
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
This is the first of a series of posts that address many of the myths and misunderstandings about the tropical Pacific processes that herald themselves during El Niño and La Niña events. Most of the content will be chapters from my recently published ebook Who Turned on the Heat?
For almost 4 years, my presentations about the long-term effects of El Niño and La Niña events indicate the global oceans over the past 30+ years have warmed naturally. This puzzles many proponents of anthropogenic global warming. They see the often-used name for the coupled ocean-atmosphere process—El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)—and assume the processes are oscillatory or cyclical. They will then post a comment to the effect of:
What part of oscillation don’t you understand?
Or
Haven’t you ever heard of the ENSO cycle? El Niño and La Niña are parts of a cycle. How can a cycle cause long-term global warming?
Comments like that are the first clue their authors are arguing from ignorance; that is, they have no understanding of the subjects being discussed—none whatsoever.
First off, it indicates those persons have never examined an ENSO index, such as the sea surface temperature anomalies of the NINO3.4 region—an area along the eastern equatorial Pacific bordered by the coordinates of 5S-5N, 170W-120W. ENSO indices are used to indicate how often El Niño and La Niña events happen, how strong they were, and how long they lasted. If El Niño and La Niña events were cyclical, they’d transition between El Niño and La Niña then back to El Niño and on to La Niña again, and so on. But they don’t cycle between El Niños and La Niñas. There can be back-to-back and back-to-back-back El Niño conditions without La Niña conditions appearing between them. See Figure 1. And there can be the double-dip La Niñas, like we’ve experienced recently.

Figure 1
Part of the confusion stems from the term El Niño-Southern Oscillation, which is really the combination of two names. Some of the confusion stems from the attempts of climate modelers who often treat the processes of ENSO as cycles in their failed attempts to simulate ENSO.
CHAPTER 2.1 DO THE WORDS “OSCILLATION” AND “CYCLE” IN THE NAMES “EL NIÑO-SOUTHERN OSCILLATION AND “ENSO CYCLE” CAUSE MISUNDERSTANDINGS?
The words oscillation and cycle are used to describe the processes of El Niño and La Niña events as a single phenomenon. The commonly used term ENSO stands for El Niño-Southern Oscillation. The seemingly redundant term ENSO Cycle (El Niño-Southern Oscillation Cycle) is also used often. Many persons assume because cycle and oscillation are used to describe El Niño and La Niña that the two states oppose and offset one another, that a La Niña will counteract an El Niño. Bad assumptions. They definitely do not work that way.
The most obvious difference between the two states, which we discuss in Sections 1 and 3, is, El Niño events randomly release vast amounts of warm water from below the surface of the west Pacific Warm Pool and spread it across the central and eastern equatorial Pacific, but the reverse does not occur during La Niña events.
Are El Niño and La Niña events cyclical or oscillatory? Some parts are, and some parts aren’t. We’ll discuss this further in Chapter 4.17 ENSO – A Cycle or Series of Events?
AN OVERVIEW OF THE TERMS EL NIÑO-SOUTHERN OSCILLATION AND ENSO CYCLE
El Niño-Southern Oscillation is the combination of two names. The term is said to have been coined by Rasmussen and Carpenter in their (1982) paper Variations in Tropical Sea Surface Temperature and Surface Wind Fields Associated with the Southern Oscillation/El Niño. Let’s see what Rasmussen and Carpenter have to say about the individual components. Their Introduction begins with the term El Niño:
The interannual variability of sea surface temperature (SST) along the Peru-Ecuador coast is dominated by the El Niño phenomenon. The name El Niño was originally applied to a weak warm coastal current which annually runs southward along the coast of Ecuador around the Christmas season (Wyrtki 1975). In scientific usage, the term has now become more narrowly associated with the extreme warmings which occur every few years (Wyrtki 1979a), and which result in catastrophic effects on the ecological system of the region. In more recent years, Ramage (1975), Weare et al. (1976), and others have used the term to encompass the larger-scale features of the warming event; i.e., the upwelling area along both the equator and the South American coast.
A few paragraphs later, Rasmussen and Carpenter describe the Southern Oscillation after discussing some initial findings from as far back as 1897:
It remained, however, for Sir Gilbert Walker, in a classical series of papers (Walker, 1923, 1924, 1928; Walker and Bliss, 1930, 1932, 1937) to name the SO [Southern Oscillation] and describe the salient features of the surface pressure, temperature and precipitation fluctuations.
