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:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
test
some of my comments have disappeared
erlhapp
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).
Journal of Marine Research, 66, 1–23, 2008
Brown and Federov2008
try again in a more abbreviated form leaving out the abstract
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).
Journal of Marine Research, 66, 1–23, 2008
Brown and Federov2008
Interestingly enough the planet rotates and the wind blows
Leif Svalgaard (22:00:05) :
Here is my reaction to Camp and Tung’s paper.
1. Looking for a clear solar signal in the Arctic is all hard work because of the number of factors involved.
2. The general expectation that temperature should be higher at solar maximum is nonsense because the Southern Oscillation often induces a La Nina at solar maximum. This same assumption marred their earlier paper that found a slight warming at solar maximum.
3. I dont like this
“The variability in the solar ultraviolet wavelengths is larger (than TSI), at approximately a few percent. Energy at these wavelengths is absorbed by ozone, which is abundant in the stratosphere. It follows then that the atmosphere’s solar cycle response should be largest over the lower latitudes in the stratosphere where the solar radiation is strong.”
It doesn’t follow. The temperature variability depends on the ozone concentration as much as the intensity and variability in the UV radiation. So far as the troposphere/lower stratosphere is concerned, the strongest response is seen between 200 hPa and 30hPa at 30°-40°S latitude, stronger than at low latitudes where the irradiance is strongest. That is why the SO is driven from 30-40°S.
4. Quote. “Yet the largest signal is found during winter over the pole (Labitzke 2001), where the solar radiation is the least.”
It seems quite common for people in the northern hemisphere to speak of THE POLE as if there was only one. Polar temperatures are driven by the strength of downdraft and perhaps planetary waves moving upwards from the troposphere, and perhaps also some heating very high up associated with auroral activity. The Arctic is too warm in summer to attract a downdraft but it is cool enough in winter. When warming is forced in the tropics the air ascends and this is matched by descent that is strongest, wherever the air is coolest. So, in northern winter the Arctic gets to share some downdraft with Antarctica simply because it is almost cold enough. In northern summer the entire downdraft is centered on Antarctica. To find a consistent solar signal at a pole, go to Antarctica. There you will find correlation between 200hPa temperature in the tropics and surface air temperature in Antarctica.
5. There is a more direct impact of the solar driver and that is found in the variation in evaporation from tropical waters. A good proxy for this would be 850hPa temperature. That’s where the latent heat is released. 850 hPa temperatures is more responsive than sea surface temperature by a factor of three to one. By and large the tropics are temperature saturated. In looking at surface temperatures and warm pool bulk we are actually observing a sideshow, not the main event.
6. The strongest variation in the climate seen on 0-20 year time scales is the Southern Oscillation. I suggest that looking for the solar signal in the troposphere and lower stratosphere via classificatory statistical means will be more productive when time periods are classified according to the extent of surface pressure difference between the South East Pacific and Indonesia. Perhaps this will happen when the inhabitants of the northern hemisphere begin to identify which pole they are talking about.
Maksimovich
“Interestingly enough the planet rotates and the wind blows”
And when we get a massive increase in temperature in the upper troposphere in the south East Pacific as we did in 1976-8 surface pressure falls away and the east wind loses strength, the upper troposphere cloud cover falls away, humidity falls at all levels and the earth warms.
Leif Svalgaard (23:04:07) :
Is your 2-yr cycle then something different from the QBO>
I don’t know what drives the QBO. If its internal to the planet then so be it. I am simply observing the correspondence between the two year peaks in the SOI and temperature at 1hPa which I expect is due to geomagnetic influences on the strength of UV plus ozone concentration in that place at that time. These peaks show a two year variation in strength. It could be that the peaks at 1hPa and the QBO interact in some way. I don’t know.
Let me look at your summary of my supposed reasoning
1) The solar wind compacts atmosphere.
Not my understanding at all. A compact atmosphere is due to a low incidence of ionising radiation allowing the thermosphere to deflate. However my understanding is that the passage of coronal holes across the sun can be detected in changes in the upper atmosphere involving ozone, temperature and density. The wind adds energy and aids dispersion. I suspect it lowers the density of the plasmasphere over the tropics.
Let us differentiate between the dayside and the nightside atmosphere and recognise that the distribution between the two seems to be affected by the solar wind.
2) compact atmosphere filters out UV
I would put it differently. A shortage of ionising radiation allows the atmosphere to compact. The atmosphere is opaque to relatively shorter wave lengths but a variable amount penetrates to the surface.
