Guest post by Bob Tisdale
http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf
As noted in the title, it fails to address the multiyear effects of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events on global temperature.
Other than explosive volcanic eruptions, El Nino-Southern Oscillation events have the greatest impacts on global climate on annual and multiyear bases. The year-to-year global temperature impacts of ENSO events are clearly visible in a comparative time-series graph, Figure 1. Also visible are the overriding effects of the 1982 El Chichon and 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruptions.
http://i44.tinypic.com/144ag5f.jpg
Figure 1
The multiyear impacts of the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Nino events on Northern Hemisphere Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) are clearly visible in the TLT Time-Latitude Plot available from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). Refer to Figure 2 and 3, which are from my post “RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude Plots…Show Climate Responses That Cannot Be Easily Illustrated With Time-Series Graphs Alone.”
http://i44.tinypic.com/16leq39.jpg
Figure 2
#########
http://i41.tinypic.com/2vwzmdj.jpg
Figure 3
A seldom-discussed, naturally occurring oceanic process called Reemergence (Refer to my post “The Reemergence Mechanism”) provides the mechanism by which the global oceans integrate the effects of ENSO events. And it only takes the cumulative effect of a very small portion (0.0045 or less than ½ of 1%) of the monthly ENSO signal, as shown in Figure 4, to reproduce the Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomaly curve.
http://i42.tinypic.com/iom6ab.jpg
Figure 4
YET HOW MANY TIMES DOES THE USGCRP REPORT MENTION THE EL NINO-SOUTHERN OSCILLATION?
The USGCRP mentions “El Nino” nine times in the body of the 196-page report, but those references only pertain to global temperature on one occassion. The first reference, however, states that ENSO is independent of human activities.
On page 16, during a discussion Natural Influences, they wrote, “The climate changes that have occurred over the last century are not solely caused by the human and natural factors described above. In addition to these influences, there are also fluctuations in climate that occur even in the absence of changes in human activities, the Sun, or volcanoes. One example is the El Niño phenomenon, which has important influences on many aspects of regional and global climate.” [My emphasis.]
They acknowledged that ENSO is independent of anthropogenic influence. That’s significant.
On page 17, in the text of the comparative graph of “Global Temperature and Carbon Dioxide”, they wrote, “These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Niños, La Niñas, and the eruption of large volcanoes.” [My emphasis.]
Yet they fail to note the multiyear and cumulative effects of ENSO.
Page 36, during a discussion of Pacific Hurricanes, they write, “The total number of tropical storms and hurricanes in the eastern Pacific on seasonal to multi-decade time periods is generally opposite to that observed in the Atlantic. For example, during El Niño events it is common for hurricanes in the Atlantic to be suppressed while the eastern Pacific is more active. This reflects the large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns that extend across both the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans.” [My emphasis.]
That quote is important in many contests. Much can be inferred from it. Yet they fail to acknowledge the multidecadal epochs when El Nino or La Nina are dominant. These epochs are visible in a time-series graph of smoothed NINO3.4 SST anomalies, Figure 5.
http://i43.tinypic.com/33agh3c.jpg
Figure 5
On page 38, under the heading of Snowstorms, they wrote, “The northward shift in storm tracks is reflected in regional changes in the frequency of snowstorms. The South and lower Midwest saw reduced snowstorm frequency during the last century. In contrast, the Northeast and upper Midwest saw increases in snowstorms, although considerable decade-to-decade variations were present in all regions, influenced, for example, by the frequency of El Niño events.” [My emphasis.]
And again, they infer multidecadal influences of ENSO, but the USGCRP have failed to account for it in their attribution of global temperature change.
There are further references of El Nino and La Nina events on pages 81, 147, 148, and 152, as they pertain to tuna stock, droughts, coral reefs, and coastal currents. No need to repeat those in this post.
CLOSING
Like the IPCC, the USGCRP either fails to accept the significant multiyear and cumulative impacts of ENSO on global temperatures or they chose to ignore them in their presentation of the causes of global temperature change.
Posted by Bob Tisdale at 8:42 PM
I meant “professional” forecasters above…typo.. brain freeze.
