Guest post by Erl Happ
The Southern Oscillation Index is a reference point for the strength of the Trade winds. It represents the difference in atmospheric pressure between Tahiti and Darwin. In figure 1 the SOI is the red line with its values on the right axis. A negative SOI reflects slack trade winds and a warming ocean. A positive index relates to a cooling globe. Note that the right axis in figure 1 is inverted.
How is it that change in surface atmospheric pressure is so closely associated with a change in the temperature of the tropical ocean? This is the major unsolved riddle in climate science. If temperature is so obviously associated with pressure on an inter-annual basis why not in the long-term? In this article I show that pressure and temperature are intimately related on all time scales. In other words, ENSO is not an ‘internal oscillation of the climate system‘ that can be considered to be climate neutral. ENSO is climate change in action. You can’t rule it out. You must rule it in. Once you do so, the IPCC assertion that the recent increase in surface temperature is more than likely due to the works of man is not just ‘in doubt’, it is insupportable.
If the IPPC can’t explain ENSO it can not explain climate change. It is not in a position to predict surface temperature. Its efforts to quantify the rise in temperature must be seen to be nothing more than wild imaginings. Its prescriptions for ‘saving the planet’ must be viewed as ridiculous.
Surface pressure data: http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/soidatafiles/index.php. Monthly temperature data: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
Temperature change is linked to change in surface atmospheric pressure
Figure 1 Left axis Temperature in °C. Right axis three month moving average of the monthly southern Oscillation Index
The Southern Oscillation Index leads surface temperature on the upswing and also on the downswing. Some factor associated with change in surface pressure is plainly responsible for temperature change.
How and why does atmospheric pressure change?
The evolution of surface pressure throughout the globe depends upon the activity of the coupled circulation of the stratosphere and the troposphere in Antarctica and in the Arctic. These circulations have become more aggressive over time resulting in a loss of atmospheric mass in high latitudes and gain at low latitudes. The gain at low latitudes reflects the seasonal pattern of increased intensity in the respective polar circulations. The stratosphere and the troposphere couple most intensely in February in the Arctic and in June through to September in the Antarctic. The pattern of enhanced activity at particular times of the year is reflected in the timing of the increase in sea surface pressure in equatorial latitudes, as seen in figure 2.
Figure 2 Gain in average monthly sea level pressure between the decade 1948-1957 and the decade 2001-2010. hPa
The coupled circulation in the southern hemisphere produces a deep zone of low pressure on the margins of Antarctica that encircles the entire globe as is clearly evident in figures 3 and 4. In previous posts I have documented the change in high latitude pressure since 1948 and the associated change in wind strength, sea surface temperature and by inference, since the atmosphere is warmed by the descent of ozone into the troposphere, a change in cloud cover.
Figure 3 Mean sea level pressure January
The pressure deficit on margins of Antarctica is deepest in July (winter).
Figure 4 Mean sea level pressure July
It is of interest therefore to look at the evolution of the pressure relationship between Tahiti and Darwin (that is the essence of the SOI) over time.
Bear in mind that as atmospheric mass moves from high latitudes to the equator atmospheric pressure increases at Darwin more than it does at Tahiti and the trade winds slacken. The increase in pressure at Darwin is well correlated with the increase in atmospheric pressure in equatorial latitudes globally. The plunge is atmospheric pressure at high latitudes that enables the increase in pressure at the equator is associated with cloud loss and increased sea surface temperature in mid and low latitudes. The most abbreviated explanation of mechanism behind the loss of cloud can be found here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/20/the-character-of-climate-change-part-3/
Figure 5 Thirty day moving average of the difference in daily sea level pressure between Tahiti and Darwin hPa.
The excess of pressure in Tahiti with respect to Darwin over the period 1999-2011 is shown in figure 5. The differential plainly evolves over time and an indication of the direction of change is given by the fitted polynomial curve.
Secondly, we can see that the pressure differential exhibits a pattern of seasonal variation. In general the pressure differential is high at the turn of the year and low in mid year.
The pattern of the average daily differential for the entire period for which daily data is available (1992 -2011) is shown in figure 6.
Figure 6 Average daily sea level pressure differential between Tahiti and Darwin over period 1992-2011. hPa
We observe that the pressure differential between Tahiti and Darwin:
• Reflects strong variability even when averaged over a period of twenty years.
• Is greatest between late December and the end of February (strong Trade winds)
• Is least between April and September (weak Trade winds).
• Shows a pattern of enhancement in February- March and also in September- October that plainly relates to the pattern of pressure increase in near equatorial latitudes evident in figure 2. The shift in the atmosphere away from Antarctica tends to enhance the pressure differential driving the trade winds all year, but in particular in September and October. So far as the Arctic is concerned the pressure loss is centered on February and March.
Why do the trades tend to fail in mid year?
Figure 7 Sea level pressure hPa. Seasonal pattern in Tahiti and Darwin.
The erosion of the pressure differential in southern winter relates to the establishment of a high pressure zone over the Australian continent. Compare figures 3 and 4 noting the difference in atmospheric pressure over Australia in summer and winter.
Change in the pressure differential (and the trade winds) over time.
In figures 8-11 the evolution of the pressure differential between 1997 and 2000 is compared with its evolution between the years 2009-2011.
Figure 8 Daily pressure differential. Tahiti less Darwin. hPa
The first and largest El Nino of solar cycle 23 began in early 1997. The first El Nino in Cycle 24 started in late 2009. The pattern of the differential is shown in figure 8. Plainly, the reduction in the pressure differential was more extreme in 1997 than in 2009.
Figure 9 Daily pressure differential. Tahiti less Darwin. hPa
The reduced differential persisted till March in 2010 and May in 1998. The last half of the year saw a strong recovery.
Figure 10 Daily pressure differential. Tahiti less Darwin. hPa
In 1999 and 2011 we see a strong pressure differential (La Nina) in the early part of the year, and in the case of 1999 this enhanced differential persisted through to the end of the year. The differential in early 2011 was much stronger than it had been in 1999.
It is noticeable that week to week variability is enhanced in 2011. I suggest that this relates to increased plasma density in an atmosphere due to reduced ionizing short wave radiation in solar cycle 24 by comparison with 23. Under these circumstances El Nino and La Nina produce a relatively ‘wild ride’.
We note the extension of La Nina into a second year.
Figure 11 Daily pressure differential. Tahiti less Darwin. hPa
2000 was a La Nina year coinciding with solar maximum. A coincidence of La Nina with solar maximum is more usual than not. On that basis one expects the current La Nina to continue into 2012. However, given the relative deficiency in short wave ionizing radiation in cycle 24 with respect to cycle 23 this time around might be different. The likely lack of a well-defined peak in cycle 24 will make a difference. If the cycle goes in fits and starts, so to will the ENSO experience.
Is the climate swinging towards El Nino as it warms?
It is a favorite meme of those who suggest that the globe is warming ‘due to change in trace gas composition’ that the climate is likely to progress towards a more of less permanent El Nino existence. Does recent history support this assetion? Is a warming globe associated with increased incidence of El Nino?
