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
Bob
I notice that you did not mention AMO or the NORTH ATLANTIC SST as having any effect on climate . Care to comment?
TinyCO2 (03:55:18)
The standard London weather forecast is “Sunny Periods with Scattered Showers”
Bob Tisdale (07:31:34)
I can’t see any problem with that explanation but I’m not sure that it is complete.
It seems that there are underlying cycles that during a so called warming phase enhance El Nino events and suppress La Nino events to produce net global warming for around 30 years at a time.
During a so called cooling phase El Nino events seem to be suppressed and La Nina events seem to be enhanced to produce net global warming for around 30 years at a time.
Those differing phases are clear from the ENSO data and I think it is indicative of an independent underlying oceanic cycle but that is not yet fully accepted.
Furthermore during each phase there is a response in the air involving a latitudinal shift in the air circulation systems. That has been commented on by many but the implications not yet appreciated.
There seem to be similar multidecadal variations in oceanic absorption/emissivity in each ocean so for climate change purposes one really should net them all out to ascertain the current oceanic contribution to any ongoing climate change.
Note that a full cycle in the Pacific encompassing both warming and cooling phases is 60 years or so and when one takes into account the out of phase similar cycles in the other oceans it could be 100 years or more between occasions when the net oceanic effect approximately repeats itself.
Now that means the effects are spread over 6 to 10 or more solar cycles. We all know that there is little energy output variation from the top to the bottom of a single cycle but when we look at changes over 6 to 10 cycles or more the differences are quite enough to generate a slow background temperature trend up or down like the trend from Mediaeval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age and from LIA to today.
Those solar changes are not always in phase with the oceanic effects and so each can obscure the effect of the other in the climate record.
Combine the solar and oceanic effects to explain all the global temperature changes observed (after stripping out any UHI effects) during the 20th Century and there seems to be no cause for concern about CO2.
Add in the latitudinal variation of the air circulation systems and that accounts for all the regional climate changes too.
Measure the current average position of all the air circulation systems to diagnose the scale of any current warming or cooling trend.
deadwood (07:14:37) :
Sam Champion did an apocalyptic review on Good Morning America (quite
typical).
Science News posted an article at http://sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/44737/description/White_House_releases_report_on_climate_change
I posted notes to both, likely the Science News one will be the only one seen by anyone who cares. I just sent readers to WUWT and Bob Tisdale – recent stories here all are counter to what I’ve heard about the report.
It certainly seems like cover to support the Cap and Trade vote.
Picking nits.
In this,
.” Should not “contests” be “contexts”?
cheers,
gary
Leif Svalgaard (06:34:20) :
I just know that you are going to tell me that I am not making any sense but here goes…
You say; “They acknowledged that ENSO is independent of changes in the Sun. That’s significant.”
But surely ENSO is somehow a reflection of energy inputs – if not from the sun then where from?
Stephen Wilde (08:57:04) :
I have to say that once again your post makes enormous sense… to me at least.
Przemysław Pawełczyk: You asked, “Why the European (?) SST data are seldom (well, never) seen on these pages?”
I use the Hadley Centre’s HADISST and HADSST2 data for many of my posts, including the NINO3.4 SST anomaly graph above. I use what’s readily available through the NOAA NOMADS system or the KNMI Climate Explorer.
ENSO involves a LOT of energy. So does the PDO. And the AMO. And a lot of other process we discuss here.
Where is all that energy coming from?
Since these are not constant, stable processes, but instead fluctuate in intensity, isn’t it reasonable to assume the energy source driving them is also fluctuating?
The Sun provides a source of energy, and the intensity of the energy fluctuates, with most of that occurring in the IR and UV bands. Even a minor fluctuation of .1% can still produce on the order of > 10^21 J/year in the Central Pacific alone. If the energy source isn’t the Sun, then what is it?
