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.
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “Suffice it to say that my comments are wholly consistent with the data and graphs in the article from you at the top of this thread.”
But my request see data and graphs was in response to your earlier comment in which you included, “The oceans sometimes slow down the transmission of energy through the entire system (La Nina) when energy is denied to the air which cools but ocean heat content will increase UNLESS the solar input is too weak to take advantage of the reduced rate of energy release from the oceans (as at present).”
I provided nothing in my post that could be used to document “UNLESS the solar input is too weak to take advantage of the reduced rate of energy release from the oceans (as at present),” which is why I asked.
Has solar radiation dropped below a threshold? If so, at what level is that threshold? Those are questions that pop up in my head.
Leif Svalgaard (23:28:30) :
And if %HSG was 0.1 or 0.0001, those are clearly valid… Then TSI would be a lot higher than 1361.5… It is the very form with a logarithm that is not right.
By the way, it is not a lot higher than 1361.5, but slightly lower because the logarithmic output is negative for numbers smaller than 0. The final figure from 0.1% is 1356.8, and from 0.0001% is 1342.6.
John S.: Thanks for your 08:57:09 comment. A thought. You wrote, “In any strict physical sense, ENSO is not a driver of the climate system, but simply a response mode. The ultimate energy-producing driver of the climate system is thermalization of solar radiation. Thermalization takes place largely near the surface, with minor contributions from cloud tops and stratospheric ozone. Insolation (i.e., solar radiation reaching the surface) is invariably regulated by clouds.”
Behind volcanic eruptions, ENSO has the greatest impact on global climate. ENSO events change atmospheric circulation patterns and cause variations in cloud cover and amount. They change the geographic location of clouds via shifts in the jet stream. If insolation is regulated by clouds, and if clouds are impacted in many ways by ENSO, then ENSO has a significant effect on the thermalization of solar radiation and is more than a simple response mode.
You wrote, “GHGs cannot heat the deeper oceans.”
I’ve read that LW radiation may only heat the skin, but through mixing caused by waves and wind stress turbulence, it would warm the mixed layer of the ocean. This in turn would affect the temperature gradient between the mixed layer and skin, dampening the outward flow of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. Yet I’ve never been able to find any quantification of those effects. Are they minute? Are they significant? Have you seen a study that determines those effects of LW radiation?
Bob Tisdale (12:38:00)
Bob, thanks for narrowing down your request.
First of all let me say that your work is thorough, logical and consistent with observations. I have no issue with anything you say having resolved my earlier confusing of your work with someone else’s which we dealt with in another thread.
However you accept that the cause of the ENSO cycle is one of nature’s mysteries. My humble effort is to try and go one step beyond your work (and that of everyone else, it seems) and try to address that causation.
Moreover I try to fit my view of that causation into an overarching idea about what is really going on between the arrival of raw solar shortwave into the Earth system and the departure of ‘processed’ radiated longwave from the Earth system.
My various articles at climaterealists.com go into much more detail and I accept that over time those articles have become complex and difficult to assimilate quickly if one is accustomed to standard climatology but I can aver that it all remains internally consistent, complies with basic physics and fits real world observations.
Now, returning to the specific point, there is no data and there are no graphics that support what I have said. It is a new idea.
However, allocating an independent (of air) variation in the energy flow from oceans to air explains so much about real world observations and resolves the constant confusion about what causes what (the chicken and egg problem).
Just look at the ENSO issue in isolation for the moment. Does the air drive the clouds, do the clouds drive the oceans, does solar shortwave drive either as the result of the other ? It’s a mess.
If the oceans themselves without any intervention from the air are capable of changing the rate of energy transfer from ocean to air on multidecadal timescales then all those issues go away and it still fits basic physics and real world observations.
The El Nino and La Nina phenomena both occur on or near the equator. The warmth of the equatorial air masses is key. If the oceans change the rate at which they release energy to the air then that is where one first sees the effects.
So, if the equatorial oceans increase the rate of emission of energy the equatorial air masses expand and the position of the Trade Winds (and everything else in the air) moves poleward. That reduces the effect of those winds on the equatorial waters. In the area where ENSO occurs the Trade Winds slacken even if they become more powerful elsewhere. In the absence of the stronger Trade Winds in the relevant area the warm surface water ‘sloshes’ as you put it and pumps energy into the air to warm the air (El Nino).
