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 10:21 pm

maksimovich (20:28:28) :
In an interesting paper K. G. Pavlakis et al have found that changes in downward shortwave radiation (by changes in cloud cover) are a significant forcing in the enso oscillation.
If I read this correctly, more clouds => less El Nino

Pamela Gray
January 12, 2009 10:26 pm

I’m wondering if we can splice pre-station dropout temp anomalies with satellite data over at woodfortrees. It would be nice to have that graph to play with.

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 12, 2009 10:45 pm

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.
Harvesting a minor nit…. is this what I do in Safari on my Mac, or do I need to use Firefox on my Linux box to do this?
I don’t do Micro$oft … civilized people know better …

January 12, 2009 10:47 pm

E.M.Smith (22:19:06) :
The present patterns of weather and solar output make it very clear to me that the sun is the big driver with ocean oscillations making the harmony.
Is your denial contingent on the solar connection? I mean, would not AGW be a lie on its own ‘merit’ without using the solar crutch? If somebody showed tomorrow that the Sun was not the primary driver, would you stop your denial?

Richard Sharpe
January 12, 2009 11:04 pm

OK folks. That’s it. We had record high temps in Santa Rosa today, so AGW is confirmed.

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 12, 2009 11:12 pm

Some say 10 or more before a change and already at global temperatures at 14deg C we are in danger of food being very scarce especially in 3rd world countries.
While I generally agree with what you say, i must point out that it takes 10 pounds of feed to make one pound of beef. A 10:1 “feed ratio”; and that 10 pound of grains was ‘dry’ while the beef is ‘wet’ (i.e. 10 pounds of dry grain become more like 40 pounds after cooked and hydrated..) Pork is a 3:1 conversion ratio as is chicken. Farmed fish are often 1:1 and sometimes even “fraction:1” (i.e. more ‘wet’ pounds of fish per dry pound of grain fed)
The point? While what you’ve said is true, the world could easily eat less beef and more chicken and fish during such a crisis and no one needs to go hungry. (Sadly, we probably won’t do that and folks will most likely starve as a consequence, but such is “the dismal science” of Economics…)
I’ve said this before, and I’ll keep on saying it, there is no reason for anyone to go hungry or suffer. We have available to us effectively unlimited energy, materials, food & water. It is only because of our limited imagination and will that anyone starves. But such is the dismal science of politics…

January 12, 2009 11:41 pm

Leif Svalgaard (19:33:45) :
“Meanwhile, the solar flux is increasing”. From the ‘is’ one might presume you mean now, in which case everybody here knows you are in error.
No error at all. Solar flux has been increasing since October 2008. See: http://www.solen.info/solar/
The interesting issue for me is the timing of the next warming event and the mode of causation. I think I have a better model than NOAA, the W.M.O. the BOM and a couple of dozen others. The issue is: when will 200hPa temperature rise and surface pressure fall in the South East Pacific. The news is that 2008 brought significant change from 2007 levels and past performance indicates that an increase in sea surface temperature is to be expected unless 200hPa temperatures in the south east Pacific quickly return to 2007 levels. In December, 200hPa temperature sat at close to the long term average. The next three months will tell the story. Meanwhile the clear sky UV index shows a strong increase in UV at the surface in January 2009 over 2008 levels. See http://www.temis.nl/uvradiation/world_uvi.html
Your summary of my ideas reveals either a failure of comprehension or a strong desire to ridicule. I have read enough of your responses to have worked out that you willingly feign lack of comprehension and use ridicule as a tool to belittle and discourage.
“the solar wind compacts the atmosphere making it more difficult for UV, that heats the upper troposphere which in turn heats the surface, to penetrate and hence leads to cooling”.
That’s a very poor effort. It makes no sense to me at all. There is nothing very complex about what I am saying. I am sure you can do better. Why not have a go?

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 12, 2009 11:42 pm

Bobby Lane (23:22:01) :
Off topic slightly but still very relevant to the overall discussion: the Russian newspaper Pravda is predicting the beginning of another Ice Age for the Earth to begin soon. […]
Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.”

