Guest post by Bob Tisdale
The first part of this post, Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1, should be read prior to this the second part. Part 1 gives an overview of the datasets used in the following, illustrates the processes that take place during an El Nino event, and discusses the primary reasons for the step changes in global SST anomalies that result from significant El Nino events–those El Nino events that are not influenced by volcanic eruptions.
In the following, the periods from January 1981 to December 1995 and from January 1976 to December 1981 are examined.
THE STEP CHANGE FROM 1981 TO 1995
As noted in the introduction (Part 1), the volcanic eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Mount Pinatubo in 1991 interrupted the normal heat distribution processes of the El Nino events that occurred at or near the same time. Figure 14 illustrates the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies, scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies, and scaled (inverted) Sato Index data for the period of January 1981 to December 1995. (This is another graph you may wish to open in a separate window to keep you from having to scroll back and forth.) Again, the Sato Index and NINO3.4 SST anomaly data are not scaled to any specific level; they are provided for timing purposes only. The volcanic eruptions show up as the two depressions in the Sato Index data (green curve). The smoothing rounds off the start time of the Sato data, making it appear as though the Mean Optical thickness reacted prior to the eruption, but because the SST data is smoothed as well the impact on the discussion is nil.
http://i41.tinypic.com/20a8okz.jpg
Figure 14
The 1982/83 El Nino was the ENSO event with the second highest NINO3.4 SST anomaly of the 20th Century, yet there was little to no response by the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies to it. The El Chichon eruption effectively suppressed the heat distribution of that El Nino to the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans. In fact, the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies reacted quite sharply to the El Chichon eruption; they dropped quickly. Then as the volcanic aerosols subsided, East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies rebounded to approximately the same level they had been at before the eruption. Considering the lags in the response of the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies to El Nino events, part of that rebound from mid-1982 to mid-1983 may be attributable to the 1982/83 El Nino. Then, from mid-1983 to mid-1986, East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies modulated slightly until being swept up by the 1986/87/88 El Nino, lagging by approximately 7 months. While the SST anomalies of the 1986/87/88 El Nino did not peak as high as the 1982/83 El Nino, the 1986/87/88 El Nino lasted through the summer of 1987, making it a substantial ENSO event. The response of the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies was similar to that of the 1997/98 El Nino inasmuch as East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies shifted significantly (eyeballing it, more than 0.12 deg C at the lowest level after the 1986/87/88 El Nino). East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies then rose slightly as NINO3.4 SST anomalies rebounded from the 1988/89 La Nina. Note that, like the response to the 1998/99/2000 La Nina, there was little to no response of the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies to the 1988/89 La Nina. Then in 1991 two events, the Mount Pinatubo eruption and the beginning of a multiyear El Nino, occurred at the same time. Due to the magnitude of the Mount Pinatubo eruption, and likely its location in the West Pacific, East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies dropped almost 0.25 deg C over approximately two years. When East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies finally did rebound, possibly due to the ongoing multiyear El Nino, they did not return to their pre-1991 elevated levels.
In Figure 15, the SST anomaly data for the East Pacific, Atlantic, and West Indian Oceans (red curve) were added to the comparative graph. East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies rise and fall from 1981 to 1991, mimicking the variations in NINO3.4 SST anomalies. There was no visible response by the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies to the El Chichon eruption in 1982.
http://i43.tinypic.com/s5jrkl.jpg
Figure 15
A step change in East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies occurs during that period as well. Following the 1986/87/88 El Nino, East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies react to the subsequent 1988/89 La Nina. Then the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies (red curve) rise in response to the rebound in NINO3.4 SST anomalies until they nearly match the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies (black curve), and they remain at that elevated level. That is, prior to the 1986/87/88 El Nino, the mean of the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies (peak to trough) was approximately 0.05 deg C, but after it, the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies remained almost 0.1 deg C higher, with some minor fluctuations. A final note, the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies did not drop in response to the Mount Pinatubo eruption, but it appears Mount Pinatubo limited the rise of the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies to the El Nino. The minor rise in East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies (red curve) countered the significant decrease in the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies (black curve), each responding to different natural events and making it appear that there was little reaction in the global SST anomalies to the Mount Pinatubo eruption or the El Nino at that time.
