A bit of a tiff developed over at Dr. Roger Pielke’s place over disagreements on the recent Texas heatwave being attributed to AGW or to ENSO. Bob Tisdale has something to say about that. Bob writes:
“In one email, Roger referred to my post about how poorly the new NCAR model hindcasts certain temperature indices, including ENSO, and Nelsen-Gammon’s decided to call my discussion about ENSO a red herring. Little does he know, I have observation-based data to back my claims.”
by Bob Tisdale
INTRODUCTION
I can see no basis for John Nielsen-Gammon’s attempt to attribute the record high temperatures in Texas to the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It appears that Nielsen-Gammon, like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), relies on climate models to conclude that most of the rise in Surface Temperatures, globally and regionally, is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, their reliance on models to support that hypothesis is unfounded. The climate models show little to no skill at hindcasting past global and regional natural variations in Sea Surface Temperature, which, through coupled ocean-atmospheric processes, would have impacts on the temperature and drought in Texas. Since the climate models are incapable of replicating the natural modes of multiyear and multidecadal variability in Sea Surface Temperatures, the models are of little value as tools to determine if the warming could be attributed to manmade or natural causes, and they are of little value as tools to project future climate on global or regional bases.
And based on John Nielsen-Gammon’s comment about El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), it appears he has overlooked the significant contribution ENSO can make to the multiyear and multidecadal variations in Global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies, which are so obvious during the satellite-era of Sea Surface Temperature observations.
BACKGROUND
Roger Pielke Sr., has published at his blog a series of emails between he and John Nielsen-Gammon. Roger’s post is dated November 10, 2011 and is titled John Nielsen-Gammon and I Continue Our Discission. Pielke Sr.’s initial post on this topic, dated November 4, 2011, is titled NBC Nightly News Regarding The Recent October Snowstorm And A Quote From John Nielsen-Gammon. In it, Pielke Sr. refers to Nielsen-Gammon’s September 9, 2011 blog post at the Houston Chronicle website Chron.com titled Texas Drought and Global Warming. All three posts are worth a read and provide the fuel for this post.
In one of the emails reproduced in his recent post, Roger Pielke Sr. provided Nielsen-Gammon with a link to my November 4, 2011 post An Initial Look At The Hindcasts Of The NCAR CCSM4 Coupled Climate Model. (Please read this post also, if you haven’t done so already. It shows how poorly the recent version of the NCAR CCSM coupled climate model replicates the surface temperatures from 1900 to 2005.) And Nielsen-Gammon’s response to it included:
“When driven by observed oceanic variability, the models do a great job simulating the atmospheric response. With the present drought, it’s not a matter of predicting the oceans and atmosphere. We know the present ocean temperature patterns, so we can estimate their contribution very well from both observations and models. The models’ difficulty in simulating the statistics of ENSO itself is a red herring.”
First, I have no basis from which to dispute Nielsen-Gammon’s opening sentence of, “When driven by observed oceanic variability, the models do a great job simulating the atmospheric response”. I have not investigated how well the models actually perform this function. But that’s neither here nor there. Why? Well, if the hindcast and projected representations of sea surface temperatures created by the models are not realistic, then the atmospheric response to the modeled oceanic variability would also fail to be realistic.
Second, Nielsen-Gammon wrote, “We know the present ocean temperature patterns, so we can estimate their contribution very well from both observations and models.” Nielsen-Gammon’s sentence does not state that the models provide a reasonable representation of ocean variability. So the fact that Nielsen-Gammon can estimate the oceanic contributions from observations AND from models is immaterial. The models are so far from reality, they have little value as climate hindcasting, or projection, or attribution tools, as stated previously.
