I think readers will appreciate the point by point style that this book is written in. It enables you to zero in on argument rebuttals with graphs and data. Highly recommended – Anthony
==========
Bob Tisdale announces: This Free Preview includes the Table of Contents; the Introduction; the beginning of Section 1, with the cartoon-like illustrations; the discussion About the Cover; and the Closing.
Have you searched the web, looking for information about La Niña and her big brother El Niño? You know, those colossal cooling and warming events in the tropical Pacific that cause flooding in some parts of the world, drought in others—heat waves here, cold spells there—blizzards and record snowfall in your driveway, but a snow-free winter at your favorite ski resort. Yup, those El Niño and La Niña. Scientists have given them that highfalutin name El Niño-Southern Oscillation or ENSO for short. Then, if you make a mistake and spell it ENZO with a “Z” in your search engine, you wind up watching a video from BBC’s Top Gear, of Jeremy Clarkson and The Stig driving a Ferrari F60 owned by Pink Floyd drummer Nick Mason in exchange for plugging Nick’s book. That’s a nice diversion, though. As your search continues, you keep finding technical web pages with very similar overviews, and, if you’re lucky, three schematics: one for El Niño conditions, one for La Niña and one for ENSO-neutral or “normal” conditions. Frustratingly, those three illustrations look the same to you, leaving you scratching your head. No matter where you turn, what you read, you still have no idea what they’re talking about. But you still want to know what those blasted El Niño and La Niña things are all about.
Who Turned on the Heat? begins with 29, not 3, cartoon-like illustrations, with text right there on the drawings, that explain the processes of ENSO with easy-to-understand terms.
After presenting some background information at the beginning of that section, the discussions of ENSO start with “normal” (a.k.a. ENSO-neutral) conditions in the tropical Pacific, then move on to the transition from ENSO-neutral to El Niño with an overview of what causes the El Niño to begin. That’s where the free Preview of that section ends. In the book, it continues with a presentation of El Niño conditions and the transition back to ENSO-neutral, then on to La Niña and eventually back ENSO-neutral again, providing readers with a complete overview of the ENSO phases in sequence. It discusses how La Niña is not the opposite of El Niño. The phases all fit together logically. Mother Nature’s pretty good about things like that, but she still has some tricks up her sleeves.
For those readers who haven’t looked at or read anything technical since high school, the next section discusses very basics things like how to read a graph. It presents the types of graphs used throughout the rest of the book, and a bunch of other introductory topics.
Section 3 of Who Turned on the Heat? is a more detailed overview of the phases of ENSO—it includes graphs of satellite-based sea surface temperature and other variables, color-coded maps, links to animations—all of which are furnished to support and confirm the naturally fueled processes of the ENSO-neutral, El Niño and La Niña phases. In other words, the fundamentals of ENSO are presented and documented in detail. That’s followed by a section that discusses topics that are still related to El Niño and La Niña but are beyond the basics, like what actually triggers an El Niño. Did you know that El Niño events are so big that sometimes it takes a couple of tropical cyclones (yup, the same things as hurricanes) in the western tropical Pacific just to kick-start one?
What may become your favorite section of Who Turned on the Heat? is next. In it, the sea surface temperature data presents how it accounts for global warming. The combined long-term effects of major El Niño and La Niña events are presented, discussed and documented—with satellite-based sea surface temperatures data, not climate models. Major El Niño and La Niña events are not like the smaller ones. Far from it. The big ones are responsible for the vast majority of the natural warming of the global sea surface temperatures for the past 30 years.
Yup. You’re right, that’s the time the climate models used by the IPCC say that only greenhouse gases could have caused the warming. Those scientists, who must have their heads immersed in climate models, apparently haven’t bothered to come out into the real world long enough to examine the sea surface temperature records for the last 3 decades. If they had, they’d find the data doesn’t agree with the models. All the modelers would have had to do is divide the global oceans into 3 logical subsets. Then they could see why sea surface temperatures have warmed and that Mother Nature’s two rambunctious children La Niña and El Niño were the primary natural culprits. Logically, those energetic natural siblings can explain most of the warming of land surface air temperatures, too, since temperatures there simply mimic and exaggerate the short- and long-term variations in sea surface temperatures. Of course, anthropogenic global warming exists; that is, there’s a small part of the land surface air temperature warming that can’t be explained by the natural warming of sea surfaces, and that small portion is likely manmade, with a host of contributing factors. But back to the oceans: natural variables can also explain their warming to depths of 700 meters—a dataset called Ocean Heat Content.
