Wilde says: “I think Bob has avoided stretching the thermal effects of the ENSO phenomenon to longer multidecadal periods of time…”

    I haven’t avoided anything, Stephen. I’m not sure why you insist on continuing to make this erroneous statement. We’ve been over it a multitude of times.

    My detailed analysis is limited by the availability of spatially complete sea surface temperature data, and that only exists from 1982 to present. Before the satellite era, the source data are too sparse to be of much value.

    Additionally, I have performed a very limited analysis back to the early warming period, using HADSST3 data for the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans (60S-65N, 80E-180). They appear to exhibit similar upward shifts in response to the 1918/19/20 El Niño and the 1939/40/41/42 El Niño. The sea surface temperatures there then remained flat until the 1986/87/88 El Niño.

  65. Bob Tisdale says:

    Ian Wilson says: “In my paper, I gave full recognition to Bob Tisdale’s important work.”

    Thank you.

  66. rtj1211 says:

    Consistently warmer Sea Surface Temperatures leads to greater atmospheric heat transfer leads to higher overall land temperature shock.

    I must have missed something along the way: I thought that a correlation between higher frequency el Nino and higher temperatures had been agreed years ago. Clearly it was just folks expressing common sense opinions.

    Anyway, now we’ve proved something that makes sense perhaps we’d like to do another thing which makes sense: compare frequencies of el Nino and la Nina in PDO warm and cool phase.

    Will this explain the link between PDO index and temperature reported a year or so ago by d’Aleo??

    It’s not rocket science you know.

  67. Jeff Alberts says:

    rgb wrote: “Ceteris parabus is indeed perfect for those who seek to omit variables, linearize and otherwise oversimplify the solution to a set of two coupled Navier-Stokes (nonlinear, chaotic) partial differential equations describing a thermally driven non-equilibrium environment on the surface of an oblate spheroid in an highly eccentric orbit around its primary heat source while it rapidly rotates on an axis tipped by some 22 degrees relative to the elliptic plane so that coriolis forces deflect the air and water flowing over its rough and textured surface to generate an ever changing pattern of clouds that may or may not be coupled in some speculative way to the every changing pattern of activity in the magnetohydrodynamic solution in the convective/radiative zone of the heat source itself, a pattern laid down by fusion activity in its core several hundred thousand years ago plus a most complex non-Markovian time evolution ever since.”

    Yes, that’s one sentence. ;) But a very cool one.

  68. Jim Steele says:

    The evidence suggesting more El NInos warms the earth has been obvious for at least a decade. I argued the exact same thing in my book and Tisdale has been blogging it forever. Great to see it is finally getting more attention in the peer reviewed literature.

  69. rogerknights says:

    wayne Job says:
    September 3, 2013 at 7:04 am

    It would seem that the rather shaky science of the AGW is being busted, the faith and the politics of man made global warming is another matter and will take a decade at least to destroy.

    Not if there’s a sharp temperature drop starting a few months after AR5 comes out (a global Gore effect). I’m getting a strong feeling that that will happen. chaos vult!

  70. phlogiston says:

    Bob Tisdale has changed the paradigm of climate science, his detailed explanation of how ENSO drives global temperature is on its way to becoming settled science, while CAGW is moving in the opposite direction. I cant download the paper here – painfully slow and unreliable internet access in this hotel – I would like to know if the great man is acknowledged in the paper? “Control knob” is I think Bob Tisdale terminology (and / or Willis Essenbach).

    The driver of global temperature is ENSO, the driver of climate science is now WUWT. Not the way it should be, but the way it is until the salaried and pensioned climate community snap out of their CO2 trance.

  71. Gary Pearse says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 3, 2013 at 3:47 am

    “On this I think we disagree.

    I don’t care who gets the credit for correcting the science.
    I care that the science gets corrected.”

    These are not exclusive statements. Couldn’t we have both? Imagine someone like a member of the Hockey Team stealing General Relativity or E=mc^2, or others of your choosing.

  72. Pamela Gray says:

    “Spurious correlation” when using smoothed data is something solar folks should hang on their wall. Or maybe even sticky note it to their foreheads.

  73. Pamela Gray says:

    Richard, I didn’t know you swam with the sharks. I’m just an armchair weather geekess and you waded into the interesting conversation I was having with Ulric. Thanks!

  74. Theo Goodwin says:

    Jeff Alberts says:
    September 3, 2013 at 7:44 am

    Yeah, that is one of the good reasons for attending Duke or some equally good university, in my humble opinion.

  75. Gary Pearse:

    Your post at September 3, 2013 at 7:57 am you write in total

    richardscourtney says:
    September 3, 2013 at 3:47 am

    On this I think we disagree.

    I don’t care who gets the credit for correcting the science.
    I care that the science gets corrected.

    These are not exclusive statements. Couldn’t we have both? Imagine someone like a member of the Hockey Team stealing General Relativity or E=mc^2, or others of your choosing.

    With respect, what I care about is my business.

    However, I draw your attention to the concluding sentence of my post which said

    I say REJOICE at our starting to get the science corrected, and don’t cavil about who gets credit for what because that could hinder the correction.

    If credit is placed where it is due then that is a bonus. My priority remains the need to ‘clean the stables’ of climate science.

    Richard

  76. Gonzo says:

    @ Jeff Alberts, [Yes, that’s one sentence. ;) But a very cool one.] My thoughts exactly. I’ll do a copy and save it for prosperity and to throw at the warmistas (with credit to rgb of course)!

  77. Ouch! Sorry for the formatting disaster of the my last post.
    I miss the preview function.

    Richard

  78. Thanks to Bob Tisdale we can have a look at the relevant data and a plausible theory on the effects and workings of ENSO.
    Others may join in later, as de Freitas and McLean, and use statistics to prove aspects of the causes for temperature excursions or their absence.
    After reading the paper, I find the omission of references to Tisdale’s work a big minus. The authors should have acknowledged a hard-working, highly intelligent precursor.

  79. richard verney says:

    Assuming that ENSO events drive temperature (the step change in and around the 1998 El NIno is clearly visible in the satellite data sets as being an isolated and only event to have brought about a decadel temperature change), a number of issues arise; in particular how long does the heat which has been released by an ENSO event remain in the atmosphere, and why if this causes a step change in globabl temperatures the step change persists

    Does anyone have any views on why the heat released by the 1998 El Nino has not dissipated these past 15 years?

  80. Matthew R Marler says:

    Unless I missed it (please correct me if I am wrong) they did not cite Bob Tisdale’s work. As I say, it’s a shame he won’t get an academic publisher to print it so that the people like these authors will take it more seriously.

  81. JimS says:

    Yup, those “real” scientists are now discovering the 60 year climate cycle and its cause. I thought they would eventually, once they got their heads out of the CO2 cloud:
    http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm

  82. Matthew R Marler says:

    The approach used here avoids a focused statistical analysis of the data, in part because the study deals with smoothed data, which means there is the danger of spurious correlations, and in part because the ENSO is a cyclical phenomenon of irregular period. In these situations, the results of regression analysis or similar statistical evaluation can be misleading.

    They ought to have presented graphs of GMT vs lagged SOI, to portray the strength of the association. The strong divergence between SOI and GMT after the two sharp peaks in 1998 is intriguing.

    Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and perhaps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.

    It is good to see them use the phrase “control knob” — can “thermostat” be far behind?

  83. Matthew R Marler says:

    Ian Wilson says: “In my paper, I gave full recognition to Bob Tisdale’s important work.”

    That’s good.

  84. Gary Pearse says:

    So with a 4 month lag in temp response to ENSO, the flat-to-dipping temperature period will be alive and well until January 2014 at least. Perhaps we can help the UK Met Office with their seasonal forecast for the last quarter: Another cold winter.

  85. Why is it that when I hear the phrase “major control knob”, I think of Michael Mann?

  86. It is nice to have a sensible paper come out on this subject.

    Bob Tisdale has been spot on in all of his contributions to the enso /climatic impacts.

  87. Bob Tisdale said:

    “I haven’t avoided anything, Stephen. I’m not sure why you insist on continuing to make this erroneous statement. We’ve been over it a multitude of times. ”

    I’m considering timescales relevant to the MWP to LIA to date and you have correctly pointed out the paucity of ENSO data before 1982.

    However there is lots of paleological data showing climate zone shifts common to both hemispheres and it is clear to me at least that Pacific SSTs will be implicated in such shifts.

    You clearly told me that you preferred not to speculate about times when the ENSO data is less reliable than the post 1982 record and I told you I respected that position but did not feel similarly constrained.

  88. jfreed27 says:

    Who cares? This is where we really live:

    Global Warming Threatens Food Security through Spread of Crop Pests:

    Experts warn global warming is spreading crop pests by 3km ever year
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/503055/20130902/global-warming-threatening-food-security-crop-pests.htm

  89. Matthew R Marler says:

    A good description of some attempts to model ENSO are presented in the book Nonlinear Climate Dynamics by Henk A. Dijkstra, published by Cambridge University Press.

  90. dp says:

    What is the state between high frequency El Niño and NOT El Niño conditions, and what is the state between high frequency La Niña and NOT La Niña? Is !El Niño == !La Niña? What is the climate impact of (!El Niño OR !La Niña), and what percentage of time is spent in the NOT state of these two phenomena?