In summary, referring to Figure 16, which is the same graph as Figure 3 (Part 1), the step change in global SST anomalies between 1981 and 1995 was in response to the 1986/87/88 El Nino. The volcanic eruptions of 1982 and 1991 suppressed the normal step response to El Nino events at those times.
http://i43.tinypic.com/i74utd.jpg
Figure 16
THE STEP CHANGES FROM 1976 TO 1981
Note: I changed the smoothing to a 5-month running-average filter for this period.
The East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies and scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies for the period of January 1976 to December 1981 are illustrated in Figure 17. There was no volcanic activity during the period, so I deleted the Sato Index data. East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies rose first (eyeballing it, approximately 0.1 deg C) in a lagged response to the first half of the 1976/77/78 El Nino, then rose again (approximately another 0.03 to 0.04 deg C), responding to the second half of that El Nino.
http://i40.tinypic.com/ors18w.jpg
Figure 17
Then the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies respond in a way that was in no way typical of their reaction to all other El Nino events. It may not be unusual if we take a closer look at the 1979/80 El Nino, which was unusual on its own. Refer to Figure 18, which is the raw and smoothed NINO3.4 SST anomaly data for the period of January 1976 to November 2008. The 1979/80 El Nino was not a significant El Nino; its NINO3.4 SST anomalies barely rose above the threshold of 0.5 deg C for a few months. It is so minor it does not register as an El Nino event on the ONI Index. It peaked at approximately 0.7 deg C. It also appears as a gradual rise and fall of NINO3.4 SST anomalies, not a sudden spike typical of other El Ninos.
http://i43.tinypic.com/a31ap0.jpg
Figure 18
In Figure 19, the SST anomaly data for the East Pacific, Atlantic, and West Indian Oceans (red curve) were added to the graph. The East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies again mimic NINO3.4 SST anomalies, making a specific point at which they acquire an upward step difficult to determine. Note, however, that there are underlying steps in the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies that show themselves in the values at the minimums of its cycles in 1976, 1978, and 1980. In other respects it appears that the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies (red curve) are simply following a “baseline” established by the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies (black curve). This could be accomplished by natural ocean-atmospheric heat transfer processes and ocean currents.
http://i39.tinypic.com/mufjth.jpg
Figure 19
Note: The 1976 Pacific Climate Shift also occurred at the start of that period. I illustrated the changes in various SST subsets in that post and the possible influence of the Southern Ocean on the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift.
Figure 20 is a simple recap of the cause of the step change in SST anomalies from 1976 to 1981. It was due primarily to the shift of the SST anomalies in East Indian and West Pacific Oceans in response to the 1976/77/78 El Nino.
http://i41.tinypic.com/2mi0umx.jpg
Figure 20
A CONFIRMING PHENOMENON?
Two of my first three posts on this blog (Is There A Cumulative ENSO Climate Forcing? & Is There a Cumulative ENSO Forcing? Part 2) dealt with a phenomenon I had discovered in the long-term NINO3.4 SST anomalies provided as part of a Trenberth and Stepaniak study. The appropriate citations are included in the posts linked above. That NINO3.4 SST anomaly data is in fact HADSST data and uses 1950 to 1979 as base years. The dataset and base years are critical for the following. One question I can’t answer is why Trenberth and Stepaniak chose 1950 to 1979 as base years, but using those base years helped to create a unique response when a running total of that NINO3.4 SST anomaly data is graphed. Note the shape of the curve in Figure 21.
http://i35.tinypic.com/166wxnk.jpg
Figure 21
(I’ll update that running total graph as soon as I get a chance.) The curve mimics the curve of global temperature anomaly time-series data. The scale is wrong, but the proper coefficient would account for that.
Do the step changes illustrated in this post provide a mechanism for this phenomenon? And does the running total confirm that El Nino events are the primary driver of global temperature?
NON-NINO EVENTS
Figure 22 is a graph of NINO3.4 SST anomaly data from 1976 to 2008 in which I’ve noted El Nino events that were impacted by volcanic eruptions. The questions that came to mind were: What would have happened if El Chichon eruption had NOT been disturbed the heat distribution process of the 1982/83 El Nino? Would the equatorial Pacific have needed all of the additional El Ninos to distribute heat to higher latitudes? The same questions apply to the Mount Pinatubo eruption since it delayed the distribution of equatorial heat another few years.
http://i44.tinypic.com/3442jo9.jpg
Figure 22
HADSST
To check my earlier graphs and to assure that the step changes illustrated in the preceding were not resident in the ERSST.v2 data alone, I plotted the four major datasets again, but this time using HADSST2 data available through the KNMI website. Refer to Figure 23. The same step changes and responses to volcanic eruptions appear in the HADSST data.
http://i43.tinypic.com/24zivjt.jpg
Figure 23
GLOBAL SST
There will be those who will note that I used the word “Global” in numerous graphs in this post when in fact I had used data within the coordinates of 60S to 65N, 180W to 180E, excluding the Arctic and Southern Oceans.
