In a study in the Journal of Geophysical Research a paper, Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, researchers Chris de Freitas, John McLean, and Bob Carter find that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. By their analysis they have shown that natural forces related to ocean heat cycles are the dominant influence on climate. See the WUWT post on it here and the original paper here.
This guest post by Bob Tisdale is a response of interest to both critics and supporters of the paper and illustrates how the multiyear processes of an El Nino event such as occurred in 1998 are missed. – Anthony
Regression Analyses Do Not Capture The Multiyear Aftereffects Of Significant El Nino Events
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
INTRODUCTION
This post illustrates why regression analyses do not capture the multiyear aftereffects of significant El Nino events. To emphasize this, I’ve provided a detailed explanation of the processes that take place before, during, and after those significant El Nino events, using graphics and videos from earlier posts.
EXAMPLE OF RESULTS FROM A REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Regression analyses are used by climatologists to determine and illustrate the impact on global temperature of one or more variables, such as ENSO, Solar Irradiance, and Volcanic Aerosols. Figure 1 shows the results of one such study. It is a multi-cell illustration of “Surface Temperature Variability Components” from Lean and Rind (2008) “How Natural and Anthropogenic Influences Alter Global and Regional Surface Temperatures: 1889 to 2006” [GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L18701, doi:10.1029/2008GL034864, 2008].
Link to Paper:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf
http://i32.tinypic.com/2lmw477.png
Figure 1
My Figure 1 is Figure 2 from Lean and Rind (2008). Under the heading of “Datasets”, Lean and Rind write, “Monthly fluctuations in ENSO, volcanic aerosols, solar irradiance and anthropogenic influences are shown in Figure 2. The multivariate ENSO index, a weighted average of the main ENSO features contained in sea-level pressure, surface wind, surface sea and air temperature, and cloudiness [Wolter and Timlin, 1998], extends from 1950 to 2006. It is augmented with an index derived from Japan Meteorologial Agency sea surface temperatures from 1868 [Meyers et al., 1999]. Volcanic aerosols in the stratosphere are compiled by [Sato et al., 1993] since 1850, updated from giss.nasa.gov to 1999 and extended to the present with zero values. The adopted solar forcing, consistent with IPCC [2007], is less than half that reported in prior IPCC assessments. Monthly irradiances since 1882 are estimate d from competing effects of sunspots and faculae in observations made by space-based radiometers, extended into the past using solar flux transport simulations [Wang et al., 2005]. The anthropogenic forcing is the net effect of eight different components, including greenhouse gases, landuse and snow albedo changes, and (admittedly uncertain) tropospheric aerosols [Hansen et al., 2007] (inset, Figure 2d).”
Lean and Rind then go on to detail the analyses they performed. Under the heading of “Amplitudes and Patterns of Natural and Anthropogenic Influences,” they state, “Natural changes cannot account for the significant long-term warming in the historical global surface temperature anomalies. Linear trends in temperature attributed to ENSO, volcanic aerosols and solar irradiance over the past 118 years (depicted by the lines in Figure 2) are, respectively, 0.002, -0.001 and 0.007 K per decade. Only by associating the surface warming with anthropogenic forcing is it possible to reconstruct the observed temperature anomalies.”
Basically, using a short-term comparison of NINO3.4 SST anomalies and Global RSS MSU TLT anomalies, my Figure 2, regression analyses like those used by Lean and Rind argue that natural variables cannot explain the upward divergence of global temperature from NINO3.4 SST anomalies. And if natural variables cannot explain the additional rise in global temperature, then the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis dictates that anthropogenic forcings must cause the rest. BUT…
http://i32.tinypic.com/2rw9pbq.png
Figure 2
REGRESSION ANALYSES TREAT ENSO AS A “FORCING”, NOT AS A PROCESS WITH MULTIYEAR AFTEREFFECTS
Regression analyses regard El Nino events as a climate forcing of varying frequency and magnitude, the same way they consider other natural forcings such as volcanic aerosols and solar irradiance. They do not consider the multiyear processes that can occur after those El Nino events. Before presenting these, I’ll first provide a detailed description of the processes that take place before, during, and after significant El Nino events.