    If the NOT state of El Niño is La Niña then high frequency El Niño is also high frequency La Niña so the maths don’t work as described above – they cancel.

  91. dp says:

    It looks like someone has plagiarized Willis’ climate control knob without attribution.

  92. Steven Mosher says:

    “Another possibility is that there are problems with the HadCRUT4 1.1.0 data. For example, we note that the published monthly average global temperature anomalies are not equal to the mean of the two published corresponding hemispheric values.”

    DUH.

  93. jfreed27:

    Your post at September 3, 2013 at 9:07 am says in total

    Who cares? This is where we really live:

    Global Warming Threatens Food Security through Spread of Crop Pests:

    Experts warn global warming is spreading crop pests by 3km ever year
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/503055/20130902/global-warming-threatening-food-security-crop-pests.htm

    Really? You live there?
    The rest of us live on planet Earth, and those of us interested in this thread are discussing mechanism of climate change which operate on our planet.

    Richard

  94. Allan MacRae says:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/

    Stephen Wilde – your New Climate Model looks very interesting

    Please see the following re falling relative humidity in the atmosphere from 300 to 700 mb.
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/GLJ_May2010_AGW.pdf
    Please see slides 21 and 22.

    To my knowledge, Ken Gregory first pointed out this declining RH trend in 2008.

  95. Physics Major says:

    So the climate modelers forgot to include the Pacific Ocean in their models. That seems like a pretty big oversight. If only someone had noticed that it was missing, then the models would have correctly predicted the current hiatus in warming. Or not.

  96. Chris Schoneveld says:

    Curry’s remark: “I thought that it might account for at least half of the observed warming, and hence my questioning of the IPCC’s highly confident attribution of ‘most’ to AGW” drew a response from Xie after Marcel Crok contacted him (see Crok’s website http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/08/30/xie-reacts-on-curry/
    Xie responded: “I have a different take on this. The IPCC conclusion applies to centennial warming from 1880. Much of the 0.8 C warming since 1900 is indeed due to anthropogenic forcing, because natural variability like PDO and AMO has been averaged out over this long period of time.
    Our results concern the effect of tropical Pacific SST on global mean temperature over the past 15 years. It is large enough to offset the anthropogenic warming for this period, but the effect weakens as the period for trend calculation gets longer simply because it is oscillatory and being averaged out.”

    I wonder how Xie knows that natural variability averages out. It is merely an assumptions not backed up by any research, it seems. According to Tisdale the net effect is responsible for most of the global warming at least for the last 50 years or so (if I remember well). So over that time frame it did not average out. Note how Xie has extended his window back to the year 1880.

  97. JimS says:

    @Physics Major
    It is pretty easy to forget about a body of water (Pacific Ocean) that covers one third of the surface of the earth; but now the defenders of the climate models are insisting that the oceans have been holding the heat generated by CO2 down below the 700 metre mark for the last 15 years. That is pretty darn amazing, for sure.

  98. Chris Schoneveld says:

    Ian Wilson says:
    September 3, 2013 at 4:03 am

    “Edited by [the late] Arthur Rörsch and Peter A. Ziegler”

    As far as I know Arthur is not deceased. Sadly, Peter Ziegler has died recently.
    By the way, the allegation is extremely serious. I will inform Arthur, if you haven’t done so yourself already.

  99. Allan MacRae says:

    This is what we knew with confidence over ten years ago:

    “That warming, known as the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976-1977, is not attributable to human causes but is a natural shift in the Pacific that occurs every 20 to 30 years.”
    - Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae, PEGG November 2002
    http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm

    [Excerpt]

    This surface warming would suggest a temperature trend of about 1º C per century, which is less than that predicted by the computer simulations, but it is unlikely that even this recent trend in surface warming is primarily attributable to human-made greenhouse gases….

    Both records show that the temperature of the lower troposphere does vary as a result of natural factors, e.g., the strong El Niño warming pulse of 1997-98 is obvious. However, no meaningful human warming trend, as forecast by the computer simulations, can be found…

    Although the radiosonde record lacks the dense spatial coverage from satellites, it does extend back to 1957, a period that includes the recent rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The radiosonde record shows no linear warming trend in global average temperature prior or subsequent to a dramatic shift in 1976-77. That warming, known as the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976-1977, is not attributable to human causes but is a natural shift in the Pacific that occurs every 20 to 30 years.

    When compared to the observed response of the climate system, the computer simulations all have forecast warming trends much steeper over the last several decades than measured. The forecasts exaggerate to some degree the warming at the surface, and profoundly in the lower troposphere.

  100. phlogiston says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    September 3, 2013 at 9:15 am
    “Another possibility is that there are problems with the HadCRUT4 1.1.0 data. For example, we note that the published monthly average global temperature anomalies are not equal to the mean of the two published corresponding hemispheric values.”

    DUH.

    I see – so global warming = the bipolar seesaw. (Tzedakis might not quite see it that way.)

  101. Chris Schoneveld:

    re your post at September 3, 2013 at 10:09 am.

    Ian Wilson has corrected his error concerning Arthur (which put me into a panic) in a later post.

    Yes, the allegation is very serious. Please see my reply at September 3, 2013 at 5:34 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/another-paper-blames-enso-for-global-warming-pause-calling-it-a-major-control-knob-governing-earths-temperature/#comment-1406623

    Richard

  102. jorgekafkazar says:

    Where to start? I could spend a week commenting on this, and I don’t even have a half hour. So: (1) An El Nino is a heat-shedding mechanism. The air warms a bit, but the sea loses heat for a net transfer outward. This reduces many comments above to irrelevance. (2) This study relies on wiggle matching (or Wackelnpassenden), a method that works except when it doesn’t, and here it doesn’t, lately. (3) The 1995/1996 divergence could involve thumbs in a variety of ways, one of which is well described by Bloke down the pub.

    All in all, then, I’d call it appropriate to give the paper three thumbs up.

  103. Janice Moore says:

    Apparently the effort to blame the recent warming on human activities took too long, and natural variability is asserting itself, thus falsifying the AGW dream of the watermelons to use a natural warming period as a route to global socialist domination.

    Michael Gersh, 9/3/13 at 1:03am.

    Well put with admirable brevity.

  104. jorgekafkazar says:

    MattN says: “Once again, this surprises NO ONE who has actually been paying attention. But you know that they will just say that CO2 is influencing, if not outright controlling ENSO. I am 100% positive I remember reading a statement from Gavin on Reallywrong Climate years ago where he stated that the PDO was permanently positive now due to CO2.”

    Did Gavin really say that? I wouldn’t be surprised. If he did. I’d sure like to see his putative mechanism for 400 ppm of CO2 affecting the PDO! What nonsense.

  105. Janice Moore says:

    @ Ian Wilson — thank you for so generously sharing your excellent work with us. I hope that A-th-y features it as a post in its own right.

    I’m so sorry about your very likely having been robbed by two cowardly toads. I hope that you are swiftly and fully vindicated. At the very least, I hope the flaw in the system that afforded them the opportunity to steal will be fixed.

  106. TRM says:

    “phlogiston says: September 3, 2013 at 7:53 am
    Bob Tisdale has changed the paradigm of climate science, his detailed explanation of how ENSO drives global temperature is on its way to becoming settled science, ”

    I’m not trying to speak for Mr Tisdale as he seems very capable of speaking for himself but I think the better way of viewing it is that “his explanation of how ENSO drives global temperature is adding greatly to our understanding of a very complex chaotic system”. :)

    Now how many factors can influence ENSO? Onward and upward with the scientific method!!!

  107. Gary Pearse says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 3, 2013 at 8:19 am

    richard:
    I don’t care who gets the credit for correcting the science.
    I care that the science gets corrected.
    G.P.:
    These are not exclusive statements. Couldn’t we have both? Imagine someone like a member of the Hockey Team stealing General Relativity or E=mc^2, or others of your choosing.

    richard:
    With respect, what I care about is my business.

    The testiness from you for such a reasonable statement from me was unexpected. Sorry if I offended you in some way. I was negligent in not completely reading your offering in which you did, indeed, mention attribution would be a bonus. I naively take what I see here as all open for discussion. Subtle, perhaps I’m not.

  108. Pamela Gray says:

    A proper research introduction would be a review of the literature. Most folks understand that to mean peer reviewed papers in high-level journals. However other citation sources (personal communication, paper in press, presentation, etc) do make it in as long as they are far and few between. Unfortunately, I don’t think Bob has sufficient scientific standing (yet) to serve as a source in what is an obviously highly controversial topic, one in which every speck of it should be based on vetted data and sources. As Leif says, science is a blood sport.

    That said, I for one am positive that Ivory Tower scientists have been visiting skeptic blogs regularly, who wouldn’t, which I think has helped them take off the CO2-colored glasses so they could actually see where the rubber meets the road. So who is really getting the credit here? How many people visit this site? How many people have a subscription to “Int J Geosciences”? The numbers should tell us who is getting most of the credit for this work.

  109. RERT says:

    Here are two charts. The first is just the cumulative sum of the MEI index, linearly scaled. The second is the 12-month average MEI indices and 12 month average Total Solar Insolation (with sunspot proxy before the satelite record.

    http://www.robles-thome.talktalk.net/Insolation and MEI.pdf

    http://www.robles-thome.talktalk.net/Temp and Cum MEI.pdf

    I’ve always thought the first was a striking picture, and strongly related to what Bob Tisdale talks about on El-Nino. The second I think shows quite a relationship between insolation (or some derivative of it!) and turning points in the MEI. On the other hand, you stare at anything long enough and it will all start to make sense…

    R.