That would have been a great section on which to end Who Turned on the Heat?
– However –
Who Turned on the Heat? continues with three more sections. One presents links to additional animations so that you can watch the cumulative effects of an El Niño and La Niña as they took place. Remember, La Niña is not the opposite of El Niño—there are some not-so-subtle differences between the two phases. The next section presents the myths and failed arguments that proponents of manmade global warming have created to try to downplay the long-term effects of major El Niño and La Niña events. The last section is Q&A. Take a look at the Preview of Who Turned on the Heat? Scroll down through the Table of Contents.
Who Turned on the Heat? weighs in at a whopping 550+ pages, about 110,000+ words. It contains somewhere in the neighborhood of 380 color illustrations. In pdf form, it’s about 23MB. It includes links to more than a dozen animations, which allow the reader to view ENSO processes and the interactions between variables.
After reading Who Turned on the Heat? you should have a better understanding of El Niño and La Niña—AND—you should understand why global surface temperatures warm during multidecadal periods when El Niño events are stronger, occur more often and endure longer than La Niña events. The most recent period with ENSO conditions weighted toward the El Niño phase started in the late 1970s, and it’s no coincidence that global surface temperatures have warmed since then. Also not by coincidence, La Niña events dominated ENSO, but just a little bit, from the mid-1940s to the late-1970s, and global surface temperatures cooled slightly. Why did surface temperatures warm from the late 1910s to the mid-1940s? Yup, ENSO was skewed toward El Niño during that period, too.
Further to that, as you’ll find, this book clearly illustrates and describes the following:
1. Sea surface temperature data for the past 30 years show the global oceans have warmed. There is, however, no evidence the warming was caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases in part or in whole; that is, the warming can be explained by natural ocean-atmosphere processes, primarily ENSO.
2. The global oceans have not warmed as hindcast and projected by the climate models maintained in the CMIP3 and CMIP5 archives, which were used, and are being used, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for their 4th and upcoming 5thAssessment Reports; in other words, the models cannot and do not simulate the warming rates or spatial patterns of the warming of the global oceans—even after decades of modeling efforts.
3. Based on the preceding two points, the climate models in the CMIP3 and CMIP5 archives show no skill at being able to simulate how and why global surface temperatures warmed; that is, the climate models presented in the IPCC’s 4th and upcoming 5thAssessment Reports would provide little to no value as tools for projecting future climate change on global and regional levels.
=============================================================
The book is:
Who Turned on the Heat? – The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit, El Niño-Southern Oscillation is now on sale in pdf form for US$8.00 – Please click here to buy a copy.
Bob Tisdale adds:
For those who would prefer a Kindle edition, I haven’t decided if I’m going to publish it in that format. Due to the massive number of color illustrations, the Kindle edition price would be somewhere close to US$16.00. Personally, I think that’s a little steep for an e-book. And since other electronic versions of a book have to be priced 20% higher than the Kindle edition, that would make the pdf version about US$19.00, and that’s way too high. Right now, US$8.00 sounds like a bargain for an easy-to-read, well-illustrated, well-documented book about El Niño-Southern Oscillation and its long-term effects on global surface temperatures.
Naturally, some readers will think the price is way too low, and they’ll want to pay more for the years of research that went into preparing this book, through a tip or donation to the author. (Wishful thinking on my part.)
If you have any questions about the content, please ask them on any thread at my blog Climate Observations.
Regards,
Bob Tisdale
Very timely Bob!
We here in N.Z. are currently experiencing classic El Nino conditions. Anti cylcones tracking at around latitude 35 S, a convoy of sub-Antarctic depressions trucking along the border of the Pacific and Antarctic Oceans at 50 S, and the isobars getting the big squeeze to reinforce the idea of the “Roaring Forties” in between!
An ‘El Nino Spring,’ is not something those of us on the west coast of New Zealand look forward to. For the South Island it represents an increase in storms with all of the associated rain which the West Coast is famous for (right at the start of Whitebait Season!). This scenario can continue right up to Christmas if the El Nino is strong enough.