Also, if you’re new to the subject of climate change, always keep in mind, when you read a climate change post like John Nielsen-Gammon’s, where the author constantly refers to models and model-based studies (in an attempt to add credibility to the post?), that it may not be the same climate model being referred to. Models have strengths and weaknesses, and climate scientists use different models for different studies. Depending on the coupled ocean-atmosphere process being studied, even if one organization’s model is used, model parameters may be set differently, they may be initialized differently, they may use different forcings, etc. So, while two model-based climate studies may use the same model, the model runs used to study the atmospheric response to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, for example, may not incorporate the same forcings that are used to hindcast past climate and project future climate. In fact, there are model-based studies where observed Sea Surface Temperature data are used to force the climate models.
MORE EXAMPLES OF HOW POORLY CLIMATE MODELS DEPICT SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS
In addition to the post linked earlier in which I compared climate model outputs to observed data, I have also illustrated and discussed in detail the differences between the observed sea surface temperature anomalies and those hindcast/projected by climate models in the two posts titled:
Part 1 – Satellite-Era Sea Surface Temperature Versus IPCC Hindcast/Projections
AND:
Part 2 – Satellite-Era Sea Surface Temperature Versus IPCC Hindcast/Projections.
In those posts, I showed the very obvious differences between observed Sea Surface Temperature data and the model mean of the climate models used in the IPCC AR4 on global and ocean-basin bases, during the satellite-era of sea surface temperature measurement, 1982 to present. Here are a few examples:
Figure 1 is a time-series graph of the satellite-based observations of Global Sea Surface Temperatures versus the model mean of the hindcasts/projections made by the climate models used in the IPCC AR4. It shows how poorly the linear trend of the model mean compares to the trend for the measured Global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies. The models overestimate the warming by approximately 50%.
Figure 1
Figure 2 compares the linear trends for the observations and the model mean of the IPCC AR4 hindcasts/projections of Sea Surface Temperatures on a zonal mean basis. That is, it compares, for the period of January 1982 to February 2011, the modeled and observed linear trends, in 5-degree-latitude bands (80S-75S, then 75S-70S, etc., from pole to pole) from the Southern Ocean around Antarctica north through to the Arctic Ocean. It clearly shows that, in the models, the tropics warm faster than at higher latitudes, where in reality, that is clearly not the case. This implies that the models do an extremely poor job of simulating how the oceans distribute warm water from the tropics toward the poles. Extremely poor.
Figure 2
In those two posts, I not only illustrate the failings of the models on a Global basis, but I also illustrate them on an ocean-basin basis: North and South Pacific, East and West Pacific, North and South Atlantic and Indian Ocean. There are no subsets of the models that come close to the observations on a time-series basis and on a zonal-mean basis.
ON ATTRIBUTION
John Nielsen-Gammon notes in his article, after he changed attribution from “greenhouse gases” to “global warming”, that:
The IPCC has not estimated the total century-scale contribution to global warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but has said that the warming since 1950 was probably mostly anthropogenic. So it seems reasonable to estimate that somewhere around two-thirds of the century-scale trend is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases. That is to say, the summer temperatures would have been about
one or one and a half degrees coolerone half to one degree cooler without the increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases. [John Nielsen-Gammon’s boldface and strikes.]
I cannot see how Nielsen-Gammon can make that claim when the IPCC’s model depictions of sea surface temperature variability over the past 30 years, which are coupled to global and regional variations in temperature and precipitation, differ so greatly from the observations. I truly cannot. The models are so different from observations that they have no value as an attribution tool. None whatsoever.
ON ENSO BEING A RED HERRING
The last sentence in the first quote from John Nielsen-Gammon above reads, “The models’ difficulty in simulating the statistics of ENSO itself is a red herring.” As a reference, Animation 1, is the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-related comparison from my post that Roger Pielke Sr. linked for Nielsen-Gammon (An Initial Look At The Hindcasts Of The NCAR CCSM4 Coupled Climate Model).It shows how poorly the models hindcast the frequency, magnitude, and trend of ENSO events. In that post, I explained why the failure of climate models to reproduce the frequency and magnitude of ENSO events was important. Yet John Nielsen-Gammon characterized my illustrations and discussion as a “red herring”.