  110. Bob Tisdale says:

    Stephen Wilde says: “You clearly told me that you preferred not to speculate about times when the ENSO data is less reliable than the post 1982 record and I told you I respected that position but did not feel similarly constrained.”

    Your willingness to speculate does not in any way suggest that I am “avoiding” anything. I elect to work with and present data to support my findings. You elect to work without data and you present speculation to support your conjecture.

  111. vukcevic says:

    Re: Natural temperature variability
    ‘Cyclical phenomena of irregular periods’:
    AMO – Far north Atlantic Tectonics
    PDO – Kamchatka – Aleutian Archipelago Tectonics
    ENSO – Central Pacific Tectonics
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TDs.htm
    Stabiliser: Antarctic Circumpolar current

  112. Gary Pearse:

    re your post at September 3, 2013 at 12:07 pm.

    OK. If you prefer, without respect, what I care about is my business.
    But I don’t understand why you prefer this testy reply instead of the reasonable one I gave.

    Richard

  113. vukcevic says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    September 3, 2013 at 12:44 pm
    How many people visit this site? How many people have a subscription to “Int J Geosciences”?
    No idea, but StatCounter on my website (graphs) since mid 2009 shows number 203,751

  114. Pamela Gray says:

    Vuk, your are too funny. I asked a set of rhetorical questions. From there you found a way to sneak in a popup.

  115. Kevin Kilty says:

    From Xie reacts to Curry…

    The IPCC conclusion applies to centennial warming from 1880. Much of the 0.8 C warming since 1900 is indeed due to anthropogenic forcing, because natural variability like PDO and AMO has been averaged out over this long period of time.

    Is there any evidence that PDO or AMO are stationary processes over the time scale of a century? If not then I see no reason to suppose that what Xie claims here is true. PDO could be responsible for a lot of warming since 1880.

  116. vukcevic says:

    Ms Gray
    Idle minds find ways to keep themselves amused.

  117. Janice Moore says:

    Gary Pearse, just want you to know at least one other WUWT commenter gets what you are saying to R.C.. I’m surprised that such a normally courteous, generous, spirit, would be so disingenuous.

    Who knows what has happened to him today? We might gladly overlook his sharp retort if we only knew.

    “With every step our lives, we enter into the middle of some story
    which we are certain to misunderstand.”

    G. K. Chesterton

  118. Stephen Wilde says:

    Bob Tisdale said:

    “Your willingness to speculate does not in any way suggest that I am “avoiding” anything. I elect to work with and present data to support my findings. You elect to work without data and you present speculation to support your conjecture.”

    Sigh.

    I’ve lost count of the number of times I have expressed appreciation of your work but been rebuffed by what is known in the psychiatric profession as passive aggression.

    I am working from data and joining the dots logically by combining observations with basic physical principles.

    As far as I know you have never proposed a mechanism whereby ENSO could result in temperature stepping from one positive or negative phase to the next.

    I have.

    Furthermore it appears to be linked to the level of solar activity affecting global cloudiness and albedo on a millennial time scale.

    My use of the term ‘avoidance’ was intended to be neutral and respectful but you have taken unnecessary offence.

    The fact is that you do not extend your undoubted ENSO expertise in a way that can lead to a more complete explanation of the role of ENSO within the climate system.

    ENSO is a short term internally induced disturbance of longer term externally induced solar influences on oceanic behaviour.

    One can only derive upward and downward stepping from one phase to the next by superimposing a longer term non ENSO influence.

    One can only obtain a change in the amount of energy available for ENSO from the sun.

    It has to be variability in the amount of solar energy entering the oceans that skews El Nino and La Nina relative to one another beyond the basic 60 year cycle of phase changes.

    Your work simply does not extend to that aspect.

  119. Simon says:

    If ENSO is a climate forcing then a change in phase should lead to the temperature trend changing direction. It is interesting to note that the recent series of La Nina conditions has not lead to a decrease in temperature. That suggests that there are other active forcings as well.

  120. “the recent series of La Nina conditions has not lead to a decrease in temperature. That suggests that there are other active forcings as well.”

    There is still residual warmth in the oceans near the poles from the run of strong late 20th century El Ninos.

    Once the AMO goes properly negative then a decline should begin.

  121. Gary Pearse says:

    Janice Moore says:
    September 3, 2013 at 1:55 pm

    “With every step our lives, we enter into the middle of some story
    which we are certain to misunderstand.”

    G. K. Chesterton”

    Thank you for this. It could well be me who is out of sorts.

  122. Gary Pearse:

    Well, it may be you but it certainly is me today.

    One friend being scanned for cancer, misinformed that another friend had died and needing – yes, needing – to urgently answer something on WUWT while trying to find out when and how (but he had not), and … Well, you don’t need to know.

    I am a grumpy old man. Sometimes more than I should be. Sorry.

    Richard

  123. Ian Wilson says:

    RERT,

    My E & E paper addresses the very points you raise:

    Wilson, I.R.G., 2013, Are Global Mean Temperatures
    Significantly Affected by Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric
    Tides? Energy & Environment, Vol 24,
    No. 3 & 4, pp. 497 – 508

    http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/03n7mtr482x0r288/?p=e4bc1fd3b6e14fd8ab83a6df24c8a72d&pi=11

    However, it must be said that the paper is not intended to be a rigorous scientific proof of the claims about the SOI/MEI that are proposed. The paper is aimed at making a scientific literate audience aware of the fact that the ENSO could play a pivotal role in determining inter-decadal to centennial changes in the World’s mean temperature.

  124. Stephen, I think the reasons why the temperature decline has yet to begin in earnest are due to the current weak maximum of solar cycle 24, the limited years of prolonged sub-solar activity
    (started in 2005) in contrast to mostly high solar activity from end of Dalton(1830) -2005, ocean heat content up in response to high solar activity up to 2005,and very quiet volcanic activity.

    I think once the maximum of solar cycle 24 passes by a more meridional atmospheric circulation which has been the rule of late will become even further entrenched, ocean heat content which is high has slowed during the past few years and will likely subside going forward, and volcanic activity should rise in response to the soon to be very quiet solar conditions.

    The maximum of solar cycle 24 has to pass followed by a sustained period of very quiet solar conditions such as a solar flux value of at least sub 90 sustained,solar wind value of at at least sub 350 km/sec. sustained, ap index value of sub 5.0 (98+%of time) sustained(spikes other 1%), UV light off upwards of 50%, solar irradiance off .015% or more, sustained.

    Cosmic rays will be on the increase(in response to a reduced solar wind) and that should equate to more clouds, and that along with the more meridional atmospheric circulation should cause an increase in clouds, precipitation and snow cover for the N.H. which in turn should increase the overall albedo, promoting lower temperatures.

    Earth’s magnetic field in a weakening trend will compound all solar effects.

    The PDO ,and soon the AMO will also make their mark on promoting global cooling. Infact the recent string of La Ninas, has been one of the reasons why the temperature rise is no longer occurring despite moderate solar activity of late, and still high ocean heat content, and very low volcanic activity.

    Anotherwords the high ocean heat content ,the moderate solar activity , and lack of any significant volcanic activity ,and the lack of strong La Nina’s despite La Nina’s of late are the reasons why the temperatures have been holding up to steady readings of late, rather then showing a more definitive fall.

    This should be changing as the decade proceeds and the prolonged solar minimum becomes more entrenched with all of it’s associated secondary effects.

    .

  125. The main secondary factors needed for global cooling to start are PDO/AMO in a cold phase, ENSO in La Nina phase, volcanic activity to increase, and a more meridional atmospheirc circulation.

    Ocean heat content will subside once visible light from quiet solar conditions declines.

    Thresholds are out there and the degree of magnitude /duration of time of quiet solar conditions has to be severe/long enough to at least over come the inherent neg. feedbacks in the climatic system of the earth, if not bring the climate to a possible threshold in order to set the temperature trend response more definitively downwards

    Time will tell and the answers should be soon as the prolonged solar quiet condtions become much more entrenched as soon as this weak maximum of solar cycle 24 passes by.

    Which is not far off.

  126. Janice Moore says:

    Here’s to you, Gary Pearse and Richard Courtney,
    two gentlemen, in the best sense of the word:

    You think meeting here is bad, you could work in the same office or
    YOU COULD BE NEIGHBORS!
    #(:))

    (Warning: typical “Grumpy Old Men” language)
    .
    .
    .
    .

    *********************
    I just prayed for your friend, Richard. Hope all turns out well.

  127. Janice Moore says:

    OOOoops!

    Wrong clip above (aaarrgh) — sorry for the dirty jokes (cringe)

  128. Barbee says:

    The 15 year old animation is very pretty.

  129. Joe Bastardi says:

    Are they arrogant… so confident that they had the right result they dismissed what most skeptics know, or ignorant, they simply did not look? Either way, they must have some chutzpah to put out papers ( I supposed were funded by taxpayer money) to tell us what we all know.

