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:
tallbloke (06:59:03) :
Come on Leif, how can you expect Erl to correct a summary of what you think his post is saying?
I can certainly expect that. Alternatively, I can expect a short summary in his own words. Or I can ask you what you think about his explanation of the mechanism. What did you read in his posts? Erl tries to explain his mechanism, we read it and we extract our understanding of what he says. What is yours? It is only natural that he corrects what my understanding is if I got it wrong. I would certainly do if the situation was reversed. The various insinuations that I get a ‘kick’ out of this are just wrong and below the belt. I think my track record here [and at the 4000+ posts at CA] clearly shows my willingness [and patience] to seek understanding.
I must confess that it has not been possible for me to extract a coherent mechanism from Erl’s postings. My summary is what it looks like to me. So again: what is your understanding? [this goes to everybody – is there somebody that can do better?]
A recurrent point in Erl’s discussion is that clouds are important. This trivial truth is evident and nobody disputes that [although there can be some discussion of what is cause and what is effect – which may be a chicken and egg question]. The issue is to explain why the clouds vary the way they do.
Leif Svalgaard (10:01:41) :
The issue is to explain why the clouds vary the way they do.
Clouds influence the Earth’s albedo. Here is the latest paper from Palle et al. http://www.leif.org/research/Palle_Earthshine_2008.pdf
The important Figure is Figure 2. The spike in 1991-1992 is likely due to Pinatubo. Excluding that, the albedo data show a decline from 1984 until 1999 and a rise until today. This would translate into a warming until 1999 and a cooling since [although the error bars are large enough that you can also just call it a ‘plateau’ since 2001]. A 1% change in albedo [e.g. from 35% to 34%] means a temperature change of 0.25% = 0.7K.
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
And if I read this correctly, ‘shortwave radiation’ is UV? less UV at surface -> less El Nino? Or does shortwave include blue? Green? … (Or 2m ham band? 😉
E.M.Smith said:
I bought some HarBin (China) Beer from Ranch 99 recently. It too is of that type. Reminded me of Cascade Beer from Tasmania.
REPLY: Enough on beer please – Anthony
Leif Svalgaard (22:47:16) :
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?
Nope. I’m not far enough along yet in learning all this to disambiguate the solar portion from the ocean portion, that’s why I’ve got them both in the same sentence together. The “planets driving solar” was left out entirely since it is at best speculative.
What is clear to me is that between the ocean oscillations and the variable star, everything can be covered. My suspicion is that the 2400 and maybe 200 year range changes are most likely solar driven (thus the ‘big driver’ statement) while shorter term than 200 years looks like ringing in the oceans (‘harmony’) but again, that is speculation on my part. I can’t yet tease out one from the other. Maybe in another decade or two 😉
That the sun can go as quiet as it just has makes our part puny.
That the ocean state can flip and Europe, Alaska, and more freeze; shows how little we impact the system.
AGW missed both of these.
How it all works together? Don’t know yet. But the AGW thesis doesn’t work and doesn’t fit the behaviour of the planet. I deny it.
Leif Svalgaard
Let me try again: ‘less clouds => more heating’ is the same as ‘more clouds => less heating
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/thermocline.jpg
E.M.Smith (11:15:24) :
And if I read this correctly, ’shortwave radiation’ is UV?
No, in the jargon of radiation science, ‘shortwave’ is visible light [including a very small portion of UV]. ‘Longwave’ is infrared [including an even smaller portion of microwaves].
Some people often aim to confuse opponents with such jargon words.
maksimovich (11:43:58) :
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/thermocline.jpg
Don’t confuse people with how it really works. 🙂
E.M.Smith (11:34:56) :
“The present patterns of weather and solar output make it very clear to me that the sun is the big driver”
My suspicion is that the 2400 and maybe 200 year range changes are most likely solar driven (thus the ‘big driver’ statement)
The 2400 and 200 year ranges hardly qualify as the ‘present patterns’.
It may be best to clarify some issues that have arisen here by providing some descriptions with the PDO(IPO) ENSO complex and its related interpretations into two components.