Figure 12 Average daily pressure differential Tahiti less Darwin hPa
In the six year period 1992-1997 the average daily pressure differential reveals an El Nino bias in relation to average for the entire period 1992-2011. In this period the globe warmed, but the degree of warming was subdued by the eruption of Pinatub0 in 1991.
Figure 12 Average daily pressure differential Tahiti less Darwin hPa
A cooling bias is evident over the last seven years from 2005 through to 2011.
Figure 13 Average daily pressure differential. Tahiti less Darwin. hPa
Plainly there has been a progression away from an El Nino towards a La Nina state over the twenty years since 1992. In the period to 1998 the globe plainly warmed. In the period since 1998 warming seems to have ceased. There have been a suggestion that some heat that ‘should be there’ has gone missing. Can this be read as an admission that warming has either slowed down or has actually ceased?
Conclusion:
ENSO is not climate neutral. ENSO is the reality of climate change in action. The progression towards cooling that is evident in the increasing pressure differential between Tahiti and Darwin shows no sign of abating. The ENSO state changes not only on an inter-annual time scale but on very much longer time scales. ENSO is plainly not ‘climate neutral’.
If we look back at figure 1 we will see that the Southern Oscillation Index leads the change in tropical sea surface temperature on the upswing and the downswing. The SOI is more positive (cooling) in 2011 than it has been at any time over the last sixty years.
Until the IPPC can properly account for ENSO cycles they can not attribute climate change to ‘change in trace gas composition due to the works of man’. We see an excellent correlation between surface pressure and surface temperature and no correlation at all between trace gas concentration and surface temperature.
Where is Science?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Erl Happ, you wrote in your post, “How is it that change in surface atmospheric pressure is so closely associated with a change in the temperature of the tropical ocean? This is the major unsolved riddle in climate science.”
There’s no riddle at all. ENSO is a coupled ocean-atmosphere process. This has been known for decades.
Under the heading of “Temperature change is linked to change in surface atmospheric pressure”, you provide a comparison of tropical (20S-20N) Sea Surface Temperature to the Southern Oscillation Index. Is the tropical SST data in your graph also smoothed? Because it looks more like anomaly data that’s been shifted up 26+ deg C. It does not contain the annual variations in tropical SST that one would expect:
http://i53.tinypic.com/2a0ap3o.jpg
Under the same heading you wrote, “The Southern Oscillation Index leads surface temperature on the upswing and also on the downswing.”
Your graph and your statement are misleading. ENSO leads variations in tropical SST anomalies. This has also been known for decades. You could have used any ENSO index in your graph. It takes 3 to 6 months for the tropics to respond to the changes in atmospheric circulation caused by ENSO. Here’s a graph of NINO3.4 versus tropical SST anomalies with both datasets standardized. NINO3.4 SST anomalies lead tropical SST anomalies. No surprise there at all: http://i54.tinypic.com/2le7a10.jpg
So you’ve misled yourself and your readers by implying that the cause of the variations in tropical SST are based solely on sea level pressure variations, when clearly they are not.
You finished the discussion under that heading with: “Some factor associated with change in surface pressure is plainly responsible for temperature change.”
And that factor is the coupled ocean-atmosphere process called ENSO.
That’s as far as I went in your post. Since your premise was misleading, I’ve assumed the rest of the post was misleading.
I am not keen in the stratosphere affecting the troposphere idea here. Assuming, that is, I have interpreted the hand waving correctly.
There is a huge mismatch in both mass and energy between stratosphere and troposphere. To suggest that the troposphere strongly affects the troposphere therefore amounts to an ant pushing an elephant. Unless Erl can come up with some decent justification I am calling this as implausible.
And another thing. A few of the climate models do reproduce ENSO like behavior. But I am ignorant of whether this is good enough to represent skill at prediction of ENSO. It would therefore appear that Erl’s last paragraph has a big hole in it’s argument.
Bob Tisdale says: September 24, 2011 at 6:10 am
Bob , Thanks for taking an interest and I hope you will pose further questions.
There’s no riddle at all. ENSO is a coupled ocean-atmosphere process. This has been known for decades.
That’s one interpretation. It’s not mine. If you read the rest of the post you might change your mind.
I might ask you to explain how the “coupled ocean-atmosphere process in the Pacific” to give it the correct title, produces the twenty year increase in the pressure differential between Tahiti and Darwin that is apparent in figure 13. I’m sure the Pacific is influential but can it do that?
Under the heading of “Temperature change is linked to change in surface atmospheric pressure”, you provide a comparison of tropical (20S-20N) Sea Surface Temperature to the Southern Oscillation Index. Is the tropical SST data in your graph also smoothed?
The SST data is a simple 12 month moving average of monthly data for the latitude 20°north to 20° south centered on the seventh month.
Under the same heading you wrote, “The Southern Oscillation Index leads surface temperature on the upswing and also on the downswing.”
Your graph and your statement are misleading. ENSO leads variations in tropical SST anomalies. This has also been known for decades. You could have used any ENSO index in your graph. It takes 3 to 6 months for the tropics to respond to the changes in atmospheric circulation caused by ENSO.
I resent the you saying my statement is misleading. My intention is to inform accurately. The SOI leads sea surface temperature in the global tropics. There is absolutely nothing misleading about that statement.
I did not use ‘any ENSO index’. I used a three month moving average of the SOI because I am interested in the pressure relationship. I am interested in why tropical sea surface temperature varies with equatorial sea surface pressure and inversely with pressure at high latitudes and in particular in the Arctic. I could have used Darwin pressure alone or pressure for equatorial latitudes if I could get daily data. I am not using ENSO 3.4 data because, while it is very similar to the SOI it is no more representative of the tropics generally than the SOI and while it may be of interest that a small part of the Pacific Ocean is a good precursor for change generally I know that ENSO 1+2 or SST in the south east Pacific or to the south west of Western Australia are usually better precursors. I am not interested in the precursor aspect. I am interested in cause and effect. I am interested in why surface temperature increases and decreases in the short and long term (inter-decadal and longer). I don’t want to focus on the Pacific. I want to focus on the global tropics.
That’s as far as I went in your post. Since your premise was misleading, I’ve assumed the rest of the post was misleading.
Inaccurate judgement no doubt based on a different perception of the nature of the phenomenon. Poor assumption.
Please do me the courtesy of reading the rest of the post. If the material that precedes figure 5 offends you please ignore it for the moment and start at figure 5. Please take in the data from figure 8 onwards. It conveys the central message.
Erl, sorry for the wrong spelling.
“I see nothing in the above that explains the rise and fall in sea surface temperature, the change in cloud cover and the shifts in the atmosphere between high and low latitudes that are all part of the ENSO variation.”
Then you keep thinking the tail wags the dog, unlike Leroux, of course. I’ll continue checking on the reference you provided, but this is a fundamental difference.
Tom,
No worries about the spelling. I thought Leroux was very forthright when he said that the change in insolation at high latitudes was the most influential factor. I wouldn’t call it insolation but changes in surface pressure wrought by the coupled circulation that brings about a change in insolation received at the surface. The ‘brief Introduction’ at http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/introduction.html gives you the gist of the argument.