In the Lower North Island the increasing westerly flow is channelled through Cook Strait and the Manawatu Gorge and the moisture is backed up against the western side of the main divide of both islands. The fohn effect ensures a lifting of temperatures on the leeward side of the divide giving most of N.Z. an east-west dichotomy as far as temperatures and rainfall are concerned. That is not to say that it is cold on the western side of the mountains, in fact the cloud cover in the west also lifts the averages there adding to the overall temperature signal being higher over N.Z.
I notice from your list of contents that you don’t use the term “El Nino/La Nina Modoki.” Is your use of the term, “ENSO Neutral,” covering that phase, the -0.5 to +0.5 zone?
I look forward to gettng this shortly and expanding my understanding of somehting I have been studying for over thirty years from the point of a very interested observer.
Many thanks Bob for your mighty efforts.
Coops
Ian Cooper says: “I notice from your list of contents that you don’t use the term “El Nino/La Nina Modoki.” Is your use of the term, “ENSO Neutral,” covering that phase, the -0.5 to +0.5 zone?”
Yup, ENSO neutral is the “phase” between El Nino and La Nina. I also discuss El Nino Modoki in the chapter about Central Pacific vs East Pacific El Nino events.
Kindle solution: make a small addendum for the Kindle edition, modify the title slightly (add “-K”?) and sell it and the PDF as separate works.
john;
pdf format is specifically designed for printing. Print and bind it yourself!
“Sea surface temperature data for the past 30 years show the global oceans have warmed. There is, however, no evidence the warming was caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases in part or in whole; that is, the warming can be explained by natural ocean-atmosphere processes, primarily ENSO.”
No evidence? Bob, unless you are ever able to provide evidence of how your fabulous ENSO ocean cycles can be scientifically linked to magically reduce temperatures in the lower stratospheric at the same time (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/2__Ozone/-_Cooling_nd.html; http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp), I think I will keep my $8.
Dennis H: Is that you, Dennis Hlinka?
Please read what you quoted, and then read your response. For some reason, known only to you, you elected to discuss stratospheric temperatures during a discussion of sea surface temperatures.
Thank you for not buying a copy of my book. It was written for people who can differentiate between the surface of the oceans and the stratosphere.
Bob,
Yes, there indeed is no linkage between ocean cycles and stratospheric cooling, and that’s the reason why your argument for ENSO only causes to the warming and against anthropogenic GHG is wrong!
The problem with the main argument of your book is there is confirmed physical evidence in the global data set of lower stratospheric cooling, and as you just implied here your ENSO cycles cannot be linked in any way to that observed cooling over the past 30+ years. You conveniently want to ignore physical data just because it doesn’t happen to fit with your ocean cycle argument, but this lower stratospheric cooling does provide verifiable evidence for the anthropogenic GHG argument.
Therefore your statement “There is…no evidence the warming was caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases in part or in whole; that is, the warming can be explained by natural ocean-atmosphere processes, primarily ENSO” is completely false since, as you have implied in your response to me, are unable to provide any scientific linkage (evidence) to explain the causes of stratospheric cooling through your ENSO cycles.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/new-easy-to-use-reference-book-for-el-nino-and-global-warming/#comment-1073001
By what .8 up .8 down . . . . when the variation is 100 times that over the seasons (and of course, depending on the latitude, longitude and altitude)?
Would some one tell me a rational reason why is I should not just ask SO? . . . What?
I am sure I must be missing some important point here!
Dennis H says: “Yes, there indeed is no linkage between ocean cycles and stratospheric cooling, and that’s the reason why your argument for ENSO only causes to the warming and against anthropogenic GHG is wrong!”
It’s not wrong, Dennis. YOUR statement contradicts itself, and YOU simply cannot grasp the obvious.
Did I state above that greenhouse gases do not have an impact on stratospheric temperatures? No. Did I state that greenhouse gases do not have an impact on land surface air temperatures? No. I simply stated that greenhouse gases have no impact on sea surface temperatures and that ENSO is the primary cause of the warming of that dataset.
I write very plainly, Dennis. Go back up and read the post again. Most of the people here can understand what I’ve written. Why do you insist on arguing a point that, by your own admission, has no bearing on the conversation? Assuming you are the Dennis H who I recall from Accuweather, it was your inability to understand what I’ve written very plainly, your comments that were self-contradictory, and your incessant need to restate the same old tired nonsensical arguments that have no impact on the topic being discussed, that caused me to banish you at my blog.