If the equatorial oceans decrease the rate of emission of energy the equatorial air masses contract and the position of the Trade Winds (and everything else in the air) moves equatorward. That increases the effect of those winds on the equatorial waters. In the area where ENSO occurs the Trade Winds strengthen even though they become less powerful elsewhere. In the presence of the stronger Trade Winds in the relevant area the warm surface water fails to ‘slosh’ as you put it and declines to pump energy into the air (La Nina).
The thing is that that change in the rate of energy emission from the oceans changes everything else as well including the overall speed of the hydrological cycle, the size and positions of all the air circulation systems globally, the latitudinal speed and positions of all the jet streams and everything else to do with climate and weather.
Then one moves on to the implications of an infinitely variable speed for the hydrological cycle and an infinite and rapid range of responses in the air for varying the speed of energy transfer from surface to space.
Historically those processes have always prevented changes in the air from destabilising the climate system. We have had severe volcanicity, hugely greater CO2 levels, massive continental movements, Milankovitch cycles causing ice ages and apparently even a snowball Earth. Yet we still have liquid oceans – why and how ?
The humidity of the Earth remains stable despite warming and cooling of oceans and large fluctuations in evaporation from the oceans. The hydrological cycle and the air circulation systems act rapidly on a day by day basis to ensure it. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas and is dealt with by changes in the speed of the hydrological cycle and the latitudinal movement of the air circulation systems. The radiative effects of all greenhouse gases are dealt with by the same mechanisms because the air cannot warm the oceans. Only the sun can do that.
So you see I have accommodated all that you say, without inconsistency, into an overall description of the Earth’s climate just by asserting that the rate of emission of energy from the oceans is variable on multidecadal time scale for reasons yet to be determined.
It works equally well for the Thermostat theory in relation to tropical convection and every other climate theory that I have read about except for those like AGW and some sceptic positions which postulate the air somehow controlling the oceans (a complete non starter because of the evaporation process).
It even fits everything we see and know about standard climatology in terms of the established air circulation patterns and their movements.
Just give proper weight to the oceans as the primary multidecadal climate driver, acknowledge the power and purpose of changes in the speed of the hydrological cycle combined with latitudinal shifts in the air circulation systems.
I’ve been searching for something that does not fit. Where is it ?
Bob, I missed one point.
There is always a balance between solar shortwave input to the oceans and the release of that energy by the oceans to the air.
I say that both components are variable but as regards the oceans that is news to many and there are those who hold that solar variation is negligible as well. However slight the variability might be the Earth is self evidently sensitive to it according to well documanted historical data.
The point of balance (the threshold as you describe it) is always changing and the only way to establish the current position is to observe whether the air around the globe is warming or cooling.
I have said elsewhere trhat the first indication we get that a change in temperature trend is in progress is a latitudinal shift in the air circulation systems.
Bob Tisdale (13:27:45)
Ah, the ocean skin issue, Bob said:
“I’ve read that LW radiation may only heat the skin, but through mixing caused by waves and wind stress turbulence, it would warm the mixed layer of the ocean. This in turn would affect the temperature gradient between the mixed layer and skin, dampening the outward flow of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. Yet I’ve never been able to find any quantification of those effects. Are they minute? Are they significant? Have you seen a study that determines those effects of LW radiation?”
I see the ocean skin proposal as an essential prop for AGW and have given it much thought for months. This article is my considered position:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3735
Stephen Wilde (14:43:25) :
However slight the variability might be the Earth is self evidently sensitive to it according to well documanted historical data.
I like this. Going on to my issue, which is related to the seas so it is not off topic, small changes in solar irradiance derives in quantifiable proportions of feldspar grains and hematite stained quartz in sedimentary layers of the sea bottom. The feldspar grains and hematite stained quartz accumulated in oceanic deep layers are not signaling a mixing of hot surface waters with cold deep waters, although ice drift, the main responsible of the deposition of HSG in sites to the South from the Arctic Circle, could be an alternate system which contributes to the mixing.
Under this understanding, it is almost impossible to find a layer absent of HSG. Leif Svalgaard pointed out that the percentages below zero would lead to “odd” extrapolations of solar irradiance trends; however, there is an effect of local conditions which could modify temporarily the production of HSG. Anyway, the anomalies of insolation caused by local modifiers are quite low, so the TSI approximate values for periods going back beyond 12000 years are conspicuous, especially if those magnitudes coincide with other databases obtained with different proxies.