EL NINO OVERVIEW
For those new to the process of El Nino events, Bill Kessler and David B. Enfield, both of NOAA, provide excellent descriptions of ENSO in their ENSO Q&A web pages. Link to Bill Kessler’s:
http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/occasionally-asked-questions.html
Link to David B. Enfield’s:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/enso_faq/
I’ll expand on their descriptions.
During non-El Nino years (La Nina and ENSO-neutral years), warm water accumulates in an area of the western tropical Pacific known as the Pacific Warm Pool (PWP); also known as the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP). Refer to Figure 3.
http://i30.tinypic.com/b3tpah.gif
Figure 3 (Source CRCES. Link to follow.)
Some of the warm water in the Pacific Warm Pool is water that returns there after El Nino events (the Equatorial Countercurrent in the Pacific relaxes after an El Nino and the North and South Equatorial Currents move the warm water back from the eastern to the western equatorial Pacific). More on that later. Some of the warm water in the Pacific Warm Pool results from solar radiation that warms the tropical Pacific and from the trade winds that push those warm surface waters from east to west in the Pacific during La Nina events and during ENSO-neutral periods. And some of the buildup of warm water in the Pacific Warm Pool occurs during the El Nino event itself, when cloud amounts over the Pacific Warm Pool drop significantly, causing a major rise in downwelling shortwave radiation (visible light). During the 1997/98 El Nino, it has been estimated that downwelling shortwave radiation rose as much as 25 watts/sq meter over the PWP. Refer to Figure 4. (This change in downwelling shortwave radiation was discussed in my post Recharging The Pacific Warm Pool Part 2.)
http://i41.tinypic.com/2435kbb.jpg
Figure 4
Figure 4 is from the Pavlakis et al (2008) paper “ENSO Surface Shortwave Radiation Forcing over the Tropical Pacific”:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/6697/2008/acpd-8-6697-2008-print.pdf
The accumulation of warm water in the Pacific Warm Pool over months and years from trade winds pushing surface waters west, the periodic transport of the warm water out of the PWP by El Nino events, the blast of downwelling shortwave radiation during El Nino events, and the replenishment of the warm water during the subsequent La Nina all cause the size and temperature of the Pacific Warm Pool to vary.
Figure 5 illustrates the variations in area and temperature of the Pacific Warm Pool. The illustration is from the CRCES webpage “Natural decadal-multidecadal variability of the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool and its impacts on global climate” by Mehta and Mehta:
http://www.crces.org/presentations/dmv_ipwp/
http://i28.tinypic.com/6e3skg.png
Figure 5
CRCES also provides a Quicktime movie (2.7MB) of the annual variations in Indo-Pacific Warm Pool area and SST anomalies here:
http://www.crces.org/presentations/dmv_ipwp/images/SST_WP.MOV
The variability of the Pacific Warm Pool can also be seen in the Western Equatorial Pacific Warm Water Volume, Figure 6, which is from my post Equatorial Pacific Warm Water Volume.
http://i34.tinypic.com/xfyro1.jpg
Figure 6
Note how, during the 1997/98 El Nino, the Western Equatorial Pacific Warm Water Volume (light blue curve) drops as NINO3.4 SST anomalies (black curve) rise. This is one indication that the warm water is being carried away from the Pacific Warm Pool during the El Nino event. Also note how quickly the Western Equatorial Pacific Warm Water Volume replenishes itself. It has “recharged” by the second phase of the 1998/99/00 La Nina.
The direction shifts in the Pacific Equatorial Currents that are part of an El Nino show how the warm water volume of the Pacific Warm Pool is lowered during those events. The Equatorial Countercurrent increases in size and carries the warm water from the Pacific Warm Pool to the east. When the El Nino ends, the Equatorial Countercurrent ebbs, and the North and South Equatorial Currents carry the warm water back to the west, to the Pacific Warm Pool. These shifts can be seen in Video 1 “Equatorial Currents Before, During, and After The 1997/98 El Nino” from my post of the same name:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/02/equatorial-currents-before-during-and.html
Video 1
And there are subsurface changes that take place during an El Nino event. The warm water that was in the Pacific Warm Pool, most of it below the surface, shifts east during the El Nino, where it rises to the surface. These changes in the subsurface waters of the Pacific can be seen in my Video 2 “Cross-Sectional Views of Three Significant El Nino Events – Part 1”. Link to post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/02/cross-sectional-views-of-three.html
Video 2
Though not discussed in Video 2, the rise of the thermocline at the end of the 1997/98 El Nino is visible. “Rewind” to minute 3:00 and start the video. After the commentary, the thermocline rises, further illustrating that warm water that was once below the surface of the Pacific Ocean has been brought to the surface by the El Nino.
