Does The Sea Surface Temperature Record Support The Hypothesis Of Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
This post is an expansion on my earlier post Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies – East Pacific Versus The Rest Of The World. In that post, I broke the satellite-era Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomaly data for the global oceans into two subsets. The volcano-adjusted East Pacific SST anomaly data (90S-90N, 180-80W) shows no rise for the past 30 years and the SST anomalies for the Rest-Of-The-World (90S-90N, 80W-180) rose in two easily discernable steps. I used period average SST anomalies to highlight the steps.
This post is also similar in content to the post How Can Things So Obvious Be Overlooked By The Climate Science Community? But in this one, I provided a better way to divide the decade-plus periods that run from the end of the 1986/87/88 El Niño to the beginning of the 1997/98 El Niño and from end of the 1997/98 El Nino to the beginning of the 2009/10 El Niño. This allows for a more consistent way to illustrate the actual Rest-Of-The-World SST anomaly trends between those significant ENSO events.
THE ONE-WORD ANSWER TO THE TITLE QUESTION IS NO.
The satellite-era Sea Surface Temperature record indicates they rose only in response to significant El Niño events. In other words, the Sea Surface Temperature data contradicts the IPCC hypothesis that most of the rise is caused by an increase in Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases.
The fact that the satellite-era SST anomalies do not support AGW is very easy to illustrate with two graphs, Figure 1. They show the satellite-based sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies for two subsets of the global oceans, using Reynolds OI.v2 SST data that runs from November 1981 (the start of that dataset) to the current month of May 2011. The graph on the left illustrates the volcano-adjusted Sea Surface Temperature for the eastern Pacific from pole to pole (90S-90N, 180-80W). That area represents about 33% of the global ocean surface area. There are major variations from year to year caused by El Niño and La Niña events, but the linear trend is basically flat at +0.003 deg C per decade. In other words, there has been no rise in the volcano-adjusted Sea Surface Temperatures for that portion of the global oceans in almost 30 years. The graph on the right illustrates the volcano-adjusted SST anomalies for the rest of the world from pole to pole (90S-90N, 80E-180). The SST anomalies for this portion of the globe show two distinct upward steps with periods of relatively little (if any) rise between those steps. The upward steps are highlighted by the average SST anomalies for the periods between the upward shifts caused by El Niño-Southern Oscillation events. There is an upward step in 1987 that occurs in response to the 1986/87/88 El Niño, and there is an upward step in 1997, which is a response to the 1997/98 El Niño. Note how the Rest-Of-The-World SST data appears to be in the process of another upward step in response to the 2009/10 El Niño.
Figure 1
Figures 2 and 3 are full-sized versions of the volcano-adjusted East Pacific and Rest-Of-The-World SST anomaly graphs. These datasets were first discussed in my post Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies – East Pacific Versus The Rest Of The World, and they have appeared in my monthly SST anomaly updates since then. Two notes: The Sea Surface Temperature dataset used in this post is NOAA Optimum Interpolation, version 2 SST, also known as Reynolds OI.v2. And as noted during the discussion of Figure 1, both subsets have been adjusted for the effects of the explosive volcanic eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Mount Pinatubo in 1991. I performed a linear regression analysis on global SST anomalies to account for the impacts of the volcanic aerosols. This was discussed in the post linked above.
Figure 2
############################################
Figure 3
THE REST-OF-THE-WORLD SST ANOMALY TRENDS BETWEEN THE SIGNIFICANT EL NIÑO EVENTS
Above I described the Rest-Of-The-World SST data as having two distinct upward steps with periods of relatively little (if any) rise between those steps. Actually, the linear trend for the period between the El Niño events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 is -0.01 deg C per decade and for the period between the El Niño events of 1997/98 and 2009/10 it’s +0.001 deg C per decade. Refer to Figure 4. In other words, the volcano-adjusted Rest-Of-The-World Sea Surface Temperature anomalies rose in response the significant El Niño events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98, and then the sea surface temperatures did not rise over the decade (plus) periods that followed.
Figure 4
To establish the periods between the significant El Niño events, I used the NOAA Oceanic Nino Index(ONI) to determine the official months of the 1986/87/88, 1998/98, and 2009/10 El Niño events.. There is a 6-month lag between NINO3.4 SST anomalies and the response of the Rest-Of-The-World SST anomalies during the evolution phase of the 1997/98 El Niño. So I lagged the ONI data by six months and deleted all of the Rest-Of-The-World SST data that corresponded to the El Niño events of the 1986/87/88, 1998/98, and 2009/10 El Niño events. Then I performed the trend analyses on the data for the two periods that remained.