The full title of the first Walker paper is WALKER, G. T. (1923). Correlation in seasonal variations of weather. VIII. A preliminary study of world-weather. Memoirs of the Indian Meteorological Department 24(Part 4) 75–131.
These papers by Walker were not discussions of El Niño, however. The link between El Niño and the Southern Oscillation wasn’t established until the 1960s. Therefore, the word oscillation in Southern Oscillation does not apply to El Niño and La Niña events or their processes. It only applies to the impacts of El Niño and La Niña on the sea level pressures in Tahiti and Darwin, Australia.
The sequence of papers and the advancement in ENSO research is further described in Rasmussen and Carpenter (1982).
Then there’s the term “ENSO Cycle”. The NOAA Climate Prediction Center (CPC) and many others, including me, use the phrase to describe El Niño and La Niña events and the variations from one state to the other. Refer to the CPC’s wonderful series of ENSO-related web pages ENSO Cycle that we’ll use for further discussions in Chapter 4.14 Impacts of ENSO Events on Regional Temperature and Precipitation.
DEFINITIONS OF OSCILLATION AND CYCLE
The Wikipedia definition of Oscillation begins:
Oscillation is the repetitive variation, typically in time, of some measure about a central value (often a point of equilibrium) or between two or more different states.
El Niño and La Niña events do not repeat in time, there are very few things that are repetitive in ENSO, so by this definition, ENSO isn’t a true oscillation. In fact, Wikipedia writes in their initial description of El Niño-Southern Oscillation.
El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation, or ENSO, is a quasiperiodicclimate pattern that occurs across the tropical Pacific Ocean roughly every five years.
Oscillation is much easier to write than “quasiperiodic climate pattern”. To add confusion, “pattern” has multiple meanings. It could be used as “pattern in time”, or to describe a “spatial pattern”, as in the warming or cooling of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific.
Webster has a number of definitions for the word cycle. The one that fits ENSO best is:
1: a recurring series of events: as…
c : a series of ecological stages through which a substance tends to pass and which usually but not always leads back to the starting point <the cycle of nitrogen in the living world>
Because an El Niño event does not always lead to a La Niña event and because La Niña events can be followed by another independent La Niña event, this definition of cycle under “c” is applicable to ENSO.
The term Southern Oscillation is used to represent the effects of El Niño and La Niña on the sea level pressure of the off-equatorial South Pacific. We’ll discuss it further in Chapter 4.3 ENSO Indices. Also discussed in that chapter, there’s another widely used ENSO index. It represents the effects of El Niño and La Niña events on the sea surface temperature anomalies of the equatorial Pacific region called NINO3.4, which is bounded by the coordinates of 5S-5N, 170W-120W. The Southern Oscillation Index and NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies do NOT represent the process of ENSO. They are used only to indicate the frequency, strength and duration of El Niño and La Niña events. They indicate nothing more. They do not represent the process of ENSO, only its effect on the variable being measured for the index.
RECAP
El Niño-Southern Oscillation and ENSO Cycle are convenient phrases used to describe El Niño and La Niña. El Niño and La Niña events are not repetitive in time so they are not true oscillations. If it’s understood that an ENSO cycle may not lead to another series of El Niño and La Niña events nor even lead to the opposite phase, then cycle is applicable.
It’s a lot easier to write El Niño-Southern Oscillation than it is to write El Niño-La Niña/Sea Level Pressure Difference Between Darwin and Tahiti Quasiperiodic Climate Pattern.
#################################
CHAPTER 4.17: ENSO – A CYCLE OR SERIES OF EVENTS?
If you were to Google ENSO and cycle, you’d get over 700,000 results. Limit your search to Google Scholar and there are more than 39,000 results. Place “ENSO cycle” in quotes and there’s almost 5,800. One of the reasons: ENSO stands for El Niño-Southern Oscillation and oscillation implies cyclical behavior. Another reason: the delayed oscillator theory suggests that one phase leads to the next, and that sure sounds like a cycle. However, is ENSO really a cycle?
The need to treat ENSO as a cycle arises from the attempts to model ENSO with computers. Mother Nature, however, apparently isn’t concerned about our ability to model it. While parts of ENSO act as a cycle, the evolution of an El Niño event requires a basically random event to initiate it. Therefore, to answer the title question of this chapter, ENSO is a combination of the two.
