Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1

Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1

A guest post by Bob Tisdale

UPDATE 1 (January 12, 2009):

In my extremely brief description of an El Nino event, I wrote, “…and a subsurface oceanic temperature boundary layer called the thermocline pushes the warm subsurface water to the surface.” My oversimplification may be misleading, and while it does not undermine the intent of this post, a better explanation is available in the following video from NASA Scientific Visualization Studio video titled “Visualizing El Nino”: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a000200/a000287/a000287.mpg

If I rewrite that sentence in the future, it would read something to the effect, “During El Nino events, natural changes in atmospheric and oceanic conditions cause the warm water that was ‘contained’ by the Pacific Warm Pool to shift east along the equator. The warm subsurface water rises to the surface.”

h/t Gary for noting the poor wording.


NOTE: For those who are new to the subjects of El Nino events and sea surface temperatures, I’ve tried to make the following discussion as non-technical as possible without overlooking too many aspects critical to the discussion. It includes detailed descriptions of many of the processes that take place before, during, and after El Nino events. The period after an El Nino event is often neglected, but it holds the oceanic responses that are the most significant over multiyear periods.

INTRODUCTION

Two things have always stood out for me in a graph of Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST). The first was the Dip and Rebound in the ERSST.v2 version of the Extended Reconstructed SST data from the 1800s to the 1940s. The link above discussed it in detail.

In Figure 1, I’ve boxed SST anomaly data for the period from 1854 to 1976 to indicate that, other than the dip and rebound and the temporary rise in the early 1940s caused by a multiyear El Nino, there really wasn’t a rise of any note in SST between the late 1800s and the period from the mid-1940s to mid-1970s. The ERSST.v2 data used in this post illustrates little to no change in SST anomalies from the one period (late 1800s) to the other (mid-1940s to mid-1970s).

http://i42.tinypic.com/2ibc87o.jpg

Figure 1

Second: After 1976, Global SST anomalies appear to rise in three steps. It’s very visible if monthly SST anomaly data has been smoothed with a 37-month filter, Figure 2, or if annual data has been smoothed with a 3-year filter. Many people try to correlate those steps with variations in TSI, because they seem to coincide with solar cycles. They don’t, so those trying to make the correlation fail in their efforts.

http://i41.tinypic.com/29omma1.jpg

Figure 2

Zooming in on the period from January 1976 to present, Figure 3, and changing the filtering from 37-months to 12-months do not eliminate the appearance of steps. Why did Global SST rise in steps after 1976?

http://i41.tinypic.com/71mbd3.jpg

Figure 3

Based on the title of this post, the rising step changes were caused by El Nino events, three in particular. The NINO3.4 SST anomalies from January 1976 to November 2008 are shown in Figure 4. Most people familiar with the recent El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) record could guess correctly that the 1997/98 El Nino event was one of the El Ninos that caused a step change. If the magnitude of El Ninos was the only factor, the second logical choice would be the 1982/83 El Nino, since it ranks a close second in terms of peak NINO3.4 SST anomaly. Yet that El Nino event did not create a rising step change in global SST anomalies, because another natural event had a greater impact on global climate.

http://i44.tinypic.com/s46yhe.jpg

Figure 4

A volcanic eruption. The El Chichon eruption of 1982 interrupted the normal heat distribution processes of the 1982/83 El Nino. Many persons understand and cite this on blogs. Few realize, though, that the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo also interrupted a significant series of El Nino events. The Mount Pinatubo eruption didn’t occur at the same time as a singular El Nino event with monstrously high SST anomalies, but the string of El Ninos it influenced was significant in its length. “Full-fledged” El Nino events occurred in 1991/92 and 1994/95, with a minor El Nino occurring during 1993. At minimum, two of the early-to-mid 1990s El Ninos had their heat distribution processes altered.

REFERENCE ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 5 is a comparative graph of East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies, scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies, and inverted Sato Index of Stratospheric Mean Optical Thickness data (used as a reference of volcanic eruption timing and intensity). The data in Figure 5 have been smoothed with a 12-month running-average filter. The step changes in the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies are quite obvious. The graphs included in the following discussions are edited versions of Figure 5. In the latter graphs, I have simply limited the years in view to the periods being discussed. The three periods (January 1976 to December 1981, January 1981 to December 1995, and January 1996 to November 2008) are also shown in Figure 5. The periods were divided in this way because, working backwards in time, the first period discussed (1996 to 2008) has been covered in an earlier post and is, therefore, easiest to explain, the second period (1981 to 1995) includes the two volcanic eruptions, and the third period (1976 to 1981) is what was left over. Note that the NINO3.4 and Sato Index data are provided to illustrate timing and timing only; they have not been scaled to suggest magnitude of cause and effect. I did not want to get into a debate about scaling.