There will be those who will attempt to downplay the trend analyses shown in Figures 4 by stating that I’ve excluded the data after June 2009 to hide a rise in SST anomalies. In reality, I’ve excluded that recent data because the 2009/10 El Niño appears to be causing yet another upward step as shown in Figure 3.
CLOSING
Unless Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases only impacted Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies during the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño events, there is no evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming in the satellite-era Sea Surface Temperature data. The volcano-adjusted East Pacific Ocean Sea Surface Temperature anomalies have not risen in 30 years. For the Rest Of The World, the volcano-adjusted Sea Surface Temperature anomalies rose only during the El Niño events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98, but between the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño events and between the 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Niño events, there was no rise in the volcano-adjusted Rest-Of-The-World Sea Surface Temperatures.
I have presented and described ENSO and the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO in numerous posts over the past years. Links to many of them are listed under the heading of FURTHER INFORMATION.
ENSO is a process that periodically discharges heat from the oceans and redistributes warm waters from the tropical Pacific. ENSO also recharges the tropical Pacific Ocean Heat through a periodic increase in Downward Shortwave Radiation. In that respect, ENSO events are fueled by a periodic increase in natural radiative forcing (solar energy) over the tropical Pacific. When El Niño events dominate a multidecadal era, indicating the tropical Pacific is releasing and distributing more ocean heat than “normal”, global surface temperatures rise. The opposite holds true during epochs when La Niña events dominate.
SOURCES
SST anomaly data is available through the NOAA NOMADS website:
http://nomad1.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh
or:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite
The GISS Global Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Thickness data is available here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau_line.txt
FURTHER INFORMATION
My first detailed posts on the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO events are:
Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1
And:
Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 2
And:
Supplement To “Can El Nino Events Explain All Of The Warming Since 1976?”
And:
Supplement 2 To “Can El Nino Events Explain All Of The Warming Since 1976?”
And for those who like visual aids, refer to the two videos included in:
La Niña Is Not The Opposite Of El Niño – The Videos.
The impacts of these El Nino events on the North Atlantic are discussed in:
There Are Also El Nino-Induced Step Changes In The North Atlantic
And:
Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation Data
I’ve also written a rebuttal post to Tamino’s AMO Post. I hope to have a new post on the North Atlantic posted sometime soon.
The posts related to the effects of ENSO on Ocean Heat Content are here:
ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data
And:
North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables
Additional detailed technical discussions can be found here:
More Detail On The Multiyear Aftereffects Of ENSO – Part 1 – El Nino Events Warm The Oceans
And:
More Detail On The Multiyear Aftereffects Of ENSO – Part 2 – La Nina Events Recharge The Heat Released By El Nino Events AND…During Major Traditional ENSO Events, Warm Water Is Redistributed Via Ocean Currents.
And:
================================================================
Bob Tisdale has worked long and hard to provide well researched and informative content for us all here. May I suggest you buy him a beer? – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Matt G says:
July 12, 2011 at 2:44 pm
This data set shows quite clearly that since the 1900′s all ocean surface temperatures in ENSO regions (3.4), (3), (4) and (1.2) have warmed since the 1900′s
My plot uses the ENSO 3.4 data from HADSST and gets a similar result to you.
Bob Tisdale says:
July 10, 2011 at 7:54 am
An incease in Downward Shortwave Radiation from a La Nina event provides the fuel for the next El Nino. Example: Due to unusually strong trade winds over the western tropical Pacific, the 1995/96 La Nina provided a substantial increase in tropical Pacific OHC.
http://i56.tinypic.com/a5dhy0.jpg
That inreased in Tropical Pacific OHC fueled the 1997/98 “El Nino of the Century.” So the lag was less than two years. Keep in mind the solar cycle was at a minumum while the OHC rose in 1995/96.
Just wondering if this graph is correct, The area is over the whole pacific( should it be the warm pool only after La Nina?) and is 24S and 24S a reasonable area to consider or perhaps too large? The equatorial deep sea records taken at the equator and the 150m deep (taken over the area you use) at the BOM site do not seem to agree with your graph.
http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/oceantemp/pastanal.shtml
Also when looking at 1996 Jan to Dec which is the main area of warm spike on your graph the ENSO 4.3 is actually in a slight El Nino state, the La Nina’s each side are not strong. Would it be worth while plotting the ENSO record over your graph and expanding it out to see the detail?