A) The fluctuations within a persistent regime or state, and
B) The supercritical or inverse oscillations of persistent states that are described as positive or negative (hotter or cooler)
Here A is a subset of B, and we can find a trend within the state being positive or negative, but we cannot use a trendline between states as this has different stochastic attributes. This is a fundamental flaw with using moving mean anomalies with data between two states with inverse symmetry.ie it tends to amplify a trend
Here B (at present) is categorized as a catastrophic inversion (ie a velocity inversion with the transformation v to –v) This is also a temporal inversion with the transformation t to -t .
We can understand this as the systems are operating far from equilibrium and in a perpetual state of reorganization .
Ghil et al quantifies the former
“ As the relatively new science of climate dynamics evolved through the 1980s and 1990s, it became quite clear from observational data, both instrumental and paleoclimatic, as well as model studies that Earth’s climate never was and is unlikely to ever be in equilibrium….”
Let’s define self organization; we will use Francis Heylighen’s description,
Self-organization can be defined as the spontaneous creation of a globally coherent
pattern out of local interactions. Because of its distributed character, this organization tends to be robust, resisting perturbations. The dynamics of a self-organizing system is typically non-linear, because of circular or feedback relations between the components. Positive feedback leads to an explosive growth, which ends when all components have been absorbed into the new configuration, leaving the system in a stable, negative feedback state. Non-linear systems have in general several stable states, and this number tends to increase (bifurcate) as an increasing input of energy pushes the system farther from its thermodynamic equilibrium. To adapt to a changing environment, the system needs a variety of stable states that is large enough to react to all perturbations but not so large as to make its evolution uncontrollably chaotic. The most adequate states are selected according to their fitness, either directly by the environment, or by subsystems
that have adapted to the environment at an earlier stage. Formally, the basic mechanism underlying self-organization is the (often noise-driven) variation which explores different regions in the system’s state space until it enters an attractor. This precludes further variation outside the attractor, and thus restricts the freedom of the system’s components to behave independently. This is equivalent to the increase of coherence, or decrease of statistical entropy, that defines self organization.
Here an interesting problem arises eg Krippendorff
A system that exits far from thermodynamic equilibrium (see thermodynamics), hence efficiently dissipates the heat generated to sustain it, and has the capacity of changing to higher levels of orderliness (see self-organization). According to Prigogine, systems contain subsystems that continuously fluctuate. At times a single fluctuation or a combination of them may become so magnified by possible feedback, that it shatters the preexisting organization. At such revolutionary moments or “bifurcation points”, it is impossible to determine in advance whether the system will disintegrate into “chaos” or leap to a new, more differentiated, higher level of “order”. The latter case defines dissipative structures so termed because they need more energy to sustain them than the simpler structures they replace and are limited in growth by the amount of heat they are able to disperse.
Hence we must understand the multiple mechanisms and their interactions and responses in terms of thier limit cycles before suggesting “smoking gun” attributes to any single mechanism.
tarpon (06:31:17) :
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…
The problem, as I see it, is that the ocean behaviour is about two things. Total heat balance AND heat distribution. There can be very important net changes in distribution that have major impacts on weather (and maybe even climate) without net heat balance changes. That is where ‘the sun did it’ as a thesis ‘has issues’… That these two things (heat balance and distribution) might have mutual feedbacks makes it all the more fiendish. (The potential for oscillating feedbacks makes my little programmer mind twitch… I wish I still had a Cray to play with…)
My state of understanding is not yet advanced enough to disambiguate the heat in/out balance effects from the oscillating system redistributions; so I have to leave them conjoined until more enlightenment arrives…
Sometime after that moment, I can hope to de-tangle my understanding of the half dozen or so things that seem to impact the total heat input from the sun (orbit, wobble, precession, delta albedo, solar output, spectral distribution of output, magnetosphere, GCR impacts from prior, ozone modulation from UV, whatever else I don’t know yet or have forgotten to list, etc.) and see what matters and how much.
One can start looking at these things now (and many folks have, including me), but you end up back at the question of how much they impact the climate vs the ocean oscillations impact. That means you can admire them but not yet assign definitive causality distributions.