Some BUT NOT ALL of the warm water that had sloshed east during the El Nino returns to the Pacific Warm Pool during the subsequent La Nina. And the warm water that doesn’t return to the Pacific Warm Pool is carried westward by the Equatorial Currents of the Pacific, Figure 7, to the surface of the Western Pacific and the Eastern Indian Oceans.
http://i30.tinypic.com/wvzu6r.png
Figure 7
There, the warm water raises the surface temperature of the Western Pacific and the Eastern Indian Oceans, Figure 8.
http://i29.tinypic.com/2a75q2t.png
Figure 8
The transport of this warm water and its aftereffects can be seen in Video 3 “Recharging The Pacific Warm Pool”. Link to post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/recharging-pacific-warm-pool.html
Video 3
In other words, warm water that was below the surface of the Pacific Warm Pool (and not included in the calculation of global temperature anomaly) is redistributed around the surface of the nearby oceans by the El Nino, (and it is now included in the calculation of global temperature). Phrased yet another way, before that El Nino, the warm water was not included in surface temperature record but afterward the warm water was included in surface temperature record. This raises global temperature anomalies without any heat input. Keep in mind that the rearranging of waters during an El Nino does not in and of itself create heat; it only shifts warm water from below the surface of the Pacific Ocean to the surface where it impacts temperature measurements.
THIS CAN BE SEEN AS UPWARD STEP CHANGES IN THE SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE OF ~25% OF THE GLOBAL OCEANS
And those upward step changes after the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Nino events can be seen in the sea surface temperatures of the East Indian and West Pacific Ocean, the black curve in Figure 9. Also illustrated in Figure 9 are scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies (purple curve) and Sato Index data (green curve), which I’ve added to illustrate the timing of explosive volcanic eruptions that impact sea surface temperature (and global temperature).
http://i31.tinypic.com/24l5rlw.png
Figure 9
The area represented by the East Indian and West Pacific Ocean SST anomalies (the black curve in Figure 9) is shown in Figure 10.
http://i39.tinypic.com/5n55as.jpg
Figure 10
Refer to my posts for further information:Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1
Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 2
SEA SURFACES OUTSIDE OF THE EQUATORIAL PACIFIC ARE ALSO WARMED BY THE EL NINO THROUGH THE EXCHANGE OF HEAT FROM THE ATMOSPHERE TO THE OCEAN
During the El Nino events, heat from the surplus of warm surface waters along the equatorial Pacific is pumped into the atmosphere where it is carried around the globe. This raises land surface temperatures, (not illustrated). And the higher atmospheric temperature also raises the surface temperature of the oceans outside of the tropical Pacific. These increases in SST can be seen in Video 4 “Global SST Anomaly Animation 1996 to 2009”. Video 4 is from my post “Animations of Weekly SST Anomaly Maps from January 3, 1996 to July 1, 2009.” There is no narrative with Video 4. The description is included in the post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ir1w3OrR4U
Video 4
The exchange of heat from atmosphere to ocean in the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans adds to the elevated surface temperatures that are caused by the warm water that had been carried there by ocean currents, discussed earlier. The El Nino also warms the East Pacific, South Atlantic, and West Indian Oceans through the atmosphere. Those portions of ocean basins are in turn cooled by the La Nina event that follows. But there is another portion of an ocean basin where the heat from the El Nino lingers; that is, the SSTs of that ocean basin are not impacted proportionately by the La Nina. And that ocean basin is the North Atlantic.