    The sun, the oceans, stochastic events run the climate, not co2

  130. Cynical Scientst says:

    Congrats to Bob Tisdale. Vindication is a lovely feeling. Enjoy!

  131. Mike Maguire says:

    Don Easterbrook’s work related to this, got me really tuned into the oceans a decade ago.

    http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/aleo-easterbrook_ch5Relationship-multidecadal-global-temps-to-oceanic-oscillations.pdf

  132. Bob Tisdale says:

    Stephen Wilde says: “I’ve lost count of the number of times I have expressed appreciation of your work but been rebuffed by what is known in the psychiatric profession as passive aggression.”

    While I thank you for your expressed appreciation, I take exception when you claim I’m avoiding something, especially when we’ve had this discussion numerous times already.

    Stephen Wilde says: “My use of the term ‘avoidance’ was intended to be neutral and respectful but you have taken unnecessary offence.”

    I disagree. You are a trained and practicing lawyer. You understand precisely the implications of your words. You’ve suggested to readers here that my research is incomplete, solely because it does not extent back in time beyond the satellite era of sea surface temperature data—a time period in which you have interest, not me.

    Again, I’ll thank you for expressing your appreciation of my work. I will also ask you once again to stop portraying it as being incomplete because it does not support the time period of your research interests.

    Regards

  133. Latitude says:

    Joe Bastardi says:
    September 3, 2013 at 4:26 pm
    The sun, the oceans, stochastic events run the climate, not co2
    ===
    shhhh….one of these days they will discover that we have more than one ocean

  134. Ulric Lyons says:

    “All other things being equal, a period dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like conditions will result in global warming, whereas a period dominated by a high frequency of La Niña-like conditions will result in global cooling. Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and perhaps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.”

    But where is the hysteresis on the upper ocean heat content in all of this? A higher frequency of El Nino conditions and episodes has to also result in global cooling over periods that are used to describe climate, because of less upper ocean heat recharging.
    With ENSO, the (fairly) immediate effects on global temperature, are the inverse of the long term effects on upper OHC. So by definition, short term warming equals long term cooling.
    Now as cooling from major stratospheric volcanic aerosol events causes El Nino episodes, it really does beg the question, what type of cooling is triggering the other Nino episodes?
    I think the evidence is overwhelming: http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg
    It does though require some adjustment of preconceived ideas of global temperature, such that when the heat is on, you get a La Nina and global ave temp’ goes down, and when the heat is off, bam you get an El Nino and the world suddenly looks warmer. Such the overshoot that ENO has.

  135. Ulric Lyons says:

    Stephen Wilde says:

    “However there is lots of paleological data showing climate zone shifts common to both hemispheres and it is clear to me at least that Pacific SSTs will be implicated in such shifts.”

    Yes they all show more El Nino during cold periods and less El Nino through the warm periods. It’s the same at the inter-annual scale relative to solar activity, with El Nino’s at times of lower activity.

  136. Dan Pangburn says:

    Joe Bastardi – That works. TSI does not vary enough but the sunspot number time integral (reduced by radiation leaving the planet) with appropriate proxy factor, combined with a derived net contribution from all ocean oscillations, calculates average global temperatures since before 1900 with R2 = 0.9. The equation that does this and a graph to show it are at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html .

  137. Bill Illis says:

    I put up this article over 4.5 years ago dealing with this same issue.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/25/adjusting-temperatures-for-the-enso-and-the-amo/

    Not much has really changed in the numbers or the methodology (I added in volcanoes and a statistically insignificant solar cycle) but here’s the update. None of the other reconstructions are close to this on a monthly basis going back to 1856.

    http://s24.postimg.org/gtm9yie85/Hadcrut4_Model_July_2013.png

    Is warming less than the models? Uhmm yes, in terms of being way off that is. The satellite/lower troposphere trends are pointing to just 1.2C of warming by 2100 (and only 0.75C more to go in the next 87 years) while the IPCC has 2.5C more of warming in the pipeline.

    http://s24.postimg.org/4ae47h8xx/Zoom_in_Logarithmic_Warming_July_2013.png

    The IPCC Forecasts starting at the time they were made versus the actual observations. Obviously, something has gone wrong with the earlier forecasts being the farthest off but even the newest IPCC AR5 forecasts from just over a year ago can’t even get the starting point right – they are already 0.3C too high. Hansen’s 1988 forecasts are off by 0.7C. Start over boys.

    http://s7.postimg.org/kb8xaanob/IPCC_Forecasts_July2013.png

  138. Bob Tisdale says:

    Ulric Lyons says: “But where is the hysteresis on the upper ocean heat content in all of this? A higher frequency of El Nino conditions and episodes has to also result in global cooling over periods that are used to describe climate, because of less upper ocean heat recharging.”

    The ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific reveals:
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-9-3.png

    The 1973-76 La Niña created the initial warm water for the El Niño events from 1976 through 1995, with the La Niña events trailing those El Niños replenishing part of the heat released by the El Niños. The 1986/87/88 El Niño released and redistributed enough warm water from below the surface of the tropical Pacific to cause an upward shift in the sea surface temperatures of the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans.
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-9-8a.png

    The 1995/96 La Niña, a super La Niña in terms of ocean heat content in the tropical Pacific, created the ocean heat for the 1997/98 El Niño. The 1997/98 El Niño released and redistributed that heat from the tropical Pacific in the form of warm water and that warm water resulted in another upward step in the sea surface temperatures of the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans. The1998-01 La Niña replenished the warm water released by the 1997/98 El Niño.

    Regards

  139. Pamela Gray says:

    The sloshing, wind blown, current driven oceans have plenty of power to hold onto or belch out heat in whatever steps you want, big, small, sequenced, etc. There is no need for variable solar input. Its variance is insignificant compared to the oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections so why bother?

  140. Janice Moore says:

    Bailiff: All rise.
    Judge: In the case of Wilde v. Tisdale, verdict for the Defendant with attorney’s fees, costs, AND treble damages. Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaa! #(:))

    “passive aggression,” lol. If you had exhibited that, Bob Tisdale, you would have simply ignored him, not dignifying his insults with your thoughtful responses, or pretended not to understand him and answered questions he never posed. Attorney (if you are correct, Mr. Tisdale) Wilde could take a lesson or two from you.
    *******************************************************

    Science is about truth. Lack of conventional credentials may be an excuse, but is NEVER a reason to ignore excellent science such as yours, Mr. Tisdale.

    Re: the false assumption that science must be (MUST BE, lol) a “blood sport,” I have seen far too much data that contradicts that notion to believe it. Over the years, I have personally observed, or read the accounts of reliable eyewitnesses who also observed, numerous brilliant minds in the most rigorous academic disciplines who were ruthless with the facts while, at the same time, civil and courteous to their opponents. Only the truly great can do this. It takes, in addition to a fine mind, a humble, loving, heart.

    Gentleness is not, as some might think, a weak trait. On the contrary, it requires strength of character. Unjustified anger and bluster and YELLING and insults are signs of:
    1) lack of humility and of disregard for one’s opponent; and or
    2) lack of self-restraint.

    Only the extraordinary can do this, but, every day, it is done. Such extraordinary people are out there fighting tenaciously yet courteously in many arenas, including law, physics, finance, and climate science. As to climate science, I know this from first hand observation. I know this because of watching — you.

    You are one of Science’s finest, Bob Tisdale. You are a scientist par excellence. You leave the “blood sport” blusterers in the dust.

    Well done.

    Janice

  141. Pamela Gray says:

    Tell that to the mothers who had to scream down the idiots who kept telling them in oh so dignified language that Autism was their fault.

  142. JimF says:

    Congratulations to Bob Tisdale (“the Tisdale effect”) and Willis Eschenbach (“the Eschenbach paradigm”). Imagine, all those things going on in the central strip of the Pacific Ocean, where the potential insolation is far and away bigger than anywhere else, and where the magical ingredient, water, is involved, having ANYTHING to do with the climate of the earth. It’s shocking, I tell you.

    As to why the temperatures around the globe haven’t fallen (at least much), here’s the “JimF conjecture”: the key thermometers (some of which control small empires in area) are sitting on blacktop, many in the back blast of jet engines, many of the rest near the air conditioning unit and all the hot cars. The only way these will show “cooling” is when icicles are hanging off your nose as you take a brisk summer walk to the office. Sounds like I’m writing some thriller novels. Maybe I have another career as a “climate scientist” in my future.

  143. Ulric Lyons says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    “Its variance is insignificant compared to the oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections so why bother?”

    A factor of two and more variance is significant, and it is the path to understanding and predicting it.

  144. Ulric Lyons says:

    Bob Tisdale says:

    “The 1973-76 La Niña created the initial warm water for the El Niño events from 1976 through 1995, with the La Niña events trailing those El Niños replenishing part of the heat released by the El Niños.”

    So that may seem to invalidate comparison of El Niño to La Niña strictly by frequency alone as they don’t necessarily each have the same value. So who is to say where the balance is until the effective magnitude of each in terms of OHC alteration, is defined.

  145. Pamela Gray says:

    No Ulric, the variance, be it significant compared to its own control, is insignificant up against the variance of the oceans. Mechanism Ulric, mechanism. Hell, I vary! That does not make me significant.