http://i44.tinypic.com/10oe6uo.jpg

Figure 5

In Figure 6, I’ve blocked off the area of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans illustrated by the black curve in Figure 5 and in illustrations that follow. The coordinates are 60S to 65N, 80E to 180. It represents a significant portion of the world oceans, in the range of 25 to 30% of global sea surface from 60S to 65N.

http://i39.tinypic.com/5n55as.jpg

Figure 6

Figure 7 is a comparative graph of the NINO3.4 SST anomalies, inverted Sato Index, and the SST anomalies for the oceans segments not included in the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomaly dataset above. These include the East Pacific, the Atlantic, and the West Indian Oceans contained by the coordinates 60S-65N, 180-80E. The East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean data (red curve) is overlaid onto the East Indian-West Pacific data (the black curve in Figure 5) during the discussions that follow to show the interactions between datasets.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2ljgxon.jpg

Figure 7

A final preliminary note: The filtering is used to reduce the visual impact of the noise within the datasets. It also affects (smoothes) the abruptness of the change in the Sato Index data when the volcanoes erupted. It has a minor visual impact, but it is something to consider when viewing the graphs that include the volcanic eruptions (Part 2). The impacts of the smoothing are shown in Figure 8.

http://i39.tinypic.com/be5x6a.jpg

Figure 8

A VIDEO

I illustrated the cause of the step change AFTER the 1997/98 El Nino in a video posted on the thread titled The Lingering Effects of the 1997/98 El Nino. The YouTube link is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uv4Xc4D0Dk

Take five minutes and watch the video. It will help to illustrate the phenomena taking place and the causes.

Note: In the graphs for the video, I used the Optimally Interpolated SST anomaly data (OI.v2). The monthly time-series data for it starts in November 1981, and since I wanted to cover the period starting in 1976 in this post, I had to switch datasets. The SST anomaly data used in the following discussion is from the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature, Version 2 (ERSST.v2), available from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). It runs from January 1854 to present.

THE STEP CHANGE FROM 1996 TO PRESENT – A RECAP AND EXPANSION OF DISCUSSION

The SST anomalies for the West Indian-East Pacific Oceans from January 1996 to November 2008 are shown in Figure 9, along with scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies and the final few years of the inverted Sato Index data. The Sato Index ends in 1999, but because there has not been an explosive volcanic eruption capable of lowering global temperatures significantly since 1991, its end in 1999 has no affect on the discussion.

Note: You may wish to click on the TinyPic link (While holding the “Control” key) to open Figure 9 in a separate window. That would eliminate the need to scroll back and forth. This discussion goes on for a full page of single-spaced text in MSWord form.

http://i43.tinypic.com/zxr6vc.jpg

Figure 9

The Pacific Warm Pool, also known as the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, is an area in the western equatorial Pacific and eastern Indian Ocean where huge volumes of warm water collect due to a number of natural processes (normally attributed to ocean currents and trade winds). The Pacific Warm Pool is visible in SST data and in subsurface ocean temperature data; the warm pool reaches down to depths of 300 meters. Figure 10 illustrates its location. Over decadal periods of time, it expands and contracts in area and increases and decreases in volume. http://i42.tinypic.com/2hdqydy.jpg

Figure 10

During El Nino events, natural changes in atmospheric conditions cause the warm water that was “contained” by the Pacific Warm Pool to shift east along the equator, and a subsurface oceanic temperature boundary layer called the thermocline pushes the warm subsurface water to the surface. The high SST anomalies in the eastern equatorial Pacific are known as an El Nino. It is a natural process that occurs at irregular intervals and magnitudes. The eastern equatorial Pacific SST anomaly data is divided into areas for monitoring purposes. Refer to Figure 11. These areas are known as NINO1, 2, 3 and 4. Global temperature responses to El Nino events correlate best with the SST anomalies of an area that overlaps NINO3&4 areas. That area is called NINO3.4. That’s the data set used in the following discussions.

http://i44.tinypic.com/97qt08.jpg

Figure 11

Back to the discussion of Figure 9: The purple curve in Figure 9 shows the SST anomalies for the NINO3.4 area [5S-5N, 170W-120W] in the eastern Pacific. The data has been reduced in scale by a factor of 0.2 so that it doesn’t overwhelm the graph. During the 1997/98 El Nino event, NINO3.4 SST anomalies rose to their highest levels during the 20th century. Its impact is visible in the long-term and short-term Global SST anomaly data shown in Figures 2 and 3. It affected global and regional temperature and precipitation patterns in the short term afterwards.