It just seemed more appropriate to me to illustrate datasets within the same longitudes.
And there will be those who believe I was misrepresenting the data or hiding additional warming in the areas I excluded.
Nothing could be more from the truth. But to prove the longitudes had little effect on this discussion, Figure 24 is a comparative graph of the two primary datasets used throughout this post, the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies (black curve) and the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies (red curve), compared to GLOBAL [90S to 90N, 180W to 180E] SST anomalies.
http://i44.tinypic.com/65tisz.jpg
Figure 24
CLOSING
In summary, step changes in global SST (and global surface temperature) result from El Nino events because warm water that was once below the surface of the Pacific Warm Pool (and not part of the instrument temperature record) is driven to the surface and eventually returned to the surface of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans (making it a significant part of the instrument temperature record). The other major point of this post was that the heat distribution associated with El Nino events did not occur for all of El Ninos since 1976. The El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo explosive volcanic eruptions suppressed the heat distribution of the 1982/83, the 1991/92, the 1993, and possibly the 1994/95 ENSO events.
SOURCES
Smith and Reynolds Extended Reconstructed SST Sea Surface Temperature Data (ERSST.v2) is available through the NOAA National Operational Model Archive & Distribution System (NOMADS).
http://nomads.ncdc.noaa.gov/#climatencdc
It is also available through the KNMI webpage listed below.
The Sato Index Data is available from GISS at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/
Specifically:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau_line.txt
The HADSST data is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer website. http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I know a few “deniers” and all of their arguements fall apart when asked “Why wouldn’t it be prudent, considering the possible consequences, to error on the side of caution, when it comes to global warming?” The reason is that there is no rational response for this question.
Editorially, I am just mystified by how slow these allegedly “elite” thinkers are. It’s like they never even got started.
“” Leif Svalgaard (13:24:01) :
George E. Smith (11:10:09) :
what is really happening which is all the magnetic effects and the effects of and on cosmic rays.
Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis does not rest on that very small solar constant variation; his thesis is quite intact even with zero variation in the solar constant. “”
Leif,
I have to admit, that I only know second hand what is in the Svensmark Papers, and in fact am presently witing to hear from him about those papers.
If albedo is the only cloud effect he has adressed (I believe his first publishing was around a decade ago), then I wouldn’t expect that the tell the whole story.
Clouds have a much bigger effect than just albedo, and there is more to the cosmic ray effect than just cosmic ray flux.
An immediate effect of near earth magnetic variations is to redistribute cosmic rays in latitude, since charged particles tend to spiral around the magnetic field lines, which selectively steers them towards the magnetic poles. And since atmospheric water vapor is not uniformly distributed in latitude, then one would not expect charged particle nucleated clouds to be uniformly distributed in latitude, but to vary depending on the strenght of the magnetic fields. And yes I realize that true primary cosmic rays are very high energies copmared to charged particles from the sun, in which case I would expect solar particles to be affected more that the true galactic cosmic rays which can get up to the 10^20 eV range.
In addition to albedo changes due to clouds, there is the further attenuation of ground level solar energy due to the internal absorption particularly in highly precipitating clouds.
According to Wentz et al (SCIENCE July 2007), increased surface temperatures produce increased total global precipitation, which means increased dense cloud formation. They reported a 7% increase in precipitation for a one deg C mean surface temperature increase, and that would lead one to expect a similar 75 increase in precipitating clouds; either in the form of increased cloud area, cloud density (moisture content) or cloud persistence; or some combination thereof.
they found that total global precipitation, total atmospheric water content, and total global evaporation all incresed 7% for a 1 deg C rise in global mean surface temperature. I added the prcipitating cloud increase myself; they never mentioned it.
They also reported that the GCMs agreed with the 7% increase in evaporation and total water content, but predicted that increases in precipitation would only be between 1 and 3%; not 7%.