Looking at the warm pool 120E-150E in early 1997 there is no heat to speak of which would be quite common at the early stage of a big El Nino. I do no see any evidence of a build up of warm pool heat after La Nina before the monster 97/98 El Nino unless we differ on the area of the warm pool?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=1997&month=04
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=1997&month=08
Bob Tisdale says:
July 10, 2011 at 7:54 am
Your graph is not out by a year perhaps?
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sst_eq_long.png
Geoff Sharp says: “Just wondering if this graph is correct, The area is over the whole pacific( should it be the warm pool only after La Nina?) and is 24S and 24S a reasonable area to consider or perhaps too large? The equatorial deep sea records taken at the equator and the 150m deep (taken over the area you use) at the BOM site do not seem to agree with your graph.
http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/oceantemp/pastanal.shtml”
My graph is correct, and so is the area for what I wish to present. And how are you comparing the values in a time-series graph of NODC OHC data for the tropical Pacific to the maps and subsurface vertical sections from BOM, visually? Have you considered downloading data and plotting it? The KNMI Climate Explorer is a great resource, and it might help to keep you from making erroneous assumptions based on the appearance of maps and equatorial cross sections:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Geoff Sharp says: “Also when looking at 1996 Jan to Dec which is the main area of warm spike on your graph the ENSO 4.3 is actually in a slight El Nino state, the La Nina’s each side are not strong. Would it be worth while plotting the ENSO record over your graph and expanding it out to see the detail?”
A slight El Niño state during 1996? The NINO3.4 SST anomalies start negative in 1996 and remain negative. Also, you must not have looked very hard at my website for a comparison graph of tropical Pacific OHC versus NINO3.4 SST anomalies:
http://i36.tinypic.com/eqwdvl.png
The graph is from this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content-0-700-meters-data/
Geoff Sharp says: “Looking at the warm pool 120E-150E in early 1997 there is no heat to speak of which would be quite common at the early stage of a big El Nino. I do no see any evidence of a build up of warm pool heat after La Nina before the monster 97/98 El Nino unless we differ on the area of the warm pool?”
The two cross sections you linked were for months during the 1997/98 El Niño, not before it. Those are the early stages of that El Niño. The first Kelvin wave for the 1997/98 El Niño began carrying warm water east in late Dec 1996.
You replied to Matt G, “My plot uses the ENSO 3.4 data from HADSST and gets a similar result to you.”
Please present your graph of NINO3.4 SST anomalies based on HADSST2.
Matt G says: “This data set shows quite clearly that since the 1900′s all ocean surface temperatures in ENSO regions (3.4), (3), (4) and (1.2) have warmed since the 1900′s. It does not support Bob’s view and others even that ENSO3.4 at least during this period has remained static. There are 3 phases, 2 warmer and one cooler, but overall SST’s have increased quite significantly at the same time of global SST’s.”
You’ve used ERSST.v3b for your NINO region graphs, hence the trends. ERSST.v3b and HADISST (the latter of which I use for long-term SST data) both use EOF analysis to infill missing data. (ERSST.v3b also uses EOT, Empirical Orthogonal Teleconnections.) The major difference between the two is that HADISST reinserts the SST data from observations back into infilled areas while ERSST.v3b does not. So HADISST is more of an observations-based SST reconstruction while ERSST.v3b is more statistics based. The other point to consider is that the eastern equatorial Pacific is an area of the global oceans that is supplied primarily through upwelled waters. Other than during El Niño events, the surface waters of the equatorial Pacific are being fed by subsurface waters. Now a question for you: Would the temperatures of those subsurface waters feeding the equatorial Pacific have risen at rates that are comparable to or greater than the rise in global SST anomalies since 1900?
Stephen Wilde says:
July 12, 2011 at 12:34 pm
“Whoops, my previous post should omit part two. I slightly misread Dave’s point.”
Actually you misread Physics 101 not me. First of all the latent heat of fusion (ice melting) is far less than latent heat of vaporization. This was no misreading of anything I said it’s mistated fact of the physical properties of water. Secondly ice doesn’t sublimate quickly in “cold dry air”. Antarctica is the coldest driest place on the planet yet the tiny bit of precipitation it receives is still greater than the sublimation rate so new ice continues to form on the surface.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 12, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Dave Springer said:
“GHGs interact quite differently with land surfaces which can and do have a surface temperature increase due to GHGs ”
True, but horizontal air movements take care of that since the oceans are the majority of the surface and remain in control.
