Guest post by Bob Tisdale
This is the second part in a series of posts about El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). They address many of the myths and misunderstandings about the tropical Pacific processes that herald themselves during El Niño and La Niña events. In them, I’m simply reproducing 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. The long-term impacts of El Niño and La Niña are blatantly obvious. Proponents of anthropogenic global warming apparently have difficulty comprehending that so they use misinformation to try to contradict what’s plainly visible. Many of the myths they’ve created are failed attempts to neutralize strong El Niño and La Niña events—to redirect the observable causes of the warming over the past 3 decades from natural factors to manmade greenhouse gases.
The following discussion is from Chapter 7.3 A New Myth – ENSO Balances Out to Zero over the Long Term.
***
A new myth about ENSO recently appeared in posts at the website SkepticalScience. This year one author there has been writing something to the effect of, El Niño and La Niña events balance out to zero over the long term. That’s nonsense, plain and simple nonsense. There are a number of ways to show the errors with this myth. The best way is to create a running total of NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies.
Wikipedia provides an easy-to-understand explanation of a Running Total:
A running total is the summation of a sequence of numbers which is updated each time a new number is added to the sequence, simply by adding the value of the new number to the running total. Another term for it is partial sum.
The purposes of a running total are twofold. First, it allows the total to be stated at any point in time without having to sum the entire sequence each time. Second, it can save having to record the sequence itself, if the particular numbers are not individually important.
If, over the long term, El Niño and La Niña events balanced out to zero, then a running total of NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies would equal zero. Does it? Refer to Figure 7-10.
El Niño and La Niña events obviously have NOT balanced out to zero over the past 30+ years. That curve of the running total of NINO3.4 data looks surprisingly similar to the global sea surface temperature anomaly curve. It’s really difficult to miss the very obvious increase.
I’ve actually had someone reply in a blog comment that 30 years was not long enough. I then provided a running total of NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies starting in 1900. That early start year is pushing the boundaries when it comes to equatorial sea surface temperature data. The Panama Canal opened in 1914, and before then, equatorial Pacific sea surface temperature data becomes increasingly sparse.
The base years for anomalies would also impact the running total, especially one that long, so we need to pick some. Trenberth (1997) The Definition of El Niño stated that 1950 to 1979 was the best base period for NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies. Trenberth writes:
Figure 1 shows the five month running mean SST time series for the Niño 3 and 3.4 regions relative to a base period climatology of 1950-1979 given in Table 1. The base period can make a difference. This standard 30 year base period is chosen as it is representative of the record this century, whereas the period after 1979 has been biased warm and dominated by El Niño events (Trenberth and Hoar 1996a). Mean temperatures are higher in the Niño 3.4 region than in Niño 3 and its proximity to the Pacific warm pool and main centers of convection is the reason for the physical importance of Niño 3.4.
We’ll use 1950 to 1979 as the base period for anomalies for our NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies.
Figure 7-11 is the running total of HADISST NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies, starting in January 1900 and ending in May 2012. It does not return to zero. However, it really looks like the global temperature anomaly curve.
The similarity between the curve of the running total of HADISST-based NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies and a global temperature anomaly curve is remarkable. Unfortunately, it only works with HADISST-based NINO3.4 data. A running total of NINO3.4 data based on the ERSST.v3b or Kaplan datasets bears no similarities to the global temperature curve. Also, it only works with the base years of 1950-1979. That is, if you were to shift the base years so that they were weighted more toward El Niño events, like the period of 1971 to 2000, you’d wind up with a long-term running-mean curve that looks completely different. That makes the curve illustrated in Figure 7-11 a curiosity. Nothing more—just a curiosity, because I can’t justify the use of the base years of 1950-1979. It should definitely make you think, though.
That running total was one of the things that sparked my interest in ENSO. I discovered that curious running-total effect in April 2008, and presented it in a post titled Is There A Cumulative ENSO Climate Forcing? (ENSO isn’t a forcing, but that’s neither here nor there.) If you were to include the effects of volcanic aerosols and solar variability, the fit becomes even better. I presented that in a post titled Reproducing Global Temperature Anomalies With Natural Variables.
Regardless, ENSO has been skewed toward El Niño in recent decades. It has been skewed toward La Niña as well—the period from the 1940s to the mid-1970s for example. This is well known. We’ve shown the “skewness” in the preceding chapter using period average sea surface temperatures for the NINO3.4 region.
The myth that “El Niño and La Niña events balance out to zero over the long term” is simply another very obvious attempt to neutralize El Niño and La Niña. It’s a comical attempt that failed.
***
The illustration from a previous chapter I was referring to above was Figure 7-7 from Chapter 7.1 Myth – ENSO Has No Trend and Cannot Contribute to Long-Term Warming.