Another point YOU must also consider, Dennis, is that the short- and long-term variations in sea surface temperatures are the primary causes of the short- and long-term variations in land surface temperatures. That is, ENSO is the primary cause of the short- and long-term warming of global sea surface temperatures AND global land surface air temperatures over the past 30 years.
You’re a troll, Dennis. That’s the simplest way I can put it. I have better things to do with my time than to continue to respond to your nonsensical attempts to downplay what I’ve presented.
Goodbye, Dennis.
Bob,
Not wanting to consider or Include all scientifically observed data into the discussion on climate change as to whether or not anthropogenic GHG may actually be the cause of the tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling says it all. There is evidence of GHG warming and it can be scientifically linked together with the stratospheric cooling. Your are just too blind in your agenda to see it since your ocean data does not give you that same link and so you are so desperate to hide it and chastise anyone that brings it up the dynamics of climate science (that includes atmospheric responses) simply because you want to sell a book on ocean cycles being the one and only answer.
Bob,
By the way, you called me a troll simply because I presented a contrary argument to the ones typically brought up here. What then do you call yourself when you contribute contrary comments on other blog sites?
Bob,
You keep trying to divert my arguments here by saying your points are all about SST and not the atmosphere.
How then can you explain your comments below when you responded to tonyb?
tonyb says: “what is the relationship between ENSO and the jet stream which appears to be the end product that actually directly affects our weather?”
“The locations of the winter jet streams (Northern and Southern Hemispheres) depend on the location of the warm water in the tropical Pacific. Basically, the location of the warm water dictates the location of the convection, cloud cover and precipitation in the tropical Pacific, which impact
the location of the jet streams.”
Sounds like you are using the ocean SST to create a change or response in the atmosphere and in particular the jet streams patterns. You just happen to stop there and are not willing to discuss the lower stratosphere for some reason.
I’m late to the party, but count me for 4-5 printed copies as gifts. Maybe more… top shelf book, Bob.
Dennis
Explain why the stratospheric cooling hasn’t been happening for 20 years.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadat/images/update_images/msu_timeseries.png
Dennis H: Your latest attempt to redirect the conversation back to lower stratosphere temperatures by grasping at my discussion of how the winter jet streams are impacted by ENSO is another clear indication that you fail to understand what’s being discussed. It is well known that ENSO impacts the locations of the jet streams in both hemispheres. In turn, the ENSO-caused relocations of the jet streams impact where around the globe SURFACE temperatures warm or cool and precipitation increases and decreases. Nowhere in that discussion do lower troposphere temperatures come into play. Those ENSO-related causes and effects have been known for decades. If you are the same meteorologist I recall, you should understand that. Then again, maybe you don’t. Maybe you skipped class that day. Maybe you don’t read meteorological journals so that you can keep it fresh in your mind.
Only you, Dennis, are concerned about the temperature of the lower stratosphere. Do we live in the lower stratosphere? No! Does the cooling of the lower stratosphere cause sea surface temperatures to warm? No! YOU, Dennis H, admitted that above. Is the temperature of the lower stratosphere mentioned in this post? No! Is it mentioned in the book presented in this post? No! Has anyone else on this thread mentioned lower stratosphere temperatures? No! So why do you insist on talking about the irrelevant temperature of the lower stratosphere?
If you’d like to discuss the temperature of the lower stratosphere, open a blog and write a post.
Your persistent attempts to redirect the conversations, and your failure to discuss the topics at hand, indicate to everyone reading this thread that YOU, Dennis H, are not capable of disputing the content of my book. You have no idea or grasp of what’s discussed and presented in it. Your misguided arguments, and the laughingly ridiculous comment by LazyTeenager, on this thread appear to be the best that can be conjured up by proponents of anthropogenic global warming. Let me phrase that another way: you’re helping me sell books, Dennis. Thanks!
Had you begun your appearance here with questions that related to ENSO and its long-term effects on global surface temperatures, I likely would have answered them. Instead you chose to waste my time with nonsense.
Adios, Dennis H.
Goode ’nuff says: “I’m late to the party, but count me for 4-5 printed copies as gifts. Maybe more…”
Whenever you’re ready stop by my website.