Partially true. If it were completely true then continentality would not exist but continentality is a phenomenon that was first observed 200 years ago and still exists today. Seasonal temperature variation over continental interiors is far greater than same latitude over the ocean. Horizontal heat pumps lessen this to some extent but demonstrably do not eliminate it. The effect is primarily because the sun heats the ocean down to 30 meters or more and the heat cannot escape radiatively due to water’s almost complete opacity to LWIR. So basically the ocean gets heated to some depth at the speed of light but for that energy to escape from depth it must rely on convection which is nowhere the speed of light and at the surface it escapes primarily through evaporation not radiation or conduction. The net effect is the mixed layer of the ocean stores summertime insolation for many months and releases it in the winter when the air is drier and evaporation rate is commensurately higher. Land on the other hand only gets heated to a depth of about 1 meter and gives it up so quickly when the sun isn’t shining that you get large diurnal temperature variation to say nothing of being able to store it for months. Because land can be heated by downwelling LWIR and water cannot GHGs can and do effectively increase surface equilibrium temperature over land but not over water.
Bob Tisdale says:
July 13, 2011 at 1:43 am
My graph is correct, and so is the area for what I wish to present. And how are you comparing the values in a time-series graph of NODC OHC data for the tropical Pacific to the maps and subsurface vertical sections from BOM, visually? Have you considered downloading data and plotting it?
Yes I did compare the areas visually on the BOM site but also plotted the NOAA data as a source of comparison.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sst_eq_long.png
Thanks for supplying the graph, it is difficult to keep up with every graph on your blog. Your example of the La Nina warming before El Nino is not really repeated anywhere else in the record so it may be a cherry picking exercise. But the data around the 1997/98 El Nino does not follow the trends of previous El Nino events. I think the area and depth of the data sample chosen is too big to reinforce your statement. There could also be a bottom up factor when looking at depths of 700 meters. To properly illustrate your point it would be better to compare the warm pool data above New Guinea (not too deep) with the ENSO record?
A slight El Niño state during 1996? The NINO3.4 SST anomalies start negative in 1996 and remain negative
I guess it depends on what dataset you use. I was using the HadSST 3.4 but at worst the middle of 1996 could be described as neutral. The very weak La Nina’s each side seem incapable of building much heat but I am interested to see your data on the wind strength compared to other La Nina’s. The surface records certainly look very different to the NODC data. Below is the same graph showing the upward trend in SST.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/enso34trend.jpg
Data from: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Data/nino34.long.data
The two cross sections you linked were for months during the 1997/98 El Niño, not before it. Those are the early stages of that El Niño. The first Kelvin wave for the 1997/98 El Niño began carrying warm water east in late Dec 1996.
Again it might depend on the dataset chosen. The first link show the temps for the first months of 1997 which is pre El Nino according to HadSST, but lets go 8 & 4 months earlier again, it still doesnt show much heat with practically none around 120E?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=1996&month=08
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=1996&month=12
There is very little warm pool heat in the system according to the BOM records?
If we go back before the big 82/83 El Nino I cant find any warm water at all in the warm pool. Maybe I am missing something.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=1981&month=12
In contrast if we look at the last La Nina when it starts to get going we see a large pool of warm water around 120E
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2010&month=11
This movie shows the warm pool suddenly building as the last La Nina begins.(33Mb)
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/movie.jpg
Now compare the beginning stages of the 2010 El Nino.
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-090503.gif
The warm pool is cool as the El Nino just begins. I find very little warm water in the warm pool before the 2010 El Nino. http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/
I have seen the Rosby waves of warm water you describe and show but wonder if they dissipate or get fed away before a typical El Nino?
Wrong link for the movie. This is the correct link.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/SST_movie1.wmv
And that should be Kelvin wave not Rosby.
Dave Springer: Sorry about the delay in replying to your comments. Thanks for clarifying which of the graphs you referred to. In looking at the NINO3.4 SST anomalies that have been smoothed with a 121-month filter…
http://i54.tinypic.com/dh9508.jpg
…you wrote, ““The graph you produced has, since 1950, an easily seen trend of higher lows and and higher highs in SST which hasn’t abated.”
I don’t concentrate only on the post-1950s period. The entire graph shows decadal to multidecadal variations with two El Niño-dominated periods, one that starts in the mid-1910s and ends in the mid-1940s, and the other that starts in the late 1970s and ends in the early 2000s. Between them, from the mid-1940s to the late 1970s, is a period when two La Niña-dominated periods bookended an El Niño-dominated period, with the average SST anomaly for the period being slightly negative. And to confirm that, here’s a graph of period average NINO3.4 SST anomalies…
http://i56.tinypic.com/zxmsg8.jpg
,,,showing that the “cool period” did have NINO3.4 SST anomalies that are slightly negative. The period average NINO3.4 SST anomalies for the latter period is dominated by satellite data (and TAO project buoys) so I’m not concerned about it being 0.05 deg C warmer than the average for the early period.