Sergio da Roma: Figure 4 illustrates a scaled RUNNING TOTAL of NINO3.4 SST anomalies. It’s not simply a trend. I discussed the running total in more detail and provided links in the following post on “Reproducing Global Temperature Anomalies with Natural Forcings”:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html
Regards
Milwaukee Bob (07:46:52) :
I think I get your point, so to use an example, let’s say O2 is 20% or 200000 ppm, and CO2 changes by 2ppm during the month (and let’s say those 2 PPM are replaced by O2to keep it simple). The vacancy left by CO2 would only be 2ppm or 2E-6, so the increase in O2 density by your argument would be roughly (200002/1000000)/(200000/1000000)-1 or .001%). This would get lost in the noise.
I don’t see what about PPM is so objectionable, it’s just a ratio of one component to all others, by volume, standardized, when all others + ppm CO2 = 1 million. The density of all gases will change the same with different altitudes / pressures, etc, so that doesn’t even need correction. PPM is PPM by volume.
My larger point is that the concentration cannot change at a slope of -25ppm per year, unless the rate of exchange of all CO2, into and out of the oceans / biosphere, etc is HUGE. Let’s see how big.
Dry Mass of atmosphere: 5.1352 × 10^18 kg
CO2 portion by volume: .000385
Largest slope (approx) -25ppm per year
Molar mass of air 28.97 g/mol
Molar mass of CO2 44.01g/mol
CO2 fraction by weight = .000385*(44.01/28.97) = 5.8487E-04
CO2 mass in atmosphere = 5.1352 × 10^18 * 5.8487E-04 = 3.00342E+15 kg
Slope fraction per year = -25ppm/385ppm = .064935, which is the net difference of sources and sinks at the highest declining rate. This is the MINIMUM exchange rate occurring all the time, which implies exchange of once per 15.4 years maximum (higher than my previous guesstimate) instead of half per 100 years as claimed in the report…
CO2 exchanged per year: 3.00342E+15 kg*.064935 = 1.95027E+14 kg/yr.
Human CO2 emissions: 27 billion tonnes or 27e9*1e3kg=27e12kg
Human CO2 as % of normal exchange rate: 27e12kg/1.95027E+14 or 0.13844237, or 13.8% of the minimum amount normally exchanged per year, or 27e+12 kg/3.00342E+15 kg = 0.008989752 or 0.898% of total CO2 mass per year. Notice how the latter number is close to 1%… Is this how a politician determines that CO2 lasts 100 years? I digress…
Given the huge natural exchange rate in and out of the biosphere, oceans, soils, etc., how long should a given CO2 molecule, released by your breath, decaying vegetation, whatever, remain free before being naturally captured again? The answer would be e^(-YR*.064935) so that in 15.4 years (one time constant), the likelihood is 1-e^-1 or 36.78% that the molecule still remains free.
Not considered is the differing rates that change as CO2 levels change. Since the oceans can absorb vastly more than the atmosphere, any rate that takes them out of equilibrium will directly increase their absorption rates with higher CO2 levels, so the absorption rate should increase.
Also not considered is that this is the absolute minimum rate derived by the seasonal dCO2/dt chart (where t=time, not temp) It could be that the rate of exchange is higher but we don’t see it in seasonal readings, which would also explain why we see from other sources that human CO2 is around 3% of natural exchanges…
My point here is that “CO2 lasts 100 years” is cherry picked BS. Is there a peer reviewed paper that says that? I would not be surprised, but there should be 15 more that say it’s less than 20 years. I’ll look for them tonight…
Mike S.
@ur momisugly Bob Tisdale (07:31:34) :
@ur momisugly Stephen Wilde (08:57:04) :
To put it short – there must be energy entry into any working mechanism. What’s that (nomen omen?)? 😉
And if there’s entry there must be an output minus the work being done to move the ocean and air masses.
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard (06:34:20) :
If ENSO “is” independent “of changes in the Sun” then “what’s up out there” to makes it going on “the cycles”?
May I expect short explanation?