So the GCM under a warming scenario predict a continuous transport of water into the atmosphere, since evaporation and precipitation do now match according to the GCMs. That then begs the question, how can the evaporation and precipitation differ by a factor of from 2 2/3 to 7, yet the total water in the atmosphere increases at the same rate as the evaporation.
There’s no physical way the GCM numbers can be real; they are mutually incompatible.
But I am suspicious of earth albedo reports. We don’t have a total global network of satellites that can continuously monitor the whole globe (continuously), and the process of measuring albedo from lunar “earthshine” is also an intermittent measurement technique that is not continuously available. Clouds on the other hand change in mere minutes; so it is not possible to observe them continuously all over the globa from satellites, and it certainly isn’t possible to continuously observe their total solar transmission from the ground continuously over the whole globe.
The idea of thermal seafloor vents making a contribution has been raised, I believe in this or the 1st thread, as well as regarding sea ice off eastern Greenland. I went looking around for a map and found this one:
http://departments.colgate.edu/biology/Images/DMcHugh/hydrothermal-vents-c.jpg
NASA had one allegedly at: http://www.resa.net, but it gives a page not found. The one from colgate shows quite a few in the Pacific, the Rim/Ring of Fire. It seems quite a few vents border three sides of the Pacific Warm Pool, but I want a better map to ascertain that. The Pacific appears to have many more vents than the Atlantic.
George E. Smith (16:54:51) :
But I am suspicious of earth albedo reports. We don’t have a total global network of satellites that can continuously monitor the whole globe (continuously), and the process of measuring albedo from lunar “earthshine” is also an intermittent measurement technique that is not continuously available.
The Earthshine measurement do come from a [small] global network and do integrate over the whole Earth and the total albedo [and cloud cover] over the globe does not change significantly from minute to minute. Neither does the cosmic ray count. The Earthshine technique works.
There is some discussion of the ‘moving target’ of Svensmark’s theory here: http://cce.890m.com/solar-cosmic-rays/
I think most of it is true [although meant for laymen].
Precaution as a argument for action is the most misused and potentially disastrous principle (e.g. the invasion of Iraq because of the feared presence of weapons of mass destruction). The precautionary action must always be proportional to the severity of the potential danger and conditional to the likelihood of it occurring. However, that’s where the argument becomes victim of subjectivity, since there are always differences of opinion as to what and how big the potential danger is and the likelihood of it occurring. The pros (there are are many) and cons of global warming have never been mapped out and weighed against each other
Hence the precautionary principle is just a hollow term that only serves as a convenient obfuscation through which a subjective opinion obtains an aura of legitimacy. That’s why AGW proponents and environmentalists love to use the precautionary principle: it gives them this (unwarranted) pretentious moral superiority.
The precautionary principle must itself be applied to the precautionary principle.
Leif – your link to Palle’s recent paper gives a 404 error!
My take on the satellite data:
1. GISS data shows an excess of SW radiation reaching the surface during the global warming years 1980-2000 and this is about 5x the computed ‘warming’ due to carbon dioxide’s infra-red radiation (extra CO2 over the same period);
2. Only the ocean surface waters can store this as heat;
3. The excess occurs in ‘pulses’ that correlate roughly to the 11 year solar cycles;
4. There are also pulses in the cosmic ray flux – and variations in amplitude though not overall trend – look at the pattern not the trend line – as it bears relation to the solar cycle;
5. Over this period 1980-1995 Svensmark found a correlation between the cosmic ray flux and low-level dense reflective cloud – but not all cloud; he had to work the data a bit but he thinks that correlation held for the next cycle too – others disagree;
6. Other workers, Usoskin, found a latitudinal effect as expected;
7. Earthshine data shows a decrease of albedo over this period, and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project shows a long term 4% reduction of low level cloud from 1980-2000 – there is less agreement on what happens after 2001 – but could be higher albedo, less SW, cooler oceans.
The key thing is to look at the patterns, the pulses and the oceans reworking the heat stores – because there are phase changes and time lags.
However controversial these data sets may be (IPCC regard them as contradictory – but I don’t think they are) – they do not support the carbon hypothesis – rather they point to cloud changes. One could argue that ‘global warming’ thins the clouds – but the models do not incorporate such cloud feedbacks.
Peter Taylor (05:49:46) :
Leif – your link to Palle’s recent paper gives a 404 error!
http://www.leif.org/research/Palle_Earthshine_2008.pdf works
Apropos of TSI and computations therewith its worth remembering 40% is in IR only 1% of which reaches the ground. A variable ~30% of TSI is reflected outright back into space thus start with something less than 525 W/m^2 for your cursory surface calculations.