Hi all!
Congratulations to Erl for a fantastic Fig. 1, showing a correlation between atmospheric pressure
leading surface air temperature! The correlation is obviously too strong to be considered random.
Erl, please forgive me for not reading everything to date, including your references, as I have just stumbled onto this site. I don’t even know what ENSO stands for (SO= Southern Oscillation?).
Having said this, please don’t bite my head off if I make a perhaps-irrelevant or stupid observation:
adiabatic expansion of a gas explains why the temperature of the troposphere declines with altitude (I know there are complications when there is heat released by condensation) where the pressure is lower. This is the reverse of compressing a gas adiabatically (with no heat exchange to the surroundings): if you compress even an Ideal Gas, it takes energy because you are doing work (force times distance) against a spring. The work done shows up as an increase in temperature (since no heat is exchanged with the surroundings), The reverse occurs on adiabatic expansion. So increasing atmospheric pressure (explained nicely by Erl’s movement of air masses) couples with increased temperatures, with a slight lag as effect follows cause.
This is intimately connected to a correct explanation of the greenhouse effect, and therefore the the AGW controversy, for the following reason: according to Chris Colose and Prof. Grant Petty, in the absence of greenhouse gases, the troposphere would be isothermal (i.e. the temperature decrease with increasing altitude is caused by infrared (IR) radiation leaking to outer space from excited state CO2 molecules and other greenhouse gas molecules at an altitude of 20 km or so, where the temperature is about 220 K). Some features of the IR spectra observed by a satellite
looking down on a cloudless warm Earth are explained by a model using the real life temperature gradient (lapse rate), but my question to the smart contributors to this forum is this: are Colose and Petty right about an isothermal atmosphere? Their belief comes from siding with Boltzmann in the Boltzmann-Loschmidt paradox. Colose and Petty are among the most confident of radiation physicists whose computer models “explain” the spectra, and therefore they say they are right in backing the IPCC projections all the way. I’d be especially interested in views from those with a strong background in the physics behind meteorology, as I have not had time to take a course or read the relevant literature.
Erl, thank you for the links. Looks like a bit of my weekend may be occupied with this. This post, as well as your earlier 4 part post on WUWT, needs to be reviewed together as all are related to atmospheric pressure, mass transfer, heat/energy transfer, energy source, etc. phenomenon and you are tying a lot together. It taxes my brain! If your theory proves out, it will be a big piece in a much bigger chaotic puzzle. Like myself, I feel that you are looking at an overall picture and presenting a thought provoking summary/theory. Even if correct, others will try to deconstruct you with fine details. Those have their place and are necessary, but you need to keep your eye on the main topic and seem to have done well. All this is a new topic for many and I’m sure they have a lot of pondering to do, as I, to fully grasp what you are presenting. If a wine maker can solve a big riddle that ‘all the king’s scientists and all the king’s men’ can’t, you will certainly deserve a feather in your cap!
Repeating advice I’ve given before in different words:
Escape the comically-loopy chicken-egg circular-logic. As it is now, many folks here have put chalk marks on different points of the wheel to mark the part of the wheel they think is “driving” the other parts of wheel.
The wheel is nothing more than the annual cycle …and that’s not what’s changing speed. LeMouel, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010) have shown that the wheel changes only in diameter (figuratively [amplitude literally]), not rotation rate. It’s changes in the solar-driven clustering of amplitude cycles that dial regional terrestrial climatologies (including SOI) multidecadally.
The thing I’m finding most comical about the discussions here is that LeMouel, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010) have spelled it all out and yet commenters keep turning a blind eye. Perhaps many or most are only interested in the truth if it conforms to their preconceptions. Perhaps many or most aren’t even ABLE to recognize the the truth if it doesn’t conform to their preconceptions. No offense is intended, but people need to wake up and clue in to what’s sitting in plain view.
–
Philip Bradley (September 23, 2011 at 2:57 am) wrote:
“Clouds may play a role in the atmospheric temperature changes between July and January, but that role is secondary to the land versus ocean effect.”
Encouraging to see someone here stressing land-ocean contrast …And land-ocean contrast is north-south asymmetric. (For NH, zonal summaries are particularly misleading.)
–
lgl (September 24, 2011 at 12:55 am) wrote:
“The answer my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind”
Led Zeppelin:
“Dear lady can you hear the wind blow? And did you know?
Your stairway lies on the whisperin’ wind…
…And it’s whispered that soon, if we all call the tune,
________ “ (fill in the blank)…
All that’s missing in the public domain is the interannual spatiotemporal piece. For bright human minds aware of LeMouel, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010) [ http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vaughn_lod_fig1b.png , http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vaughn_lod_fig1a.png ] and it’s implications [differential solar-pulse position modulation: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/scl_0-90n.png , http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/scl_northpacificsst.png , http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/vaughn_lod_amo_sc.png , same pattern for whole-Pacific-basin, etc.], that’s not a very big step. The interannual spatiotemporal cat can’t necessarily be kept in the bag indefinitely, as the bag is becoming saturated with the rain of solar & lunisolar hints.
–
erl happ (September 24, 2011 at 5:51 am) addressing lgl:
“The faster the westerlies blow the more the ocean warms […]”
Careful there Erl. You just gave a textbook example (by accident presumably) of the dangers of anomaly-based conception. TomRude is correct to draw peoples’ attention to Leroux. Might help people “get off the anomalies” (like some junkie’s bad delusion-driving drug). The annual cycle isn’t something we can ignore. It is the key temporal cycle modulated by the sun, as shown by LeMouel, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010). Hydrology isN’T a function of anomalies …which demand 12 ever-changing freezing points [!], to highlight 1 key threshold among others that matter qualitatively.
–
Erl, like clouds [ http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/21/cloud-wars/ ], ozone is just another part of the wheel. Any dog somewhere on the wheel chasing ozone, clouds, or whatever is just chasing its tail. This might be interesting – or perhaps more likely a contractual obligation – for micromodelers, but it’s not going to add anything to our macroview that we don’t ALREADY know from EOP (Earth Orientation Parameters).
–
Bob Tisdale (September 24, 2011 at 6:10 am) wrote:
“That’s as far as I went in your post. Since your premise was misleading, I’ve assumed the rest of the post was misleading.”
Erl mixes needles into the haystack. I wouldn’t advise blanket-ignorance of everything he says, even if he hasn’t got the whole act organized as some of us might prefer.
Erl deserves a lot of credit for pointing us at an excellent website that should remind everyone of the hazards of conceptualizing solely in anomalies (which many here – perhaps most it seems some days – clearly do).
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/eng/atlas-tope.htm
–
I suggest that everyone go through the temporally-windowed-AVERAGE annual cycle frame-by-frame for every variable in every available format.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/eng/atlas-tope.htm
Priceless …and sure to eliminate some of the misconceptions we see INCORRECTLY asserted here day after day AFTER DAY. Finally, something that moves attention back towards where it NEEDS to be – i.e. the terrestrial year.