Kessler (2002) Is ENSO a cycle or a series of events? discusses how observational data suggest that El Niño events are event-like disturbances, while other phases display the behavior of a cycle. The abstract reads:
After early ideas that saw El Niños as isolated events, the advent of coupled models brought the conception of ENSO as a cycle in which each phase led to the next in a self-sustained oscillation. Twenty-two years of observations that represent the El Niño and La Niña peaks (east Pacific SST) and the memory of the system (zonal-mean warm water volume) suggest a distinct break in the cycle, in which the coupled system is able to remain in a weak La Niña state for up to two years, so that memory of previous influences would be lost. Similarly, while the amplitude of anomalies persists from the onset of a warm event through its termination, there is no such persistence across the La Niña break. These observations suggest that El Niños are in fact event-like disturbances to a stable basic state, requiring an initiating impulse not contained in the dynamics of the cycle itself.
When studying this subject and looking for additional papers, it is important to isolate discussions of models and the efforts being taken to improve them. Models are not reality. They are attempts to simulate Mother Nature with computers. The discussion of whether ENSO is a cycle or a series of events is an observations-based discussion. Some of the model-based papers do include discussions of observations, but you have to make sure you’re basing your understandings of ENSO on the observations and not the models in those papers. That pretty much holds true for all climate and climate change papers.
###############################
THE REST OF THIS SERIES
The remainder of this series of posts will be taken from the following myths and failed arguments. They’re from Section 7 of my book Who Turned on the Heat? I may select them out of the order they’ve been presented here, and I’ll try to remember to include links to the other posts in these lists as the new posts are published.
A New Myth – ENSO Balances Out to Zero over the Long Term
Failed Argument – El Niño Events Don’t Create Heat
Myth – ENSO Has No Trend and Cannot Contribute to Long-Term Warming
Myth – The Effects of La Niña Events on Global Surface Temperatures Oppose those of El Niño Events
Myth – El Niño Events Dominated the Recent Warming Period Because of Greenhouse Gases
Myth – ENSO Only Adds Noise to the Instrument Temperature Record and We Can Determine its Effects through Linear Regression Analysis, Then Remove Those Effects, Leaving the Anthropogenic Global Warming Signal
Myth – The Warm Water Available for El Niño Events Can Only be Explained by Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Forcing
Myth – The Frequency and Strength of El Niño and La Niña Events are Dictated by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
And I’ll include a few of the failed arguments that have been presented in defense of anthropogenic warming of the global oceans.
Failed Argument – The East Indian-West Pacific and East Pacific Sea Surface Temperature Datasets are Inversely Related. That Is, There’s a Seesaw Effect. One Warms, the Other Cools. They Counteract One Another.
INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE ABOUT THE EL NIÑO AND LA NIÑA AND THEIR LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON GLOBAL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES?
Why should you be interested? Sea surface temperature records indicate El Niño and La Niña events are responsible for the warming of global sea surface temperature anomalies over the past 30 years, not manmade greenhouse gases. I’ve searched sea surface temperature records for more than 4 years, and I can find no evidence of an anthropogenic greenhouse gas signal. That is, the warming of the global oceans has been caused by Mother Nature, not anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
I’ve recently published my e-book (pdf) about the phenomena called El Niño and La Niña. It’s titled Who Turned on the Heat? with the subtitle The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit, El Niño Southern Oscillation. It is intended for persons (with or without technical backgrounds) interested in learning about El Niño and La Niña events and in understanding the natural causes of the warming of our global oceans for the past 30 years. Because land surface air temperatures simply exaggerate the natural warming of the global oceans over annual and multidecadal time periods, the vast majority of the warming taking place on land is natural as well. The book is the product of years of research of the satellite-era sea surface temperature data that’s available to the public via the internet. It presents how the data accounts for its warming—and there are no indications the warming was caused by manmade greenhouse gases. None at all.
Who Turned on the Heat?was introduced in the blog post Everything You Every Wanted to Know about El Niño and La Niña… …Well Just about Everything. The Updated 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. The book was updated recently to correct a few typos.
Please buy a copy. (Credit/Debit Card through PayPal. You do NOT need to open a PayPal account.). It’s only US$8.00.