2) less UV, less heating
If there is less short wave radiation reaching a given level of the atmosphere where ozone is present that layer will cool. If there is water vapour present more cloud will form. When this layer is below the tropopause this temperature increase and associated fall in density affects surface pressure. Because ozone is present in different concentration from place to place surface pressure relations and wind is affected by the reaction of ozone to short wave radiation.
Leif Svalgaard (23:12:44) :
It seems to me that you were very pretentious when you claimed:
“I think I have a better model than NOAA, the W.M.O. the BOM and a couple of dozen others.”
Agreed. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. It’s a big call “El Nino manifesting by March on the basis of a decline in surface pressure in 1998 in the South East Pacific.” However, it is based on what has happened in the past. If 200hPa temperature falls between now and then, the La Nina may strengthen and I have shot myself in the foot. But there is every reason to think that the SOI will is driven by the same dynamics that drove it between 1948 and 2008.
I heard recently of a guy who predicted the height of the next solar cycle. The science behind that prediction is a lot more complex than the science behind my prediction. Perhaps he is the ‘big head’.
“Your ‘painstaking’ analysis and the overload of disconnected detail also came across as pretentious assertions way out of proportions”.
Perhaps the disconnected detail needs a little more explanation before its relevance is plain? This seems to be a broad brush comment of the sort that doesn’t worry me much.
“Your characterization of me and conventional wisdom and religious devotion and ridicule and horses that wouldn’t drink, etc were extremely pretentious.”
Just based upon my observation that your mode is to challenge one aspect of the detail and this appears to be sufficient for rejection of the whole. This is not the way progress is made. Your continued reluctance to admit that the presence of ozone below the tropopause allows a thermal response to incoming short wave radiation is of continuing concern.
” There is a more direct impact of the solar driver and that is found in the variation in evaporation from tropical waters. ”
Indeed.
I’m getting a little interested in the March 09 move away from La Nina, but it’s nominally counterintuitive to me. I would agree, it’s a substantive test.
“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 ”
A useful consideration.
erlhapp (02:43:08) :
“2) compact atmosphere filters out UV”
I would put it differently.
Yet in erlhapp (16:04:05) you put it this way:
“the shorter wave lengths from the sun are more effectively filtered out when the atmosphere is more compact.”
erlhapp (03:10:19) :
“Just based upon my observation that your mode is to challenge one aspect of the detail and this appears to be sufficient for rejection of the whole. This is not the way progress is made.
This is precisely how progress is made. If in a chain of arguments, a single one – any one – is shown to be false, the conclusion is false. If a suspect is caught in one lie the jury has reason not to believe the rest.
It is also the only way to deal with a bunch of complex issues: one at a time. Once one issue has been dealt with, we move on to the next. That I start with one, does not mean that the rest is any good. We’ll come to those in due time.
Now back to the summary. It seems that you were able to say something about each point, therefore it was not ‘meaningless’. You even agree with everything except that I got your bit about geomagnetic activity wrong. So, where in the chain does geomagnetic activity come in, if it is not related to the ‘compacting’ of the atmosphere?
erlhapp (03:10:19) :
Your continued reluctance to admit that the presence of ozone below the tropopause allows a thermal response to incoming short wave radiation is of continuing concern.
You have the physics backwards. O3 is a tri-atomic molecule [like H2O and CO2] and is therefore a greenhouse gas. So, if anything, tropospheric O3 reduces outgoing long-wave radiation from the warm surface and thus causes heating at the surface, just like the other GHGs. But the effect is very small because the O3 concentration is so small, much smaller than CO2, for instance. But if you assume that CO2 controls the climate, perhaps one could swallow that O3 does too [although in a much smaller amount].
Re Leif Svalgaard 10:04:00 above.
Leif, I agree completely with your assertion. The ozone layer of ozone hole fame indeed has a prominent Infrared absorption line (band) at a wavelength of 9-10 microns; which is right on the peak of the earth thermal radiation emission spectrum (10.1 microns) correspnding to the 15C mean temperature.
The ozone line is quite different from the CO2 band for several reasons. It is a thin high altitude layer; therefore it is both low in temperature, and low in ambient atmospheric pressure. So Doppler Broadening (temperature) and collision broadening (pressure) are relatively small effects.
CO2 on the other hand has most of its (GH) effect rght at ground level, where the maximum atmospheric pressures and temperatures occur, so the nominally 14.77 micron CO2 line (molecular bend mode) is broadened out to about 13-17 microns. Also the CO2 is a thick layer, being everywhere in the atmosphere so as you get higher and colder, the CO2 has a diminished effect, because it’s line width keeps shrinking as you gain altitude, and the lower layers already grabbed much of what the CO2 can absorb at higher altitudes.