Regards.
In response to my statement, “There’s no riddle at all. ENSO is a coupled ocean-atmosphere process. This has been known for decades,” Erl Happ replied, “That’s one interpretation. It’s not mine.”
Apparently.
Erl Happ wrote, “I might ask you to explain how the ‘coupled ocean-atmosphere process in the Pacific’ to give it the correct title, produces the twenty year increase in the pressure differential between Tahiti and Darwin that is apparent in figure 13. I’m sure the Pacific is influential but can it do that?”
The most significant ENSO-related variations in Sea Surface Temperatures occur along the equatorial Pacific. The track of the Kelvin waves that carry warm water east from the Pacific Warm Pool at the beginning of an El Nino is along the equatorial Pacific. During an El Nino, warm water is carried eastward by the Pacific Equatorial Countercurrent, and as its name implies, it is located along the equator. The significant upwelling that takes place during La Nina and ENSO-neutral periods occurs along the equatorial Pacific. In fact, if you go to the NOAA/CPC ENSO index web pages here…
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/
…and here…
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/enso.shtml
…and to the NOAA TAO Project webpage…
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/wwv/
…most of the ENSO indices are measured from single locations/grids (not as a difference) and they are measured at the equator. The exception is the Southern Oscillation Index. The SOI is measured as the Sea Level Pressure difference between two off-equatorial locations. Darwin is at 12S and Tahiti is at 17S. Therefore, the SOI should not be expected to be a perfect representation of the ENSO process. In fact, there are no individual ENSO indices that fully represent the ENSO process. Refer to the discussion here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/enso-indices-do-not-represent-the-process-of-enso-or-its-impact-on-global-temperature/
Back to your question: You asked about the increasing pressure difference between Darwin and Tahiti. Assuming the graph you referred to and your interpretation of it are correct, then, apparently, since the ENSO process is primarily an equatorial process and the SOI is off equatorial, then the SOI data is picking up extraneous off-equatorial noise that is not associated with the process of ENSO.
Erl Happ replied, “The SST data is a simple 12 month moving average of monthly data for the latitude 20°north to 20° south centered on the seventh month.”
It would have been nice if you’d noted that on the graph or in the text of your post. Also, why did you mix filters? You used a 12-month filter centered on the 7th month for SST, but you used a 3-month filter, assumedly centered on the 2nd month, for the SOI. By centering your SST data on the 7th month, aren’t you introducing a one-month lag that is not present in your SOI filter?
Erl Happ replied, “I resent the you saying my statement is misleading. My intention is to inform accurately. The SOI leads sea surface temperature in the global tropics. There is absolutely nothing misleading about that statement.”
Sorry you’re upset with what I wrote, BUT, let’s drop back to what you wrote in your post. It was, “The Southern Oscillation Index leads surface temperature on the upswing and also on the downswing. Some factor associated with change in surface pressure is plainly responsible for temperature change.”
What’s misleading is you imply that the SOI and only the SOI is responsible for the change in tropical Sea Surface Temperature. And that is not the case. The variations in tropical Sea Surface Temperature are lagged responses to the changes in atmospheric circulation caused by the ENSO process, not solely by the Southern Oscillation Index. The “Some factor” is ENSO.
You wrote, ”Please do me the courtesy of reading the rest of the post.”
Your “hypothesis” appears in part to be that the SOI is the driver of ENSO and, in turn, the driver of the variations in tropical SST. It is not. The SOI and its individual SLP components in Tahiti and Darwin represent the effects of ENSO on those variables, nothing more, nothing less.
With respect to ENSO and the Solar Cycle, you make the following unsupported statement, “2000 was a La Nina year coinciding with solar maximum. A coincidence of La Nina with solar maximum is more usual than not.”
If you were to plot the SOI and scaled Sunspot Numbers, you’d find that statement to be wrong:
http://i54.tinypic.com/x0w7yx.jpg
You continued with, “On that basis one expects the current La Nina to continue into 2012.”
Since, as shown above, there is no relationship between ENSO and the Solar Cycle, how’d you make that leap?
In your conclusion you state, “ENSO is not climate neutral. ENSO is the reality of climate change in action. The progression towards cooling that is evident in the increasing pressure differential between Tahiti and Darwin shows no sign of abating.”
Yet you haven’t shown that global temperatures are cooling, only that the SOI is leaning toward La Nina events.
This is similar to one of the statements you make in your opening. There you wrote, “In other words, ENSO is not an ‘internal oscillation of the climate system‘ that can be considered to be climate neutral. ENSO is climate change in action. You can’t rule it out. You must rule it in. Once you do so, the IPCC assertion that the recent increase in surface temperature is more than likely due to the works of man is not just ‘in doubt’, it is insupportable.”
Yet you have done nothing to show that the decadal or multidecadal rises and falls in Global temperatures or tropical Sea Surface Temperatures are caused by ENSO.
Roger Taguchi says: September 24, 2011 at 10:47 am
Thanks for the query Roger. I can not do justice to the questions you raise in a couple of paragraphs but here goes.
it takes energy because you are doing work (force times distance) against a spring. The work done shows up as an increase in temperature (since no heat is exchanged with the surroundings), The reverse occurs on adiabatic expansion. So increasing atmospheric pressure (explained nicely by Erl’s movement of air masses) couples with increased temperatures, with a slight lag as effect follows cause.
The temperature increase from compression is good for a day. Overnight that energy will dissipate just as air in a compressor cools overnight.
in the absence of greenhouse gases, the troposphere would be isothermal (i.e. the temperature decrease with increasing altitude is caused by infrared (IR) radiation leaking to outer space from excited state CO2 molecules and other greenhouse gas molecules at an altitude of 20 km or so
In general, I would say that greenhouse theorists are weak in geography and tend to assume that heat is lost from the surface primarily by radiation. It’s not.
Process matters: Surface loses heat by conduction, evaporation (change of state involving energy acquisition) and in the main convection involving simple decompression.
Geography matters. Processes are ordered by latitude and hemisphere.
Altitude matters. Process changes with elevation. The net of IR absorbers like CO2 and Ozone has wider spaces between molecules as the number of molecules per cubic meter falls away with elevation. Bear in mid that 80% of the atmosphere is within 12 km of the surface. You can walk that far in two hours.
Land versus sea matters: Sea absorbs energy with little increase in surface temperature, land increases in temperature fast and radiates energy, but only if it is dry. If wet, evaporation absorbs energy. This is a watery planet.
By Latitude:
Near equatorial: air cools by decompression during convection. Very little radiation.
10-20 south: Peak radiation from warm ocean and generally cloud free sky.
20-40° lat both hemispheres: Air compresses in cells of descending air. Radiation occurs throughout the profile of the troposphere under generally clear skies but there is a very influential layer of cirrus at high altitude conditioning the degree of reflection of incoming energy. Particularly active in the winter hemisphere.