VIDEOS
For those who’d like a more detailed preview of Who Turned on the Heat? see Part 1 and Part 2 of the video series The Natural Warming of the Global Oceans. Part 1 appeared in the 24-hour WattsUpWithThat TV (WUWT-TV) special in November 2012. You may also be interested in the video Dear President Obama: A Video Memo about Climate Change.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you for the detailed description, Mr Tisdale. I much appreciate the effort that goes into this research. There are two things which are still unclear for me. I must confess I don’t have the time right now to go through all the sources you gave in detail, so maybe my questions are already answered and I didn’t realise it. But in any case, here they are:
I know one argument that has recently been brought up to defend CAGW is that ocean heat content has been increasing even more than atmospheric temperatures. Does this mean that the eastern Pacific Ocean has been simultaneously transferring heat to the atmosphere as well as greater amounts to the oceans? And can we surmise from this that for some reason, the “energy capture efficiency” of La Ninas has increased in the past fifty years?
Also, how was it determined that it is visible wavelength radiation which provides the energy that a La Nina transfers to the ocean? Could it not be that, if there is an upwelling of deep, cold water to the surface, the difference in temperature between this colder water and the atmosphere, which increases the heat transfer from atmosphere to ocean is a sufficient mechanism to explain the phenomenon? After all, the modified cloud patterns observed during a La Nina are the result of a colder atmosphere. If the atmosphere cooled, it means its heat content went somewhere. Most probably it lost its heat to the cold water below, no? In other words, the dimnished clouds during a La Nina might not be the mechanism through which energy is gained by the ocean (through increased visible wavelength radiation), but rather a result of the transfer of atmospheric heat to the cold water of a La Nina (that seems, at least, like a possibility to me).
Thank you in advance,
JC Leblond
Carrick says:
December 5, 2012 at 12:13 pm
phlogiston:
if its a chaotic nonlinear one, that is. It cant be corrected for like a linear oscillator, Bob is correct about this.
You do need a nonlinearly coupled system to get the ENSO behavior, but it doesn’t have to be chaotic. If you have two coupled modes that are quasi-periodic according to the spectrum I showed above, almost any physical model that realizes this is going to have nonlinearity associated with it.
Bart says:
December 5, 2012 at 10:16 pm
“…if its a chaotic nonlinear one…”
big IF. Some phenomena in nature are chaotic. Others are merely complex, and can often be decomposed into simpler, predictable parts. Sometimes, they are both. Even chaotic systems can be statistically predictable – I worked out a statistical characterization of the Baker Map for a class in chaos theory a couple of decades ago using the Chapman-Kolmogorov equation.
A posting a year or two ago explored the possibility that the ENSO might be a nonlinear oscillator analogous to the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction. The critical condition for this classic chemical nonlinear oscillator is the presence of an “excitable medium”. This means a medium in which certain processes set of a positive feedback and a run-away event is launched. Of course “run-away” is not in the “for ever and ever amen” variety of AGW idiocy, but a time-limited period of positive feedback that runs its course. In a far-from equilibrium system where there exists potential positive feedbacks, this then is an “excitable medium” and nonlinear oscillations such as the BZ reaction can occur. Look for instance at the alternating patches of orange and blue in the (first) BZ video here – they call to mind the alternating cool and warm east pacific under La Nina and el Nino conditions.
In the equatorial east Pacific the requirement for an “excitable medium” is met by the Bjerknes feedback, by which Peruvian cold upwelling is self-reinforced by consequently enhanced tradewinds giving a time-limited positive feedback. Vice versa in an el Nino. In this sense Bob Tisdale is correct that el Nino and La Nina are discreet events of time-limited positive feedback, but they can be considered as such in the context of a nonlinear oscillator.
ENSO index down again this week, continuing an erratic decline, I predict a negative Nina 3.4 anomaly by 2013.
[Reply: Sorry, posts about chemtrails is against site Policy. — mod.]
Sorry I missed your questions here, Conrad and caused your to ask them again on my next thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/06/once-again-reality-trumps-models-pacific-ssts-are-flat/#comment-1166471
But to save those reading this thread the effort to click on the link, here’s my reply to Conrad.
Conrad Goehausen says: “So my question is, why has that been increasing over the last 30 years, raising ocean heat content, and not just evening out? Why the step up to new levels, rather than just back up to the same level?”