That’s usually about the end of a discussion of the 1997/98 El Nino. The video showed, however, that other processes continue long after an El Nino event. Much of the heat that rises to the surface during the El Nino is then transported west by the equatorial ocean currents, recharging the Pacific Warm Pool for the next El Nino and heating the surface of the East Indian-West Pacific Oceans. It’s important to keep in mind that before the El Nino most of the warm water was below the surface, contained by the Pacific Warm Pool. Since it’s below the surface to depths of 300 meters, it is not a part of the calculation of global SST, or global temperature, for that matter. Then, after the El Nino, much of it is on the surface and included in the SST data. The resulting rise in the SST anomalies of the East Indian-West Pacific Oceans (the black curve in Figure 9) lags the change in NINO3.4 SST anomaly by a few months. As shown, East Indian-West Pacific Ocean SST anomalies reached their peak in 1998, but by that time, NINO3.4 SST anomalies had already dropped back to “normal” levels. Then the NINO3.4 SST anomalies dropped further, into the subsequent La Nina (Negative) levels, but the East Indian-West Pacific Ocean SST anomalies only dropped a portion of the amount they had risen, about one-half of it. And before the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies can slowly decrease fully to the levels they were at before the 1997/98 El Nino, NINO3.4 SST anomalies increase in 2000 and cause the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies to rise again. That’s the step change.

In summary, a large volume of warm water that was once below the surface of the Pacific Warm Pool was raised to the surface by the El Nino and distributed across the surface of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans, causing SST anomalies to rise in that region. East Indian-West Pacific Ocean SST anomalies began to drop but had not had enough time to return to “normal” before the start of the next El Nino event, which swept them upwards again.

They are slowly returning to the levels they were at before the 1997/98 El Nino, but because they were “pushed” higher again and again by the El Nino events of 2002/03, 2004/05, and 2006/07, the return has taken more than a decade.

In Figure 12, I’ve added the SST anomalies for the East Pacific, Atlantic, and West Indian Oceans to the comparative graph. (It’s another graph you may want to open in a separate window.) The East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies mimic the rise and fall of the NINO3.4 SST anomalies during the 1997/98 El Nino—to a point. Note how, during the La Nina that followed it, the NINO3.4 SST anomalies have dropped well below the levels they had been at before the start of the 1997/98 El Nino (highlighted with the blue line and arrows), yet the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies don’t follow the NINO3.4 SST anomalies below the level they had been at before the 1997/98 El Nino to any great extent; that’s another (but smaller) cause of the step change in Global SST anomalies after the 1997/98 El Nino. Then the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies follow the rise in NINO3.4 SST anomalies from 2000 to late 2002, the peak of the next El Nino. And, from 2003 to present, the SST anomalies for both of the major portions of the global oceans (red and black curves) “normalized” to levels near to one another, modulating back and forth as each area, at different time lags, responds to variations in NINO3.4 SST anomalies. These include the additional El Nino events of 2004/05 and 2006/07, and finally a substantial La Nina in 2007/08. Because of that La Nina, the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies (red curve) have dropped down close to the levels they had been at prior to the 1997/98 El Nino, but it has taken more than 10 years.

http://i40.tinypic.com/21o6a0z.jpg

Figure 12

In Figure 13, the Global SST anomaly curve from January 1976 to November 2008 (same graph as Figure 3) has been annotated to indicate the causes of the step change. As illustrated and discussed in the preceding, the temperature rise resulted from the significant step response of the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies to the 1997/98 El Nino event–that was compounded by a similar response (but of lesser magnitude) to the 2002/03 El Nino—that was then “maintained” by the El Nino events of 2004/05 and 2006/07.

http://i44.tinypic.com/hunip3.jpg

Figure 13

CLOSING TO PART 1

That’s enough for one post. In the second part, I’ll cover the two earlier periods. For a preview, simply scroll back up to Figure 5 and note the step changes during those two periods and the effects of the two volcanic eruptions. (Remember that the Sato Index data is only there to illustrate the timing of the volcanic eruptions.) I’ll also add another phenomenon that confirms the step changes caused by the El Nino events are drivers of global temperature anomalies.