Tallbloke: “The nino3.4 anomaly correlation to global SST is striking but the upward departures of Global SST seem to coincide with the progression of solar cycles.”
Before you begin to argue for a correlation between global SST and solar cycles, you have to remove the immediate effect of ENSO – to see the true, underlying nature of modern climate change. Without doing so, all attempts to find a solar cycle in SST will be baseless. I’ve done this analysis on a regional level, here:
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/how-enso-rules-the-oceans/
Solar cycles don’t seem to be the dominant feature of the SST in any ocean; instead, it appears that ENSO produces step-changes in SST radiating outward from the Pacific Warm Pool.
I give more data to back up these assertions here:
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/ten-questions-for-alarmists-about-the-el-ninosouthern-oscillation/
Carl
@ur momisugly Bob Tisdale (04:58:34) :
1. Why the European (?) SST data are seldom (well, never) seen on these pages? Please go to the page
http://pp.blast.pl/imgs.cli.jigl.www/index.html
and from the right menu choose WUWT-SST-Anomaly (I created the option ad hoc) or go directly to one of the ECMWF pages
http://pp.blast.pl/imgs.cli.jigl.www/WUWT-SST-Anomaly/5.html
2. What are the main dfferences between all the data sets presented here:
http://pp.blast.pl/imgs.cli.jigl.www/WUWT-SST-Anomaly/index.html
Why, let’s call ’em “American” and “European” data sets (satellite versus buoys data?) not put together for climate considerations?
BTW. I’d be greatfull for any remarks what to change or improved in the image database I created for myself and other (climate) bloggers. The Climages is updated daily. What I need now is “constructive critique” before The Climages are officially presented to the world. 😉
Regards
We need cap and tax, the truth is not information that we are interested in.
Bob Tisdale citing report:
“there are also fluctuations in climate that occur even in the absence of changes in human activities, the Sun, or volcanoes. One example is the El Niño phenomenon, which has important influences on many aspects of regional and global climate.”
They acknowledged that ENSO is independent of anthropogenic influence. That’s significant.
They acknowledged that ENSO is independent of changes in the Sun. That’s significant.
Bob,
I can’t help but think that some of this is indirectly related to what I wrote about a few years back. Anomalies in the TLT plots. Sorry about the lackluster presentation but you still should be able grasp what I was trying to show. Or bring forth as a hypothesis.
http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php?showtopic=103909
I am surprised that yesterday’s fantasy climate report from the Obama adminstration has gotten so little press coverage.
Tiny CO2
I am afraid you have failed the job interview for the Met office Olympics job. If it was ‘unpredictable’ you (and the Met office) wouldn’t be wanted would you? Pay attention now will you?
The correct answer is obviously that “our state of the art equipment enables us to make a robust forecast with a high level of certainty.”
Tonyb
Bob Tisdale… Congratulations for this excelent explanation.
Have you noticed that your theory is strongly correlated with Willis Eschenbach’s theory on the thermoregulation of Earth’s climate by the oceans? This is correct science! 🙂
Be careful all. Throwing opinions around on this sort of thing could get you ostracised. Prominent scientist refused service due to skepticism
Hopefully this isn’t a repeat. I got a server error when I tried to post this the first time.
Mark Wagner: You asked, “Do we know what drives the ENSO oscillation?”
In addition to the two links I provided in reply to the same question by VinceW that just happened to pop up right underneath your comment…
Refer to Bill Kessler’s Q&A page:
http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/occasionally-asked-questions.html
And David Enfield’s:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/enso_faq/
…consider the following. It’s a response at Lucia’s Blackboard I provided to a blogger who asked , “…how does an El Nino increase global temperature ?”
Link to Lucia’s thread:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/enso-watch/
My reply:
My simplest explanation might be a little wordy, but bear with me.