Animation 1
Here’s what I wrote, in part, about Animation 1:
The first thing that’s obviously different is that the frequency and magnitude of El Niño and La Niña events of the individual ensemble members do not come close to matching those observed in the instrument temperature record. Should they? Yes. During a given time period, it is the frequency and magnitude of ENSO events that determines how often and how much heat is released by the tropical Pacific into the atmosphere during El Niño events, how much Downward Shortwave Radiation (visible sunlight) is made available to warm “and recharge” the tropical Pacific during La Niña events, and how much heat is transported poleward in the atmosphere and oceans, some of it for secondary release from the oceans during some La Niña events. If the models do not provide a reasonable facsimile of the strength and frequency of El Niño and La Niña events during given epochs, the modelers have no means of reproducing the true causes of the multiyear/multidecade rises and falls of the surface temperature anomalies. The frequency and magnitude of El Niño and La Niña events contribute to the long-term rises and falls in global surface temperature.
My illustrations and discussions of ENSO in that post are not intended to divert anyone’s attention from the actual cause of the rise in global temperatures, which is what I assume John Nielsen-Gammon intended with the “red herring” remark. The frequency and magnitude of ENSO events are the very obvious cause of the rise in Sea Surface Temperatures during the satellite era. And that isn’t a far-fetched hypothesis; that is precisely the tale told by the sea surface temperature data itself. One simply has to divide the data into logical subsets to illustrate it, and it is so obvious once you know it exists that it is hard to believe that it continues to be overlooked by some members of the climate science community.
Recently I started including two illustrations of ENSO’s effect on Sea Surface Temperatures in each of my monthly Sea Surface Temperature anomaly updates. (Example post: October 2011 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update) Refer to the graphs of the “volcano-adjusted” East Pacific Sea Surface Temperature anomalies and of the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for the Rest of the World. I’ve reposted them here as Figures 3 and 4, respectively.
Note Regarding Volcano Adjustment: I described the method used to determine the volcano adjustment in the post Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies – East Pacific Versus The Rest Of The World, where I first illustrated these two datasets. The description reads:
To determine the scaling factor for the volcanic aerosol proxy, I used a linear regression software tool (Analyse-it for Excel) with global SST anomalies as the dependent variable and GISS Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Thickness data (ASCII data) as the independent variable. The scaling factor determined was 1.431. This equals a global SST anomaly impact of approximately 0.2 deg C for the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption.
Back to the discussion of the volcano-adjusted East Pacific and Rest-of-the-World data: Let’s discuss the East Pacific data first. As you’ll quickly note in Figure 3, based on the linear trend produced by EXCEL, there has been no rise in the Sea Surface anomalies for the volcano-adjusted East Pacific Ocean Sea Surface Temperature anomaly data, pole to pole, or the coordinates of 90S-90N, 180-80W, for about the past 30 years. The El Niño events and La Niña events dominate the year-to-year variations, as one would expect, but the overall trend is slightly negative. The East Pacific Ocean dataset represents about 33% of the surface area of the global oceans, and there hasn’t been a rise in sea surface temperature anomalies there for three decades.
Figure 3
Since we’ve already established that Global Sea Surface Temperature observations have risen during that period (Refer back to the observation-based data in Figure 1), that means the Rest-of-the-World data is responsible for the rise in global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies. But as you’ll note in Figure 4, the volcano-adjusted Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for the Rest of the World (90S-90N, 80W-180) rise in very clear steps, and that those rises are in response to the significant 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño/La Niña events. (It also appears as though the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of this dataset are making another upward shift in response to the 2009/10 El Niño and 2010/11 La Niña.) And between those steps, the Rest-of-the World Sea Surface Temperature anomalies remain relatively flat. How flat will be illustrated shortly.