Many folks jump to “the sun did it”, others jump to “the climate oscillates”, I’m in the middle at “can’t sort it out yet, both seem to matter” and can expect to take incoming from both sides 😉
In this thread, the author shows some of the wondrous distribution process science. I’m still working on absorbing all he has to teach me. (Third reading and still picking up bits…) Thanks!
Leif Svalgaard (11:56:05)
Don’t confuse people with how it really works. 🙂
Yes indeed.
The change in radiative flux:DSR (positve,negative) amplifies or attenuautes the wind velocity and direction -with associated changes in the thermacline slope.
Eg Federov
ABSTRACT
How unstable is the tropical ocean–atmosphere system? Are two successive El Niño events independent, or are they part of a continual (perhaps weakly damped) cycle sustained by random atmospheric disturbances?How important is energy dissipation for ENSO dynamics? These closely related questions are frequently raised in connection with several climate problems ranging from El Niño predictability to the impact of atmospheric “noise” on ENSO. One of the factors influencing the system’s stability and other relevant properties is the damping (decay) time scale for the thermocline anomalies associated with the large-scale oceanic motion. Here this time scale is estimated by considering energy balance and net energy dissipation in the tropical ocean and it is shown that there are two distinct dissipative regimes: in the interannual frequency band the damping rate is approximately (2.3 yr) 1; however, in a near-annual frequency range the damping appears to be much stronger, roughly (8 months)
On interannual time scales, the perturbation available potential energy E is anticorrelated with sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific so that negative values of E correspond to El Niño conditions, and positive values correspond to La Niña conditions (Fig. 1). This correlation is related to changes in the slope of the thermocline associated with El Niño and La Niña. When the thermocline slope increases (as during La Niña; Fig. 1a), the warmer and lighter water is replaced by colder and hence heavier water thus raising the center of mass of the system and increasing its gravitational potential energy..
tallbloke (07:15:33) :
Erl Happ
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.
Ah men. He’s tightened me up a couple of times (ouch!) 😉
I find it rather like one of my favorite teachers. He would get tired of explaining the same thing a dozen times and eventually say the moral equivalent of “You think this path (through the quicksand) is safe. Please step here (in the shallow end). Now class, what have we learned from Mr. Smith?” Had a similar experience when I asked Karate Sensei why his technique was better than some other approach… The world looks a lot different when you are laying on the floor 😉
It is some of the best teaching you will ever get. Don’t take it personally, just be thankful it is available to you. Leif: Thank You! Many times over.
From kohai on the floor…
Leif Svalgaard (11:59:10) :
E.M.Smith (11:34:56) :
“The present patterns of weather and solar output make it very clear to me that the sun is the big driver”
My suspicion is that the 2400 and maybe 200 year range changes are most likely solar driven (thus the ‘big driver’ statement)
The 2400 and 200 year ranges hardly qualify as the ‘present patterns’.
(Unfortunately, English does not allow one to accurate limit the scope of modifiers. They can apply to the adjacent term only, or be distributed over the list. The writer makes one choice, often subconsciously, and the reader is left free to make a different choice. Part of why math and computer programming are better done using systems other than English…)
To “tighten” my language:
The [present patterns of weather and the PDO] and [the sudden change of the solar output that has gone on longer than NASA predicted, and might well be a once in 200 year event if it goes on long enough -it is not over yet] make it clear to me that [the sun drives things in the very long term, eventually it will bake the planet to a cinder, but for now it is a variable star and we ought not to ignore it if we want our models to work right in the long term; and perhaps it has some unproven short term impacts to investigate and learn about] and the oceans [undergo oscillations that clearly have a significant impact on the weather and probably account for many of the cyclicalities that we see in both weather and climate in the one year to 100 year range (maybe more?); they may be enough on their own to account for the patterns of warming / cooling we’ve seen; there is a speculation that the sun might help them to do this oscillation that I find interesting and worth exploring as well] which together [since I can’t see a clear way to unambiguously sort the causality between the two, but it could be one, the other, or both, and maybe with some other things too that are not in the AGW thesis but not worth a canonical listing here] make it clear to me that the AGW thesis [misses too much and does not fit what the world is really doing] so I deny that AGW has it right.