“” Leif Svalgaard (21:57:31) :
George E. Smith (16:54:51) :
But I am suspicious of earth albedo reports. We don’t have a total global network of satellites that can continuously monitor the whole globe (continuously), and the process of measuring albedo from lunar “earthshine” is also an intermittent measurement technique that is not continuously available.
The Earthshine measurement do come from a [small] global network and do integrate over the whole Earth and the total albedo [and cloud cover] over the globe does not change significantly from minute to minute. Neither does the cosmic ray count. The Earthshine technique works. “”
Then I clearly don’t have any understanding of either orbital physics, or earthshine.
Why am I under the impression, that “earthshine” is spectrally modified solar radiation that is first reflected off the sunlit side of whatever portion of the earth is currently sunlit; in whatever oblique direction the moon happens to be, and then reflected off the moon, in whatever oblique direction the night side of the earth happens to lie, and that process can be monitored continuously while accounting for the portion of the earth that is sunlit, and its oblique albedo in the moon’s direction , and the oblique albedo of the moon’s earthlit portion taken into account etc etc; and they can do that without interruption ?
So what happens regarding the detection of the cloud coverage on the non sunlit side of the earth, given that those3 clouds aren’t going to be there in the same place, when that region eventually becomes sunlit.
What remains within the constraints of orbital mechanics, is a sampled data system that doesn’t even come close to satisfying the Nyquist sampling criterion.
It seems to me that earthshine must always exclude monitoring of cloud coverage on the night side of the earth.
Oh I’m sure that it “works” in that you can detect some double bounce radiation coming off the moon; but it gives no monitoring of cloud coverage on the nightside of the earth.
And of course it gives no clue to the state of precipitation going on, from any of that cloud cover anywhere.
George
Bob Tinsdale 13:22:43
I agree that you said nothing to imply that these findings directly challenged AGW theory. I was merely trying to clarify that this was the case.
You said you limited your analysis to post 1979. My comment regarding warming throughout the century was based on your graph 21 which summed anomalies from 1915 to 2007. Did I misunderstand this graph?
Let me say that I was really impressed by your paper and my comments were in no way meant to diminish the impact of what you had to say. I am sorry if I gave that impression. I found the clear factual presentation very refreshing.
George E. Smith (14:57:22) :
It seems to me that earthshine must always exclude monitoring of cloud coverage on the night side of the earth.
They monitor the Earthshine continously with dedicated telescopes that do nothing else. They are setting up a global network to make sure that they have measurements at all times. Preliminary measurements [Big Bear, CA, and Tenerife] are in good agreement. Things don’t change on a timescale of minutes.
You can find more here: http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
and here: http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/calibration.html
The measurement is of the albedo or rather of (1-albedo) which is [next to TSI itself] the most important variable in the radiation budget of the Earth. Googling Earthshine Goode will get you a lot more [plus a lot of repetitions]. The trick to precision measurements in spite of the ‘double bounce’ is that the Moon is constant [the small variation due to libration is measured and compensated for]. These measurements are good.
Cal: You wrote, “Bob Tinsdale…I agree that you said nothing to imply that these findings directly challenged AGW theory. I was merely trying to clarify that this was the case.”
I didn’t make that statement nor did I imply it. Please do not agree with something I did not write. Either I have a problem communicating, or you’ve misunderstood something I’ve written, or you’re blatantly misrepresenting what I’ve written to you above. Let me try again. My findings illustrate that El Nino events (those that are not impacted by volcanic eruptions) are the major driver of global ocean SST. Since global LST temperatures mimic SST, it would seem logical that those same El Nino events drive global combined LST and SST. But since you doubt that, stop by my website tomorrow (1/16/09) or Saturday (1/17/09). Here’s the link:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/
I’m examining Mid Latitude Lower Troposphere Temperature for the Northern Hemisphere. I’ve segmented it by continent and ocean. All the graphs are done. All I have to do is write it up. My illustrations clearly show that the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Ninos are the dominant cause of TLT change for the Mid Latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere since 1979. The step changes are very clear. After that, I’ll look at the low latitudes for the Northern Hemisphere in the same way, then move down to the Southern Hemisphere low latitudes and then mid latitudes.
I’ve illustrated why those El Nino events are so dominant in the posts here at WattsUpWithThat very clearly.