Last, that graph clearly shows that the latest El Niño-dominated period peaked in the mid-1990s and dropped to a short period when La Niña events were strong, so I do not see how anyone could claim that the El Niño-dominated period “hasn’t abated.”
Many of your comments on this thread appear to be directed toward instilling in me some interest in paleoclimatological ENSO data. I have stated numerous times that I have little-to-no interest in paleo-data or timescales. But I have prepared one or two posts on paleo-ENSO data. Here’s a link to one:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/multidecadal-changes-in-sea-surface-temperature/
Of the 400plus posts I’ve written, around 1% of them have to do with paleo-data. That’s the extent of my interest.
Geoff Sharp says: “Thanks for supplying the graph, it is difficult to keep up with every graph on your blog. Your example of the La Nina warming before El Nino is not really repeated anywhere else in the record so it may be a cherry picking exercise.”
Your accusation of “a cherry picking exercise” is misplaced and unwarranted. Did you miss the rebound in OHC during the 1973/74/75/76 La Niña, the rebound in OHC during the 1983/84 La Niña, the rebound in OHC during the 1988/89 La Niña, the rebound in OHC during the 1999/99/00/01 La Niña? I will admit the response during the 1995/96 La Niña is exceptional but there is a documented reason for it. In “Genesis and Evolution of the 1997-98 El Niño”, McPhaden explains, “For at least a year before the onset of the 1997–98 El Niño, there was a buildup of heat content in the western equatorial Pacific due to stronger than normal trade winds associated with a weak La Niña in 1995–96.”
Link to McPhaden (1999) abstract:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/5404/950
Link to NOAA copy of McPhaden (1999):
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/mcph2029/text.shtml
Geoff Sharp says: “I guess it depends on what dataset you use. I was using the HadSST 3.4 but at worst the middle of 1996 could be described as neutral. The very weak La Nina’s each side seem incapable of building much heat but I am interested to see your data on the wind strength compared to other La Nina’s. The surface records certainly look very different to the NODC data. Below is the same graph showing the upward trend in SST.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/enso34trend.jpg”
You may wish to convert the NINO3.4 SST data to anomalies before you attempt to determine the timing of ENSO events. And of course the NINO3.4 SST data, which represent the region with the coordinates of 5S-5N, 170W-120W, are different than the NODC OHC data for the entire tropical Pacific, with the coordinates of 20S-20N, 120E-90W. Last on that paragraph, your earlier claim was that you were seeing similar upward trends in the HADSST-based NINO3.4 data to those that Matt G had illustrated. Matt G started his ERSST.v3b-based NINO3.4 SST anomaly data in 1900, and he stated it had a rise since 1900 of about 0.8 deg C. I asked you to document your claim, but you have provided a graph that starts in 1950. Is there any reason you did not start your graph in 1900, Geoff? Could it be that the dataset you linked…
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Data/nino34.long.data
…has a linear trend since 1900 of -0.001 deg C per decade, agreeing with my earlier comment that the HADISST-based linear trend for NINO3.4 SST anomalies was flat.
Geoff Sharp says: “Again it might depend on the dataset chosen. The first link show the temps for the first months of 1997 which is pre El Nino according to HadSST, but lets go 8 & 4 months earlier again, it still doesnt show much heat with practically none around 120E?”
The Pacific Warm Pool does not exist only at 120E on the equator. With respect to all of the links to the equatorial Pacific temperature cross sections you provided, I’d like to suggest a different source, because the BOM graphics seem to down play the anomalies. I’ve used the ECMWF cross sections in animations and they work well:
http://www.ecmwf.int/products/forecasts/d/charts/ocean/reanalysis/xzmaps/Monthly/
Geoff Sharp says: “I have seen the Rosby [sic] waves of warm water you describe and show but wonder if they dissipate or get fed away before a typical El Nino?” You later corrected that with, “And that should be Kelvin wave not Rosby [sic]”
Here’s a link to an animation of Sea Level residuals from JPL. The Sea Level residuals are a good metric because they represent in part the temperature of the water column from surface to floor. We were discussing the 1997/98 El Niño, so, starting in late December 1996, there’s a Kelvin Wave that travels from west to east across the equatorial Pacific. Then about 3 months later, at the beginning of March 1997, a second and stronger Kelvin Wave flashes from west to east. Let the animation play through the 1997/98 El Niño. Then around March 1998, a Rossby wave forms at 10N in the eastern tropical Pacific. It carries the leftover warm water back to the western Pacific and adds to the excessive warming there that causes the upward shift in SST anomalies in the East Indian and West Pacific SST data.