Does that make my intent clear?
Somehow I liked the original better…
We have a weather event that is clearly more tied to ocean changes than to the AGW thesis. The PDO flip implies it will become a 30 year climate trend. Again, the AGW thesis is found lacking.
We also have had the sun go to darned quiet [perhaps with no causal involvement in the weather, but maybe with some (unclear as yet) impact via (long list of things from GCR to UV ozone modulation to…) causal involvement – lots of work to be done here] and this was not predicted (nor were any long term impacts that might arise from it, if any, however long it lasts) by the AGW thesis. You can’t declare that [this is settled science and can never ever ever have any importance, it is proven to be non-causal] as the AGW thesis does.
The prediction was warming, it isn’t happening, for some set of reasons that probably includes one, maybe the other, possibly both, or maybe some other reasons too. It still says that AGW didn’t get it right. I deny the AGW thesis. It isn’t accurate and isn’t working.
Can I stop flogging this horse now?
OT but germane to the foregoing, I think there’s some natural opposition to bloggers, amateur scientists, entering the club (that of serious researchers) via a back door, coming from those already in the club. Most natural and evident where joining the club follows a hard fight over many years and the lack of an esteemed pedigree is held against them on final admission.
Leif,
I take your point in relation to the annual cycle and the expected diminution in solar flux from January,
As to your comment on ‘how it really works’, and Maximovich’s description of oscillators I am afraid you are both mistaken.
Oscillation = to swing between two points with a rhythmic motion
Let’s distinguish between a cycle due to an internal dynamic like the swing of a pendulum maintained via a tiny restorative application of energy to counter the degradation due to friction and a cycle that is plainly externally forced like the appearance of new growth in spring.
The increase in temperature in the tropical Pacific repeats each year and is driven by the distribution of land and sea, the loss of cloud cover in mid year, the difference in ocean mass between the hemispheres and the rotation of the Earth around the sun. So, the ‘cold tongue’ regularly shrinks over southern summer and is most retracted in March-May. That is the primary cycle and it has no internal dynamic. Oscillator theory is out of place in analysing this cycle.
There is an annual cycle in the change of pressure relations between the east and the west Pacific. That is driven by the same thing. The pressure difference is about double in southern summer.
There is cycle with a two year amplitude observable in the stratospheric winds, in the strength of the temperature peaks in the stratosphere at 1hPa in March and September and also in the Southern Oscillation Index. That cycle is also plainly externally forced (let me know if you disagree). Temperature peaks in March and September at 1 hPa are synchronized with the occurrence of a marked variability of temperature in the upper troposphere in March and September, variability not present at the surface. Temperature in the upper troposphere affects surface pressure and the strength of the easterly component of the trade winds. It also drives cirrus cloud cover by changing upper atmosphere relative humidity. This is the essence of the southern oscillation. This modifies the annual cycle to give us El Niño’s in 2003, 2005 2007 and perhaps 2009 and La Nina between times.
There is another cycle of about 11 years called the solar cycle. Over that period the width of the cold tongue shrinks towards solar maximum and expands towards the minimum. The extent of the East Pacific Ocean where higher air pressure is maintained gradually contracts towards maximum and then expands. The same is seen in the pattern of change in 200hPa temperature, precipitable water, relative humidity and precipitation. Solar minimum brings us towards a La Nina state with a drier atmosphere reckoned in terms of specific humidity.
The use of the word ‘oscillation’ to describe these phenomena leads some people to think that there is some mysterious ‘internal dynamic’ in the Pacific Ocean that drives all this. That is unfortunate. The warming and cooling of the tropics tracked by change in the Southern Oscillation Index is a global affair with annual, bi-annual and 11 year components in its makeup.
Because the temperature change is quite patently across entire tropical latitudes, it owes little to hypothetical redistributive elements in terms of a ‘trapped warm pool’ suddenly being set free to roam the ocean to the east like fish from a trap that is suddenly breached. In fact the notion of a trapped warm pool is a little unphysical don’t you think?