  146. Pamela Gray says:

    The solar theorists have congregated again. And they espouse the same thing they have done on countless threads all without using standard scientific method and a refusal to outline the mechanism. I tire of it. Look folks, total solar irradiance varies surface temperature by less than the length of a gnats a** hair and follows the 11 year solar cycle up and down. Every other “thing” that ol’sol puts out has FAR less energy, yet these folks think that something magical happens to these sub-parts of TSI (solar wind, UV, etc), to make the Earth dance to their tune. Don’t buy it. It is the exact same argument espoused by CO2 folks. Something infinitesimally small gets amplified to the degree that Earth notices it. And what is the mechanism? Some yet to be determined entity. Bull apples.

  147. Ulric Lyons says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    “Mechanism Ulric, mechanism.”

    Well I’m glad you’re impressed with the correlation, just look at those 1997/98 and 2009/10 Nino;s:
    http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg
    We took the mechanism discussion as far as it could go on the other thread, which was postulating a direct solar plasma speed effect on the polar air pressure, which moves the jet stream latitude, and modulates the trade winds. That’s all you are getting.

  148. Ulric Lyons says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    “yet these folks think that something magical happens to these sub-parts of TSI (solar wind, UV, etc), to make the Earth dance to their tune.”

    It’s called “Joule heating” of the upper atmosphere, it at least creates strong turbulence, particularly in the polar regions where the heating is stronger.

  149. “these folks think that something magical happens to these sub-parts of TSI (solar wind, UV, etc), to make the Earth dance to their tune. Don’t buy it. It is the exact same argument espoused by CO2 folks. Something infinitesimally small gets amplified to the degree that Earth notices it. And what is the mechanism? ”

    Nothing magical unless one thinks that the temperature inversion through the stratosphere whereby temperature rises instead of falling with height is magical.

    That inversion is solely a result of direct solar interactions with ozone.

    Change the balance of ozone creation / destruction differentially with height and/or between equator and poles and then one gets changes in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles which is enough to shift climate zones latitudinally with the cloudiness and albedo changes that we do actually observe.

    The variations in the UV and EUV are large enough (10% or more) to have the observed effect and we know that those wavelengths are involved in the ozone creation / destruction balance along with a range of other particles and chemicals that vary with the suns behaviour.

    It isn’t an energy issue but a chemistry issue.

    Other aspects of solar behaviour such as cosmic rays, magnetic field and solar wind don’t directly act on ozone and so I don’t think they are involved in the temperature changes observed. They merely serve as proxies for the level of solar activity with no causative influence themselves.

  150. Ulric Lyons said:

    “Yes they all show more El Nino during cold periods and less El Nino through the warm periods.”

    Could you link to that data please.

    An El Nino during a period of quiet sun and meridional jets with less solar energy entering the oceans would have a significant cooling effect due to its heat shedding nature.

    Remember hat I propose a balance between the top down solar effect and the bottom up oceanic effect so short term misalignment between El Ninos / La Ninas and warming or cooling is perfectly possible.

    In the end though I would expect to see more El Ninos during the MWP and today than there were during the depths of the Maunder Minimum / LIA.

  151. Bob Tisdale said:

    “I will also ask you once again to stop portraying it as being incomplete because it does not support the time period of your research interests.”

    I have no problem accepting the accuracy and completeness of your work on the time scales you reasonably seek to work within.

    I remain of the view that for a complete climate (as opposed to ENSO) description it is necessary to take account of your findings over the longer periods of time which interest me.

    Although I am a trained lawyer I seek to use words as simply as possible so readers should not worry about any lawyerly subtexts. None such are ever intended.

    Smartypants Janice Moore take note.

  152. Ulric.

    It would be theoretically possible to have more, smaller El Ninos during a period of weak sun due to the top down solar effect working from the poles pushing the air circulation equatorward and limiting the regional extent of the Pacific oscillation.

    Research into that area could be a useful longer term refinement of my basic hypothesis if what you say is true.

    In the end hough Occam’s Razor keeps it nice and simple in the first instance.

    The sun changes the global air circulation so as to affect global cloudiness which alters the amount of energy entering the oceans to drive the climate system.

    The more solar energy gets into the oceans the stronger or bigger can be El Ninos and the less gets in the weaker or smaller they must be.

    No solar input, no El Nino.

    A La Nina would be best characterised as a non El Nino. A mere ‘resting’ period between El Nino events during which the oceans can recharge as Bob tells us.

    An analysis as to how the timing works out in practice can await another day.

  153. Friends:

    This thread is about the publication of a paper which reports ENSO has a significant effect on global temperature over decadal time scales.

    The subject has much interest to WUWT reasons for several reasons. e.g.
    How does the paper accord with the series of WUWT articles by Bob Tisdale which have presented his ideas of how ENSO effects global temperature over decadal time scales?
    And what does this paper imply about climate sensitivity?
    And how will this paper affect contents of the IPCC AR5 when its closure date for considered papers has passed?
    And etc..

    All of these matters deserve consideration. But advocates of solar effects are hijacking this thread. Their interest is the NOT the only subject that matters, whatever some of them may think.

    There are other WUWT threads about solar effects on climate. I submit that those who want to flog their solar hobby horses should go to appropriate WUWT threads: two are active at present, i.e.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/30/accuracy-precision-and-one-watt-per-square-metre/
    and
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/29/a-new-understanding-of-the-solar-dynamo-published/

    Richard

  154. richard verney says:

    Stephen Wilde says:

    September 3, 2013 at 11:29 pm

    “…Although I am a trained lawyer I seek to use words as simply as possible so readers should not worry about any lawyerly subtexts. None such are ever intended…”
    /////////////////////////////
    Stephen

    Whilst it is good to use simple and readily understandable language, words inevitably carry with them their ordinary and accepted meaning. Some part of this meaning is implicit subtext. The word ‘avoid’ is one such word. It is not neutral in subtext, and I understand why Bob takes offence. Since he has raised this objection before, I would have thought that you would have refrained from expressing what you consider to be limitations in Bob’s analysis in similar fashion and more neutral wording would be employed by you.

    If you desire to be neutral and use simple and understandable wording, you can state that ‘Bob does not deal with X’ or ‘Bob only deals with X and does not deal with Y’.

    In Climate Science there is lots of data, the issue is its quality. In my opinion, most, if not very nearly all, is not fit for purpose, and one of the problems in this field is that data is overstrained, and there is not a proper recognition of its short comings, limitations and errors.

    I consider that Bob’s comment that you are working without data to be more than harsh, in fact to be wrong, but likewise I understand his point as to why he works with more recent data. But inevitably, that recent data is of short duration. Working with data of short duration even if that data is of better, or even good quality, imposes its own limitation.

    Given the age of the planet and the length of glacial and interglacial cycles, all data that we possess is woefully short in duration and incapable of addressing the heart of the issue, namely is planet Earth experiencing something unusual at this stage of an interglacial cycle? We would need high resolution data dealing with numerous glacial/interglacial cycles to shed light on that question.

    It is good to see that more attention is at long last being paid to the oceans. It is obvious that the oceans control the climate (are the driving force behind it) given that they account for two thirds of the surface and their heat capacity wholly overwhelms that of the atmosphere. We are a water planet and given the behavoir of water and its phase changes, this is fundamental. It has always baffled me why research has not concentrated on understanding the behavoir of the oceans, how they are heated, how they distribute that heat, the interaction with the atmosphere immediately above them, the generation of cloud formation and how they drive the jet streams etc.

    In my opinion, Willis will be able to refine his model once he appreciates that the equitorial/tropical oceans would not freeze over even if they received no DWLWIR, and the excess solar that they receive (ie., that which would heat them to above 28 to 30degC) is pumped around the globe thereby preventing the oceans outside the tropical regions freezing, or only freezing for part of the year.

    I am also of the view that the ‘new’ research looking more at the natural world, will reveal that the radiative model is misconceived and has been overplayed.

  155. Bob Tisdale says:

    Ulric Lyons says: “So that may seem to invalidate comparison of El Niño to La Niña strictly by frequency alone as they don’t necessarily each have the same value…”

    ENSO indices were chosen in efforts to reflect the impacts of El Nino and La Nina on surface conditions, not OHC. See Trenberth and Stepaniak (2001):
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/tniJC.pdf
    and Klaus Wolter’s Multivariate ENSO Index webpage:
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

  156. richard verney said:

    “The word ‘avoid’ is one such word. It is not neutral in subtext, and I understand why Bob takes offence”

    Then if that is the case I must express regret.

    In my mind the word ‘avoid’ is neutral. If I were to try to add a judgmental subtext I would have used the term ‘evade’.

    In my world, for example, tax evasion is illegal but tax avoidance is not.

    If I need to refer to the issue again I will simply say that Bob chooses not to go beyond the data which he uses in connection with his ENSO work and which is largely limited to the period since 1982.

    To get a better grip on the climate system as a whole one has to go way beyond that period because no discussion of natural variability can omit consideration of the Roman Warm Period, MWP, LIA and the other warm and cool periods.

    A similar point applies to Willis’s Thermostat Hypothesis which is limited to events in the tropics whereas it needs to be extended globally.

    Both Bob and Willis have done fine work but in both cases it needs to be extended for an integrated climate solution. Each is just a small part of the whole.

    Their work needs to be integrated one with the other, extended globally, extended back in time and integrated with the solar variations that appear to influence the entire global air circulation system on multiple time scales.