THE SST ANOMALIES OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC ALSO HAVE UPWARD STEP CHANGES AFTER SIGNIFICANT EL NINO EVENTS
The title of the linked post “There Are Also El Nino-Induced Step Changes In The North Atlantic” explains the content. And these SST anomaly step changes in the North Atlantic correlate well with the step changes in the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans, though they result from different aftereffects of the significant El Nino events. Refer to Figure 11. Keep in mind that the North Atlantic is also impacted by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
http://i39.tinypic.com/15cocop.jpg
Figure 11
Assuming the North Atlantic represents approximately 15% of the global ocean surface area, then the East Indian and West Pacific plus the North Atlantic account for approximately 40% of the global ocean surface area. In the years that follow significant El Nino events, ocean currents and atmosphere-ocean processes “mix” the lingering elevated SST anomalies of the East Indian, West Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans with the remaining 60% of the global oceans. This causes the rise in global SST anomalies that presents itself as the divergence of Global SST anomalies from NINO3.4 SST anomalies, similar to that shown in Figure 2. That natural increase in SST anomalies is mistaken for warming due to anthropogenic causes.
THESE STEP CHANGES ALSO APPEAR IN GLOBAL LOWER TROPOSPHERE TEMPERATURE (TLT) ANOMALIES
The RSS MSU Time-Latitude Plots of Global TLT illustrate the transport of heat from the tropics toward the poles that result from significant El Nino events. This is illustrated and discussed in detail in my post “RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude Plots…Show Climate Responses That Cannot Be Easily Illustrated With Time-Series Graphs Alone”. In that post, I combined Time-Series Graphs with the Time-Latitude Plots to show the effects of the significant El Nino events. But even without the time-series graphs, the 1997/98 El Nino is easy to find in Figure 12. It appears as an area of elevated tropical TLT anomalies that begins in 1998 and ends about a year later. Note that most of the heat that had been in the tropics is transported to the mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, where it lingers through the 1998/99/00 La Nina. Regression analyses cannot capture that lingering aftereffect of an El Nino.
http://i42.tinypic.com/2hfukjm.jpg
Figure 12
The Time-Latitude Plots also show the impacts of the 1986/87/88 El Nino and limited TLT response to the 1982/83 El Nino. Refer to Figure 13. The 1982/83 El Nino was counteracted by the explosive eruption of El Chichon.
http://i41.tinypic.com/2vwzmdj.jpg
Figure 13
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SIGNIFICANT EL NINO EVENTS AND THE OTHERS
This post primarily discussed the processes and aftereffects of the significant El Nino events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98, using the 1997/98 El Nino as reference in many of the discussions and links. There were two other significant El Nino events since 1970, the 1972/73 and 1982/83 El Nino events. The 1982/83 El Nino was counteracted by the eruption of El Chichon, which turned it into a nonentity. As illustrated in Figure 14, there are striking similarities between the multiyear periods that followed the 1972/73, 1986/87/88, and the 1997/98 El Nino. This was discussed in detail in my post “Similarities of the Multiyear Periods Following Significant El Nino Events Since 1970.” Are these lesser El Nino events simply aftereffects of the significant El Ninos?
http://i27.tinypic.com/2gt6k5t.png
Figure 14
CLOSING
Regression analyses do not account for the multiyear aftereffects of significant El Nino events and do not account for the resulting El Nino-induced step changes in SST, TLT, and Land Surface Temperatures.
Regression analyses falsely attribute the divergence of global temperature anomalies from NINO3.4 SST anomalies to anthropogenic causes when, in fact, the divergence is caused by the lingering aftereffects of significant El Nino events.
The additional rise in global temperatures after the significant El Nino events is in reality caused by subsurface waters from the Pacific Warm Pool being transported to the surface and remaining there after the El Nino event has ended.
SOURCES
Sources of the data used in the graphs are provided in the linked posts.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I recently looked the ELNINO and LA NINA mix as follows
DURING NEGATIVE OR COOL PDO AND AMO PHASE [1944-1976]
Number of La Nina’s
STRONG 2
MODERATE 4
WEAK 2
————————
Total 8
Number of El Nino’s
STRONG 1
MODERATE 3
WEAK 4
———————-
Total 8
DURING POSITIVE OR WARM PDO AND AMO PHASE [1977—2007]
Number of La Nina’s
STRONG 2
MODERATE 2
WEAK 3
————————-
Total 7
Number of El Nino’s
STRONG 3
MODERATE 2
WEAK 8
————————
Total 13
During negative or cool phases , there are more La Nina’s and more STRONG and MODERATE La Nina’s than during the positive phases. This contributes to more cold winters and colder years .