On stratospheric cooling:
Ignoring the effect of ozone, the reason the stratosphere has cooled is the troposphere has warmed. Stratospheric cooling doesn’t tell us why the troposphere has warmed.
If Bob is correct and ENSO accounts for most of the SST warming then this is a persuasive argument that GHGs are not the cause of troposphere warming, because the mechanism of GHG troposphere warming also causes SST warming.
If GHGs aren’t the cause of troposphere warming, what is?
Aerosols cause troposphere warming by absorbing and scattering solar radiation, but don’t cause SST warming. In fact they will tend to cause SST cooling.
Dennis H: The sentence in my latest reply to you that reads, “Nowhere in that discussion do lower troposphere temperatures come into play…” should read “Nowhere in that discussion do lower stratosphere temperatures come into play.”
Since Bob continues on his irrational and very public tirade against me here and on his own site just because I dare question him on his ocean cycle theories regarding the bigger picture of climate change, i.e. the interaction back and forth with the atmosphere. No surprise to me since he acknowledges here that he banned me from doing the same thing on his own blog site.
So I will ignore him for now and at least talk to a more rational Philip.
Tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling are linked to the idea that when less heat is allowed to escape into the upper atmosphere, the more heat energy is allowed to accumulate in the lower layers. With less heat escaping above, the stratosphere is not receiving that heat that would normally go there from below, and thus it cools. What is causing this extra heat from not escaping into the stratosphere? Ignoring ozone, which by the way is also affected by another manmade pollution called CFC’s, the known physical responses to an increase in GHG’s can help to explain why there is less heat being allowed to escape into the stratosphere.
While a warmer ocean can be used to explain why the troposphere is warming as the heat is allowed escaping. What would happen if you were able to apply an insulative film over the ocean surface that would prevent some of that heat from escaping into the atmosphere? The oceans would continue to warm, but the atmosphere above it would not since they would not be receiving that heat. In fact the atmosphere could even cool if that heat was kept from entering the atmosphere.
What I have been trying to get Bob to explain is, if the ocean cycles are the one main reason for his increase in ocean temperatures and thus the troposphere, while he claims there is no evidence of anthropogenic GHG effects warming the atmosphere and the oceans below, how then can he use that same argument to explain another key observation that the stratosphere is cooling. He does this because he dismisses anthropogenic GHG in his ocean theory, and by doing that he has no explanation of why the stratosphere is cooling because of his ocean cycle theory because he can’t. So he ignores it and anyone that brings up that question that is key to answering why these things are happening in the observed global climate environment.
I already see it now how Bob will bring up his counter argument that the heat in the atmosphere from increasing GHGs cannot be transferred down into the ocean and that it requires increased short-wave radiation to do that. The actual output from the sun does not change enough [http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png] to explain the observed temperature changes we are seeing. However, there is evidence that a warmer atmosphere does have a relationship with reduced cloud cover [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/spencers-cloud-hypothesis-confirmed/]. With reduced cloud cover, the oceans can receive more heat.
So the key question is, what comes first? A warming ocean through some magical increase in ocean cycles (requiring some new internal heat source for that) or the increasing short-wave radiation due to a warming atmosphere and less cloud cover because of something preventing some of the heat from escaping into the upper atmosphere? Ocean cycles cannot be used to explain both occurrences.
I anticipate another rant coming from Bob shortly and I am sure he is also waging a campaign to somehow ban me from commenting on this site as well. That’s how he thinks he can win this argument.
Dennis H,
I have not been following this thread, but I just read your comment above. You seem to be saying that there is increased global warming, but the extra heat is not getting into the statosphere.
That sounds like nonsense to me.
The warmist prediction, repeated endlessly, was that the troposphere would show warming: the so-called “fingerprint of global warming”. But that never happened. The models were wrong.
So now the goal posts have been moved to the cooling stratosphere argument. Excuse me, but that reeks of desperation, particularly due to the fact that global temperatures are not rising.
Bob has credibility, you don’t. That’s how I see it.
Smokey,
You can believe anything you want. The figure you referred to shows warming in the lower and mid troposphere over the tropics. What does that have to do with an observed cooling of the stratosphere?