Bob Tisdale says:
July 13, 2011 at 4:36 pm
“I don’t concentrate only on the post-1950s period.”
No, but you do concentrate on the post 1900 period which is only marginally longer and still well inside the industrial era. I focused on post 1950 for two reasons.
First that is where climate boffins will focus and justify the focus because anthropogenic CO2 emission increased more rapidly then than in any earlier period. Then you have to get into how CO2’s effectiveness as a GHG diminishes as concentration increases and so the rise which began in the 18th century, even though the rise was exponential, created a linear increase in surface temperature and therefore there is nothing special in that regard about any given 50 year stretch of time since about 1750. This exponential loss of GHG power with increasing concentration is lost on the general public.
The second reason is that there’s a correlation between solar activity and uptrend in ENSO baseline temperatures. 1950 – 2000 marks the Modern Maximum in solar activity. This is important because an active sun and higher temperatures are not lost on the general public. No matter what way you cut it you need ENSO data that predates the industrial revolution to begin to discount anthropogenic effect on them. The period 1900-present is not sufficient.
Dave Springer: I understand your concern but I don’t share it. For decades, ENSO has been treated as noise, not a process. As you’re aware, many climate studies like Thompson et al (2008) treat it solely as a natural source additional year-to-year variability like stratospheric aerosols from explosive volcanic eruptions. The reason they treat it as noise is because researchers cannot find an anthropogenic component. For them now to come back and state that ENSO contributes significantly to long-term global surface temperature trend will undermine all of the studies that declared otherwise. Then they have to prove that the frequency and magnitude of ENSO events are impacted by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. In order to do that, they have to be able to duplicate the ENSO record and all of the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that accompany it and that are responses to it. And after 30 years of climate modeling, they are far from doing that.
Regards
Bob Tisdale says:
July 13, 2011 at 6:19 pm
I have provided documentation showing that La Nina does not load El Nino and shown in fact a cooler warm pool is the norm before El Nino. If you wish to ignore this then so be it, the chances of reasonable dialogue seem bleak.
Your interpretation of the 1996 La Nina warming is very misplaced, the NODC data as specified earlier is too broad. If you look at the TOC data it is very clear that the 1996 warming is occurring in the Eastern Pacific with very little happening in the west that could be attributed to La Nina. I expect you to ignore this point.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/wwv/gif/compa_ew.gif
Bob Tisdale says:
July 13, 2011 at 2:27 am
“You’ve used ERSST.v3b for your NINO region graphs, hence the trends. ERSST.v3b and HADISST (the latter of which I use for long-term SST data) both use EOF analysis to infill missing data. (ERSST.v3b also uses EOT, Empirical Orthogonal Teleconnections.) The major difference between the two is that HADISST reinserts the SST data from observations back into infilled areas while ERSST.v3b does not. So HADISST is more of an observations-based SST reconstruction while ERSST.v3b is more statistics based. The other point to consider is that the eastern equatorial Pacific is an area of the global oceans that is supplied primarily through upwelled waters. Other than during El Niño events, the surface waters of the equatorial Pacific are being fed by subsurface waters. Now a question for you: Would the temperatures of those subsurface waters feeding the equatorial Pacific have risen at rates that are comparable to or greater than the rise in global SST anomalies since 1900?”
The trends between ERSST.v3b and HadSST are quite a difference. The problem being I don’t trust observations back into infilled areas where there is no data. This infill in data looks a poor method with GISS, not sure why this would be any better?
NINO 3.4 ERSST.v3b
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/963/nino34.png
NINO 3.4 HadSST
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/2348/nino34had.png
This confirms your findings with ERSST v HadSST, where the 0.8c rise since 1900’s become little/no change with HadSST.
“Would the temperatures of those subsurface waters feeding the equatorial Pacific have risen at rates that are comparable to or greater than the rise in global SST anomalies since 1900?”
This is a good question and would say greater due to sun’s radiation warming the subsurface quicker during La Ninas than the energy released via latent heat.