During positive or warm phase , there are significantly more El Nino’s and more STRONG and WEAK El Nino’s. This is why there is more warming
David: You asked, “Would the same be true of La Nina?”
I would have to say no. During periods when the frequency and magnitude of La Nina events exceed El Nino events, there are also very few significant El Nino events. I’m speculating with the following question. Does this mean that without the additional heat distribution from El Ninos that the planet is capable of dissipating heat and therefore allowing global temperatures to remain flat or to decline?
Thanks to Bob Tisdale for the publication (must have been a hell of a job) and the posters for their insight and interesting conclusions.
O.T, after a series of cold records, things are heating up with the possibility of heat records to be broken:
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=rss&article=3
Interesting times.
matt v: You wrote, “During negative or cool phases , there are more La Nina’s and more STRONG and MODERATE La Nina’s than during the positive phases. This contributes to more cold winters and colder years…”
Have you got any graphs those changes in the seasonal temperatures per decadal ENSO mode? And I assume you’re talking about boreal winters.
Also, refer to the following graph for long-term cycles in NINO3.4 SST anomalies:
http://i43.tinypic.com/33agh3c.jpg
An FYI, I edited my intro at the top to make it clearer. There’s things here both for critics and supporters of the de Freitas et al paper.
Bob, as usual, looks at these things with a fresh view, which is why I’ve included it here. Mostly though I want the topic of ocean heat driving climate to be thoroughly discussed.
Pielke Sr. has been saying for quite some time now that ocean heat content is the key and has a new post today on the issue which I’ll be covering here.
Layman Lurker: You asked, “Is is safe to say that regression per se is not the issue, but rather framing the analysis so that the right hypothesis is tested?”
Let me rephrase the outcome of my post. It showed that attempting to isolate the causes of global warming without considering the multiyear aftereffects of significant El Nino events provides erroneous results. It was not a comment about regression analysis.
ZenGeek: You asked, “Bob, have you published these results in a peer reviewed journal or presented them at a scientific conference?”
No. And I have no intention of doing so. I’m a blogger.
Gary: You asked, “Bob, so is one of your main points that by measuring only SST, the periodic sequestering and release of heat into and from sub-surface waters is much like Enron-type accounting? It takes the insolation-caused heat off the books for a while and then dumps it back in at a time point no longer connected to when it first entered the Pacific Warm Pool? And by ‘connected’ I mean in the models, not in the actual ocean.”
The random frequency and magnitude of ENSO events and the storage of heat over time in the PWP would make it difficult to determine the actual timing of the heat input to the system. Then you’d have to determine how much of the warm water was returned to the PWP from the prior El Nino events and how much was distributed around the West Pacific and Indian Oceans, etc. Also, most GCMs cannot model past ENSO events; those that do do it poorly.
Great material Bob.
I’ve used the AMO and the south atlantic version of the AMO in regression models (I guess instead of the ENSO multi-year impact) and it seems to work very well.
The AMO’s cycles are (mostly) independent of the ENSO’s cycles although there are certainly times when they both move together and/or the AMO lags behind the ENSO.
Here is a regression model of Hadcrut3 Tropics (30N to 30S) back to 1871 and one has to say it works very well and explains the tropics temps better than anything else I have seen.
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/5207/hacruttropics.png
-There is no observational evidence for the upward trend of TSI shown in Figure 1. This reduces the solar long-term forcing to zero.
I believe even steady solar “forcing” (no zero!!)will manifest in accumulation of solar energy in the oceans. MWP was not caused by some extremely strong solar cycles; rather row of medium cycles, but not interrupted by solar minima: http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/195013/solanki2.jpg
The last four solar cycles still belong among the strongest ones, looking thousand years back.
Back to the article, the conclusion that “new (anthropogenic) forcing” has appeared exactly after 1998, when CO2 increased from some 364 to 367ppm has not much sense.
Obviously Indonesia and Australia interfere with equatorial currents but could they also inhibit trade-winds/ITCZ cu-nims?
This would reduce evaporative cooling relative to the open ocean and allow heat build-up in the warm pool area.
Bob Tisdale (10:55:29) :
“Does this mean that without the additional heat distribution from El Ninos that the planet is capable of dissipating heat and therefore allowing global temperatures to remain flat or to decline?”