Then you post a graph showing temperatures after 1998. Why don’t you use the entire temperature record that covers the same period that was in you other chart (post 1979)?:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/from:1978/offset:0.39/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1978/offset:0.3/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1978/offset:0.54/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1978/offset:0.54/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1978/offset:0.54/trend/plot/rss/from:1978/offset:0.54/trend
Here again is the observed data (not anything to do with computer models and how inaccurate they are) for the stratosphere from 1958 indicates that your particular belief on this incorrect:
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/2__Ozone/-_Cooling_nd.html
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp
Even based on your own graphic figure, the L/M troposphere over the tropics has warmed around 0.5-0.1C/decade while the stratosphere has been cooling around 0.5C/decade. Coincidence?
Sorry I meant to say:
Even based on your own graphic figure, the L/M troposphere over the tropics has warmed around 0.05-0.1C/decade while the stratosphere has been cooling around 0.5C/decade. Coincidence?
Ian H,
Unlike you I only believe what the data and evidence tells me. I explained the connection with the “fingerprint of global warming”. The fact is, that was the alarmist meme until it was falsified. Then the goal posts were moved to the stratosphere. Also, see John Bills’ post above.
Let’s cut to the chase, and post a very long temperature trend chart. Here you see that the green trend line is decelerating. Note that the trend is not accelerating. The planet has been warming since the LIA at about the same rate. Thus, CO2 has made no measurable difference, whether it was high or low. Since anthropogenic CO2, specifically, is what the entire debate is about, the climate alarmists have lost the scientific debate. The public relations debate is still up for grabs.
Smokey: Sometimes it’s just best to ignore trolls like Dennis H. He’s admitted the cooling of the lower stratosphere has no bearing on the topics discussed in this post.
Yet, for reasons known only to him, Dennis H insists on yakking on and on about it.
I know it’s tough. Maybe if we ignore him, he’ll go away.
I’m going to try one more thing. Maybe the reason he’s here is to waste my time. I’m just going to cut and paste my earlier reply to him.
Regards
Thanks, Bob. I’ll take your advice.
Dennis: I think I’ve figured it out. Like the troll you are, you’re here simply to waste my time. You’ve seen how much time I’ve spent responding to you and that fulfills a bizarre inner need.
So, I’m not going to waste any more time. In response to your recent comments, I’ve cut and pasted my last reply to you. Rest assured, that’s all you’ll receive from me on this thread from this moment on. If you continue to persist, I’ll cut and paste it again. On a future thread, if you try your bandwidth- and time-wasting tactic again, I’ll paste the same reply to you there. Problem solved for me.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Dennis H: Your latest attempt to redirect the conversation back to lower stratosphere temperatures by grasping at my discussion of how the winter jet streams are impacted by ENSO is another clear indication that you fail to understand what’s being discussed. It is well known that ENSO impacts the locations of the jet streams in both hemispheres. In turn, the ENSO-caused relocations of the jet streams impact where around the globe SURFACE temperatures warm or cool and precipitation increases and decreases. Nowhere in that discussion do lower stratosphere temperatures come into play. Those ENSO-related causes and effects have been known for decades. If you are the same meteorologist I recall, you should understand that. Then again, maybe you don’t. Maybe you skipped class that day. Maybe you don’t read meteorological journals so that you can keep it fresh in your mind.
Only you, Dennis, are concerned about the temperature of the lower stratosphere. Do we live in the lower stratosphere? No! Does the cooling of the lower stratosphere cause sea surface temperatures to warm? No! YOU, Dennis H, admitted that above. Is the temperature of the lower stratosphere mentioned in this post? No! Is it mentioned in the book presented in this post? No! Has anyone else on this thread mentioned lower stratosphere temperatures? No! So why do you insist on talking about the irrelevant temperature of the lower stratosphere?
If you’d like to discuss the temperature of the lower stratosphere, open a blog and write a post.
Your persistent attempts to redirect the conversations, and your failure to discuss the topics at hand, indicate to everyone reading this thread that YOU, Dennis H, are not capable of disputing the content of my book. You have no idea or grasp of what’s discussed and presented in it. Your misguided arguments, and the laughingly ridiculous comment by LazyTeenager, on this thread appear to be the best that can be conjured up by proponents of anthropogenic global warming. Let me phrase that another way: you’re helping me sell books, Dennis. Thanks!
Had you begun your appearance here with questions that related to ENSO and its long-term effects on global surface temperatures, I likely would have answered them. Instead you chose to waste my time with nonsense.
Adios, Dennis H.