Ozone does have important short wave effects which alter the incoming solar spectrum. The biggest difference between Air mass Zero soalr spectrum, and air mass one solar spectrum, is due to the UV-grellow region where O3 absorbs. This short wavelength solar spectrum modification is the principle reason that the apparent ground level color temperature of the sun changes seasonally and randomly. These color temperature effects were noted in the late 40s and 50s, long before there were “ozone holes”; well long before anyone looked and found them.
Because of the photon energies concerned, I presume that the short wavelength absorptions are atomic absorptions rather than molecular. 0.6 micron radiation corresponds to about 2eV photon energy, and thaqt is about the long wavelength end of the ozone visible spectrum. The UV effects down to maybe 0.2 microns would be up to 6eV photon energy. I don’t know to hwat extent the temporary presence of atomic oxygen in the upper atmosphere affects short wave solar spectrum absorption, and I don’t have any idea what the lifetime of atomic oygen is in the upper atmosphere bfore it forms ozone.
Optics handbooks, as well as the InfraRed Handbook (Wolfe and Zeiss) have plenty of solar spectrum and infrared molecular spoectrum data.
Warren Smith’s “Modern Optical Engineering” has a good treatment of black body radiation; but nothing on light sources of solar spectrum. There’s also “Elements of Infrared Technology” by Kruse et al that incudes some stuff on sources and absorption spectra; but there are likely better modern books.
erlhapp (02:43:08)
You are adding too much complexity and this tends to muddy the waters so to speak.
Firstly here we are trying to differentiate with what is natural variation and mechanisms that amplify(attenuate these variations,and what are the “external forcings” agw,solar variations etc.
As we see there are phase transitions and phase shifts with the thermocline and we can see this in regard to historical variations (prior to agw).
Citation: Philander, S. G., and A. V. Fedorov, Role of tropics in changing the response to Milankovich forcing some three million
years ago, Paleoceanography, 18(2), 1045, doi:10.1029/2002PA000837, 2003.
Throughout the Cenozoic the Earth experienced global cooling that led to the appearance of continental glaciers in high northern latitudes around 3 Ma ago. At approximately the same time, cold surface waters first appeared in regions that today have intense oceanic upwelling: the eastern equatorial Pacific and the coastal
zones of southwestern Africa and California. There was furthermore a significant change in the Earth’s response to Milankovich forcing: obliquity signals became large, but those associated with precession and eccentricity remained the same. The latter change in the Earth’s response can be explained by hypothesizing that the global cooling during the Cenozoic affected the thermal structure of the ocean; it caused a gradual shoaling of the thermocline. Around 3 Ma the thermocline was sufficiently shallow for the winds to bring cold water from below the thermocline to the surface in certain upwelling regions. This brought into play feedbacks involving
ocean-atmosphere interactions of the type associated with El Nin˜o and also mechanisms by which high-latitude surface conditions can influence the depth of the tropical thermocline. Those feedbacks and mechanisms can account for the amplification of the Earth’s response to periodic variations in obliquity (at a period of 41K) without altering the response to Milankovich forcing at periods of 100,000 and 23,000 years. This hypothesis is testable. If correct, then in the tropics and subtropics the response to obliquity variations is in phase with, and corresponds to, El Nin˜o conditions when tilt is large and La Nin˜a conditions when tilt is small.
Alexander Ruzmaiken puts this quite succinctly.
” Linear and non-linear systems respond differently to external forcing. A classical example of a linear system response is the Hooke’s law of elasticity that states that the amount by which a material body is deformed is linearly proportional to the force causing the deformation. Earlier climate change studies used this linear approximation to evaluate the sensitivity of the global temperature change caused by external forcing. However the response of non-linear systems to external forcing is conceptually different; the issue is not a magnitude (sensitivity) of the response. Non-linear systems have internally defined preferred states (called attractors in mathematics) and variabilities driven by residence in the states and transitions between them. The question is what is the effect of an external forcing: change of the states, residence times or something else?
Answer to this question is critical to our understanding of climate change.
Based on the model studies mentioned above we can formulate the following, updated conjecture of the climate system response to external forcing: external effects, such as solar, the QBO and anthropogenic influences, weakly affect the climate patterns and their mean residence times but increase a probability of occurrence of long residences. In other words, under solar or anthropogenic influence the changes in mean climate values, such as the global temperature, are less important than increased duration of certain climate patterns associated say with cold conditions in some regions and warm conditions in the other regions “
Leif
“You have the physics backwards. O3 is a tri-atomic molecule [like H2O and CO2] and is therefore a greenhouse gas. So, if anything, tropospheric O3 reduces outgoing long-wave radiation from the warm surface and thus causes heating at the surface, just like the other GHGs. But the effect is very small because the O3 concentration is so small, much smaller than CO2, for instance. But if you assume that CO2 controls the climate, perhaps one could swallow that O3 does too [although in a much smaller amount].”