The planet would radiate heat still, but only the heat available from the surface. So El Nino would be the ocean’s way of dumping out energy which then radiates away (gradually instead of steps) when the La Ninas are dominant, right?
Lief,
On another thread you mentioned: There was no ‘ramp up’ in the beginning of the 20th Century. TSI reaches the same value at every minimum.
Does TSI reach the same maximum at every maximum? If subsequent maximums increase, doesn’t this drive up the average?
Ed
The most important contribution of this post to me is to tell that climatologists use regression analysis to extract the parameter values to the the forcings in their models. I assume that I could read more about it in the papers referenced. Finding out how to really derive their results in something that it is not public enough.
Climate is a system that has a large number of energy flows between sources and sinks. Because each of them has different time scales feedbacks become very complicated. So, I am surprised that anyone even tries to use regression analysis to anything but coarse checks. I have been told that climatologist use the laws of physics to create their projections.
Anyone know if the Pacific Warm Pool coincides with any of the major Pacific Equatorial Magnetic anomalies?
Some postulate that these anomilies are caused by plate tectonic movement, which could provde the ocean wth geothermal energy. There also seems to be some link between the solar cycle and earthquakes/volcanic eruptions.
May be a complete red-herring, but could explain the longevity of major El Nino events.
lulo: Lots of questions. Let me start with the last:
You asked, “Also, did TSI really increase in the way shown? I think you could make that argument for sunspots, but TSI? Really?”
That graph is not mine. It’s from Lean and Rind. But the current understanding of long-term TSI variability, the Svalgaard and Preminger curves in the following link, show less variability in minimum TSI levels.
http://s5.tinypic.com/mmuclk.jpg
I used that graph in my post “IPCC 20th Century Simulations Get a Boost from Outdated Solar Forcings”
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-boost.html
The data is available from Leif Svalgaard’s website:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20(Reconstructions).xls
You asked, “If El Nino is a phenomenon that has been around for ages, then why would El Nino be producing any trend beyond the temporary?”
There are decadal changes in the frequency and magnitudes of El Nino and La Nina events. These make one more dominant than the other. These changes can be seen in NINO3.4 SST anomalies that have been smoothed with a decade-long (121-month) filter:
http://i43.tinypic.com/33agh3c.jpg
Also there is variability in ENSO frequency and magnitudes over longer time spans. These can be seen in the longer term (300 year) reconstruction of NINO3 SST. Refer to the red curve here:
http://s5.tinypic.com/20b26p0.jpg
The graph is from my post “Low Frequency ENSO Oscillations:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/low-frequency-enso-oscillations.html
You asked, “Should the multiyear step increases following El Nino not be compensated for by step decreases following La Nina episodes?”
La Nina events are not El Nino events in reverse. Many consider a La Nina an overreaction following an El Nino as the Pacific tries to return to an ENSO-neutral state.
You wrote, “If there is a trend, is it not more reasonable to assume that there is another forcing event causing the overall trend (sun/AGW/lack of volcanics)…”
Using a simple way to integrate NINO3.4 SST anomalies (a running total), I’ve reproduced the global surface temperatures with natural variables. This may indicate that the variations in global temperatures simply reflect that the oceans integrate ENSO.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html
“…and this is why there is no ‘reset’ to zero trend following the events?”
Please rephrase that part of your question.
OT but….yes, I know!
SUNSPOTLESS DAY UPDATE
After the early month active sunspot region rotated off the visible disk, we have had 16 more days without a sunspot.
The total number of sunspotless days this protracted solar minimum now stands at 158 days this year and 669 total. With one more day, 2009 enters the list of the top dozen most spotless years, and one more week, the top ten. See plot below as of July 26, 2009.
From Icecap.us, I think it’s not a big guess to say that the author was Joseph D’Aleo
Pamela Gray: You wrote, “If one graph is wrong, it leads to speculation about the other graphs. We should give no quarter to sloppiness, or bad choices in graphs, anywhere it occurs, on any side of the debate.”
Is this directed at one of my graphs? If so which one? Or is this a comment on the Lean and Rind TSI curve?
The earth surface is still FAR from equilibrium. Even if net aerosol forcings, GHG forcings, volcanic forcings and solar forcings were now constant, the ‘memory’ of the glacial ages is still stored, near the bottom of the thermocline in an enormous volume of cold water, and it will take many millennia until that difference dissipates.