What part of illustrating that El Ninos are the ultimate driver of climate on this planet is not a challenge to the AGW hypothesis? According to It, anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the primary driver, BUT they’re not.
BTW, there’s no “N” in Tisdale.
George E. Smith (14:31:31) :
I suspect that earth orbital changes, including the effect of every known planet, can be computed using a computer to a quite high precision;
And it has already been done for you. Though the graphs are presented to lower human scale precision.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
We have the present set of conditions of the planet plus long term history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Milankovitch_Variations.png
and the projection of where we go from here at finer detail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbital_variation.svg
Ed Scott (15:48:45) :
We have not considered the position of the Solar System position in the Milky Way Galaxy which is subject to cycles analogous to the Milankovich cycles.
This guy does: http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
Roger (11:33:43) :
“Why wouldn’t it be prudent, considering the possible consequences, to error on the side of caution, when it comes to global warming?” The reason is that there is no rational response for this question.
And that, IMHO, is why no one bothers answering. AGW is paranoia. Paranoia is not sane. There can be no rational response to insanity. Best to ignore it and walk on past…
Bob Tisdale 13.33.12
Sorry about the spelling.
I am also sorry that we seem to be in disagreement because I do not see why this is happening. I appologise if it is my poor communication skills.
Let me make it clear up front. I do not believe in CO2 being a significant driver of global warming. So please do not see my points as being a challenge to you or a support for the views of the AGWarmers.
I accept that your analysis does show that LSTs follows SSTs which follow El Nino events. However as a physicist I am interested in the global energy balances. One of the reasons the AGWarmers tend to dismiss this kind of argument is that even if the conceded that the oceans governed climate over the medium term they would argue that over the long term the extra energy trapped by CO2 will always win out. This is my only point. I can find nothing in your argument which necessarily changes the cumulative overall energy balance taking all sources and sinks into account.
For example the release of warm water onto the surface will increase the temperature of the air. This will increase radiation and evaportation and, in all probability, would lead to increased energy lost to space. In other words increased global temperature might actually correlate with a negative energy balance.
The reason I found your article so exciting is that it does show how recent patterns of climate change do not need to reflect recent changes in the energy balance. In other words you provide a mechanism by which small changes in the energy balance can be stored and released much later. Or indeed how a constant energy balance can result in an oscllating surface temperature. This implies that the AGWarmers cannot use recent data to justify or calibrate the amount of warming that CO2 generates. This is important because we know that the laboratory evidence only supports a 1degree F increase for a doubling of CO2 (I personally do not accept even this as proven in the real world).
My blog was trying to address the issue of the huge energy inbalances that occur over the 100,000 year cycle. The amount of energy needed to freeze and melt the thousands of cubic miles of extra ice seen during the ice ages is staggering, The so called interglacial periods are the most astonishing because they always seem to occur straight after the coolest periods. So the swing in energy balance is extraordinary, Since this occurs when the CO2 and methane concentration is at a minimum we know it is not caused by greenhouse gases.
I do not know the answer to this but the fact that the ice ages are synchronised to the Milankovitch cycles convinces me that the sun is the dominant influence. The problem is, as the AGWs constantly point out, the variations in insolation are very small. However this is like saying that a 1% change in rainfall will not have a big effect on river flow. What if this was stored as snow and then released as water during a thaw. We know that happens with dramatic effects. So small changes can have big effects if there is time to accumulate.
I had never realised how large the warm pools could be. I guess it is also possible that with ice forming near to the tropics even more dramatic warm pools might occur even possibly under the ice? So such accumulation of energy might be possible and with its release the sudden and dramatic rise in temperatures observed is no longer so perplexing.
cal: I finished that post, “El Ninos Create Step Changes in TLT of the Northern Hemisphere Mid Latitudes”, discussed above.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/el-ninos-create-step-changes-in-tlt-of.html
The closing remarks include:
“Each segment of the mid latitude TLT data showed different:
-Response Times to El Nino Events,
-Response Times to Volcanic Eruptions,
-Rates of Response to El Nino Events,
-Rates of Response to La Nina Events, and
-Rates of Response to Volcanic Eruptions.
And there appears to be little consistency in the responses with a given dataset. For example, in some data sets, the earlier El Nino response is greater than the later response, and in others, the reverse is true. In some data sets, the time lags from a El Nino event or a volcanic eruption to the response from the mid latitude data is about 2 years before 1991 but then within months after 1993.”
http://i40.tinypic.com/s0vfqe.jpg
Regards