Conrad, based on the rest of your comment, you understand the relationship between ENSO and tropical Pacific ocean heat content. So I won’t go into that explanation.
The primary problem we have with ocean heat content and sea surface temperature data is there’s too little data. Reliable sea surface temperature measurements for the entire globe exist only for the past 30 years—the satellite era. Before that there’s very little source data in the southern hemisphere, south of 45S, and that’s a lot of real estate. Therefore, we have no idea what type of multidecadal variability exists in the Southern Oceans. No idea at all. Further, because of the limitations of the pre-satellite era data, no one can say that the past 30 years is outside of the normal. Climate models are simply computer-based conjecture, based on a flawed hypothesis.
It’s even worse for ocean heat content data. We’ve only had complete coverage of the global oceans for a decade at best. Before that there’s little to no data at depth in the southern hemisphere south of the tropics. I still find it amazing that we can see the relationship between ENSO and tropical Pacific ocean heat content—thanks to NOAA for have the foresight to install the TOA project buoys there in the 1980s and ‘90s.
To answer your question, it simply appears to be the frequency of the 3-year La Niña events in the tropical Pacific—and the freakish 1995/96 La Niña. Without that 1995/96 La Niña, tropical Pacific ocean heat content data would be no higher today than it was in the early 1990s.
The above should also serve to answer some of your later questions.
Conrad Goehausen says: “Is it a decrease in cloud cover over the tropics? Why so much decrease then? What is driving that?”
Yes, it’s the periodic decrease in cloud cover over the tropical Pacific, which is associated with the stronger trade winds during La Niña events. What’s driving it? No one knows why ENSO has the frequency, magnitude and duration it does. If they did, the IPCC’s climate models would be able to simulate ENSO, but they can’t. If someone knew what drives ENSO, all of the ENSO models used in El Niño and La Niña predictions would be able to provide reasonable forecasts of the next ENSO season before the springtime predictability barrier, but they can’t.
Conrad Goehausen says: “It even makes me wonder how the oceans warm up to begin with. Is it only through direct sunshine? “
There are a number of other factors that can cause sea surface temperature and ocean heat content to warm. For example, when there’s an El Niño, the trade winds slow in the tropical Atlantic. The slower trade winds mean less evaporation, so the sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content for the tropical Atlantic warm. If there’s a multidecadal period when El Niño events dominate, the Atlantic trade winds would be slower than normal for that multidecadal period, which would, in turn, cause sea surface temperature and ocean heat content to warm more than normal.
Then there’s the impact of the surface winds from that travel from north to south and vice versa. If those winds impede the poleward transport of warm water from the tropics toward the poles, then less warm water will arrive at high latitudes where it can evaporate more readily and be radiated into space easier. During periods such as that, ocean heat content would rise, and that’s likely what caused that shift on North Pacific ocean heat content in the late 1980s, early 1990s, shown in red here:
http://oi45.tinypic.com/ftn2j5.jpg
Conrad Goehausen says: “I understand how GHG effects can trap heat in the atmosphere, but can they have that effect on the oceans as well? What do the AGW people claim in that regards?”
The AGW people claim the ocean warming (sea surface temperature and ocean heat content) was caused by back radiation associated with CO2, but the data contradicts them. Therefore, it appears the additional infrared radiation from manmade greenhouse gases only increases evaporation. Add to that, no one knows whether clouds provide positive or negative feedback.
Conrad Goehausen says: “Does the GHG effect have any direct influence on ocean heat or surface temps?”
The ocean heat content and sea surface temperature data indicate they warmed naturally, and the natural warming of the oceans account for the vast majority of the rise in land surface air temperatures.
Conrad Goehausen says: “Also: what is that causes the increased strength of the trade winds that brings about La Ninas?”
That’s a complicated answer—as if there are any simple answers associated with ENSO. There are many interrelated (coupled) factors that drive ENSO. The trade winds are driven by the temperature differences between the eastern and western tropical Pacific. And the trade winds are the primary contributor to the temperature difference between the eastern and western tropical Pacific. The other major factor that influences ENSO mode are phenomena called Kelvin and Rossby waves and their relationship with ENSO is the basis for the delayed oscillator theory. IRI has a reasonably easy to understand discussion of the delayed oscillator theory here:
http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/theory/index.html
The introduction to the delayed oscillator theory in my book is written at an even more basic level.