I’ll present that chapter next. (Hmm. Just noticed a typo. In the book, the illustration is identifed as Figure 5-7. I’ve corrected it here.)
SOURCES
The sea surface temperature data for Figure 7-10 was downloaded from the NOAA NOMADS website. NOAA uses 1971-2000 as base years. The dataset used in the other graphs is HADISST. It’s available through the KNMI Climate Explorer. There I’ve used the base years of 1950-1979 per the discussion above.
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.
ALREADY PUBLISHED
1. El Niño-Southern Oscillation Myth 1: El Niño and La Niña Events are Cyclical. Refer also to the cross post at WattsUpWithThat for comments.
UPCOMING
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
Failed Argument – El Niño Events Don’t Create Heat
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 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. Simply scroll down past where they ask you to open one.). 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.
@ur momisugly Bob Tisdale,
I seem to remember you did a post here a while back showing the “progression” of the 2012-2013 El Nino, and that it wasn’t necessarily unusual to have the warming wane significantly early in the progression, especially if the PDO is negative (at least that is what I THINK I remember you writing at the time, it has been a while!)
At any rate, do you still see a possibility of a 2013 El Nino, or has the cooling become significant enough that we might have “La Nada” or ENSO-neutral conditions in 2013?
This is not WHY the Rest-of-the-World data warm. It is how the heat is distributed. If there is a step-wise increase in temperature in an area, either other areas have cooled, and we can expect (long term) there may be a fluctuation back, or there has been an increase in heat energy in the system, and we would not expect a return to the the status quo ante. As best I can tell, and I am admittedly an amateur, ENSO describes how heat moves. It doesn’t tell us the source of the heat, whether from “random” shifts in the distribution, or from some other source – natural or mad-made global warming. At least not at our present level of understanding.
Bob Tisdale says:
December 11, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Why does the Rest-of-the-World data warm? Because it warms during El Niño events, but does not cool proportionally during La Niña events:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-33.png
eric1skeptic says:
December 11, 2012 at 3:58 pm
And of course the sun is not constant, but it is mostly constant enough.
==============
Constant enough to support life for billions of years? Or does life modify the earth such that the earth’s climate and life have co-evolved to limit the effects of the variability of the sun?
Certain aspects of the sun are relatively constant over the very short period of time we have been able to measure them. These are the aspects that our physical sense can also detect. Other aspects are highly variable and are ignored by those that wish to prove that humans control the earth’s climate. Since we can’t see or feel these aspects of the sun, it is easy to assume they have no effect.
Having witnessed first hand the global cooling scare, and all manner of human activity blamed as the cause, it is only reasonable to doubt the same scientists making the reverse claim a generation later. Since they obviously had it wrong before, it seems all the more likely they have it wrong this time as well.
Each generation of climate scientists is no more than mayflies in geological time. They look at the cooling of the planet at night and the warming during the day and proclaim global cooling and global warming.
Wow.. it seems that Tisdale has identified an upward trend in Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures. Doesn’t that sound consistent with global warming theory?
GENERAL NOTE: I’ve added the following note at the cross post at my blog:
UPDATE: Two of the repeated and interrelated take-home points of my book Who Turned the Heat? were that an ENSO index does not represent the processes and aftereffects of ENSO, and that the ENSO index simply represents the impacts of that ENSO index on the variable represented by the ENSO index. When I wrote this Section of the book, it was hoped that was understood. I didn’t repeat it in every chapter. Keep that in mind while reading the posts in this series. These are my simple responses to comments made by people who do not understand the processes of ENSO, and these responses may not address the myth-maker’s misunderstandings.
***************
Wolfgang Flamme says: “re your discussion with X Anomaly you should (re-)read this: http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/14/gambling-runs/”
X Anomaly’s efforts on this thread provide nothing of value. As I noted recently…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/11/el-nino-southern-oscillation-myth-2-a-new-myth-enso-balances-out-to-zero-over-the-long-term/#comment-1171095
…X Anomaly is simply confirming what I wrote in the post. Now I’ll ask you, have you read the post? My guess is that you haven’t since you’re attempting to belabor a valueless point.
pochas says: “So we gain an increment of temperature with every El Niño? When will it all end?”
The observable increments are with the major El Nino events, like the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Ninos, both of which were East Pacific El Ninos. There may have been a minor incremental increase with the 2009/10 El Nino, but it’s still a little early to tell. So it’s really not with every El Nino.
http://oi46.tinypic.com/r1a1vp.jpg
That Rest-of-the-World data represents the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific oceans from pole to pole (90S-90N, 80W-180), or about 67% of the surface area of the global oceans. It’s the Rest-of-the-World as opposed to the East Pacific which hasn’t warmed in 30 years.