During non-El Nino years (La Nina and ENSO-neutral years), heat accumulates in the Pacific Warm Pool. Some of that heat is from warm water that returns to the PWP from the El Nino events (the equatorial counter current relaxes after an El Nino and the equatorial currents move the warm water back from the eastern to the western equatorial Pacific). Some of it is the normal heat buildup caused by the trade winds pushing warm surface waters from east to west in the tropical Pacific. And some of the buildup of heat occurs during the preceding El Nino event itself, when cloud amounts over the PWP drop significantly, causing a major rise in downwelling shortwave radiation (visible light). During the 1997/98 El Nino, downwelling shortwave radiation rose as much as 25 watt/meter^2 over the PWP.
The Pacific Warm Pool covers an area that varies in size. I did a few comparisons a while back and could go find them if necessary, but my memory says it varies from (approximately) the size of the United States to the size of Russia. So it can be quite large. And it can also reach depths of 300 meters. To put it into technical terms, it’s a chunk of warm water. During significant El Nino events like the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Ninos, the Pacific Warm Pool will pretty much “empty” its contents as the warm water sloshes east.
So the warm water that was in the Pacific Warm Pool, most of it below the surface, shifts east during the El Nino. The warm water rises to the surface during the process. The increase in surface temperature of the central to the eastern tropical Pacific causes the lower troposphere above it to rise, and atmospheric processes redistribute the heat around the globe. This is as far as most people carry the discussion.
Here’s the rest. Some BUT NOT ALL of the warm water returns to the Pacific Warm Pool during the subsequent La Nina. BUT (big but) the warm water that doesn’t return to the Pacific Warm Pool is now on the surface of the North and South Pacific and the Indian Ocean.
In other words, warm water that was below the surface of the Pacific Warm Pool (and not included in the calculation of global temperature) is redistributed around the SURFACE of the nearby oceans by the El Nino, (and it is now included in the calculation of global temperature). This can be seen as upward step changes in the sea surface temperatures of the East Indian and West Pacific Ocean after the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Nino events. Refer to my posts here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html
I hope that helped.
The more we learn, the more we forget.
“Fishermen who ply the waters of the Pacific off the coast of Peru and Ecuador have known for centuries about the El Niño.”
Source: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ElNino/
Gary Pearce: You asked, “Is the 0.0045 figure a best fit value or from some other basis?” I eyeballed it, that’s all.
Here’s an interesting take on the report’s impact in Florida:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/06/17/global-warmist-champion-think-twice-about-retiring-florida
Bob, I dont understand how you obtain the trend in fig. 4 for nino 3.4. If I use the nino 3.4 I observe no trend upward. But probably I missed somewhat…
At Climate depot there is much more critisism on the report.
There is also an open letter to climate change denialists and skeptics accusing them to behave like Chamberlain before WOII who did not see the real danger of the Nazi Regime.
More bad science presented by demogoges:
http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/an-open-letter-to-climate-change-denialists/
Michael D Smith (02:53:39),
Your analysis is spot on. But, as I previously posted, the “reported” measurement from Mona Loa is in PPM, (as is all other measurements of CO2 I’ve been able to find) which is a percentage figure. The percentage of the total of the atmosphere which is CO2, in this case. From that we cannot infer and should not assume the density (moles per cubic foot) of a gas is increasing, as it could equally be a DECREASE in the density of other gases that make up the total of the atmosphere. For example, in your analysis you noted the decrease of CO2 PPM every year during the Northern hemisphere summer. There are a lot of theories as to how this occurs and why it occurs when it does. But we really do not know. There are a number of things that are unaccounted for, including the relative DENSITY of other gases, including the two gases of primary concern, oxygen and carbon dioxide. For most of these theories to work AND for the density of CO2 to continue to increase as scientist and the computer modelers would have us believe is happening, the massive increase in the density of oxygen required to force the PPM (don’t forget it’s a percentage) of CO2 to decrease every year, is by my calculations, if not impossible, very improbable.
I have yet to find any comprehensive studies showing the PPM of the other gases over the same time period as the Mona Loa CO2 record and none on the density thereof. Even the CO2 record (compendium of studies) is at best hit and miss AND as has been reported here before, abused and misused. From what I have been able to determine, it (the historical record of the composition of the atmosphere) is just one more item we simply do not know and of course is subsequently ignored (or perverted) by the AGW crowd. I have found “they” even use it as a straw-man argument when cornered by physics and logic in asking the inane question, “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARBON?” hoping that will shut me up, but to which I now respond, “Yeah, where does all the carbon go?” the answer to which “they” are still searching.
