Bob Tisdale on NCDC's USCGRP report

The USGCRP Report “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” Fails To Acknowledge the Multiyear Effects of ENSO on Global Temperature

Guest post by Bob Tisdale

The USGCRP report “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” was released today. Link to report:

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

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
186 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen Wilde
June 21, 2009 9:58 am

“erlhapp (18:29:37) :
What is it that accounts for: “variations in the rate of energy flow from ocean to air.”
A change in the surface temperature of the oceans seems to do the trick.
The question is whether that surface temperaure is changed by the mechanism you describe or instead by a change in the internal activity of the oceans which causes them to release stored solar energy faster or slower.
I said this above:
1) Oceanic energy content is hugely greater than that of the air and so minor variations in the rate of energy flow from the oceans will have very large effects on the temperature of the air. In contrast it would take large changes in the air to result in a warming of the ocean surface. You partially recognise that by relying not on the air imparting warmth to the ocean surface but instead an increase in solar energy reaching the ocean surface from increased insolation due to less cloud cover. I think that is, however, the wrong way round.
2) It would take some time for increased insolation to build up in the surface waters yet the onset of a strong EL Nino is very rapid. I don’t think your mechanism would be fast enough.
3) I am not satisfied that your essentially short term scenario (consistent with the frequency of single ENSO events) can explain the 30/60 year periodicities that have been clearly observed between positive warming phases and negative cooling phases. To deal with that I think one has to have an oceanic mechanism involving variations in the rate of energy flow from ocean to air
I think something is going on within the oceans, some sort of circulation which brings bodies of water with differing thermal characteristics to the surface at different times. Ultimately solar driven.

Stephen Wilde
June 21, 2009 10:01 am

“Bob Tisdale (14:11:25) :
Anthony: Thanks.”
Touche.
How does one do ‘e acute’ on a UK keyboard ?

tallbloke
June 21, 2009 10:27 am

Stephen, try this
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306560
Touché

tallbloke
June 21, 2009 10:53 am

It has been suggested that multidecadal changes in Length of Day produced as the balance shifts between atmospheric angular momentum and earth’s angular momentum could affect winds and currents.
Might this have anything to do with the changes Stephen and Erl are discussing?
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/sa-mfpd/downloads/indices/LOD.jpg

anna v
June 21, 2009 11:10 pm

Pamela Gray (18:54:03) :
I am sorry but the reference you give does not turn the suncycle effect observation into myth at the moment. It is obvious that many things work in concert or disharmony to produce PDOs and AMOs etc.
What I have been trying to clear up is whether the long known “wisdom” that generally the 11 year sun cycle is visible in tree rings is really a “myth” . No such debunking exists, at least not found easily. I would expect there should have been a paper stating clearly that “no correlation between ring tree thicknesses and sunspot cycles is found”.
I would be fine with that. BTW my correlation was not with wet+warm, rather wet or warm.
If the old conclusions though are not a myth, then somehow even though TSI varies vary little, the cycle is affecting the climate and the question is reduced to “how”.

tallbloke
June 21, 2009 11:29 pm

anna v, this is a ‘must read’.
“Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing” Nir Shaviv
It’s behind a paywall, maybe you can get institutional access?
Shaviv finds the variation in TSI over the solar cycle is amplified by an order of magnitude by processes such as decadal changes in cloud cover (Svensmark effect) and so causes a fluctuation at the frequency of the Schwabe cycle.
This is enough of a change to show up in tree rings.
Given the accumulative nature of the ocean processes Bob has identified, it seems to me it’s reasonable to look at solar data in a cumulative way to see how well it matches longer term changes in the temperature record. So I made this graph:
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view&current=sst-nino-ssa.jpg
I did link it in a reply to you earlier in the thread. I don’t know if you saw it.

anna v
June 22, 2009 10:41 pm

tallbloke (23:29:54) :
I replied to this and the reply has not come through 🙁
Just that I had seen your link, it is just not easy for me to “read it” with respect to solar cycles.
I read the abstracts of Shaviv’s paper. I do not know whether the amplification is adequate, 7*0.1 is 0.7. It is one more piece of the jigsaw?

tallbloke
June 23, 2009 6:43 am

Hi Anna,
The first version of the graph has the solar cycles on and averages the SST’s over 1/3 solar cycle length which makes their effect stand out more in the SST record.
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view&current=ssa-sst-ssn.jpg
I will download the precipitation data and run that to see if any patterns emerge. A combination of the warm and the wet (though not necessarily simultaneously) will be what we are looking for in greater tree ring width, as you noted.

tallbloke
June 23, 2009 7:46 am

Bob Tisdale (14:06:23) :
Since there may be someone else other than you, tallbloke, trying to duplicate that graph, someone who’s not familiar with the KNMI Climate Explorer, I’ll run through that process. Go to:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Scroll down to SST and select the first dataset HADISST, then scroll back up and click on “Select Field”. On the next page, there are fields for Latitude and Longitude. The coordinates for NINO3.4 are 5S-5N, 170W-120W, so enter -5 & 5 for the latitudes and -170 and -120 for longitudes. (I also got into the habit of entering a zero in the “Demand at least” field somewhere along the line. It shouldn’t have any effect on the HADISST data though.) Click on “Make Time Series.” On the next page, scroll down to the third graph. It reads “Anomalies with respect to the above annual cycle”. On that same line, click on “raw data.” That next page is the raw HADISST NINO3.4 SST anomaly data. It’s in two columns that starts at “1870.0000 -0.804598”

Bob, I followed these instructions to the letter and got a series starting 1870.0000 -0.948814. When I plotted it, I got a series which looks like yours, but there is still a data discrepancy, the downtick at 1920 on your graph now appears at around 1915 on mine. Oh well, getting closer. 🙂

June 23, 2009 9:43 am

tallbloke: It appears I was wrong. Enter “0” in the “Demand at least” field so that you get all the data. With 30%, I also start at 1870.0000 -0.948814.

tallbloke
June 23, 2009 12:22 pm

Hmmm, tried that, but got the same
1870.0000 -0.948814
Strange.

1 6 7 8