40-65° lat radiation from land is fast especially in northern hemisphere summer. Greenhouse gases absorb energy warming the atmosphere reducing cloud cover resulting in the annual peak for global temperature in July even though solar irradiance is 7% less than in January. De-compressive cooling is associated with orographic and frontal rainfall.Is there any evidence that the lapse rate falls away over Russia in summer? If not, the greenhouse effect is not working.
65-90° lat. The air is dry. Direct radiation is the most important process for heat removal. Ozone is the greenhouse gas of influence and the entire atmospheric column heaves. The coolest parts of the stratosphere descend into the troposphere causing warming and cloud loss
An isothermal process is a change of a system, in which the temperature remains constant: ΔT = 0. This typically occurs when a system is in contact with an outside thermal reservoir (heat bath), and the change occurs slowly enough to allow the system to continually adjust to the temperature of the reservoir through heat exchange.
The heat bath for the atmosphere is the surface of the Earth. It gets cooler with altitude because the troposphere is very effective in keeping the surface cool . Heat is removed by transport from the surface. It is lost by the troposphere ultimately by radiation and the most intense location for radiation is the high pressure cells at 20-40° of latitude in the winter hemisphere.
Back radiation is opposed by convection. There is no evidence of effective transfer of heat from the stratosphere to the troposphere or any decline in the lapse rate of temperature with elevation over the great land masses of the northern hemisphere in July. If there is, and I am guessing, I am sure that the greenhouse theorists would have seized upon it as evidence that the greenhouse works.
The gist of all this is that geography and an understanding of the manifold processes that are involved is absolutely vital.
eyesonu says: September 24, 2011 at 11:00 am
Thanks for that comment. I am as bald as a badger and frequently wear a cap to keep my head warm and I am sure that there is a spot in the cap for a feather.
Paul Vaughan says: September 24, 2011 at 11:33 am
Paul, it is the inter-annual variations that reveal the important processes at work. The evidence will be in the data for the atmosphere and the ocean in the form of anomalies. But since the base state changes all the time the concept of an anomaly has validity only in relation to the average for a selected period.
To understand the inter-annual variations one must begin by understanding the annual variations and be careful not to confuse the two. So, as you say the JAL maps are very important.
For inter-annual variations that have their origin in high latitude zones: http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/introduction.html
I don’t bury needles in haystacks. I find them.
Bob Tisdale
You are going to keep me busy for a while. I am going to give you a general response here and pick up the details that you identify later.
From Wikipedia under ENSO “Mechanisms that cause the oscillation remain under study”.
Let’s not pretend that this is not an open question.
You say: The exception is the Southern Oscillation Index. The SOI is measured as the Sea Level Pressure difference between two off-equatorial locations. Darwin is at 12S and Tahiti is at 17S. Therefore, the SOI should not be expected to be a perfect representation of the ENSO process.
I think the crux of the disagreement we have is in relation to the scope of what is to be referred to as THE ENSO PROCESS. In particular, what is the SO part of ENSO all about?
So, I want to look at the big picture because it sets the base state for ENSO being responsible for the so-called ‘climate shifts’.
The SOI was developed by Walker who was interested in the Indian Monsoon.
The most influential climate dynamic so far as the globe is concerned is the Southern Annual mode. It can be shown that the NAM (Read Arctic Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation) depends upon the dynamic of the SAM in that it drives global pressure relations, wind strength and direction and cloud cover in high southern latitudes. It sets the background because it influences the dynamics in the Arctic and asists the Arctic in determining cloud cover in January across the biggest stretch of water in the entire globe, the Southern Ocean.
That said, it’s the winter hemisphere that is chiefly responsible for the flux in ozone into the troposphere that modifies relative humidity and high cloud cover. And the Arctic stratosphere is the Gold Standard when it comes to ozone concentration so, when you look at SST data by latitude you see it is influential right through to 45° south in determining cloud cover in January.
As you know, because we have crossed swords over this matter in the past, I use SST data from Kalnays reanalysis. It reflects skin temperature rather than SST beneath the surface and it is a lot more volatile than the data you access. The influence of the NAM produces a diminishing response in sea surface temperature to a given loss in surface pressure at 50-60° north (due to the influence of the coupled circulation of the stratosphere and the troposphere) as we observe the change from north to south. The response in the tropics tends to be smaller. Why? The waters of the tropics reflect merging trade winds. SST in close equatorial latitudes reflect influences from both hemispheres. And the two hemispheres experience a pattern of warming that is very different. Wind strength is very different in the hemispheres especially at 30-60° of latitude affecting the evaporative cooling and wind strength increases as the ocean warms. Then throw in the upwelling factor that is arguably driven by the strength of the westerlies.
Did you read:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/15/the-character-of-climate-change-part-1/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/the-character-of-climate-change-part-2/
The message in those posts relates to the diversity in the evolution of temperature by hemisphere and latitude. Essential observational stuff.
ENSO in the Pacific is an oceanic case study within the larger picture of SST change globally and a lot of effort is directing change in a tiny latitudional band at the equator. As we see in figure 1 the change in SST in the global tropics is well enough defined by the SOI which is the SO in ENSO. El Nino Southern Oscillation.
As I see it the tropical seas integrate influences from all latitudes. The SST response in the tropics is mixed, muted and dumbed down because of the integrating effects of the currents and the winds that are outside the latitudes 6°n to 6°south. These influences can cancel each other out.
My figure 13 in this post reflects change in the base state that is due to the SAM. SAM influences ENSO, the SO and Nino 3.4 SST.
Now a few comments in relation to your post: ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature:
As noted above, the Southern Oscillation Index represents the difference in Sea Level Pressure between Tahiti and Darwin, Australia. Because ENSO is a coupled ocean-atmosphere process, the Southern Oscillation Index can be used to illustrate the timing and strength of El Niño and La Niña events. It is in a form, however, that is not easily associated with variations in global surface temperatures, so we’ll exclude it from the rest of the discussions in this post.
You excluded the SOI, I included it. All you have to do is to invert it. It records the change in the base state so far as surface pressure is concerned. That change is not a product of the ENSO process in the Pacific. But to get at the base state you have to discard the standardized index and look at change in the raw data.That is what I do when I subtract Darwin from Tahiti surface pressure. It’s interesting to compare that simple statistic with the SOI. The process of standardizing makes assumptions that are perhaps not warranted.
In this way, the warm waters in the Pacific Warm Pool in the Western Tropical Pacific are recharged by the La Niña for the next El Niño event.
You put a lot of emphasis on this but have you done any calorific calculations to see whether the warmth that accumulates in the Pacific warm pool can account for the warming of those parts that warm during the subsequent El Nino. Or are you just suggesting that the stored heat makes a contribution….then how much of a contribution? Are we not dealing with a thimble and a saucepan here?
the El Niño phase is the truly anomalous phase. Trade winds reverse direction, warm water is transported from west to east, etc., during the El Niño.
But the trade winds come close to reversing every year in mid year when the pressure differential approaches zero and that is a seasonal thing. It’s not out of the question that the trades might reverse between November and March but the Tahiti minus Darwin differential is much higher at that time owing to the heating of the Australian land mass in summer.
To see the trades actually reverse you need a SOI of about -10. And the reversal will be localized.