SOURCES

Smith and Reynolds Extended Reconstructed SST Sea Surface Temperature Data (ERSST.v2) and the Optimally Interpolated Sea Surface Temperature Data (OI.v2) are available through the NOAA National Operational Model Archive & Distribution System (NOMADS).

http://nomads.ncdc.noaa.gov/#climatencdc

The Sato Index Data is available from GISS at:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/

Specifically:

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

213 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 12, 2009 9:27 am

erlhapp (08:23:33) :
the solar wind and the strength of the Earths own magnetic field is involved in determining the issue. We are well aware that ozone is due to the interaction of the suns radiation with the atmosphere.
The solar wind and the Earth’s magnetic field have nothing to do with ozone production and heating of the small amount of ozone in the troposphere has no effect on the surface temperature. Surface pressure is a measure of the total weight of all the molecules of the air. The ‘physics’ of the ‘explanation’ is muddled beyond refutation.

Steve Berry
January 12, 2009 9:27 am

Temperature of troposphere at 36km and 31 km continues to be very low http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

January 12, 2009 9:42 am

Willem de Rode, you wrote, “As far as I can see, El Nino can explain some local lows and hight in the temperatures during the months following on an El Nino event. As far as I am aware this is a wether-problem and not a climate problem. In my opinion the article fails completely to explain the underlaying trend of increasing temperatures.”
This post illustrated the causes for the step change in temperature during the period of 1996 to 2008. Part 2 of this post illustrates the step changes that occurred during the periods of January 1981 to December 1995 and January 1976 to December 1981. Putting all three together explains the overall rise since 1976.
MartinGAtkins, you wrote, “I’m wondering if what we have seen over the last eleven years is the pushing of the warm water into the slightly land locked waters to the north. In other words It is all one event.”
Martin, there are those who believe that the La Nina following in an El Nino is part of the process of the equatorial Pacific returning to its “normal” state. Sometimes I look at the period of this discussion and think that the smaller El Ninos in 2002/03, 2004/05 and 2006/07 are really just aftereffects of the 97/98 El Nino.
A few months ago, I was playing with the graphs of NINO3.4 anomaly data and came up with what looked like a saw-toothed pattern in NINO3.4 data.
http://i39.tinypic.com/28s7bl2.jpg
Or are there multiple out-of-phase cycles?
http://i43.tinypic.com/25rdt1e.jpg
I don’t consider those two graphs evidence of anything. But things like that help me think out of the box.

Richard deSousa
January 12, 2009 9:50 am

I’ve always believed our oceans dictate our climate. Earth is essentially a water planet and the oceans act like a huge solar cell gathering and storing energy from our sun. The cycles of warm and cool climate are the natural oscillations of energy released by our oceans in step with the variation of energy from our sun. CO2 is a minor gas and has a small effect on our climate but not to the extent as claimed by the proponents of AGW by CO2.

January 12, 2009 9:52 am

Steve Berry (09:27:35) :
the link doesn’t quite work as is…folks may need to use this one.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

Ron de Haan
January 12, 2009 10:02 am

Willem de Rode (08:27:05) :
“As far as I can see, El Nino can explain some local lows and hight in the temperatures during the months following on an El Nino event.
As far as I am aware this is a wether-problem and not a climate problem.
In my opinion the article fails completely to explain the underlaying trend of increasing temperatures”.
Willem Rode,
This article represents a serious and well documented attempt to explain the Global Warming from 1976. The reason for this detailed analysis based on the fact that it was not caused by CO2.
When we look at the amount of warming that has taken place we talk about 0.6 degree Celsius between 1976 and 1998 which cover a period 22 years.
Even this period is too short to establish any climate claims although ice core studies showed extreme transitions from warm to cold periods taking place within a period of 10 to 15 years.
A period of 100 years would be more realistic but even than we can only point out slight trends.
Despite this fact, this small rise of 0.6 degree Celcius over a 22 year period until 1998 is used (misused) by the United Nations IPCC to motivate their doctrine of the AGW/Climate Change.
Despite scientific fact finding, studying ice cores, ocean sediments, tree rings etc. etc. and despite the current cooling phase since 2004, the AGW Public Relations machinery keeps on selling the public a hoax claiming that CO2 is catastrophic climate driver.
CO2 will cause the atmosphere to heat up causing disaster by rising sea levels caused by melting ice and thousands of other related disasters which WILL happen unless humanity stops burning carbon fuels and returns to the Stone Age.
The pathetic 0.6 degree Celsius warming between 1976 an 1998, corrupt climate models based on corrupt manipulated temp data is used to make their claim of disaster and force Governments World Wide to introduce legislation that will destroy their economies.
Just for the record:
1. IPCC claims that CO2 is a climate driver.
The higher the CO2 levels, the higher the temperature.
A. CO2 never has been a climate driver and never will be.
Records show that if temperatures rise, CO2 levels rise and not the other way around.
B. Despite rising CO2 levels between 1998 and today, temperatures have been stable between 1998 and 2004. From 2004 the temperatures are decreasing.
Therefore the very basis of the AGW doctrine is disqualified.
You remark that the El Nino and it’s effects must be regarded as weather events rather than climate events is correct.
For the same reason to call the 0.6 degree Celsius increase in temperature between 1976 and 1998 is Climate Change = WRONG.
Especially because similar conditions happened before the second World War when temperatures were higher than today with 1934 as the warmest year of the last Century.
Unfortunately the moment an El Nino year turns up hot, the IPCC lobby calls it “Climate Change” whereas a five year long period of cooling is called “Weather masking the trend of Global Warming”.
This kind of BIAS attitude kills any bases for an open discussion and results in the following question:
Who are the real deniers?
Don’t you agree?