Bob
I assume you are referring to the well-known phenomenon of the delayed-feedback nonlinear oscillator.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1911/343.full.pdf+html
http://www.fi.isc.cnr.it/users/alessandro.torcini/ARTICOLI/bst_acie2012.pdf
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/13/S1/P53
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/10226786/experimental-study-complex-dynamics-delayed-feedback-multiple-cavity-klystron-self-oscillator
http://chaos.aip.org/resource/1/chaoeh/v19/i3/p033110_s1?isAuthorized=no
phlogiston says: “I assume you are referring to the well-known phenomenon of the delayed-feedback nonlinear oscillator.”
You tell me. Does the definition of “delayed oscillator theory” at the IRI website agree with the “delayed-feedback nonlinear oscillator”?
Regards
JC Leblond says: “I know one argument that has recently been brought up to defend CAGW is that ocean heat content has been increasing even more than atmospheric temperatures. Does this mean that the eastern Pacific Ocean has been simultaneously transferring heat to the atmosphere as well as greater amounts to the oceans? And can we surmise from this that for some reason, the “energy capture efficiency” of La Ninas has increased in the past fifty years?”
The oceans release heat primarily through evaporation so the East Pacific has been releasing heat. Second question, I do not believe anyone could state the “‘energy capture efficiency’ of La Ninas has increased in the past fifty years.” The 1995/96 La Nina was a freak and it effectively shifted upwards the ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific.
http://oi47.tinypic.com/2uianx2.jpg
Other than that La Nina, the only other times there were long-term warmings of the tropical Pacific was during the 3-year La Nina events.
Also, if the 1995/96 La Nina did not supply the warm water for the 1997/98 El Nino, would it have been as strong? And if the 1997/98 El Nino was not as strong, would there have been a 3-year La Nina following it?
JC Leblond says: “Also, how was it determined that it is visible wavelength radiation which provides the energy that a La Nina transfers to the ocean?”
The dynamics of ENSO have been known for quite some time. Recently, Pavlakis et al (2008) worked to quantify the impacts of ENSO on DSR:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/6697/2008/acpd-8-6697-2008-print.pdf
JC Leblond says: “Could it not be that, if there is an upwelling of deep, cold water to the surface, the difference in temperature between this colder water and the atmosphere, which increases the heat transfer from atmosphere to ocean is a sufficient mechanism to explain the phenomenon?”
The variations in the temperature of the atmosphere are responses to the temperature variations of the ocean, not vice versa. The oceans have to warm and cool for the atmosphere to warm and cool above them.
RERT says: “Bob – Has anyone come up with a predictor for the El Nino Index?”
Climate/weather modeling agencies have been trying to predict ENSO for decades and they’re still having difficulties. See the range of model outputs on pages 26 and 27 of NOAA’s weekly ENSO update:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
PS: Sorry for the delay in replying. I got sidetracked elsewhere.
I hope I got to everyone’s questions.
Thanks, Anthony.
For a larger perspective on oscillations in nature, peruse “Biochemical Oscillations and Cellular Rhythms” by Albert Goldbeter and “Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience” by Eugene Izhikevich. Plus the dynamical systems books cited by Izhikevich.
Bob Tisdale has shown that, if you narrow the scope of the word “oscillation”, then El Niño and La Niña events are not manifestations of a natural oscillation. His explanation that El Niños result from a change in wind leaves open the possibility that they are catastrophes in a naturally oscillating non-linear dissipative dynamical system. Most of the oscillations in nature, including the seasonal temperature swings on earth and the tides, are not exactly periodic and produce phenomena that appear dramatically different from the usual peaks and troughs.
Ok. So one more question for you which I think will summarize the explanation: I’m not a genius, but I think I understood… Basically, the extra heat in the system in the past decades has come from a sequence of stronger and more numerous La Ninas, simply put.
Thak you once again.
…And one last question… Are there any clues as to what the system would be that has caused La Ninas to input more heat into the system than El Ninos could discharge in the past decades, as well as what regulates this process (i. e.: when and why does the trend reverse and cause a period of stability or cooling, if El Ninos start discharging more energy than La Ninas can brin into the system).
Thank you!
JC Leblond: In reply to your December 7, 2012 at 4:24 pm comment, publically available ocean heat content data only extends back in time to the mid 1950s. Satellite-era sea surface temperature begins in the early 1980s.
Regards