La Nina events are common at solar minimum and at solar maximum. But, these are events within the larger cycle. The simplistic notion that solar maximum must be warmer defies observation. The simplistic notion that that tropical warming events are due to some ‘oscillation’ reveals a poverty of observation and is not smart at all.
erlhapp (16:04:00) :
Let me focus first on this:
There is cycle with a two year amplitude observable in the stratospheric winds
Here is what is known about the QBO [I’m assuming that that is the cycle you mean]:
THE QUASI-BIENNIAL OSCILLATION
M. P. Baldwin et al. Reviews of Geophysics, 39, 2 / May 2001
pages 179–229
Abstract. The quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) dominates the variability of the equatorial stratosphere (;16–50 km) and is easily seen as downward propagating easterly and westerly wind regimes, with a variable period averaging approximately 28 months. From a fluid dynamical perspective, the QBO is a fascinating example of a coherent, oscillating mean flow that is driven by propagating waves with periods unrelated to that of the
resulting oscillation. Although the QBO is a tropical phenomenon, it affects the stratospheric flow from pole to pole by modulating the effects of extratropical waves. Indeed, study of the QBO is inseparable from the study of atmospheric wave motions that drive it and are modulated by it. The QBO affects variability in the mesosphere near 85 km by selectively filtering waves that
propagate upward through the equatorial stratosphere, and may also affect the strength of Atlantic hurricanes.
The effects of the QBO are not confined to atmospheric dynamics. Chemical constituents, such as ozone, water vapor, and methane, are affected by circulation changes induced by the QBO. There are also substantial QBO signals in many of the shorter-lived chemical constituents. Through modulation of extratropical wave propagation, the QBO has an effect on the breakdown of the wintertime stratospheric polar vortices and the severity
of high-latitude ozone depletion. The polar vortex in the stratosphere affects surface weather patterns, providing a mechanism for the QBO to have an effect at the Earth’s surface.
http://www.nwra.com/resumes/baldwin/pubs/Baldwin_et_al_2001_QBO.pdf
From the conclusion: “The QBO is a spectacular demonstration of the role of wave, mean-flow interactions in the fluid dynamics of
a rotating stratified atmosphere”
The QBO is not externally driven. It is a pure coincidence that the period is close to two years. It is actually more like 28 months.
You ‘explanation’ of the QBO is totally wrong. Study the review and learn.
BTW: you did not answer [as is your wont] to my request for correction of my summary, or supplying one of your own.
Leif,
I stand by what I said in relation to the two year variation in the strength of the SOI namely:
Temperature peaks in March and September at 1 hPa are synchronized with the occurrence of a marked variability of temperature in the upper troposphere in March and September, variability not present at the surface. Temperature in the upper troposphere affects surface pressure and the strength of the easterly component of the trade winds. It also drives cirrus cloud cover by changing upper atmosphere relative humidity. This is the essence of the southern oscillation. This modifies the annual cycle to give us El Niño’s in 2003, 2005 2007 and perhaps 2009 and La Nina between times.
I am not trying to explain the Q.B.O. I am relating the strength of the temperature peaks at 1hPa in the upper stratosphere (that correspond in their timing with the period of maximal coupling of the solar wind with the Earths magnetosphere, March and September) with high temperature variability in the upper troposphere centered on those same months.
Are you suggesting that the temperature variability in the upper troposphere in March and September is surface driven? Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how that occurs.
Is the thrust of my comment rejected on the basis of this particular objection?
As far as your own summary of my ideas is concerned please read it carefully and see if you can extract any sense out of it. There is a structural problem, amongst others, that renders it meaningless, at least to me.
Rather than to attempt to correct you in 40 words I refer you to the painstaking analysis at http://climatechange1.wordpress.com and in relation to the above, figure 5 in “The Southern Oscillation and the Sun (2)”
erlhapp (16:04:00) :
And here is a relationship between the QBO and the solar cycle:
http://www.amath.washington.edu/~cdcamp/Pub/Camp_Tung_JAS_2007.pdf
I’m not sure I’d buy the conclusion, but their paper is at least an analysis of some of the elements involved.