January 12, 2009 10:25 am

not a good idea….why isn’t this considered pollution?
Climate Hackers dump iron into ocean, tests global warming solution
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40950/113/

bucko36
January 12, 2009 10:53 am

Bob,
Thanks for your “steller” efforts. Your search for a “Scientific supported rebuttal” of the “Non-Scientific/Polictically motivated” hoax of AGW is a breath of fresh air. I’m looking forward to your updates.

Bill Marsh
January 12, 2009 11:38 am

Pearl,
Because it’s being done for a ‘good’ cause. Just like vandalizing a coal fired power station is not a crime, its a justifiable defense of the planet.

January 12, 2009 11:43 am

Bill, I was wondering when someone was going to mention that! LOL

January 12, 2009 11:58 am

What was the origin of those El Nino….or we are to remember Edgard Cayce´s words “when something happens in the pacific ocean area we´ll know it has begun…”

hunter
January 12, 2009 12:27 pm

Bob,
What I guess I am seeing is that cycles of warming and cooling in the Pacific can account for basically everything the alarmists are promoting as an impending apocalypse.
Spender sees CO2 as having a net positive temperature impact this century in the range of 1oC. He seems to believe that non-CO2 drivers dominate the global climate and that CO2 is a bit player. That appears to be far closer to reality than the carbon obsessed movements so popular today.

hunter
January 12, 2009 1:18 pm

{That would *Spencer*}
sorry about that, Dr. Spencer.

January 12, 2009 1:26 pm

Bob, thanks for the comprehensive reply and all the links to ‘warm pool indices’.
Erl, stick with it, the solar-magnetic-climate connection is hiding there somewhere. Glad to see you guys talking on the same blog, I’m sure you both have the answer within your collective grasp if you can just synchronise your lines of thinking.

January 12, 2009 2:17 pm

Adolfo Giurfa, you wrote, “What was the origin of those El Nino…”
In my reply to otowi, I suggested a webpage in which Bill Kessler of NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory answers “Occasionally asked questions” about El Nino events. Hopefully, it will answer yours.
http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/occasionally-asked-questions.html

Gerard
January 12, 2009 2:24 pm

This is all very factual and easily understood however the hearts and minds of the general public and unfortunately the they still firmly believe in AGW, particularly here in Australia. In discussion with good hearted stall holder at a local farmers market who was trying to raise interest in a community windfarm to save the planet and he was doing a brisk trade in literature promoting this nonsense. On a worse front, large corporations like Hydro Tasmania/Roaring Forties are about to receive vast taxpayer subsidies to destroy the landscape of Macedon Ranges in central Victoria with 135m tall turbines and it all being supported by locals because it wil save Kakadu, the Great Barrier Reef and the planet.

Ed Scott
January 12, 2009 2:26 pm

Professor denies global warming theory
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”

gary gulrud
January 12, 2009 2:34 pm

Erl, I think the non-native English speakers are having a hard time with your syntax.
For my own part, do you mean to imply that current low levels of Ionospheric heating and ozone production with low UV mean the effect of what UV there is is enhanced in tropospheric cloud production and albedo?