Geoff Sharp: In your July 14, 2011 at 5:51 am comment, you attributed the following quote to me. “I have provided documentation showing that La Nina does not load El Nino and shown in fact a cooler warm pool is the norm before El Nino. If you wish to ignore this then so be it, the chances of reasonable dialogue seem bleak.”
I did not write this, so your attribution to me is incorrect. It appears nowhere else on this thread (or on the internet that I can find) so I will assume you wrote it. In reality, Geoff, you provided no documentation. I present data; you have presented conjecture based on incomplete observations, or based on your inability to read a graph, or on your inability to grasp the fact that data for different regions present different results. Numerous scientific papers have documented that La Niña recharges the warm water that’s discharged during an El Niño. Mysteriously, you are the only person I have run across who questions this well-established fact after being presented with data that confirms it.
Geoff Sharp says: “Your interpretation of the 1996 La Nina warming is very misplaced, the NODC data as specified earlier is too broad.”
Too broad? The following is a map of the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool:
http://i30.tinypic.com/b3tpah.gif
The source of the map is here:
http://www.crces.org/presentations/dmv_ipwp/
I present tropical Pacific OHC, including the latitudes of 20S-20N, in my graph, so that I can capture all of the warm water available to supply the El Niño events and all of the warm water that is recharged during a La Niña event.
Geoff Sharp says: “If you look at the TOC data it is very clear that the 1996 warming is occurring in the Eastern Pacific with very little happening in the west that could be attributed to La Nina. I expect you to ignore this point. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/wwv/gif/compa_ew.gif”
The TAO project graph that you link is for the latitudes of 5S-5N. I explained and illustrated above why those latitudes do not capture the Pacific Warm Pool. Your statement “the 1996 warming is occurring in the Eastern Pacific with very little happening in the west” proves to me that you do not understand the subject matter and that you, in fact, cannot read a graph or you elect to misrepresent what is being presented in the graph. The increase in Eastern Warm Water Volume in that graph is the 1997/98 El Niño, not a “1996 warming [that] is occurring in the Eastern Pacific.” The data in that graph starts in 1980. Count the hash marks from then. You’ll figure it out one day, but possibly not in my lifetime.
Also, I have written posts about the TAO project data, and have included it in other posts. So I don’t ignore it. And one thing is for sure; I present it and represent it correctly, which are simple things that seem to elude you.
On the recent PDO thread Anthony Watts wrote, “Geoff, take that as a ‘thread closed’ to further discussion on this matter. I’m rather disappointed in the way you’ve been behaving. So at this point, just walk away and stick to the solar cycle issues.”
I would also request that you stick to solar cycle issues since your arguments with me illustrate to those who bother to read your comments that you have little grasp of the process of ENSO. Also, in your recent comment, you have elected to incorrectly attribute a quote to me and have once again demonstrated your need to misrepresent data, (or your inability to read a graph). But you have made one thing very clear when you stated, “that the 1996 warming is occurring in the Eastern Pacific with very little happening in the west.” You have no understanding of the historical ENSO record—none.
Good-bye, Geoff. I do not understand why you insist on destroying your own credibility.
Dave Springer: Further to my earlier comments, Wolter (the creator of the Multivariate ENSO Index) and co-author Timlin also note that the recent “surge” in El Nino strength is not abnormal. Refer to Wolter and Timlin (2011) paper “El Niño/Southern Oscillation behaviour since 1871 as diagnosed in an extended multivariate ENSO index (MEI.ext)”. They note in their abstract, ““Our effort is designed to help with the assessment of ENSO conditions through as long a record as possible to be able to differentiate between ‘natural’ ENSO behaviour in all its rich facets, and the ‘Brave New World’ of this phenomenon under evolving GHG-related climate conditions. So far, none of the behaviour of recent ENSO events appears unprecedented, including duration, onset timing, and spacing in the last few decades compared to a full century before then.” Link to abstract:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.2336/abstract
Matt G says: “This infill in data looks a poor method with GISS, not sure why this would be any better?”
GISS infills land surface data gaps by extrapolating the data with their 1200km radius smoothing, where HADISST and ERSST.v3b are infilled using EOF analysis (and EOT for ERSST.v3b). That is, they take known SST patterns (like the PDO pattern in the North Pacific) and infill data based on those patterns. ERSST.v3b also uses known teleconnections for infilling. And again, HADISST reinserts the observations back into the data, while ERSST.v3b does not. On the other hand, HADSST2 and HADSST3 data (and CRUTEMP for land) is not infilled, and in some respects that’s a very “realistic” way to approach the problem because you can see exactly where the data is missing. Unfortunately, the gaps in the data make it difficult to work with, which is why I prefer an infilled version when dealing with long-term data. But I always keep in mind where the infilling takes place.