How does this paper fit with your ideas?
Leif,
I suggest that some of the air movement in the stratosphere and mesosphere is due to ozone heating and the density gradients that are set up as a result. We do not understand what drives these things. The models are constantly under challenge as new observations accrue. Let’s not pretend otherwise
erlhapp (16:04:00) :
Oh tell me, designer of desert,
Geometrician of quicksand,
Is that true that boundless lines
Are stronger than blowing wind?
0 . Mandelshtam, 1933
It seems the answer is no.
Journal of Marine Research, 66, 1–23, 2008
Brown and Federov2008
ABSTRACT
The maintenance of the ocean general circulation requires energy input from the wind. Previous studies estimate that the mean rate of wind work (or wind power) acting on the surface currents over the global ocean amounts to 1.1 TW (1 TW ! 1012 Watts), though values remain highly uncertain. By analyzing the output from a range of ocean-only models and data assimilations, we show that the
tropical Pacific Ocean contributes around 0.2 to 0.4 TW, which is roughly half of the total tropical contribution. Not only does this wind power represent a significant fraction of the total global energy input into the ocean circulation, it is also critical in maintaining the east-west tilt of the ocean thermocline along the equator. The differences in the wind power estimates are due to discrepancies in the wind stress used to force the models and discrepancies in the surface currents the models
simulate, particularly the North Equatorial Counter Current and the South Equatorial Current. Decadal variations in the wind power, more prominent in some models, show a distinct decrease in the wind power in the late 1970s, consistent with the climate regime shift of that time and a flattening of the equatorial thermocline. We find that most of the wind power generated in the tropics is dissipated by friction in the mixed layer and in zonal currents with strong vertical and horizontal
shears. Roughly 10 to 20% of the wind power (depending on the model) is transferred down the water column through vertical buoyancy fluxes to maintain the thermocline slope along the equator. Ultimately, this fraction of the wind power is dissipated by a combination of vertical and horizontal diffusion, energy advection out of the tropics, and damping by surface heat fluxes. Values of wind
power generated in the tropical Pacific by coupled general circulation models are typically larger than those generated by ocean-only models, and range from 0.3 to 0.6 TW. Even though many models simulate a ‘realistic’ climate in the tropical ocean, their energy budgets can still vary greatly from one model to the next. We argue that a correct energy balance is an essential measure of how well the
models represent the actual ocean physics.
From part 1
Finally, we find that the wind power in the tropical Pacific is subject to significant
decadal variations, especially related to the climate shift of the late 1970s (e.g. Guilderson and Schrag, 1998; Fedorov and Philander, 2000). Thus, our results indicate that accurate estimates of the global wind power, and hence of the net wind work on the ocean general circulation, require a careful consideration of the tropical ocean.
Page 17
The decrease in the mean wind power in the tropical Pacific over the last 50 years has resulted in a reduction of the ocean available potential energy, which indicates a reduction in the thermocline tilt over the same time interval (Fig. 5). This flattening of the thermocline occurred around the time of the climate regime-shift in the late 1970s (Guilderson and Schrag, 1998) and is associated with a weakening of the zonal winds along the equator (Vecchi et al., 2006). A flatter thermocline can lead to stronger El Nin˜o events (Fedorov and Philander, 2000, 2001).
Interestingly enough the planet rotates the wind blows.Apart from Ezekiel I m unware of any other time that this did not happen.