Tim
January 12, 2009 2:52 pm

This should be published in a journal.
I’ve argued time and again on other sites that the temperature increase since the ’90s is not what one would expect from CO2.
The 1979-1997 troposphere satellite temperature is nearly flat and so is the post 1998 temperature, except that the post ’98 temperature is stepped up by around 0.2 C or so. That screams El Nino to me effect to me.
Why has the climate research world not taken more note of this?

smellytourist
January 12, 2009 3:02 pm
Ray
January 12, 2009 3:06 pm

The Pravda pubished an article about the next ice age: http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-0/

tommyb
January 12, 2009 3:15 pm

Very interesting. Here’s what I don’t understand….everyone seems to be looking for that smoking gun. Here’s a case with this study(even though it makes sense). There seemed to be a correlation with sun activity up to a point in the 70’s. Perhaps CO2 has had an effect. Isn’t it possible that there is, for lack of better terms, a collaborative effect of many different forces driving the climate warmer? No single event seems to explain everything. With the AGW crowd, they seem able to accept only one cause–man made C02, with natural forcings being a much lesser player. In fact, largely through their efforts to ‘debunk’ everything, they’ve shown me how all these variables were major forcings in the past. Their reasoning goes “it can’t be this, because, and it can’t be that because, and certainly not those because…etc.” Yet I’m wonder, well, maybe not one of those by themselves, but what about all of them together? or just a combination of a few? Admittedly, until a few months ago, I believed Al Gore told me everything I needed to know about climate change. I was scared. Just on a whim, I googled “scientific consensus”. Almost immediately, I felt hood-winked. So I’ve wasted a lot of my time visiting one snarky blog after another(this one far better than most), and my conclusion is what I said above, only slightly behind the thought–I don’t think anyone has any idea what’s really going on!?

January 12, 2009 3:22 pm

Leif Svalgaard (09:27:07) :
And with that dismissal we see the old adage demonstrated:
‘You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink’.
This is dismissal relying upon established authority that refuses to engage in discussion of the critical issues.
Progress depends upon a spirit of goodwill, and in this case the identification of statements that are regarded as contentious and those that are not.
What is it that renders ozone that is below the tropopause somehow immune to solar radiation while that above the tropopause is not. Why is it that, south of the equator down to 35°south, temperature at the tropopause and to a variable depth below, peaks in August and the more strongly so depending upon the coolness of the air (the strength of downdraft)?
Talking about the weight of molecules above a point on the surface of the Earth gets us precisely nowhere in understanding the dynamics driving the strength of high pressure cells or the waxing and waning of the easterly winds that drive the ENSO phenomenon.
Looks to me like you are batting for the other side. There is no goodwill. Any notion that the sun influences the atmosphere below the tropopause is obviously anathema and to be resisted by whatever means. The notion that ozone absorbs UVB and is heated imparting warmth to adjacent molecules is to be denied.
The solar signal is present at the tropopause in the tropics. The tropopause in the tropics is less reactive than it is outside the tropics and in the high pressure cells of mid latitudes of the southern hemisphere in particular. This issue must be faced and faced squarely.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Ben Kellett
January 12, 2009 3:27 pm

Bob
This is a really interesting article but in interested in what has been responsible for so many recent El Ninos.
I know some have already asked this question and I am also aware that El Ninos are supposed to be driven by natural processes. But just to ask the obvious – surely if there is more heat around generally, would it not be plausible to accept that the massive expanse of Pacific Ocean might just absorb a little more than its own fair share of that heat – and might this in turn not drive more El Nino type events?
This is not to suggest that AGW is responsible but it might be one among many possible explanations.
Ben

Ed Scott
January 12, 2009 3:30 pm

In support of Dr. Spencer’s comments on the review process for scientific journals.
————————————————————-
Science Fiction Down On The Farm
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/01/08/science-fiction-down-on-the-farm/
Science reputedly is the world’s most prestigious refereed science journal in the world.
“…it’s pretty bad science fiction. Good science fiction is at least plausible.”
You know the paper’s going to be bad from the first sentence: “The food crisis of 2006-2008 demonstrates the fragile nature of feeding the world’s human population.”
Never mentioned is that this “crisis” was largely due to a knee-jerk political reaction—huge ethanol mandates—in response to climate science alarmism. That crisis was caused by papers like this.
Science has just published bad science fiction hiding as a rigorously peer-reviewed paper. No serious reviewer who is a serious student of global warming would let such document stand unless he or she wanted to for other reasons. Did we mention that the Congress is about to debate global warming legislation?