During an El Niño, cloud cover and precipitation accompany the warm waters eastward from the West Pacific Warm Pool.
So this naturally lowers surface pressure in the east, a Pacific dynamic that is reflected in the SOI. But the MJO tells us that convection is initiated in the warmest part of the Indian Ocean and it is with us to a greater or lesser extent all the time. Is it a net cooling of the atmosphere over the Indian Ocean that starts a cooling precipitation event and what is it that starts that cooling process. Any precipitation event will propagate eastwards. To see what starts that off I would have a close look at SAM and the ozone anomaly that exists between Australia and Antarctica. To account for the eastward shift of convection and rainfall in the Pacific I would look at the changing balance of surface pressure near Chile by comparison with the Pacific Ocean north of New Zealand.
The changes in surface temperature outside of the tropical Pacific during an El Niño event that are shown in Figure 9 are caused by changes in atmospheric circulation, not due to a transfer of heat.
I would have a close look at extratropical cloud cover as an independent source of change, particularly at zero lag and particularly in the South Atlantic and the South East Pacific.
What strikes me in viewing the animations is the primacy of the upwelling effect in determining whether Pacific equatorial waters are warming or cooling. This is just an artifact of the distribution of land and sea and the response of the currents to the westerly winds that change pace in unison with the trades but at an amplified rate. And the westerlies respond to surface pressure at 60-70°south.
The Sea Surface Temperature-based ENSO indices, the Sea Level Pressure-based ENSO index, and the Multivariate ENSO Index represent the impact of ENSO events on the measured variables, nothing more, nothing less. They are useful for determining the frequency and magnitude of ENSO events and for forecasting the short-term impacts of ENSO events on global weather. But ENSO Indices cannot be used to determine the impact of ENSO events on global surface temperatures, because ENSO indices do not represent the ENSO process or the impact of ENSO on the coupled ocean-atmospheric processes.
A very good point to make. My take: Other factors determine the base state that conditions Pacific Ocean phenomena and in fact phenomena in all ocean basins. These factors determine whether the tropical ocean exhibits a warming or a cooling tendency on decadal and longer time scales. The Pacific is one case, albeit a case that exhibits more spectacular dynamics than elsewhere.
In a reply to a query you say:
We seem to have passed the epoch of the super El Nino and have entered a period when there are more La Nina events of reasonable strength. I just hope to be around long enough to watch what happens when there are a few climate shifts.
What I am trying to do is reveal how the underlying state changes (climate shifts). Polar dynamics affect sea surface temperature via cloud cover and wind and change the base state. Change in the base state shifts the average of the ENSO indices up or down. They do not move on their own. They are little picture stuff, localized, spectacular but really just a sideshow to the main event.
Hi Erl,
You’ll find solar & lunisolar signals in EOP (Earth Orientation Parameters). I again encourage you to take the time to digest Tomas Milanovic’s message about regional interannual spatiotemporal variability. There’s no need to chase the relations of adjacent eddies; the system is constrained globally.
Sincerely.
No new physics is needed. Modelers will be able to do the job using conventional physics once they get a handle on the spatiotemporal framework and the implications for sampling & aggregation. Sincerely.
Replying to Bob Tisdale Part 2.
Back to your question: You asked about the increasing pressure difference between Darwin and Tahiti. Assuming the graph you referred to and your interpretation of it are correct, then, apparently, since the ENSO process is primarily an equatorial process and the SOI is off equatorial, then the SOI data is picking up extraneous off-equatorial noise that is not associated with the process of ENSO.
It’s not extraneous and its not ‘noise’ whatever that means. It’s picking up change in the base state of the atmosphere.
It would have been nice if you’d noted that on the graph or in the text of your post. Also, why did you mix filters? You used a 12-month filter centered on the 7th month for SST, but you used a 3-month filter, assumedly centered on the 2nd month, for the SOI. By centering your SST data on the 7th month, aren’t you introducing a one-month lag that is not present in your SOI filter?
My error. I see than you occasionally fall into the same trap. If I center one series on the sixth month and the identical series on the seventh, reduce the line to 1 point in width and magnify to the extent that Excel allows I can select only the overlying series. The difference is undetectable at several times the size that the graph is presented in this post.
Why mix filters.
I prefer to show at an appropriate highest resolution for th purpose in mind. SST is much less variable than pressure and requires less filtering. The SOI on the other hand exhibits a great deal of short term variation.
What’s misleading is you imply that the SOI and only the SOI is responsible for the change in tropical Sea Surface Temperature. And that is not the case. The variations in tropical Sea Surface Temperature are lagged responses to the changes in atmospheric circulation caused by the ENSO process, not solely by the Southern Oscillation Index. The “Some factor” is ENSO.
Here we differ. As will be apparent from what I have written I see the coupled circulation at the poles (NAM and SAM) as responsible for change in the base state. Hence the progression towards an expanded pressure differential between Tahiti and Darwin over the entire period.
Your “hypothesis” appears in part to be that the SOI is the driver of ENSO and, in turn, the driver of the variations in tropical SST. It is not. The SOI and its individual SLP components in Tahiti and Darwin represent the effects of ENSO on those variables, nothing more, nothing less.
Disagree. The ENSO process is conditioned by factors external to the Pacific that are reflected in the SOI but in no other SST index associated with The El Nino/La Nina phenomenon.
With respect to ENSO and the Solar Cycle, you make the following unsupported statement, “2000 was a La Nina year coinciding with solar maximum. A coincidence of La Nina with solar maximum is more usual than not.”
If you were to plot the SOI and scaled Sunspot Numbers, you’d find that statement to be wrong:
http://i54.tinypic.com/x0w7yx.jpg
You continued with, “On that basis one expects the current La Nina to continue into 2012.”
Since, as shown above, there is no relationship between ENSO and the Solar Cycle, how’d you make that leap?
Figure 126 and associated text. Figure 164, http://www.happs.com.au/images/stories/PDFarticles/TheCommonSenseOfClimateChange.pdf
In your conclusion you state, “ENSO is not climate neutral. ENSO is the reality of climate change in action. The progression towards cooling that is evident in the increasing pressure differential between Tahiti and Darwin shows no sign of abating.”
Yet you haven’t shown that global temperatures are cooling, only that the SOI is leaning toward La Nina events.
1. This post shows that ENSO has been retreating from a warming bias since 1991. But the SOI outran tropical SST on numerous occasions between 1948 and 1978 but not since 1978.
2. It is apparent that El Nino events that have occurred since 1978 have not produced a temperature peak to compare with that year. It’s not strictly a fair comparison however because the strength of the increase in temperature in the late nineties had a lot to do with the drying of the atmosphere after Pinatubo in 1991. So, the temperature peak might have occurred about 2005 but for that accident. The underlying warming process was still there after 1978.
3. Given that the entire period from 1948 has been associated with a decline in atmospheric precipitable water and that a full recovery has occurred only in the last seven years one would expect that cloud cover is now on the increase.
4. There will be a lag in the oceans giving up warmth just as there was a lag in SST reflecting the El Nino bias in the SOI.