Bobby, nothing personal. This has been posted a dozen times by others, you just happen to be the one that’s pushed me over the edge…
The key word here is “soon” which I’ve bolded above. Please realize that ‘soon’ in geologic time is somewhere between now and 40,000 years from now! Honest. We might have already started entering the next ice age when the Little Ice Age began a couple of hundred years ago, or it might start 10,000 or 20,000 or even 40,000 years from now depending on what you assume about the galactic central plane crossing, the cosmic ray flux, or the Milankovitch cycles. For all practical purposes (i.e. the lifetime of my children and their children to come) it just doesn’t mean anything… Chill dude!
To add some value to this post: If you have never tried Steinlager, the beer from New Zealand, it is a wonderful beer. A Very Hoppy lager style. A bit of a “getting used to” beer, but man, once to get used to the hops, nothing else comes close. (Yes, I’m into it a 6 pack+ at the moment… but it is one of the few truly stellar beers of the world.)

maksimovich
January 13, 2009 12:01 am

Leif Svalgaard 22:21:17) :
maksimovich (20:28:28) :
In an interesting paper K. G. Pavlakis et al have found that changes in downward shortwave radiation (by changes in cloud cover) are a significant forcing in the enso oscillation.
If I read this correctly, more clouds => less El Nino
Ah if causal mechanisms were that simple.
It provides an inverse driver(negative feedback) for the asymmetric oscillator.eg chanfes in wind direction-(and or velocity) changes in the slope of the thermacline,cold upwelling and so on.
The important part of the paper is the 7 month frequency signal,very close to the 8 month intrasannual frequency signal found .
The irregular periodicity in longer timescale and in other indicators such as the SOI suggest the dampening (dissipative ) mechanisms are not fully understood .
If we do not understand first the qualitative attributes of the limit cycle of the oscillator (and its multiple attractors and variance there of) how can one a) apply causal mechanisms and b) prediction.
Thus this an additional tool for diagnosis.

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 13, 2009 12:19 am

DR (08:22:12) :
ENSO may not be linked to solar activity, but what heat source can warm the oceans other than the sun? Water in liquid form stores 1000x more heat than water vapor, and land does not to any insignificant degree. As water stores heat, it also emits it efficiently,

Not advancing a theory, just harvesting a nit… There is all that heat from U and Th decay in the planet core that shows up as mid ocean volcanic ridges. That might be a competitor to sunshine… at least, to me, a 600F vent implies some ability to make water warmer…

January 13, 2009 12:33 am

Bob Tisdale
“Or may ultimately lie in the causes of variations in solar irradiance at the surface, such as cloud cover and volcanic aerosols.”
Paul Lindsay
“The only energy source is sunlight and it seems that the simplest explanation for the heating is a local reduction in clouds.”
Maximovich
The Pavlakis paper is pivotal. Pavlakis uses maps to identify areas where the increase in short wave flux (sunlight) accounts for strong local heating during El Nino events. The Western Pacific loses cloud during El Nino events and warms accordingly.
I could not agree more with the proposition that it is cloud cover that accounts for warming and cooling. This is the simplest and most obvious proposition. I wonder if it has occurred to Leif? By the look of his near incomprehensible query to Maximovich “If I read this correctly, more clouds => less El Nino” he might have the thing 180 degrees out of whack. Could this be another (deliberate) failure of comprehension.

January 13, 2009 2:01 am

A FEW THOUGTHS ON GLOBAL WARMING:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com