    That is what I have attempted to do. With some success, I hope.

  157. richardscourtney said:

    “There are other WUWT threads about solar effects on climate”

    Are there any that discuss how solar variation could skew the balance between El Ninos and La Ninas for centuries at a time to produce MWP, LIA et al?

    Given that the recent pause coincided with a quieter sun and the past warming coincided with an active sun that issue is at the heart of this thread especially since a similar relationship goes back to at least the MWP going by Jetstream tracks at the time as revealed by ships logs and contemporary weather reports.

    Has anyone else ever suggested that that is what is going on ?

  158. richard verney says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 4, 2013 at 1:11 am

    “…And what does this paper imply about climate sensitivity?…”
    //////////////////////////

    Quite obviously if the conclusion is correct that “Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and per- haps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature….” it follows that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 is lower than the IPCC presently ‘estimates’. I would say ‘guesses’ since until such time as natural variation is fully understood; precisely what it comprises of, the forcing associated with each and every constituent component, the direction of those forcings, and the upper and lower bounds of each and every constituent forcing, it is impossible to seperate the signal of CO2, from the noise of natural variation. Presently, we do not have sufficient knowledge and understanding of natural variation to do this, and hence any assessment of Climate Sensitivity is simply a guess, not an estimate. in my opinion, given the present state of play, it is highly disengenuous to talk about Climate Sensitivity estimates, when in reality they are nothing more than guesses.

    If one looks at the satellite data set (on the basis that it is not polluted by UHI, poor station siting, station drop outs etc) as being the most accurate record of atmospheric temperatures these past 33 years, there is no first order correlation between CO2 and temperature. There is no linear rise in temperature. Merely a one off and isolated temperature shift in and around the Super El Nino of 1998. That is quite remarkable if CO2 is the dominant driver of temperature here on planet Earth.

    Unless ENSO is in some way driven by CO2 (and no one has yet propsed a mechanism whereby this could be the case) one is left to conclude that from the satellite data set (which admittedly is only 33 years in duration but which covers a substantial proportion of manmade CO2 emissions), Climate Sensitivity is zero or so close to zero that presently it cannot be measured within the limitations imposed by the resolution, sensitivity and errors of our present day measuring equipment.

  159. richard verney says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    September 4, 2013 at 2:10 am
    ///////////////////////

    Stephen

    We both know that evade is a stronger word than avoid.

    The fact that evade is stronger does not mean that avoid is devoid of subtext.Even your illustration over tax illustrates the point. I accept the legal distiction raised, but you are no doubt aware of the political arguments being run against companies who quite legitimately arrange their corporate affairs so as to keep their tax liabilities to a minimum. The perception of this is that somehow tax avoidance is immoral. Politicians (and indeed commentators/MSM) are playing upon the sub text of the word avoidance. By using this the politicians are trying to give the impression that the actions of companies is wrongful and that they are legitimate targets to go after. As a side comment, the public are being duped, since they fail to appreciate that a company never bears any expense; all expenses (including tax) are passed onto the customers. Accordingly, if Starbucks, Amazon, Google etc are forced to pay more tax, the price of a cup of coffeee, or items bought on the internet etc will rise so that the general public will foot the bill of the increased tax burden imposed on companies, the cost of living will go up, people’s wages will not, in today’s economic environment, rise in line with this, and living standards will be squeezed. This might not be a problem, if it was only Starbucks who do not pay much tax, but it is widespread throughout large businesses (indeed some large businesses are even encouraged to domicile themselves with incentives of favourable tax status). As I say, that is a side issue, whether you or not you intend to play upon subtext, the word avoid does carry with it adverse sub text (albeit not as patent as the meaning of evade).

    Stephen, I do not join issue with the last 5 paragraphs. All of these are pieces of a jigsaw in the natural world, and when collated as a whole (with other pieces) we will begin to know and understand how the natural world functions. Whilst I sometimes have serious disagreements with some of what Willis has to state on some issues, I fully agree that Bob, Willis and you are all making valuable contributions and that your work (by which I mean all of you) is to be respected.

    PS. Whilst I understand Richard’s desire that a thread should not become hijacked or side tracked, I too share the view that solar is of some relevance to the ENSO issue. We need to know what drives it. Subtle solar variations may be a driver whether due to cloud formation, changes in jet streams or otherwise, and hence I see the relevance of discussing this to the extent that this is coupled into ocean heating and preferably into ENSO, its cycles and ENSO effects.

  160. “The perception of this is that somehow tax avoidance is immoral”

    I would submit that to be a corruption of the former neutral tone of the word.

    Nonetheless I do appreciate that Bob did take the word in a manner that was not intended.

    Note, though, that Bob expresses himself pretty robustly too and I could have taken more offence than I did at some of the things he has said to me.

    For the future I would hope for more mutual tolerance of words that might have slightly different meanings to different people.

  161. richard verney says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    September 4, 2013 at 3:43 am
    ///////////////////////

    Stephen

    I accept that the interpretation of language is complicated because there is inevitably a subjective element. No matter how objective one tries to be, there are always slight subjective variations. As a lawyer, you no doubt have more experience of this than most.

    In the tax argument (which is all the rage at the moment since governments are anxious to lay their hands on more money to keep their spendthrift desires afloat) avoiding tax is conflated with ‘not paying their fair share of tax’. This is all subtle sub text because governments wish to give the impression that companies are evading tax when in truth (at least for the main part) they are not, and politicians cannot use a word as strong as evade (which has a patent meaning) without being called out on their language.

    Avoid can (but not always) carry with it some underhand practice. A lay person may consider that terms and conditions are used to avoid liability which they see as an underhand practice, whereas, a lawyer may see them as simply defining the scope, terms and provisons of the contract. May be that is a subtle distinction, but I would venture to say that it is more than just a perceived distinction, and that is why there is Unfair Contract Terms legislation and indeed why there are various tenets of construction that may restrict reliance upon some such provisions.

    Anyway, enough of the semantics. I do not wish to side track this thread on such issues.

  162. Ulric Lyons says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    “In the end though I would expect to see more El Ninos during the MWP and today than there were during the depths of the Maunder Minimum / LIA.”

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N1/C3.php
    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N10/C1.php
    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V8/N37/C2.php

    “The more solar energy gets into the oceans the stronger or bigger can be El Ninos and the less gets in the weaker or smaller they must be.”

    No the stronger they are, the more energy gets out, else the SST would be lower, and the OHC higher.

  163. Ulric.

    Energy has to get in first before it can come out.

    I don’t disagree that an El Nino is an energy releasing process.

    As regards the links I see that the findings of others are very contradictory.

    I think the problem is that since the ENSO signal is then heavily modulated by events in other ocean basins the timing is all over the place and the signs vary from region to region depending on other factors such as the atmospheric circulation changes that follow from the interplay between top down solar and bottom up oceanic influences.

    As I said, I think the timing issues need to be resolved another day when the data is far better.

    The basic fact though is that more energy in must give more El Ninos and less energy in must give less or less strong El Ninos.

  164. Ulric Lyons says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    “As regards the links I see that the findings of others are very contradictory.”

    Cough them up, or else you are just hand waving.

    “The basic fact though is that more energy in must give more El Ninos and less energy in must give less or less strong El Ninos.”

    Impossible anti-physics, energy in is La Nina, energy out is El Nino.

  165. Ulric Lyons says:

    richardscourtney says:

    “But advocates of solar effects are hijacking this thread. Their interest is the NOT the only subject that matters, whatever some of them may think.”

    As far as I can see, the AGW Gorgon is now a headless zombie, as it got the Arctic all back to front: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/#comment-1398577
    Proving a solar driven case for ENSO would finish it off for good, why spoil such a good opportunity?

  166. JP says:

    “Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and perhaps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.” ”

    It seems to me that several people are piggy backing onto what Bob Tisdale has been saying for years. Too bad Bob couldn’t patent all of the work he’s done and charge royalties.

  167. Ulric Lyons:

    At September 4, 2013 at 6:09 am you ask me

    Proving a solar driven case for ENSO would finish it off for good, why spoil such a good opportunity?

    I answer
    because your performance on other threads demonstrates you are not capable of presenting a cogent case so it is not credible that you could ‘prove’ anything, why spoil this thread, too?

    Richard

  168. Ulric Lyons says:

    richardscourtney says:
    “because your performance on other threads demonstrates you are not capable of presenting a cogent case”

    Hot air, I am always concise and cogent. Not until it can be proved that ENSO is internally forced will I desist from pointing to the solar correlations: http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg

  169. Ulric Lyons says:

    richardscourtney says:

    “But advocates of solar effects are hijacking this thread.”

    I actually see it as you hijacking the thread with your agenda against solar hobby horses. You have not given any grounds for ruling out a solar influence.

  170. Pamela Gray says:

    The null hypothesis is internal variation, of which this thread is focused on. There is much to discuss with Bob and related to this paper. The thread has been hijacked. I have a solution. Ulric and Stephen wish to pursue a solar agenda. Let them hash it out between the two of them. I am done with both of them.

    As for patterns of frequent El Ninos and patterns of frequent La Ninas, this has always been a focus of data. But I am wondering if a pattern of El/La Nadas holds the key for coming coolness. I have pondered the ENSO anomalies and wondered if a pattern emerging with Nadas and subsequent deep cooling is there. But the data isn’t long enough. With neutral ENSO, the oceans are not getting recharged to the degree they should to lead up to a period of hotness. So maybe the key to predicting serious cooling is in the Nadas?