Stephen Wilde: Yo wrote, “I have said elsewhere trhat the first indication we get that a change in temperature trend is in progress is a latitudinal shift in the air circulation systems.”
And again, please show the plots or the data source for the latitudinal shift.
Bob Tisdale (13:27:45):
You’ve done an excellent job of describing the manifold effects of the ENSO phenomenon throughout the globe. Rigorous physical understanding of any phenomenon, however, requires that the categorical distinction between energy-imparting “drivers” and energy-using or redistributing elements be maintained. It’s the basic difference between the left-hand terms in a normal-form differential equation that characterize the response and the right-hand terms that specify the excitation or forcing. Clearly, ENSO produces no energy on its own. Thus it belongs in the realm of responses, rather than forcings of the climate system. In calling it “simply a response” I was not implying that this enigmatic mode is “a simple response.” I’m sorry if that misled you.
The profound global consequences of a strong El Nino are well known. They are also quite short-lived in a climatic sense. Less than a third of the total variance of the ENSO index is associated with spectral components longer than 7.3yrs. By contrast, nearly two thirds of the total variance of average global temperatures is at these lower frequencies. The ENSO effect upon secular “climate trends” thus is negligible.
What little I know of air-sea interactions comes from fundamental physics and from old research colleagues who are specialists in that narrow field. The fundamental obstacle to LW heating of the ocean surface being mixed down to any depth is the fact that the greatly sub-millimeter “skin” is rapidly evaporating. Each day ~3mm of surface water is lost that way as a global average. Furthermore, heated surface particles tend to stay at the surface, whitecapping waves notwithstanding. Even if these basic obstacles were overcome and a whole millimeter of surface water, say several degrees warmer than below, were mixed into the top ten meters, the temperature effect would be miniscule. I regret that no current references that quantify all of this pop up readily in my non-academic mind.
Bob Tisdale (17:47:23)
As far as I know there are no plots or data sources for net latitudinal shifts in the global air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variations.
I have previously called for such to be collated as a matter of priority.
In the meantime I saw the poleward shft in the mid 1970s and I saw the equatorward shift around 2000.
Those shifts have been noted and commented on quite widely but with no proper assessment of the climate implications.
It is one of several gaping holes in climate theory and I am attemting to fill them. Successfully, I hope.
Bob Tisdale (19:05:17) :
“A La Nina is not the reverse of an El Nino. During a La Nina, trade winds increase above “normal”, and this “exposes” more cool water in the eastern equatorial Pacific. It raises the thermocline there.”
During La Nina the slope of the thermocline increases ,the warmer and lighter water is displaced by colder and heavier water,thus raising the centre of mass of the system and hence increasing the potential gravitational energy(at the expense of solar energy)
Bob Tisdale (13:28:59) :
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?
Wow was because I am surprised that the measurement of TSI value seems to be of such debate. I would have thought it was rather easy (comparatively) to measure, but I am not an expert so don’t hold me to it. I do remember reading recently that solar output varies about .7%, and that it increased over the last half of the 20th century.
If there is no agreement about the Sun’s output, how can there be agreement on more complex issues of AGW?
Also,
Great work. We all appreciate the considerable effort.
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “In the meantime I saw the poleward shft in the mid 1970s and I saw the equatorward shift around 2000.
“Those shifts have been noted and commented on quite widely but with no proper assessment of the climate implications.”
I looked and could not find any papers noting or commenting on poleward shifts circulation patterns. Do you have links?
maksimovich: You wrote, “During La Nina the slope of the thermocline increases…”
I agree with that. The warm water (that had shifted east during the El Nino) shoshes back to the west (to the PWP) during the La Nina, increasing the slope of the thermocline. It’s at a greater depth in the west equatorial Pacific than it is in the east. BTW, it takes a significant El Nino to flatten and “invert” the thermocline.
You continued, “the warmer and lighter water is displaced by colder and heavier water…”
But that’s in the eastern equatorial Pacific. In the western Pacific, the opposite is happening. That is, during the La Nina, much of the warm water that had been in the east shifts west, back to the PWP. So the colder and heavier water that had been in the west during the El Nino is displaced as the warmer water as it shifts back.