January 13, 2009 2:45 am

Bill Illis, you wrote, “My biggest comment is to dampen down the smoothing and filters so that one can be sure the smoothing is not causing an artifact…”
Good thought. I’ll see what the two short-term graphs from this post and the others in part two look like with the raw data added. I can set the raw data at a low weighting with the same color as the smoothed data, making them appear like ghosts in the background. I can then refer those who are skeptical because of the smoothing to those graphs. Good idea, thanks.
BillC, you wrote, “Thanks, that is a very interesting article – though I suspect a prevalence of El Ninos (or La Ninas) does not explain all decadal temperature changes. After all there has been a rising temperature trend for a century. The Positive Enso phases (1910-1940’s and 1976-2000), have a steeper slope than the Negative phase (1940s to 1975).”
BillC, take a look at Part 2. Combined, I’ve covered three decades. The step changes in the East Indian-West Pacific Oceans imply that the frequency and magnitudes of ENSO events (that aren’t effected by volcanic eruptions) establish the slopes or the shape of the Global SST anomaly curve, which is why a running total of that one NINO3.4 dataset (HADSST with base years of 1950 to 1979) creates a curve that mimics the global SST anomaly curve. Refer to Figure 21.
Kum Dollison, you wrote, “It just occurred to me that the SST slope was steeper in the ‘pre’industrial 1910 – 1945 period than it was in the ‘Industrial’ 1970 – 2005 period. It’s gotta be ‘mostly’ the sun.”
That part of your comment reminded of this. The AGW hypothesis says that greenhouse gases should warm the skin and the mixing layer of the oceans and increase subsurface temperatures as well by locking in more heat. My skepticism about that part of the hypothesis results when I look at graphs of time-series data of global SST. Below, I’ve plotted Global SST anomalies over the term of the ERSST.v2 dataset, monthly data, smoothed with 37-month filter.
http://i35.tinypic.com/atsz03.jpg
I haven’t physically added trends to the graph because the disparity is so great. Note that the rate of rise in the early 20th century warming period far exceeds that of the last 30 years or so. But the anthropogenic greenhouse gases impact on SST, according to the AGW hypothesis, should be much more dominant in the last 30 years. I don’t see it. The El Nino around 1940 was significant but not as large as the 1997/98 El Nino, so that shouldn’t be throwing off the trend of the early warming period.
AnonyMoose, you wrote, “You need to look up the PDO. The PDO might not be globally cool;”
Let me reinforce that. The PDO is not a measure of the SST anomalies for the North Pacific. In some respects it reflects a pattern of SST anomalies there. The following graph is of SST anomalies for the same area of the North Pacific as the PDO (Global SST is a reference). The curve of that data bears no similarity to the PDO.
http://i25.tinypic.com/2cyg07k.jpg
The North Pacific Residual (North Pacific SST anomalies MINUS Global SST anomalies) also has no correlation with the PDO.
http://i28.tinypic.com/jrwjk6.jpg
More on that in these two posts:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/06/amo-versus-mid-latitude-north-pacific.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/06/common-misunderstanding-about-pdo.html
Pamela Gray, you wrote, “If it were my study, I would have to take into account the changing temperature sample number at 1990 when surface stations dropped out in droves.”
I examined SST in this post, Pamela, no surface stations involved.
E.M.Smith, you wrote, “I don’t do Micro$oft … civilized people know better …”
Sorry, new computer, haven’t updated my browser.

January 13, 2009 4:35 am

erlhapp (23:41:38) :
Solar flux has been increasing since October 2008. See: http://www.solen.info/solar/
That plot shows that the orbit is elliptical. We were closest to the Sun January 4th, and now the flux is decreasing. This happens every year.
“the solar wind compacts the atmosphere making it more difficult for UV, that heats the upper troposphere which in turn heats the surface, to penetrate and hence leads to cooling”.
It makes no sense to me at all.

To me neither, but that is what your posts are saying. Perhaps you could correct it, so it better matches what you think is going on.

January 13, 2009 6:08 am

erlhapp (00:33:44) :
heating is a local reduction in clouds.
loses cloud during El Nino events and warms accordingly.
“If I read this correctly, more clouds => less El Nino” he might have the thing 180 degrees out of whack.
It seems to me that the last statement is not 180 degrees ‘out of whack’, but fits rather well with the previous two. Let me try again: ‘less clouds => more heating’ is the same as ‘more clouds => less heating’

January 13, 2009 6:31 am

Very interesting post, thanks Bob Tisdale for writing and thanks Anthony for posting.
I have one question: Isn’t it true that the sun drives the oceans heat? While the connections may be hard to discover, the sun it seems, is the only viable source…

tallbloke
January 13, 2009 6:59 am

Leif Svalgaard (04:35:41) :
Erl Happ…
Leif Svalgaard
“the solar wind compacts the atmosphere making it more difficult for UV, that heats the upper troposphere which in turn heats the surface, to penetrate and hence leads to cooling”.
It makes no sense to me at all.
To me neither, but that is what your posts are saying. Perhaps you could correct it

Come on Leif, how can you expect Erl to correct a summary of what you think his post is saying?
Instead of this negative squabbling why not address his points in a collaborative fashion?

tallbloke
January 13, 2009 7:15 am

Erl Happ
Your summary of my ideas reveals either a failure of comprehension or a strong desire to ridicule. I have read enough of your responses to have worked out that you willingly feign lack of comprehension and use ridicule as a tool to belittle and discourage.