Figure 4
Note: The periods used for the average Rest-Of-The-World Sea Surface Temperature anomalies between the significant El Niño events of 1982/83, 1986/87/88, 1997/98, and 2009/10 are determined as follows. Using the NOAA Oceanic Nino Index(ONI) for the official months of those El Niño events, I shifted (lagged) those El Niño periods by six months to accommodate the lag between NINO3.4 SST anomalies and the response of the Rest-Of-The-World Sea Surface Temperature anomalies, then deleted the Rest-Of-The-World data that corresponds to those significant El Niño events. I then averaged the Rest-Of-The-World SST anomalies between those El Niño-related gaps.
I have in numerous posts discussed, illustrated, and animated the variables associated with the coupled ocean-atmosphere process of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) that cause these apparent upward shifts in the Rest-of-the-World Sea Surface Temperature anomalies. My first posts on this were in January 2009. The most recent ones are from the July 2011: ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature and Supplement To “ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature”.Those two posts were written at an introductory level for those who aren’t familiar with the process of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). In the initial post, I further illustrated the actual linear trends of the Rest-of-the-World data between the significant ENSO events, reproduced here as Figure 5. They are indeed flat.
Figure 5
And in the supplemental post, I further subdivided the Rest-of-the-World Sea Surface Temperature data into two more subsets. The first to be illustrated, Figure 6, covers the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans. As shown, Sea Surface Temperature anomalies decay between the significant ENSO events, just as one would expect.
Figure 6
And for the North Atlantic, Figure 7, which is impacted by another mode of natural variability called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the linear trends between those significant ENSO events are slightly positive, also as one would expect. And the short-term ENSO-induced upward shifts are plainly visible in Figure 7 and are responsible for a significant portion of the rise in North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature anomalies over the past 30 years.
Figure 7
CLOSING
This post clearly illustrates that John Nielsen-Gammon failed to consider that climate models prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR4 have little to no basis in reality. When one considers the significant differences between the observed Sea Surface Temperature anomaly variations and those hindcast/projected by climate models, the models provide no support for his conclusion that most of the rise in Surface Temperatures, globally and regionally, was caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
This post also clearly illustrated that “The models’ difficulty in simulating the statistics of ENSO itself is”…NOT…“a red herring.” The process of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation was responsible for most of the rise in global sea surface temperature anomalies over the past thirty years.
SOURCES
For the sources of data presented in this post, refer to the linked posts from which the graphs were borrowed.
ABOUT: Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Well, I suspect there are multiple variables behind ENSO and some of them may very well have been mentioned. The bottom line, however, appears to be clouds. Exactly how and why they increase/decrease is open to several explanations.
One very simple one is pure feedback. It gets cool and the air holds less moisture which leads to less clouds. More sun is available to heat the oceans and eventually it gets to the atmosphere where the warmth leads to more evaporation and more clouds. That starts the cooling process and we cycle back and forth. Throw in a little chaos and not much else is required.
Bob Tisdale says:
November 12, 2011 at 1:21 pm
“During the 1973/74/75/76 La Nina the Solar Cycle was dropping from Solar Cycle 20, which looks like an average cycle in magnitude. The 1995/96 La Nina occurred toward Solar Minimum at the end of SC22. Those are not “active” periods in anyone’s imagination. ”
———————————————————————————————————-
Bob,
Active is a relative term.
Even an average cycle with reduced global cloud cover will result in oceanic warming of the mid latitudes. That is Stephens point, if I’m not mistaken. While the solar cycle was in decline the average heat absorption remained high. As i remember this was a time of high US temps during the summer and hard cold winters (it local i know). the real point is what was the polar jet doing and how was it affecting global weather/climate? again it was a wide cold jet which allowed warming of the polar regions and cooling of the mid latitudes..
Bill
Bob:
Thank you for taking the time to do this research. There are two sides to the AGW debate and it is quite refreshing to read, what I consider, an honest presentation.
“During the present double-la-Nina the Pacific is recharging for a new El Nino. The longer la Nina lasts, the hotter El Nino will be.”
That would be implicit from Bob’s description but ocean heat content is not rising much is it ?
That throws us back to my description.
The increased cloudiness from about 2000 can only be reducing solar energy into the oceans so as to cause the La Nina recharge process to falter.