I will excuse your first statement which I put down to angst. You are ducking the issue again. The issue relates to ozone absorption of incoming short wave radiation not outgoing long wave. It absorbs both.
But on the issue of the greenhouse effect of ozone: The presence of ozone at the tropopause induces strong warming as the Earths emission of long wave radiation peaks in August each year. So far as its greenhouse effect is concerned: There is no effective transmission downwards from the tropopause. Convection moves the energy back to the tropopause as fast as it radiates downwards. Without the presence of ozone at 200hPa (very little near the equator) the temperature maximum at 200hPa occurs at the same time as at the surface, in March. There is no shift in timing. I would imagine the same force (convection) takes care of downwelling radiation from CO2. This is an observation that is very important when one is trying to assess the effect of the forces involved.
Back to the incoming short wave effect on ozone issue: What is your reaction to this from George Smith?
“Ozone does have important short wave effects which alter the incoming solar spectrum. The biggest difference between Air mass Zero soalr spectrum, and air mass one solar spectrum, is due to the UV-grellow region where O3 absorbs. This short wavelength solar spectrum modification is the principle reason that the apparent ground level color temperature of the sun changes seasonally and randomly.”
As to the balance between the incoming short wave effect and the outgoing long wave effect on the temperature of ozone rich air in the upper troposphere: Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how temperatures in the upper troposphere (South East Pacific) can lead the surface (global tropics 20°N to 20°S by 6-18 months when annual data is considered and a fairly consistent 4 months on a a five month moving average when one compares 200hPa temperature (or surface pressure which reflects the change in temperature above) with change in the ‘cold tongue index’ of the eastern tropical Pacific.
I would assert that the change in upper troposphere temperature is first forced by short wave radiation and then amplified by outgoing long wave radiation as the cloud diminishes/ the sea warms.
Maks The depth of warm water in the west looks impressive until you scale 300 metres of depth against the width of the Pacific in kilometres. The wind blows, the currents move, there is a circulation that feeds warm water to the poles. It doesn’t stop.
At the end of the day the ocean will not warm unless more light gets to the surface. That, gentlemen, is what must be explained. Manifestly, it warms. The inverse relationship between cirrus cloud cover and 200hPa temperature has been established for south east Asia. This is where the greatest concentration of high altitude cirrus cloud is found. When 200hPa temperature goes up, cirrus disappears and the ocean warms. Pavlakis has documented the increase in short wave radiation (sunlight) during El Nino events at the surface in an area between Hanoi and Christchurch New Zealand.
This is not a complicated scenario when you go to the trouble of assembling the data.
Leif Svalgaard (07:58:55) :
So, where in the chain does geomagnetic activity come in, if it is not related to the ‘compacting’ of the atmosphere?
I will leave that to you. My case begins with observation of temperature in the upper troposphere that is plainly at odds with temperature at the surface. How and why the short wave radiation varies so as to produce the upper troposphere temperature that we observe is a question that, so far as I can see, is currently very difficult to explain.
erlhapp (13:49:43) :
Back to the incoming short wave effect on ozone issue: What is your reaction to this from George Smith?
“Ozone does have important short wave effects which alter the incoming solar spectrum.”
George was clearly talking about the effect of O3 in the stratosphere, there is so little in the troposphere and what is there works simply as a greenhouse gas.
I would assert that the change in upper troposphere temperature is first forced by short wave radiation and then amplified by outgoing long wave radiation as the cloud diminishes/ the sea warms.
The stratospheric O3 has already taken out most of the UV, there is not much left. If you want to know more about the heat balance read this http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/HartmannHoltonFu_GRL2001.pdf
BTW, tropospheric O3 does not follow solar activity; at best there is a very weak [R^2~0.1] anti-correlation.
The inverse relationship between cirrus cloud cover and 200hPa temperature
This trivial statement is never in doubt: more clouds => less light to the surface => less heating of the troposphere from below
At the end of the day the ocean will not warm unless more light gets to the surface.
Yes it will, increase the greenhouse gases [e.g. H2O] is one way
Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how temperatures in the upper troposphere (South East Pacific) can lead the surface (global tropics 20°N to 20°S by 6-18 months when annual data is considered
Show us a plot of the annual temperatures aloft and at the surface as a function of time.
erlhapp (14:47:40) :
So, where in the chain does geomagnetic activity come in, if it is not related to the ‘compacting’ of the atmosphere?