Erl, I’ve come to realise that Leif reponds the way he does, because he wants to spur us into tightening our correlations and improving our theories. He also gets a kick out of winding us up, and oversteps the mark sometimes.
Lets all stay good humoured and think the best of each other’s intentions.

January 13, 2009 7:31 am

Tarpon, you wrote, “Isn’t it true that the sun drives the oceans heat? While the connections may be hard to discover, the sun it seems, is the only viable source…”
I don’t disagree. Also see my reply above to Kum Dollison. The edited version is: The AGW hypothesis says that greenhouse gases should warm the skin and the mixing layer of the oceans and increase subsurface temperatures as well by locking in more heat. Except the slope of the rise in SST from 1975 to present is less than the rise from the earlier warming period, ~1910 to ~1940. That doesn’t confirm the theory for me.
http://i35.tinypic.com/atsz03.jpg

Redneck
January 13, 2009 8:18 am

E.M.Smith (00:19:09)
“There is all that heat from U and Th decay in the planet core that shows up as mid ocean volcanic ridges.”
Don’t for get K there is much more of it the U and Th combined.

gary gulrud
January 13, 2009 8:28 am

“Let’s…think the best of each other’s intentions.”
Words to live by–before your counterpart is understood.
That being said, I believe the Lord’s entreaty to “turn the other cheek” has an overriding moral: What is impossible for man is possible for God.
I do not find your analysis persuasive.

January 13, 2009 9:04 am

SUPPLEMENTAL GRAPHS
Bill Illis wrote, “…dampen down the smoothing and filters so that one can be sure the smoothing is not causing an artifact…”
To assure that no one thinks 12-month filtering misrepresents the data in the comparative graphs, I’ve added the raw SST anomaly data for the two primary graphs in this post. Note that the vertical scaling is different due to the additional range of the data being plotted.
http://i42.tinypic.com/mjl1zq.jpg
Figure 9
http://i44.tinypic.com/5foxno.jpg
Figure 12
Regards

Jeff Alberts
January 13, 2009 9:21 am

Some say 10 or more before a change and already at global temperatures at 14deg C we are in danger of food being very scarce especially in 3rd world countries.

Some people lie a lot too. The problems with so-called third world countries are socio-political, not lack of resources.

John Finn
January 13, 2009 9:24 am

The AGW hypothesis says that greenhouse gases should warm the skin and the mixing layer of the oceans and increase subsurface temperatures as well by locking in more heat.
Yes that’s more or less it, I think. The GHGs warm the very thin ocean skin layer which causes a reduction in the temperature gradient between the sub-surface and the skin which in turn slows the rate of cooling (i.e. the ghgs don’t heat the water.
However, the net LW flux at the surface varies, mainly due to cloud variability, by up to ~100 w/m2 and as you note ……
Except the slope of the rise in SST from 1975 to present is less than the rise from the earlier warming period, ~1910 to ~1940. That doesn’t confirm the theory for me.
In 1910 when the SST rise kicked in GHGs were, within measurement error, pretty much what they were in the 19th century. Even in 1958, they were only ~315 ppm which equates to a change in forcing of ~0.5 w/m2.
I find it all totally implausible.

Jeff Alberts
January 13, 2009 9:28 am

To add some value to this post: If you have never tried Steinlager, the beer from New Zealand, it is a wonderful beer. A Very Hoppy lager style. A bit of a “getting used to” beer, but man, once to get used to the hops, nothing else comes close. (Yes, I’m into it a 6 pack+ at the moment… but it is one of the few truly stellar beers of the world.)

Beer?!? Yuck!!!

1 3 4 5 6 7 9