Regards
On this same issue I wanted to post a comment on Roger Pielke’s site but it wants me to select a profile—options are Google, Live Journal, WordPress, TypePad, Aim, and Open ID. I tried the Google thing, it seemed not to work, then it did seem to, but I don’t know. Communicating in this fashion is great when one knows what is going on and why. Too bad I don’t but I can still learn. Help?
timbrom (07:23:50) :
Be careful all. Throwing opinions around on this sort of thing could get you ostracised. Prominent scientist refused service due to skepticism
It’s a reality, at least for me. Prior to my speech on AGW pseudoscience, the universities and local TV stations used to invite me for giving my opinions on different scientific issues and impart short courses. After I saw the reality and set myself on the side of real science, there have been no more invitations for talking at any university and the Media cramped me into a Saturday’s radio broadcast limited to two minutes. Who does hear radio at 11 AM on Saturday?
An interesting section in the report is found near the end where they propose areas where new research and knowledge needs to be pursued. They state that the GCM’s need to be “refined” to predict more “granular” local effects. The degree of gall and hubris is amazing. We have GCM’s that fully and accurately predict hundreds of years into the future and now all we need to do is tweak them to predict local weather.
Three excellent commentaries by Toronto FP on recent AGW science and articles
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/06/16/junk-science-week-terence-corcoran-decision-based-evidence-making.aspx
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/06/16/junk-science-week-mit-s-unscientific-catastrophic-climate-forecast.aspx
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/06/16/junk-science-week-peter-foster-300-000-non-deaths.aspx
Carl Wolk (06:29:16) :
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.
Hi Carl, I’ve been following your work and Erl Happ’s work at climatechange1.wordpress.com with great interest, as well as Bob Tisdale’s posts here and on his own blog. I completely agree that solar cycles are not a dominant feature in the SST variations in individual oceans, and that the step changes in temperature do indeed radiate out from the PWP.
All I was getting at with my post was that the solar signal in *averaged global sst* is more *detectable* than it is in the Nino3.4 record, and that this seems to ‘fit’ with Willis Eschenbach’s work on his Thermostat Hypothesis presented here on WUWT a few days ago, and also ‘fits’ with the Solar amplification ideas of Nir Shaviv, and the GCR-cloud seeding theory of Henrik Svensmark.
The solar signal in global SST isn’t obvious for every cycle, and I’m sure that el nino and la nina events offset or negate it to an extent at some points in the record, but I think it’s clear enough that there is at least some solar effect visible.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/mean:12/scale:0.005/offset:-1/plot/hadsst2gl/mean:43/detrend:0.5
I see a remarkable convergence and the possibility of integration starting to take shape in the work done by Bob, yourself, Willis, Shaviv, and Svensmark, rather than competing and incompatible ideas.
More power to your collective elbows, keep it coming.
Przemysław Pawełczyk (10:06:20) :
If ENSO “is” independent “of changes in the Sun” then “what’s up out there” to makes it going on “the cycles”?
I think the onus is one those who claim that is does depend on the Sun to actually demonstrate that. But that was not my point, which is that the report mentioned several things:
“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.
One should not just cherry pick what one wants. If it is at all significant [i.e. that the report has ANY credibility at all], then the other causes the report mentions are also significant, namely that “They acknowledged that ENSO is independent of changes in the Sun. That’s significant.”.
If one of the things [humans] is not causing ENSO, then the other things the report says are not causing ENSO [the sun and volcanoes] are just as true. Of course, it could be that the whole thing is nonsense, and the report has no credibility, but, please, don’t cherry pick. THAT was my point, however clumsily [or too subtlety] expressed.
Carbon-based Life Form (10:17:24) :
The degree of gall and hubris is amazing. We have GCM’s that fully and accurately predict hundreds of years into the future
Just like the astrological claims that the planets can be used to predict ‘perfectly’ solar climate thousands of years ahead… The degree of gall is indeed amazing.
TonyB (07:17:42) :
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
Sorry Tony, you didn’t get it either. My state of the art up to the minute forecast system will constantly update the olympic stadium of the weather, right up to the minute.