erlhapp (16:04:00) :
Journal of Marine Research, 66, 1–23, 2008
Brown and Federov2008
ABSTRACT
The maintenance of the ocean general circulation requires energy input from the wind. Previous studies estimate that the mean rate of wind work (or wind power) acting on the surface currents over the global ocean amounts to 1.1 TW (1 TW ! 1012 Watts), though values remain highly uncertain. By analyzing the output from a range of ocean-only models and data assimilations, we show that the
tropical Pacific Ocean contributes around 0.2 to 0.4 TW, which is roughly half of the total tropical contribution. Not only does this wind power represent a significant fraction of the total global energy input into the ocean circulation, it is also critical in maintaining the east-west tilt of the ocean thermocline along the equator. The differences in the wind power estimates are due to discrepancies in the wind stress used to force the models and discrepancies in the surface currents the models
simulate, particularly the North Equatorial Counter Current and the South Equatorial Current. Decadal variations in the wind power, more prominent in some models, show a distinct decrease in the wind power in the late 1970s, consistent with the climate regime shift of that time and a flattening of the equatorial thermocline. We find that most of the wind power generated in the tropics is dissipated by friction in the mixed layer and in zonal currents with strong vertical and horizontal
shears. Roughly 10 to 20% of the wind power (depending on the model) is transferred down the water column through vertical buoyancy fluxes to maintain the thermocline slope along the equator. Ultimately, this fraction of the wind power is dissipated by a combination of vertical and horizontal diffusion, energy advection out of the tropics, and damping by surface heat fluxes. Values of wind
power generated in the tropical Pacific by coupled general circulation models are typically larger than those generated by ocean-only models, and range from 0.3 to 0.6 TW. Even though many models simulate a ‘realistic’ climate in the tropical ocean, their energy budgets can still vary greatly from one model to the next. We argue that a correct energy balance is an essential measure of how well the
models represent the actual ocean physics.
From part 1
Finally, we find that the wind power in the tropical Pacific is subject to significant
decadal variations, especially related to the climate shift of the late 1970s (e.g. Guilderson and Schrag, 1998; Fedorov and Philander, 2000). Thus, our results indicate that accurate estimates of the global wind power, and hence of the net wind work on the ocean general circulation, require a careful consideration of the tropical ocean.
Page 17
The decrease in the mean wind power in the tropical Pacific over the last 50 years has resulted in a reduction of the ocean available potential energy, which indicates a reduction in the thermocline tilt over the same time interval (Fig. 5). This flattening of the thermocline occurred around the time of the climate regime-shift in the late 1970s (Guilderson and Schrag, 1998) and is associated with a weakening of the zonal winds along the equator (Vecchi et al., 2006). A flatter thermocline can lead to stronger El Nin˜o events (Fedorov and Philander, 2000, 2001).
Interestingly enough the planet rotates the wind blows.Apart from Ezekiel I m unware of any other time that this did not happen.
Oh tell me, designer of desert,
Geometrician of quicksand,
Is that true that boundless lines
Are stronger than blowing wind?
0 . Mandelshtam, 1933
It seems the answer is no.
erlhapp
Journal of Marine Research, 66, 1–23, 2008
Brown and Federov2008
ABSTRACT
The maintenance of the ocean general circulation requires energy input from the wind. Previous studies estimate that the mean rate of wind work (or wind power) acting on the surface currents over the global ocean amounts to 1.1 TW (1 TW ! 1012 Watts), though values remain highly uncertain. By analyzing the output from a range of ocean-only models and data assimilations, we show that the
tropical Pacific Ocean contributes around 0.2 to 0.4 TW, which is roughly half of the total tropical contribution. Not only does this wind power represent a significant fraction of the total global energy input into the ocean circulation, it is also critical in maintaining the east-west tilt of the ocean thermocline along the equator. The differences in the wind power estimates are due to discrepancies in the wind stress used to force the models and discrepancies in the surface currents the models
simulate, particularly the North Equatorial Counter Current and the South Equatorial Current. Decadal variations in the wind power, more prominent in some models, show a distinct decrease in the wind power in the late 1970s, consistent with the climate regime shift of that time and a flattening of the equatorial thermocline. We find that most of the wind power generated in the tropics is dissipated by friction in the mixed layer and in zonal currents with strong vertical and horizontal
shears. Roughly 10 to 20% of the wind power (depending on the model) is transferred down the water column through vertical buoyancy fluxes to maintain the thermocline slope along the equator. Ultimately, this fraction of the wind power is dissipated by a combination of vertical and horizontal diffusion, energy advection out of the tropics, and damping by surface heat fluxes. Values of wind
power generated in the tropical Pacific by coupled general circulation models are typically larger than those generated by ocean-only models, and range from 0.3 to 0.6 TW. Even though many models simulate a ‘realistic’ climate in the tropical ocean, their energy budgets can still vary greatly from one model to the next. We argue that a correct energy balance is an essential measure of how well the
models represent the actual ocean physics
From part 1
Finally, we find that the wind power in the tropical Pacific is subject to significant
decadal variations, especially related to the climate shift of the late 1970s (e.g. Guilderson and Schrag, 1998; Fedorov and Philander, 2000). Thus, our results indicate that accurate estimates of the global wind power, and hence of the net wind work on the ocean general circulation, require a careful consideration of the tropical ocean.