BillH, agreed that the solar wind could be relevant. Anything that increases ozone destruction above the poles and above 45km when the sun is more active would do the trick. Increased nitrous oxide descending through the polar vortex is just one candidate.
Ocean heat content continued to rise despite the run of strong El Ninos so what is really going on?
Stephen, I wouldn’t put too much reliance on the pre-Argo OHC. Argo shows no significant rise in global OHC.
AGW proponents would presumably aver that it was due to more human CO2 emissions warming the air that warmed the oceans but that could never have transferred so much energy from air to water so fast because the thermal capacity of water is some 1000 times greater than that of air. It would take millennia for warmer air to transfer sufficient energy to the oceans to produce the observed outcome.
The heat flow is from the oceans into the atmosphere. There is never any significant heat flow from the atmosphere to the oceans. All the atmosphere can do is impede heat loss from the oceans.
Bob’s work shows that only the India ocean has had a significant OHC increase in the Argo age and I’d point the finger at the aerosol brown cloud over India that stretches as far south as the Maldives.
http://i52.tinypic.com/11avq4h.jpg
I think this is also the cause of the small rise in South Atlantic OHC, due to Indian Ocean heat being transferred by the Benguelen Current.
Theo Goodwin:
Of course, Nielsen-Gammon thinks that ENSO is a Red Herring. Warmista do not do natural processes unless they can be treated as statistical noise or epiphenomena of radiation.
Our government does not fund actual empirical research into climate phenomena. It funds only computer model fantasies, paleo-fantasies, and statistical magic tricks.
Not sure I’d go too far with this line of argument. What I’ve read from Nielsen-Gammon strikes me as the work of someone who is prepared to follow the empirical evidence wherever it leads. He clearly shares some of the Anthony’s concerns about accurate data. Take a look, for example, at “Historic and Future Droughts in the Big Bend Region of the Chihuahuan Desert.”
Notice the extended attention to station meta-data. Even to the extent of citing and using information from the surfacestations project for Orogrande, Jornada Experimental Station, Roswell, State University, and Balmorhea.
Stephen Wilde says: “I don’t think your reactions to my contributions are logical.”
And your ability to alter timescales at will astounds me, Stephen.
That’s enough on this thread.
Regards
Bill H says: “Active is a relative term.” And you continued, “Even an average cycle with reduced global cloud cover will result in oceanic warming of the mid latitudes. That is Stephens point, if I’m not mistaken.”
Yes, active is a relative term, and with respect to Stephen’s conjectures, they are just that, conjecture. They are not supported by data. He and I do this run-around all the time. Nothing new.
And on clouds,
Polluted air (air containing anthropogenic aerosols), in contrast, usually contains much higher concentrations of water-soluble particles, which means pollution-rich clouds tend to have more numerous, but smaller, droplets. The small droplets make polluted clouds look brighter than they would otherwise be. Just as many bits of crushed ice give light more surfaces to reflect off—appearing brighter than a solid cube of ice—if the water in a cloud is divided into a larger number of smaller droplets, it will scatter more light and become more reflective.
Jer0me says: “How about an honorary WUWT doctorate?”
A PhD in graphs and animations? Not the animation above, more like this one here:
http://api.ning.com/files/PZpxiWGWA9Qc312oi6bKecgzPfEFTcdRUTOyftqURKlVtCPCrTHO1-TZew6xFB7k*ehvPj4Tmwo8W2H3UsRMgjGO7YqdayCz/EastIndianWestPacific.gif
Which is from the following post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/enso-indices-do-not-represent-the-process-of-enso-or-its-impact-on-global-temperature/
Thanks, Bob, your work is always appreciated and useful.
Philip Bradley says: “I think this is also the cause of the small rise in South Atlantic OHC, due to Indian Ocean heat being transferred by the Benguelen Current.”
The ACC might also assist in the South Atlantic OHC rise. There’s been a drop in the South Pacific OHC.