Once i have the contract I’ll be renting a posh office 10 miles southwest of the stadium and keeping a weather eye open out the window.
The first graph seems to me as the definite proof of something “more” is going on. Se are at the down-deeps of the Nino 3,4 SST anomalies. And yet the troposphere anomalies doesn’t go down as deep as they are expected ?
Why ? Why are the expected down-peek not as deep anymore as 20-30 years ago ? If we connect this down-peaks we see a clear undisputable upward trend !
The proof of global warming ?
As soon as the lower-peek fall as deep as they should do….I believe that global warming is an Hoax. As long as that is not happening….blogs like this may write whatever they want, they fail to explain why the lower temperatures do not reach the normal lows anymore !!!!!
Stephen Wilde (08:57:04) :
We all know that there is little energy output variation from the top to the bottom of a single cycle but when we look at changes over 6 to 10 cycles or more the differences are quite enough to generate a slow background temperature trend up or down like the trend from Mediaeval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age and from LIA to today.
Those solar changes are not always in phase with the oceanic effects and so each can obscure the effect of the other in the climate record.
Spot on Stephen. Just to remind everyone of Nir Shaviv’s excellent analysis of ocean heat content and the order of magnitude amplification of the solar signal by clouds. It’s a paywalled paper, but should be read and absorbed by all who are interested in this stuff.
Jim Hughes (06:19:41) :
Mark Wagner: Do we know what drives the ENSO oscillation? Is it just unknown?
“The sun does and it’s not even up for debate in my opinion. The problem with mainstream science not understanding the reasoning, or I should say the mechanisms to consider when trying to forecast it, are that they have always failed to think ‘outside the box’.
“But I personally know some long term proffesional forecasters…”
Spelling only counts here on the fifth Friday of the month, Jim.
When seawater cools from, say, 80°F to 65°F, its viscosity rises by almost 25 percent. I’m pretty sure that the major cause of ENSO is that East Pacific upwelling reaches a point where the seawater surface viscosity becomes too high for the trades to hold westward, resulting in a shift towards the east. I’m not sure the trades slacken much; they’re driven by the earth’s rotation plus coriolis forces, which don’t cycle. But the mechanism I propose above is necessarily cyclical. As the East Pacific warm temperatures are restored, the sea surface viscosity drops, and the trades can then sweep water westward again.
Note: There may be related atmospheric factors due to cooling and the resulting lower humidities above the upwelled water.
Carbon-based Life Form (10:17:24) :
They state that the GCM’s need to be “refined” to predict more “granular” local effects. The degree of gall and hubris is amazing. We have GCM’s that fully and accurately predict hundreds of years into the future and now all we need to do is tweak them to predict local weather.
Cart before horse as usual. They need to get granular local effects *into* the model to have any chance of getting useful longer term predictions out.
John W. (09:37:53) : “…Since these are not constant, stable processes, but instead fluctuate in intensity, isn’t it reasonable to assume the energy source driving them is also fluctuating?”
Not necessarily. When I blow into a horn, I don’t change the air flow or pressure from my lungs, but there’s an oscillation (“pitch”) in the output. Certain things (like horns, tuning forks, pendula) have a natural frequency.
jorgekafkazar (12:54:23)
Jim Hughes (06:19:41) :
Cause of El Nino:
I’ve offered a possibility from geology – the geothermal gradient. Yes, yes its is weak on average but consider. Average 0.075W/m2 but 0.35W/m2 where? in the east-central pacific: click below and scrolldown to the GG heat map. Imagine at the seafloor 0.35W working 24hrs a day (not like the sun’s half day heating and half cooling)l. No albedo, no IR irradiation back into space – converting to “sun equivalence” multiply by two for the 24 hrs, multiply by say four because it heats for four years on the bottom before it rises to the top and you end up with about 3W/m2 equivalence, heated from the bottom – And the currents gather this water and stretch it out into a strip along the equator. Link:
http://geophysics.ou.edu/geomechanics/notes/heatflow/global_heat_flow.htm