  171. Pamela Gray says:

    Now that climate scientists are focusing on ENSO variability, maybe the next focus should be on these Nada periods. The mechanism for significant recharge is clear sky La Nina’s. But what if the recharge is limited by a La Nada? The next El Nino won’t be as hot? What if the next La Nina is again a La Nada? The next El Nino won’t be as hot? If this pattern continues, we should see a gradual cooling and possibly serious cooling because El Nino’s won’t produce enough land heat to keep us (and our plants) temperately comfortable. Does the length or frequency of La Nada’s (poor rechargers) forecast coming serious cooling?

  172. Ulric Lyons:

    In attempt to stop you derailing this thread as you did the previous ENSO thread, I said to you

    because your performance on other threads demonstrates you are not capable of presenting a cogent case

    And at September 4, 2013 at 7:11 am you have replied

    Hot air, I am always concise and cogent.

    NO!
    A rational person does not call this “concise and cogent”

    Look, when I present my findings, that is all I shall do, I’m not wasting pages on discussing other peoples failed hypothesis.

    You wrote it on WUWT yesterday in the previous ENSO thread. It is at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/another-paper-blames-enso-for-the-warming-hiatus/#comment-1407289

    And it is a statement that you don’t want to discuss science rationally.

    Richard

  173. Let’s consider La Nadas as Pamela Gray suggests.

    The only way energy gets into the oceans without being offset by increased evaporation is via solar shortwave which is energetic enough to get past the evaporative layer.

    We can’t ignore solar influences because that is the only source of energy available. Note that energy is being released all the time during El Ninos, La Ninas and La Nadas.

    All that changes is the rate of that release.

    So some of the time the oceans are holding on to solar energy a little longer (La Ninas) and the air above cools because energy to space is greater than energy from the oceans.

    Sometimes the oceans release their energy a little sooner (El Ninos) and the air above warms because energy to space is less than energy from the oceans.

    La Nada suggests the rates of energy loss and gain for the air are about in balance so a pause rather than warming or cooling.

    But there is another factor.

    If there is more global cloud cover the rate of recharge will be reduced from what would otherwise it would have been during any given La Nina.

    If there is less global cloud cover the rate of recharge will be similarly increased.

    That can skew the balance between El Nino and La Nina.

    So we really do need another forcing element to account for the cloudiness changes and that has to be the top down solar effect.

    If the oceans were controlling the cloud cover the ocean cycles would simply fade away to a bare minimum once the recharge / discharge process achieved equilibrium at a given level of cloud cover but that never happens.

    The current observations implicitly reveal that some other factor altering cloudiness is destabilising the oceans’ attempts to achieve equilibrium with the air above.

    The longer term (beyond the 60 year PMO) cycles we see are therefore the negative system response from the oceans serving to offset the destabilising influence of that separate solar forcing effect on global cloudiness.

    Our CO2 emissions, in so far as they have an effect, would be indiscernible in comparison.

  174. Ulric Lyons says:

    richardscourtney says:
    “And it is a statement that you don’t want to discuss science rationally.”

    It essentially states that I have no need to discuss pseudo-science when presenting my findings. If you regard any existing papers on planetary-solar phenomena as science, you must have your bar set much too low.

  175. One item not to over look is visible solar light penetrates the ocean surface to a depth of 100 meters and it is this intensity of visible solar light which plays a significant role in the amounts of ocean heat content..

  176. Pamla Gray, I can’t get what you are trying to convey, other then the sun has nothing to do with anything.

  177. Ulric Lyons:

    In the unlikely event that anybody is interested in your words and their context, I copy the link for them here.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/another-paper-blames-enso-for-the-warming-hiatus/#comment-1407289

    Richard

  178. Pamela, most climate scientist if not all of them that do not have a vested interest in the global man made warming agenda are of the opinion that solar rules the climate.

    That is how it is, and today a new study came out which further confirms the solar/cosmic ray/cloud lower temperature connection.

    Pamela , you believe in what you want to and I suggest you should ignore all post that talk about a solar /climate connection, since it bothers you so much.

  179. JP says:

    “As for patterns of frequent El Ninos and patterns of frequent La Ninas, this has always been a focus of data. But I am wondering if a pattern of El/La Nadas holds the key for coming coolness.”

    Pam,
    I have always wondered what ENSO looked like during the MWP (800-1300AD) and the LIA (1300-1850)? Is our global climate always determined by ENSO? Could the LIA been brought on by some anomaly that works against Nature’s Thermostat?

  180. Richard Courtney, if various posters bother you why do you respond? It is just a waste of all of our time.

  181. Ulric Lyons, I appreciate you efforts, keep posting your thoughts going forward.

  182. Once very quiet solar conditions prevail(in the not to distant future once again) I expect the trend toward a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern will start to exert itself, which is and will be a mjor climate changer.

    A more SUSTAINED meridional atmospheric circulation will promote more clouds, more precip.,and more snow cover for the N.H. which will prove to be a climate changer if sustained over a period of time.

  183. Salvatore Del Prete:

    At September 4, 2013 at 10:20 am you write

    Ulric Lyons, I appreciate you efforts, keep posting your thoughts going forward.

    So, one thread hijacker supports another thread hijacker and neither says anything pertinent to the subject of the thread, but they whinge at complaints at their thread hijacking.

    No surprise there.

    Richard

  184. It is not important. What is important is finding out why, I think all of thecontributions are of value even ones I disagree with 100%.

  185. richard verney says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    September 4, 2013 at 8:22 am

    The null hypothesis is internal variation, of which this thread is focused on.
    …With neutral ENSO, the oceans are not getting recharged to the degree they should…”
    ////////////////////////////
    Pamela

    What recharges the oceans?

    Is this by any chance the sun and the solar energy that it radiates? If not this, what is it?

    If “the oceans are not getting recharged to the degree they should”, is this because total solar energy (which is not necessarily TSI) is less, or is it because less solar gets through to the ocean surface due to changes in the atmosphere, notably changes in cloudiness?

    If the latter, ie., changes in cloudiness, are the changes to cloudiness simply the result of energy changes going into the atmosphere (including differing amounts of water vapour) driven directly by the various ENSO states theemselves, or is due to some change brought about by an atmospheric reaction to changes within the sun (eg., perhaps something along the line that Svenmark postulates upon), and/or perhaps the earth’s own magnetic field?

    Clarification of your views on internal variation would be appreciated.

    PS. I do not disagree that there is a potentially a third state to consider that you call La Nada.

  186. Ulric Lyons says:

    Pamela Gray says:

    “The null hypothesis is internal variation, of which this thread is focused on.”

    That’s a Nil Hypothesis. Declaring it random provides no reasons for why the trade winds alter.

  187. Lawrence13 says:

    But I thought the sea was becoming warmer?

  188. phlogiston says:

    Here we go again. It seems necessary to remind ourselves that ENSO is an oceanic phenomenon, not an atmospheric or astrologicalastrophysical one. Few seconds on Google scholar (near the bottom of the list of the “more” options at google) reveal dozens of published papers over the last 3 decades demonstrating the nonlinear oscillatory dynamics of ENSO, and assessing among other thing forcing by astrophysical factors and other climate oscillations. Here are a few examples:

    http://cpb.iphy.ac.cn/EN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=22907

    http://grims-model.org/front/bbs/paper/gcm-1/CLM-GCM_1997-4_Nartin_P._Hoerling_et_al.pdf

    http://web.yonsei.ac.kr/climate/board/4/20090612072138217_2009-2_TAC_An.pdf

    http://lumahai.soest.hawaii.edu/MET/Faculty/jff/2004_02%20Nonlinearity%20and%20Asymmetry%20of%20ENSO.pdf

    http://www.lasg.ac.cn/UpLoadFiles/File/papers/2006/2006-dws.pdf

    http://o3d.org/web_db_data/articles/1995/Penland-1995.pdf

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/cane/MunnichEtAl1990.pdf

    The Bjerknes positive feedback between Peruvian upwelling and trade winds is the motor at the heart of the ENSO. ENSO is not however a continuous nonlinear oscillation like the heart beat, it is intermittent with probably neutral periods during which nonlinear oscillation is not taking place.

    The fact that el Nino peaks usually around Christmas shows that ENSO is under entrainment (this is a more accurate term than “forcing”) from the annual cycle at least. (I will at least concede to the solar brigade that winter and summer are real phenomena.)

    The major problem with all natural oscillations being forced like clockwork from astrophysical forcings is that they are not regular in the long term: the PDO is only 60 years periodic in the last century, looking further back there is wide variation in its time period. ENSO is also irregular, there is no monotonic periodicity that would be required if astrophysical forcing were dominant. A paradigm of a weakly forced nonlinear oscillator is much more compelling.

    The main motor of ENSO variation is internal, the Bjerknes feedback. There is a possible role for astrophysical cycles in weak forcing or entrainment.

    Weather is from the atmosphere. Climate is from the ocean. Live with it.