5. The more habitable latitudes of the southern hemisphere increased in temperature up to 1978 but not since.
6. The warming of the habitable latitudes of the northern hemisphere in winter started in 1976 and has come to an end.
7. Tropical SST follows Darwin and equatorial sea surface pressure. It also follows the Tahiti less Darwin SLP statistic. SLP at 10°N -10°S peaked in 2005.
8. No increase in ocean heat content has been reported since about 2005 or thereabouts?
9. SST in the ENSO 3.4 region is showing a stronger cooling trend than the global tropics and does a pretty good job of following the SOI over the entire period since 1948.
So, I am expecting that the T-D statistic will continue to rise, the La Nina tendency that has become pretty obvious from 2007 will continue to reflect the trend established over the last 20 years and in a year’s time, perhaps starting with the coming northern winter the globe will start to show signs that the ocean is giving up some of that accumulated heat.
Patience is necessary.
Paul Vaughan says: September 24, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Paul I have just waded through the following:
Trenberth, K.E.; Stepaniak, D.P.; & Smith, L. (2005). Interannual variability of patterns of atmospheric mass distribution. Journal of Climate 18, 2812-2825.
At the end of it I muse that a facility with statistics is useful but it is no substitute for knowledge based on observation of cause and effect. I see no evidence whatsoever that Trenberth and Co have the slightest interest in, familiarity with, or aware of the importance of the operation of the coupled circulation of the stratosphere and the troposphere over Antarctica that is the essence of the Southern Annular Mode, a mode they identify as the prime mode of variance that seems to be associated with change globally.
The physics behind the variation in the SAM is easy stuff. The interconnectedness of variables like surface pressure and surface temperature is easy to tease out of the climatic record. Without an understanding of cause and effect statistical analysis of spatial variations is a bit like trying to derive useful information via inspection of tealeaves in the bottom of a cup. The best we can infer from the paper is that people should try and work out the physics behind the coupling of the stratosphere and the troposphere that is the essence of SAM. That’s the focus of my next post.
Erl Happ replied regarding the mixing of data filters and failing to identify them, “My error. I see than you occasionally fall into the same trap.”
Please identify the post and the figure at my blog where I have mixed the filters used in smoothing and have not identified the reason for it.
Erl Happ replied, “Here we differ. As will be apparent from what I have written I see the coupled circulation at the poles (NAM and SAM) as responsible for change in the base state. Hence the progression towards an expanded pressure differential between Tahiti and Darwin over the entire period.”
And as you are aware based on past discussions, I have found no evidence of this. Are you still using the NCEP’s reanalysis website as your source for data? If so, does the NCEP still have problems with their land mask; that is, does it still produce Sea Surface Temperature data for the Sahara Desert? Have your confirmed your findings with another modeled reanalysis?
You wrote, “I think the crux of the disagreement we have is in relation to the scope of what is to be referred to as THE ENSO PROCESS.”
The ENSO process includes the interaction of all coupled ocean-atmosphere variables, including sea surface temperature, ocean heat content/ocean temperature and salinity at depth, trade wind strength and direction, sea level pressure, cloud cover, precipitation, etc., and cannot be explained with one index.
You wrote, “So, I want to look at the big picture because it sets the base state for ENSO being responsible for the so-called ‘climate shifts’. “
But the SOI does not represent the “big picture”; it represents only one off-equatorial aspect of it.
You wrote, “The most influential climate dynamic so far as the globe is concerned is the Southern Annual mode…”
Are there papers that support your hypothesis?
You asked, “Did you read:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/15/the-character-of-climate-change-part-1/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/the-character-of-climate-change-part-2/”
I found the first to be primarily a political discussion, and your politics do not interest me, and I found the second to be skewed by your use of absolute data. The AGW debate is over a few 10ths of the degree C, and the scale you’ve used for the absolute data masks the significance of this.
In response to my comment about the SOI and the solar cycle, you replied, “Figure 126 and associated text. Figure 164, http://www.happs.com.au/images/stories/PDFarticles/TheCommonSenseOfClimateChange.pdf”
I’ve marked up your Figure 126 to show the timing of all El Nino and La Nina events:
http://i52.tinypic.com/29geoh0.jpg
This confirms my earlier thoughts that the statement in your post, “A coincidence of La Nina with solar maximum is more usual than not,” is incorrect. The first reference you sent me to, Erl, is erroneous. Not a good sign. I don’t have the time or inclination to investigate all of the others.
You wrote, “As you know, because we have crossed swords over this matter in the past, I use SST data from Kalnays reanalysis. It reflects skin temperature rather than SST beneath the surface and it is a lot more volatile than the data you access.”
Please provide a link to the paper that identifies the source of the SST data for the “Kalnays reanalysis” at the NCEP website, from which you can make that curious “and it is a lot more volatile than the data you access” statement. According to Kalnay et al (1996) “The NCEP/NCAR 40-Year Reanalysis Project”, which is identified at the NCEP website…
http://dss.ucar.edu/datasets/ds090.0/docs/bams/bams1996mar/bamspapr-bm.pdf
…their SST data is Reynolds OI (assumedly the current version OI.v2) from 1982 to present and the obsolete Hadley Centre GISST dataset from 1948 to 1981. Reynolds OI data uses a combination of satellite (skin) observations and in situ data from ships and buoys, while the GISST is in situ data only based on ICOADS readings. GISST has been replaced by HADISST by the Hadley Centre. Is the NCEP reanalysis using the obsolete GISST or the current HADISST data, Erl? And as you’re aware, I use Reynolds OI.v2 SST data for my satellite-era SST discussions and HADISST for long-term discussions, so our past differences regarding SST data do not appear to be based on your use of the NCEP (Kalnay) reanalysis.
Bob Tisdale says: September 25, 2011 at 5:26 am
Bob, your tone is harassing. If I provoke that response I must apologize.
Please identify the post and the figure at my blog where I have mixed the filters used in smoothing and have not identified the reason for it.
My point related not to mixing but simply to the identification of the smoothing. I see no reference to the smoothing or lack of it in figures 2 and 3 of the post that I was directed to. You were right to pull me up on not mentioning the degree of smoothing in figure 1. That I acknowledged.
Have your confirmed your findings with another modeled reanalysis?
No, and I do not consider it necessary. What I am concerned with is not degrees of accuracy but the linkage between variables. The magnitude of change is not as important as the direction and whether one variable is related to the other.
You wrote, “The most influential climate dynamic so far as the globe is concerned is the Southern Annual mode…”
Are there papers that support your hypothesis?
Trenberth, K.E.; Stepaniak, D.P.; & Smith, L. (2005). Interannual variability of patterns of atmospheric mass distribution. Journal of Climate 18, 2812-2825.
The AGW debate is over a few 10ths of the degree C, and the scale you’ve used for the absolute data masks the significance of this.