Another great article. I, too, have puzzled over the chicken vs egg thing that others comment on, above.
Richard M says: “…pure feedback. It gets cool and the air holds less moisture which leads to less clouds. More sun is available to heat the oceans and eventually it gets to the atmosphere where the warmth leads to more evaporation and more clouds. That starts the cooling process and we cycle back and forth. Throw in a little chaos and not much else is required.”
Yes, Richard, but that doesn’t fully explain the magnitude and mechanism of the ENSO pendulum. One neglected factor is the effect of ocean temperature on seawater density and, especially, viscosity. During La Nina, upwelling cold water in the eastern Pacific eventually presents a great enough resistance to equatorial surface winds, that they slow and diverge, thus triggering El Nino. Cooled, higher density air above and west of the upwelling water also presents a greater obstacle to medium altitude winds, assisting the process.
“Yes, Richard, but that doesn’t fully explain the magnitude and mechanism of the ENSO pendulum. ”
Yes, I agree. That’s why I added the chaos comment, but I think it needs even more than that like an amplification factor. The upwelling, the trade winds, the PWP, changes in atmospheric pressure seem to all be involved. Could all be tied to the current geography. Once again, it could be simple feedback that starts the process and these elements (and others) take over to increase the amplitude.
One could even hypothesize that tropical cyclones could be one chaotic factor as well.
juanslayton says:
November 12, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Thanks. I will look for some empirical work in his publications. In the meantime, what is his problem with ENSO? I bet his reasoning about ENSO is purely a priori.
Ross Sheehy says:
November 12, 2011 at 11:22 am
Is there any credible research into what causes the El Nino/La Nina phenomena?
This might answer your question!
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2011/11/el-ninos-and-extreme-proxigean-spring.html
… still waiting for the simple ‘answer’ (or comment) about the ‘coupling’ of theory to observed meteorology this year (re: Texas and the hot wx); perhaps the ‘wizards of smart’ cannot conjure an answer?
.
It is really important that everyone understand that there is no physical science in climate science; that is, there is none that goes beyond Arrhenius’ physics about the behavior of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. Because of IPCC hype and hype from many other corners, it is very easy to come away with the opinion that there is some physical science under there but it is not very good. Wrong. There is none.
There is no physical science of ENSO. There are collections of temperature measurements and some loose observations about cool waters upwelling at various places in the oceans during La Nina. That is about it. There are no reasonably well confirmed physical hypotheses about atmosphere, ocean, radiation, you name it that can be used to describe the natural regularities that make up La Nina and, for that reason, there are no rigorous predictions about La Nina.though there can be those loose things we call “forecasts.”
As for the models, they treat La Nina as statistical noise. They do not treat it as a natural process that has its own integrity. So, it is no surprise that models cannot hindcast La Nina phenomena. By the way, Richard Betts who is a chief modeler at the MET Office in England has verified on the Bishop Hill blog that ENSO is treated as statistical noise in the models.
To undertake the empirical research necessary to create a physical science of ENSO, there must be more satellites with more capabilities, more ARGO diving buoys, some ocean going vessels, some aircraft, and some more things.
Thanks Bob, the heat wave in Texas this past summer was caused by a high pressure system that hangs over Texas every summer. They are sometimes weak and others strong, nothing new here in Austin. Lived here since 1972 and it has not changed. Look back in recorded and written history and it is the same. Just like in Moscow last year, except here they generally last all summer long.
This is an educative post, thank you Bob.
Still reading, going back to dictionary info to understand the debate and learning.
Sorry to read in a previous post of your parents, but glad to read you had the opportunity to spend such time with them both. Neat, and all the best with your new adventures.
A question however. Is that red fish really a herring??
Bob, I am unaware and do not care the level of your academic qualifications. I have a great deal of appreciation for your posts.
cheers
Bob Tisdale says:
November 12, 2011 at 12:05 pm
>>
Stephen Wilde says: “Precisely, so we then have to consider where that oceanic warmth came from given that at the same time there was a 30 year run of strong El Ninos.”