I will leave that to you.
So we scratch that one, because GA does not ‘compact’ the atmosphere. The number of molecules to absorb or ‘filter’ above 200 hPa is absolutely constant [the 200 hPa is the weight of these molecules].
So, now the summary reads:
1) compact atmosphere filters out UV
2) less UV, less heating
So, your thesis is simply that the climate is controlled by UV as I think the ‘compact’ deal is not really thought out. This is a far cry from knowing everything better than anybody else and having ‘kickers’ in the theory. We can now go to the ‘compact’ idea. What do you mean by compact? Just a lower temperature atmosphere that has shrunk? And how does that influence the ‘filtering out’? And what is ‘filtering out’? reflection back to space?
erlhapp (14:47:40) :
How and why the short wave radiation varies so as to produce the upper troposphere temperature that we observe is a question that, so far as I can see, is currently very difficult to explain.
The simplest explanation is that the upper troposphere temperature is not produced by UV [you misuse ‘short wave’ because that is mostly visible light]. The explanation is that the light reaches the surface, then heats the troposphere, upper, middle, and lower. No mystery.
Leif Svalgaard (15:17:59) :
“The explanation is that the light reaches the surface, then heats the troposphere, upper, middle, and lower. No mystery.”
And this statement is a simple denial of the temperature dynamics in the south east pacific that produces maxima at 200hPa in August when the surface is at its coolest and minima when the surface is warmest. If there is sufficient ozone present to result in the inversion of the temperature curve via absorption of infrared there is sufficient to absorb UVB. UVB is not all absorbed in the stratosphere. Some gets through the surface and is regularly monitored because of its effects on human skin.
There is no basis for discussion if you deny observed phenomena.
erlhapp (17:01:37) :
There is no basis for discussion if you deny observed phenomena.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how temperatures in the upper troposphere (South East Pacific) can lead the surface (global tropics 20°N to 20°S by 6-18 months when annual data is considered
The above is according to you an observed phenomenon, so, show us a plot of the annual temperatures aloft and at the surface as a function of time. Show us the evidence. I can then use the SE Pacific temperature as a 1-year predictor for the global tropics temperature, something that might be of immense value in forecasting the tropics a year ahead.
Leif Svalgaard (18:35:39) :
“I can then use the SE Pacific temperature as a 1-year predictor for the global tropics temperature, something that might be of immense value in forecasting the tropics a year ahead.”
200hPa temperature and surface pressure are reciprocally related as is seen in figure 4 at http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/the-southern-oscillation-and-the-sun/
You can see the relationship between surface pressure in the south east pacific and tropical sea surface temperature 20N to 20S latitude in figure 6 at http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/the-southern-oscillation-and-the-sun-2/
The pressure is inverted so the scale is negative. The dependency is more obvious and the change points are identified more readily.
Indeed you have your predictor.
erlhapp (19:21:32) :
“I can then use the SE Pacific temperature as a 1-year predictor for the global tropics temperature, something that might be of immense value in forecasting the tropics a year ahead.”
Indeed you have your predictor.
You have all the data and should be able to calculate about 60 yearly values of temperature for each area and make a plot with two curves showing these temperatures as a function of time. Do this. The correlations you show are not convincing. Maybe what you are trying to say is that it takes el Nino and la Nina about a year to work their way into the global temperature, in which case you are not saying anything special that was not already known.
Leif Svalgaard (20:31:01) :
The correlations you show are not convincing.
You have quantity A claimed to be correlated with B and B claimed to be correlated with C, then you make the statement that C is controlled by A [or correlated with]. Going through the intermediary B [with a lag even] is much less direct than going from A to C. Your claim was A => C. You must show that directly.
Maybe they are; show me.
erlhapp (17:01:37) :
the temperature dynamics in the south east pacific that produces maxima at 200hPa in August when the surface is at its coolest and minima when the surface is warmest. If there is sufficient ozone present to result in the inversion of the temperature curve via absorption of infrared there is sufficient to absorb UVB.
So, now you have to show something:
That there is significantly more O3 in the SE Pacific in August than at other times, since the surface is the coolest and hence the LW heating the smallest. So excess O3 or excess UV. UV is at a minimum in July, so there must be excess O3. Maybe there is. Show us.
Maybe you have shown all of this already, but it must have drowned in your usual piling on.
erlhapp (19:21:32) :
We can now go to the ‘compact’ idea. What do you mean by compact? Just a lower temperature atmosphere that has shrunk? And how does that influence the ‘filtering out’? And what is ‘filtering out’? reflection back to space?