All data streams involve smoothing and in monthly data its already massive. I used the NCEP generated graphs because they give more information and they enable people to keep a sense of perspective. Its the figures they see on the TV each night, not some statistical abstraction. Is it not of interest that the thermal experience of the habitable zones of both hemispheres is so diverse? Is it not of interest to discover the time of the year where the major fluctuations occur? Is it not of interest to see minima behaving differently to maxima? Is it not perfectly plain that the forcing responsible for surface temperature change is not singular and tends to be hemispheric in its impact? Is that scenario consistent with forcing from the tropics or the Pacific in particular? Is it consistent with greenhouse forcing? Plainly its neither.
I’ve marked up your Figure 126 to show the timing of all El Nino and La Nina events:
http://i52.tinypic.com/29geoh0.jpg
This confirms my earlier thoughts that the statement in your post, “A coincidence of La Nina with solar maximum is more usual than not,” is incorrect.
You choose to misinterpret what I said. I did not say that La Nina events are confined to solar maximum or that El Nino events are confined to solar minimum.
The first reference you sent me to, Erl, is erroneous. Not a good sign.
Which was that? I would like to check it out. In what respect was it erroneous?
Please provide a link to the paper that identifies the source of the SST data for the “Kalnays reanalysis” at the NCEP website, from which you can make that curious “and it is a lot more volatile than the data you access” statement.
My observation in relation to ‘the volatility of the SST data in the NCEP reanalysis’ relates to what you told me in that earlier discussion where you were saying, if I took it onboard correctly, that the problem of increased volatility in the reanalysis data related in particular to SST in latitudes outside the tropics.
As I said at that time I am responsible for the validity or lack of it in the reanalysis data. I am not in a position to assess the matter. In a matter as complex as deriving a record of a many variables from limited sources to provide a best estimate for the entire globe and its atmosphere up to 30km in elevation going back to 1947 I choose to trust the people who have put in the effort and so do a lot of others.
The interpolation effort is massive. The checks and balances used are impressive. No doubt we will have better data sets in the future and I am sure we both look forward to that.
Meantime I stick to what I said above: “What I am concerned with is not degrees of accuracy but the linkage between variables. The magnitude of change is not as important as the direction and whether one variable is related to the other.”
There is no doubt in my mind that surface temperature is primarily determined by cloud cover. Its not as simple as the clouds disappearing as the trades strengthen. To discover whether clouds are rsponsible I need to relate atmospheric phenomena at all altitudes to the change in surface temperature. In that respect there is a lot to be learned from figure 2 in my next post that shows a seasonal maximum in the stratosphere and the upper troposphere in the middle of winter at 20-30° south when the surface is at its seasonal minimum. That tells me that ozone is playing a strong role in the upper troposphere where cirrus cloud is important.
It is important to know that the stratosphere at 10hPa over Antarctica warmed so strongly between 1948 and 1978 and has been slowly cooling since. It is important to know that south of 50° south latitude atmospheric pressure has fallen away for the last sixty years.
It is of no interest to me to get into a nit picking exercise as to who uses which SST data series. The beauty of reanalysis is the checks and balances that can be applied by relating one variable to another. That imposes a constraint that guides the interpolation that may not be available when one is trying to fix a value for a single variable like sea surface temperature over vast areas where there are few actual observations available.
In this post I have relied upon atmospheric pressure data for just two stations and the only smoothing that is involved is that necessary to derive a value for each day. There should be little argument about the degree of precision that is achieved in this exercise. Using daily data can be tedious but it is infinitely preferable to monthly data. Do I get any brownie points for that?
Erl, you really need to pay attention to Tomas Milanovic.
For example, see his response to my comments here:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/07/phase-locked-states/#comment-54749
You’re effectively chasing relations between eddies & back-eddies. I’m suggesting you look OUTSIDE the box (which is constrained at a GLOBAL scale). Without a handle on the spatiotemporal framework, the physical micromodelers (who will be subordinately tied up at committee for MANY decades at any rate) can’t constrain their models properly.
It’s not only a physics problem. It’s a sampling & aggregation problem. This is absolutely fundamental. NO discipline is immune to sampling & aggregation issues.
You underestimate how deeply fundamental this is and you haven’t understood Milanovic’s primary reason for entering the climate discussion. I sternly advise you to understand Milanovic’s primary point. Otherwise you will continue confusing spatial phase reversals with temporal evolution.
If you think the problem is some mysterious missing physics, it’s clear you haven’t taken the time to understand the nature of terrestrial spatiotemporal integration & aliasing as indicated by EOP OBSERVATIONS. Ignorance & misconception are routes backward, not forward.
Understand that my intention is not to argue with you, but rather to help you. Ultimately, if you won’t acknowledge base fundamentals, then trust is going to break down, just as it would if you stubbornly insisted 1+1=3.
“It is important to know that the stratosphere at 10hPa over Antarctica warmed so strongly between 1948 and 1978 and has been slowly cooling since.”
Yes indeed because in my opinion based on observations a cooler stratosphere pulls the air circulation poleward and a warming stratosphere pushes it equatorward.
BUT from the above data the bulk of the warming in the stratosphere occurred when the sun was becoming less active after the high peak of cycle 19, through the less active cycle 20 and before the resumed high level of activity of cycle 21.
Then the stratosphere cooled through active cycles 21 to 23 and apparently has now stopped cooling and may be warming a little after the peak of cycle 23 and as we move into the less active cycle 24.
So the evidence there is of a reverse sign solar effect on the stratosphere namely cooling when the sun is active and warming when it is less active.
Admittedly the match is not perfect but then there are lots of other internal system variables that could confound the solar signal especially variable energy release from the oceans. However the longer the period we look at the clearer the reverse sign solar signal becomes.
If we take the latitudinal position of the jets as a proxy for the level of solar activity over centennial timescales AND for the temperature of the stratosphere then there is a good match for surface air pressure distribution changes from LIA to date and also by extrapolation from MWP to LIA.
There is good anecdotal evidence for poleward jets in the MWP and today with much more equatorward jets in the LIA.
So, Erl, what does it do for your ideas if one reverses the sign of the solar effect on the stratosphere?
It should help them shouldn’t it ? Might need a bit of reworking of the narrative though.
Paul Vaughan says:September 25, 2011 at 9:22 am
Yes I have read the mans comments and yours and have the impression that you are coming from a point of view that says that the right sort of mathematical analysis will reveal what is going on. But sorry, it means nothing to me.
Phenomena that are seen to be linked in some sort of consistent relationship as determined by sophisticated mathematical analysis ….uninformed by a theory as to cause and effect are as about as useful as wallpaper in my view.
The phenomena under investigation are eternally twisted anew by slow but consistent change in the basic parameters determining cause and effect. That change is centered in the Antarctic. Are you aware of that?
Stephen Wilde says: September 25, 2011 at 9:44 am
Stephen, I must have numbers. Graphs. Can you learn how to use Excel?
Sorry Erl, my day job is still too demanding for me to get stuck into the data handling techniques of the rest of the contributors here.
I’m fine with the interpreting of data processing outcomes and comparing them with real world observations but not the processing itself.
Erl, since you misinterpret my comments and [more importantly] choose to ignore fundamentals, we have nothing further to discuss. Best Regards.