So the effect of each El Nino/La Nina cycle is to advect warm water both downward and eastward over a large area of the Pacific during the El Nino phase, and upwell cold water rather locally during the La Nina phase. Although this raises some warm sub-surface water from the PWP and heats the atmosphere for a few years, the long-term result HAS TO BE a net cooling of surface waters – and a small global COOLING trend, in proportion to the strength the strong back and forth equatorial surface winds of ENSO lead to enhanced mixing of surface and deep waters, with net cooling of the surface and warming, at depth.
Unfortunately, the heat contents of the oceans at depth are not well monitored, and so this isn’t easy to ‘prove’. But the logic, though oversimplified, I believe is correct.
Should read: “…the strength OF the strong back and forth equatorial surface winds of ENSO leadING to enhanced mixing of surface…”
Bruce Cunningham: In response the Leif’s comment, “There is no observational evidence for the upward trend of TSI shown in Figure 1. This reduces the solar long-term forcing to zero,” you wrote, “Wow! Bob?”
The only TSI graph in this post is that furnished with Lean and Rind. It is Wang et al data. Why wow?
Two issues causing me some puzzlement:
1) Solar variation is small from peak to trough of each cycle and from cycle to cycle but I find it hard to accept that there is no effect from gradual changes in the power of solar cycles over hundreds of years such as from Little Ice Age to the so called Moderm Maximum. It may simply be an issue of gradually accumulating climate sensitivty to small effects over long periods of time but I cannot see how it can be denied in view of the observations of global air temperatures over such lengthy periods.
2) Once it is accepted that oceanic phase changes from warming to cooling mode and back again have such profound effects on the air then cause and effect becomes critical. It does not seem to be accepted by either sceptics or AGW proponents that there could be oceanic variations in the rate of emission of energy to the air that are wholly independent of changes in the air. Why is that ? If it were accepted then it would logically resolve all the ‘chicken and egg’ confusion. The 30 year phase shifts in the Pacific do not correlate with ANY changes in the air but changes in the air correlate precisely with those phase shifts.
Following on from those two simple issues:
Combine the long term background solar changes with the multidecadal oceanic phase shifts and there is nothing left to explain.
Even the ‘stepped’ pattern is dealt with because the oceanic variations will impose upward steps during a solar warming spell and downward steps during a solar cooling spell.
It also fits the latitudinal shifts in the air circulation systems which always correlate with changes from a global net cooling trend to a global net warming trend and vice versa. History is replete with data on that.
All the regional climate variability is correlated with the changing position of individual locations in relation to the main air circulation systems. During the warming spell the Sahara moved north, now it is moving south again.
The day to day chaotic variability of weather is imposed on top of all the other changes and all these things are occurring simultaneously in a sort of Earthly ‘breathing’ process but in this case what is being breathed out at variable rates is solar energy stored in the oceans.
Is it just so simple that no one can see it ?
Ron de Haan (11:07:15) :
While it is hot, it isn’t record hot (I’m in the middle to that heat wave area).
The problem in my area is that the sensor went on the fritz at the Fire Weather Station 1 weekago and has been reading 5-8 degrees hotter than anything I can reproduce.
Perfect setup.
But what they don’t tell you is that next week it’s back to below normal temps, which is where our summer started.
I fully expect the incessant winds to return, and continue on doing what they did here 100 to 130 years ago.
The full story is likely to be a below normal summer with a Hot July.
I don’t need to tell you what the official story will be.
Nogw: You asked, “Another question: Supposing similar amounts of saved energy, what would allow for the release of this energy?, tides?”
Not tides. The trade winds relax, which allows the water to slosh east. Your next question would logically be, what causes the trade winds to relax? And that’s one of Mother Nature’s best kept secrets.
David: You wrote, “The planet would radiate heat still, but only the heat available from the surface. So El Nino would be the ocean’s way of dumping out energy which then radiates away (gradually instead of steps) when the La Ninas are dominant, right?”
Correct, and since El Ninos aren’t significant in size during periods when La Ninas are dominant, they may not distribute a noticeable amount of warm water around the surfaces of the East Indian and West Pacific oceans. That appears to be where a good portion of the step changes come from.