You continued, “thus raising the centre of mass of the system and hence increasing the potential gravitational energy…”
But only in the eastern equatorial Pacific. The opposite is happening in the western Pacific, is it not?
You concluded, “(at the expense of solar energy)”
Why? During an El Nino, convection, cloud cover and precipitation follow the warm water east, decreasing the downwelling shortwave radiation in the eastern tropical Pacific. During the La Nina, the warm water shifts back to the west; the convection, cloud cover and precipitation go west with it; and the downwelling shortwave radiation increases in the eastern equatorial Pacific.
Anthony, thanks.
Bob Tisdale (08:00:57)
I haven’t seen any papers on it either.
That is my point.
Nasif Nahle (12:42:42) :
By the way, it is not a lot higher than 1361.5, but slightly lower because the logarithmic output is negative for numbers smaller than 0. The final figure from 0.1% is 1356.8, and from 0.0001% is 1342.6.
Slightly lower? What are the TSI for the % values of 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.000,1, 0.000,01, 0.000,001, 0.000,000,1, 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,001? This exercise is meant to show that to set the contribution of 0% to 0, is not correct, or that the logarithm relationship is not correct.
Bruce Cunningham (05:24:12) :
I do remember reading recently that solar output varies about .7%,
more like only a tenth of that, 0.1%.
Leif Svalgaard (17:10:29) :
Slightly lower? What are the TSI for the % values of 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.000,1, 0.000,01, 0.000,001, 0.000,000,1, 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,001? This exercise is meant to show that to set the contribution of 0% to 0, is not correct, or that the logarithm relationship is not correct.
Leif, as I told you before, I’ve not got yet mathematical madness. Your thoughts could be correct; however, your observations would be practical for modeling and I am not modeling, but taking real data from nature. If the function works for the last 300 years of realistic reconstructions of TSI, then the algorithm is correct. Nature compared against nature, for saying something.
Regarding the figures you propose, of the famous 0%, we have not found a layer deploying those percentages, not yet. We presume it is because the Sun has not fallen down to such levels of low activity so the percentages of stained feldspar and quartz in sedimentary layers remains always above 1%.
As long as the formula holds coinciding with the reality, as long it will be valid. When I find a sedimentary layer with such percentages, I will change the theory. That’s science, isn’t it?
Leif… I wrote:
If the function works for the last 300 years of realistic reconstructions of TSI, then the algorithm is correct. Nature compared against nature, for saying something.
However, I didn’t include examples:
Year %HSG Alg. TSI (W/m^2 ) ~Real TSI
(+/-0.3 W/m^2)
2009.5 6.25 1365.26 1365.92
1930 10.93 1366.41 1366.48
Charming quote from the Tamino thread
on McLean, de Freitas, & Carter (2009):
“Good effing grief […] You lying b*****.””
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/
BOB TISDALE
http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study?commentpage=1
This article claims that the upcoming possible EL NINO may warm global climate for 5 years .This sounds excesive to me . What do your own studies show?
******************************
Stephen Wilde (15:06:53) : “Bob Tisdale (13:27:45) Ah, the ocean skin issue, Bob said: “I’ve read that LW radiation may only heat the skin, but through mixing caused by waves and wind stress turbulence, it would warm the mixed layer of the ocean. This in turn would affect the temperature gradient between the mixed layer and skin, dampening the outward flow of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. Yet I’ve never been able to find any quantification of those effects. Are they minute? Are they significant? Have you seen a study that determines those effects of LW radiation?”
I see the ocean skin proposal as an essential prop for AGW and have given it much thought for months. This article is my considered position:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3735
*******************************************************
But you guys haven’t considered the …. Jellyfish Effect!
http://www.livescience.com/animals/090729-jellyfish-mixers.html
That is interesting, I found the jelly fish “effect” on: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/jellyfish/
“The fluid dynamics of swimming jellyfish have provided a plausible mechanism for a once-wild notion: that marine animals, hidden from sight and ignored by geophysicists, may stir Earth’s oceans with as much force as its wind and tides.”
The article includes a video.
The number of jellyfish has increased sharply.
Scientist believe it has to do with the decline of natural predators of jellyfish like the tuna.