My summary point being, the PPM record of CO2 as a component of the atmosphere, no matter where derived from, at this point is virtually meaningless.
“My summary point being, …..” i should have said, …. virtually meaningless TO ALL BUT THE POLITICIANS AND THEIR FRIENDS THAT USE IT TO KEEP THEMSELVES IN BUSINESS. As per the article in todays WSJ – Legislators Framing Climate Bills Hold Energy Stock
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124519704993421187.html#mod=article-outset-box
Great work Bob T, I suspect when we fully unravel ENSO, the whole climatic modality will become resolved. I am not necessarily saying ENSO drives all climate, but the underlying forces (initiators) will be key to the entire music of climate.
Bob Tisdale
“Gary Pearce: You asked, “Is the 0.0045 figure a best fit value or from some other basis?” I eyeballed it, that’s all.”
Thanks Bob. My point was that I believe there may be a basis for calculation of temperatures volumes involved. Also I give a link showing the much elevated geothermal gradient in east-central pacific. Geothermal gradient has been rejected as a too weak and it is weak on average. See the following link and scroll down to the heat content map of the globe a couple of clicks down.
This with the currents gathering it together may possibly be the source of El Nino. (Compared to suns heating it is 0.35W/m2 times two because it operates day and night, times four because it heats the water on the sea floor for say 4 yrs before the water wells up and it is equivalent to about 3W/m2) – other factors, no albedo effect or IR re radiation to outerspace from the the SST.
Oops the link again:
http://geophysics.ou.edu/geomechanics/notes/heatflow/global_heat_flow.htm
Although I am neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring when it comes to actual climate change, I note what I think are flaws in the report here: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d16-A-lost-opportunity-Global-climate-change-impacts-in-the-United-States
I would be happy to call attention to other defects as they occur, and if Anthony decides to host a ‘minority report’ as I call it in my article, I will faithfully report on the results.
Possibly OT, but don’t forget variations in solar activity. Speaking of which: My understanding is that the reason Skylab fell before NASA could rescue it is that solar activity was higher than normal. For some reason that caused the upper fringe of the atmosphere to expand outward which caused enough drag to make Skylab’s orbit decay.
“Meanwhile the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle arrived, a more active peak than NASA had hoped for, bringing a greater intensity of solar x-rays and extreme ultra-violet radiation. These radiations are absorbed in the uppermost fringes of the atmosphere, heat them up and make them expand outwards, more at “solar maximum” than at other times. Their expansion increased the air resistance (“drag”) to the motion of Skylab and caused its early demise.”
http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sorbit.htm
Here’s the question: If increased solar activity causes the upper fringe of the atmosphere to expand outward, what impact if any would that have on climate. We’re talking very low density here–not far from vacuum. That should mean very little heat transmission at any one area. On the other hand, if we’re talking hundreds of miles of extension all around the planet, then it’s bound to have some impact. Has anyone investigated the size of that impact and how heating of those upper layers interacts with the rest of the atmosphere?
Leif Svalgaard (06:34:20)
They acknowledged that ENSO is independent of changes in the Sun. That’s significant.
I always love it when I hear this. Not that you did the research. And this is not intended toward you Leif. So certain indivduals have decided what’s important within the scheme of things and the rest just go along for the ride.
Now I heard this same type of reasoning many years back in regards to the ability to predict certain events from weeks out. Like 3-4 day temperature anomaly weather patterns, or snowstorms etc.. But the community “now understands” the importance of the MJO, AAM – GWO.
And the naysayers who tried to downplay my own local success with these type of forecasts, like a former AMS president, had to eat crow. Because an astute global observer should have noticed these AAM-GWO-MJO pendulum like patterns, even before the GWO indice was officially brought forward.
So this is really all about being able to grasp pattern recogniton. Even with the sun and the ENSO.
The report apparently ignores everything since the early 00s. For example, shifted snow storm tracks. People have been taken by surprise by the southward shift since the early 00s, as they had been anticipating this would be impossible. Well, guess what.