Page 17
The decrease in the mean wind power in the tropical Pacific over the last 50 years has resulted in a reduction of the ocean available potential energy, which indicates a reduction in the thermocline tilt over the same time interval (Fig. 5). This flattening of the thermocline occurred around the time of the climate regime-shift in the late 1970s (Guilderson and Schrag, 1998) and is associated with a weakening of the zonal winds along the equator (Vecchi et al., 2006). A flatter thermocline can lead to stronger El Nin˜o events (Fedorov and Philander, 2000, 2001).
erlhapp (21:54:00) :
I am not trying to explain the Q.B.O.
Is your 2-yr cycle then something different from the QBO>
I am relating the strength of the temperature peaks at 1hPa in the upper stratosphere (that correspond in their timing with the period of maximal coupling of the solar wind with the Earths magnetosphere
These conditions occur every year, so how does that result in a 2-year cycle?
Both the QBO and the semiannual oscillation {SAO] occur on other planets too: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7192/full/453163a.html
“the troposphere is a playground for a large array of westward- and eastward-propagating waves that are constantly clambering up into the stratosphere. Forty years ago, this was recognized5 as being key to the QBO mechanism. ”
“Earth’s SAO is driven by the different response to surface heating between the ice of Antarctica and the surrounding ocean, it is not obvious what the analogy is on Saturn (although its large ring shadow probably has a role).
The influence of the QBO and SAO on Earth’s weather cannot be overstated. They modulate seasonal activity, the behaviour of the Hadley cell (the overturning circulation that predominates in the tropics), the strength of the polar vortex, the mixing of atmospheric trace species, and even the predictability of regional patterns such as the Indian monsoon in August and September9. Because the portfolio of eastward waves is distinct from that of westward waves, the eastward and westward phases of the QBO are different. The big news is that this asymmetrical, long-period response has now been observed in the stratospheres of three planets. ”
I am not trying to explain the Q.B.O. I am relating the strength of the temperature peaks at 1hPa in the upper stratosphere (that correspond in their timing with the period of maximal coupling of the solar wind with the Earths magnetosphere, March and September) with high temperature variability in the upper troposphere centered on those same months.
These two variations have nothing to do with each other, they are due to different causes. In general waves [and heat for that matter] travel upwards, not downwards.
On the ‘summary’:
You said:
“the atmosphere is very compact meaning a low level of inflation of the ionosphere/plasma sphere.
Perhaps the shorter wave lengths from the sun are more effectively filtered out when the atmosphere is more compact”
In earlier posts you said that geomagnetic activity/solar wind was compacting the atmosphere, and that heating of the atmosphere was due to absorption of UV.
So, putting together the above:
1) solar wind compacts atmosphere
2) compact atmosphere filters out UV
3) less UV, less heating
My summary was:
“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”.
I agree that it doesn’t make sense, but I also maintain it is an accurate summary of what you said.
erlhapp (22:06:02) :
We do not understand what drives these things. […] Let’s not pretend otherwise
It seems to me that you were very pretentious when you claimed:
erlhapp (23:41:38) :
“I think I have a better model than NOAA, the W.M.O. the BOM and a couple of dozen others.”
Your ‘painstaking’ analysis and the overload of disconnected detail also came across as pretentious assertions way out of proportions.
Your characterization of me and conventional wisdom and religious devotion and ridicule and horses that wouldn’t drink, etc were extremely pretentious.