  189. Pamela Gray says:

    The variation of cloudlessness during a La Nina/La Nada event could be related to a teleconnection with the many large pressure systems set up via the Coriolis affect. These systems may themselves have a variety of swings and shifts that affect how much equatorial clear sky is or is not present during re-charge events. Certainly, by far, the greater variation in SWIR at Earth’s sea surface is the degree of cloudiness that SWIR has to penetrate, not some tiny solar difference emanating from the Sun.

  190. Pamela Gray says:

    I find this description of equatorial clouds, and clouds in general, fascinating and speaks to the role and variance of clouds in this debate.

    http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#TOP

  191. Brian H says:

    What’s “mind-blowing” to JC, and me, is that the paper acknowledged a major role for oceanic cycles. I’m waiting for the next shoe to drop, attribution of ENSO to CO2.

  192. Brian H says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 3, 2013 at 8:21 am

    Ouch! Sorry for the formatting disaster of the my last post.
    I miss the preview function.

    Richard

    Preview and more, like the blockquote above, available with the Greasemonkey add-on running the CA Assistant script (See the Climate Audit front page).
    Fonts, and links, and more.

  193. Ulric Lyons says:

    phlogiston says:
    “The main motor of ENSO variation is internal, the Bjerknes feedback.”

    It does not explain the switch, the current idea is that slosh does that:
    http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/enso.html
    And solar forcing is not in the slightest bit like clockwork.

  194. Ian Wilson says:

    Phlogiston said:

    The main motor of ENSO variation is internal, the Bjerknes feedback. There is a possible role for
    astrophysical cycles in weak forcing or entrainment.

    My response:

    So that would explain why there is a much greater than chance probability of finding an extreme perigean spring-tide (i.e. one that occurs close to perihelion) in the year prior to or the first year of an El Nino event?

    You are obviously not aware of the work of Claire Perigaud:

    http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2009/poster/Perigaud.pdf

    http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2009/poster/Perigaudabstract.pdf

  195. GlynnMhor says:

    Irrespective of what drives the PDO, ENSO, AMO, etc, if the downward leg of changes in the balance between nino and nina conditions is to be blamed for the stagnation in temperatures, the upward leg must have contributed commensurately to the most recent warming phase as well.

    That further constrains the estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2, since half of the warming previously assumed to be due to CO2 would actually have been due to natural factors.

  196. Ian Wilson says:
    September 5, 2013 at 4:39 am

    You are obviously not aware of the work of Claire Perigaud:

    Interesting paper which only confirms what I have found that is described here
    http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/enso-and-tidal-forcing.htm

    In my view the main forcings of ENSO are caused by tidal forcing and to some extent from variations in solar activity mostly from variations in the magnetic field.

    Right now I’m improving on the result I already have.
    I now also believe that I have nailed down how the physical connection with tidal forcing and ENSO operate.
    In fact there are numerous references to connections with gravitational forces and ENSO all over the place if you dig deep enough.

    What continue to baffle me is how scientists in this field are not able to look around for themselves and discover these thing.
    The mantra seems to be that “Correlation does not imply causation”.
    Although true, this is almost always wrong if the correlation is strong.
    Tthese people turn blind eyes to obvious strong correlations.
    Why is it that the close correlation between variations in LOD and ENSO doesn’t open up some curiosity by these scientists?

  197. Paul Vaughan says:

    phlogiston (September 4, 2013 at 6:47 pm) wrote:
    “It seems necessary to remind ourselves that ENSO is an oceanic phenomenon, not an atmospheric [...] one.”

    Atmosphere & ocean are coupled.
    Temperature, mass, & velocity are coupled.

    I’m particularly concerned that your knowledge base is crucially deficient in the area of wind-driven ocean surface currents.

    The strongest ocean surface temperature gradients are oriented along an equator-pole axis. These steep gradients drive the westerlies.

    The westerlies in each hemisphere vary with the annual insolation cycle.

    There is a more subtle amplitude variation caused by the solar cycle. THIS IS OBSERVED. (To suggest otherwise is darkly ignorant &/or deceptive denial that untenably asserts violation of the law of large numbers &/or the law of conservation of angular momentum. If you can’t see this independently, your foundations are deficient and you should go away to spend some time filling in background knowledge gaps before attempting serious discussion and wasting the time of the few who are prepared for serious discussion.)

  198. Greg says:

    CdF in addendum: “In de Freitas and McLean (2013) we also stayed away from looking for trends. Determining trends and implementing detrending procedures can be important steps in data analysis. However, there is no precise definition of ‘trend’ or any ‘correct’ algorithm for extracting it. Consequently, identification of trend in a time series is subjective because a trend cannot be unequivocally distinguished from low frequency fluctuations. For this reason, a variety of ad hoc methods have been used to determine trends and to facilitate detrending methods (which are also subjective). ”

    Thank you ! That itself should be published and taught to all climate students (and active scientists and PhDs alike).

    How much effort and ink has been wasted chasing these mythical “trends” in the last 30 years?

    Let’s hope that is over. (me, ever hopeful and optimistic)

  199. Greg Goodman says:

    IMO the correlation with ENSO is real but the idea that this makes it a “driver” of climate, largely an illusion.

    Willis has shown how tropical storms act as what he calls a ‘governor’ of tropical climate.

    I think have demonstrated it is stronger than a governor and infact is a strongly non-linear negative feedback that preserves the degree.day integral in the tropics. (This closer to an industrial PID controller).
    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=310

    Such a reaction cannot be the result of a linear feedback, it implies a strongly non linear one.

    Because TS events are well below the spacial resolution of climate models they are reproduced by cloud “parameters” that are fed into linear feedback models and thus can not reproduce such behaviour.

    I think the apparent ENSO driver is simply the difference of the REAL non-linear negative climate response in the tropics, from the linear model.

    ie if you model a linear neg. f/b and you really have a non linear climate there will a residual variation that correlates to tropical temperatures. This may _appear_ to be an additional climate “driver”.

  200. Paul Vaughan says:

    Per Strandberg (@LittleIceAge) (September 6, 2013 at 5:40 am) wondered:
    “Why is it that the close correlation between variations in LOD and ENSO doesn’t open up some curiosity by these scientists?”

    They are very curious in private, but few have the combination of background knowledge (from different fields) needed to pursue further advances.

    The most blinding failure is catastrophically insufficient attention to aggregation criteria. Traditional statistical inference makes assumptions of randomness that do not hold at all scales in turbulent systems. Avoiding paradoxical misinterpretation demands careful attention to hard constraints that hold for tuned spatiotemporal aggregates but not for others.

  201. Alec Rawls says:

    In his addendum, de Freitas writes about ENSO driven fluctuations in global mean temp:

    “I assume these are superimposed upon what seems for the moment to be the less potent CO2-caused warming, and likely other less potent mechanisms as well.”

    Wrong. If the last 15 yrs of no warming is because the sun has gone quiet then the solar influence is STRONGER than consensus scientists have been assuming. Is de Freitas really oblivious that the solar shift is an ideal natural experiment for distinguishing the solar and co2 theories of late 20th century warming? This sentence almost seems like a deliberate attempt to cover up the solar implications of the lack of recent warming.

    (Comment also posted on hot sheet mentioning de Freitas’ update)

    I appreciate that Chris does not assume that the lack of recent warming is a pause in warming, but could be the start of a cooling trend. Still, the obliviousness to the possible solar explanation is disturbing.

  202. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Whether the ENSO-caused multi-decadal trends are internal or forced is unknown. My guess is that cooling and warming trends we see, or hiatus, are probably due to natural internal variability rather than a forced response. But we don’t know.

    Chris de Freitas”

    Chris, take note of the differential response of terrestrial land & ocean to solar activity.

    Here’s an analogy. Light a huge fire right outside of a warehouse-sized deep-freezer. Open the door to the freezer. Point a variable-speed fan from the fire into the freezer. At constant fan speed, the fire-freezer temperature gradient will maintain stable spatial structure following equilibration. Whenever fan speed is changed there’s a period of adjustment.

    The observations are robust and the insights are extensible.

  203. Paul Vaughan says:

    @ Alec Rawls (September 6, 2013 at 9:07 am)

    Chris de Freitas appears tired of (and submissively timid of) the illogical sociopolitical acid attacks Joanne Nova underscores in her 50:1 interview (Joanne Nova 50:1 Interview (42:41) — well-worth careful attention start-to-finish).

    However, Chris is right to call out the thoroughly egregious methodological gamesmanship. There is no method no matter how robust that will not be maliciously sprayed with acid. Quantitatively clueless members of the audience will buy strictly-illogical acid attacks if they like the attacker. Such is the darker side of human nature — and ultimately that’s what we’re really up against, so it’s naive to expect facts to be a deciding factor in courts (both high & low) of social injustice.

  204. Keith says:

    Vukevic.
    What is is that you are tracking in your Pacific Tectonics measure? Is it plate convergence rate or what?

  205. Keith says:

    Paul Vaughan, Alec Rawls.
    Chris de Freitas is one of the heros here. As you probably know, he is the guy whose admission of a skeptic paper to J Climate caused resignations of warmists in 2003, and who was threatened with losing his job, as shown by Climategate emails.
    His co-authored papers are probably written in such a way as to be finally acceptable in reasonable journals in the present AGW regime, Cutting him and his co-authors some slack might be an idea.

  206. Paul Vaughan says:

    Keith, it seems you’ve misinterpreted. (Have you watched Joanne’s video?)

Comments are closed.