You replied, “This is a good question and would say greater due to sun’s radiation warming the subsurface quicker during La Ninas than the energy released via latent heat.”
Does this mean you would expect the eastern equatorial PacificSST anomalies to rise faster than Global SST anomalies?
Bob Tisdale says:
July 14, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Before we go any further Bob, let me make one point very clear. I did not attribute any comment to you in the last post. The moderator changed my post by applying his own italics the first paragraph of my post.
I have a copy of my original post saved on my browser.
———————–
Bob Tisdale says:
July 13, 2011 at 6:19 pm
I have provided documentation showing that La Nina does not load El Nino and shown in fact a cooler warm pool is the norm before El Nino. If you wish to ignore this then so be it, the chances of reasonable dialogue seem bleak.
Your interpretation of the 1996 La Nina warming is very misplaced, the NODC data as specified earlier is too broad. If you look at the TOC data it is very clear that the 1996 warming is occurring in the Eastern Pacific with very little happening in the west that could be attributed to La Nina. I expect you to ignore this point.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/wwv/gif/compa_ew.gif
[Reply] After checking this, I’ve removed the italics from the post at 2011/07/14 at 5:51 am. Don’t know how it happened, looks like an assumption was made. RT-mod
Bob Tisdale says:
July 14, 2011 at 7:07 pm
I can see that reasonable discourse with you will be impossible. As soon as I present any evidence or data disputing your views you will promptly go into hysterical school girl mode or some kind of melt down.
The cream will rise to the top.
Bob Tisdale wrote (July 13, 2011 at 2:27 am) “So HADISST is more of an observations-based SST reconstruction while ERSST.v3b is more statistics based.”
Is not HadISST also based on a raft of untenable assumptions that are NOT a foundation of ERSSTv3b? Reinserting spatiotemporally biased original measurements can’t compensate for the mess created by bad HadISST assumptions.
Geoff Sharp: Excuse me for assuming the error in attribution was your fault. But it had been in place for 2 hours before I replied, and you apparently had seen no need to correct the error.
Geoff Sharp says: “I can see that reasonable discourse with you will be impossible. As soon as I present any evidence or data disputing your views you will promptly go into hysterical school girl mode or some kind of melt down.”
As usual, when you. Geoff, are incapable of responding to the message, you attempt to attack the messenger. You have attempted to mispresent data twice on this thread, but failed twice. You have attempted to illustrate your knowledge of ENSO but all you managed to do was cast a spotlight on your misunderstandings of it. I have been very patient with you, Geoff, but you apparently have no wish to push aside your misunderstandings. I can find no reason to continue to discuss ENSO with you since you make little effort to understand what is presented to you by me and others. SInce you act as a troll and appear to argue for argument’s sake, I will treat you as a troll and ignore you.
Geoff Sharp wrote (July 12, 2011 at 12:41 pm) “The important point is why do we have 30 year periods of one dominating the other”
Spatial distribution of martime-continent contrast & north-south asymmetry. See figure 10 here:
Carvalho, L.M.V.; Tsonis, A.A.; Jones, C.; Rocha, H.R.; & Polito, P.S. (2007). Anti-persistence in the global temperature anomaly field. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics 14, 723-733.
http://www.icess.ucsb.edu/gem/papers/npg-14-723-2007.pdf
Compare with:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AMOTEMPS.jpg
It’s simple.
@Stephen Fisher Wilde (July 11, 2011 at 11:51 pm)
Some interesting ideas, but how can you get anywhere trying to advance such ideas without acknowledging semi-annual oscillations? Hydrology is a function of absolutes, not anomalies.
@Crispin in Waterloo (July 10, 2011 at 1:35 pm)
Some misunderstanding at play. Corbyn does NOT claim to use solar barycentric radial acceleration for terrestrial forecasting.
Bob makes a salient point. We are warmer or colder because of weather (regardless of what drives it), not in spite of it. Therefore anthropogenic global warming must show up in weather pattern variability change that is outside the historical record of weather pattern variability. It has not. This is the null hypothesis and it has not been refuted. Which begs the question, why are we still even arguing over whether or not we have AGW?
Time after time, the historical record of weather pattern variability shows either that we are not experiencing AGW or we cannot tell the difference between naturally forced and anthropogenically forced weather pattern variability and therefore AGW is harmless.