>>
Instead of being so dismissive at the same time as openly admitting to not having read beyond the first line, why don’t you learn some humility and consider what other have to say? You may actually learn something.
I was about to post to point out what you have been told a dozen times already and saw Stephen has already covered it.
Having managed to spot a correlation between between global temperatures and a subset of global temperatures (which is not actually totally unexpected) you go on to conclude causation.
Your hand waving commentary about Ninos and Ninjas only explains the medium term ups and downs. What you wilfully ignore _in your own graph_ is a steady increase in ocean heat content. If you were arguing for the other side you’d be quite happy to predict ice free Himalayas.
While some may say you have to fight fire with fire, I don’t think fighting BS with BS is ever effective.
Take a step back from promoting your pet theory and start being a bit more scientific , since that it what you claim your approach is.
Please have the humility and good manners to read the rest of Stephen’s post before dismissing it.
For God’ sake! When will people stop saying that there are no physical models to describe the ENSO phenomenon. There are dozens of possible models that have been proposed and you can read about (the preliminary musings of) mine here:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2011/11/el-ninos-and-extreme-proxigean-spring.html
This blog entry briefly outlines the main results of my research from about two years ago. I have moved on considerably from this work and have actually identified a physical mechanism that I believe naturally explains the main characteristics of the ENSO phenomenon. It may also explain some of the apparent teleconnections between different climate systems around the world.
Like any research, however, it often takes years for this information to get into peer-reviewed journals. To meet the rigorous standards of peer-review, a researcher(/s) must be willing to devote hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of their time to assemble an argument and present it a scientific valid form. Since it is more likely that skeptical researcher can swim across the Sahara desert in a wet suit than get funding to conduct this difficult type of research, it is often painstakingly done by self-funded “amateurs” like Bob Tisdale using their meager life savings and the sweat of their brow.
Bob has chosen the non-peer reviewed blog postings method to present his work (and more power to him). While this give him the advantage of laying out his research to a wide internet audience it has the added danger that his work will not be taken seriously by scientists in the field because it lacks peer review. ( I genuinely hope that for Bob’s sake that this is not the case).
I have chosen to present my results in peer reviewed journals. This is a choice that I have made because I believe that it is important to turn scientific juggernaut around using one peer-reviewed scientific argument at a time [Note: I do not believe that any of my ideas will necessarily solve even a tiny fraction of the climate debate. Clearly, I am just one tiny voice amongst many.]. This has the advantage that any concepts and ideas that I get published will have to considered in the mix of the scientific debate and compared to the evidence at hand. These concepts and ideas may not pass the muster but at least I will be one of many voices raising (peer-reviewed) scientific arguments against the religious dogma of the high-priests of AGW….. (I mean) the arguments of the consensus scientists.
The down side is that I (like many others who float around this blog) cannot openly discuss the details of what I have found on the internet without endangering the peer-review process. This makes me sound like some sort of mysterious troll who chimes in every now and then to give a cryptic message that extols the blog readers to patiently wait for some future breakthrough at some as yet undefined future date. Such is the bane of those who live by the [blunt] sword of “peer-review”. Like many other “amateur” scientists dabbling in the filed of climate change, All I can say is trust me and wait for my proposal to pass through the hallowed arch-way of peer review.
Stephen Wilde:
>>
Due to the ITCZ having a mean position north of the equator there is an imbalance of solar energy input either side of the equator. Over time that imbalance builds up and periodically results in a pulse of energy discharging across the equator from the southern hemisphere in the ENSO pattern we observe.
>>
Sounds very credible as an idea. There’s no glass wall between the major Coriolis rotations of the N and S Pacific. If water gets sufficiently warmer/cooler on one side, that could cause the abduction of cooler water from one side to the other. This would presumably require a build up to overcome the detente of the persistent currents.
A closer look at any ARGOs in that region may provide a means of supporting or refuting the hypothesis.
Did you think of that all by yourself ? I’m impressed 😉