PeterB in Indianapolis says: “At any rate, do you still see a possibility of a 2013 El Nino, or has the cooling become significant enough that we might have “La Nada” or ENSO-neutral conditions in 2013?”
As of last week NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies were approaching zero:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/november-2012-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/15-weekly-nino3-4/
That graph is from my most recent update here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/november-2012-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
There’s not a lot of warm water below the surface of the equatorial Pacific to support much of a strengthening:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml
If the 2012/13 ENSO season shows up as an “official” El Nino on the ONI index, which I doubt, it would be a very weak El Nino.
phlogiston (December 11, 2012 at 1:49 pm) wrote:
“Bob’s thesis is that during a warming period, “super-el Ninos” cause a step-up in global temeratures, especially in the “rest-of-the-world” oceans excluding the east Pacific. We have seen a few of these e.g. 1977, 1988, 1998. What it will be intersting to see will be the converse phenomenon – the “super-La Nina” which takes global temperature down a peg.”
…But:
Bob keeps reminding us that they are NOT “converse phenomena”.
(Poleward export lights up at western boundaries.)
Thought provoking article, as usual, Bob.
I was thinking along those lines, too, Fred.
I don’t despair that humans can’t better understand climate change. But in my opinion, we will never get there by analyzing spotty SST data or land based near-surface air temperatures (ignoring atmospheric humidity, in the bargain). But we may get there if we focus on high resolution studies of ocean currents and their energies over time.
Of course, such an approach would not suit short-term political power grabbers and their panicky alarmist friends.
phlogiston (December 11, 2012 at 4:34 pm) wrote:
“Indeed, this “where is the energy going” is the signature of a stupid climate question. Combine the massive heat capacity of the oceans with the sharp vertical temperature gradient and the non-equilibrium chaotic dynamics of the ocean-atmosphere system, and the question dissolves like a soluble aspirin into the ocean. Heat can easily “disappear” in the oceans themselves of out to space due to the smallest of changes to ocean-driven cloud albedo.”
Strongly recommended:
Dickey, J.O.; Marcus, S.L.; & Chin, T.M. (2007). Thermal wind forcing & atmospheric angular momentum: Origin of the Earth’s delayed response to ENSO. Geophysical Research Letters 34, 7.
What appears to be crucially missing in most climate blog discussion is awareness of the vicious coupling of ocean surface currents to wind. For example, see:
Häkkinen, S.; Rhines, P.B.; & Worthen, D.L. (2011). Atmospheric blocking and Atlantic multi-decadal ocean variability.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110008410_2011008681.pdf
Coherence with cloud albedo is observed regionally. For example, see figure 1 here:
Clement, A.C.; Burgman, R.; & Norris, J.R. (2009). Observational and model evidence for positive low-level cloud feedback. Science 325(5939), 460-464. doi: 10.1126/science.1171255.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Clement-et-al-cloud-feedback-Science-2009.pdf
But that can’t simply be extrapolated to a global average. The aggregate constraints are on fields of a broader class of variables…
Graeme Stephens (NASA JPL):
1. “[…] cloud changes […] are not determined by global mean temperature changes […]”
2. “[…] relationship between the aggregated [multifaceted, spatiotemporally-variable cloud feedback] effects and change in global mean surface temperature poorly posed […] this relationship doesn’t really exist […]” [edit: PV contextual interpretation of GS inserted]
3. ” ‘Perhaps the next generation will be talking about the dynamics of water systems.’ Lorenz, 1970″
4. “[…] our predictive tools contain major biases that are symptomatic of unrealistic rain physics.
While I believe the changes that are likely to occur are primarily driven by changes in the large scale atmospheric flows, we have to conclude our models have little or no ability to make credible projections about the changing character of rain and cannot conclusively test this hypothesis.
This model bias isn’t merely solved by higher resolution of models – to the contrary, there are fundamental flaws in the way rain is triggered in models on all scales. The consequence to other aspects of the Earth system model is profound.“ (bold emphasis added)
Quote sources:
http://gewex.org/2009Conf_gewex_oral_presentations/Stephens_G11.pdf
ENSO anomalies must balance out over the time period used to set the baseline: the mean anomaly is by definition zero. If a portion of the record is selected as the baseline, the trend of the running sum will depend entirely on whether the baseline chosen has above or below average ENSO.
Bob Shapiro (December 11, 2012 at 11:39 am ) is perfectly correct.
Even Bob Tisdale admits it “Also, it only works with the base years of 1950-1979″, so cherry-picks the baseline to get the results he wants, and creates yet another myth.
I found http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/ to be an interesting tie-in – he says that cold/warm ENSO conditions follow with a lag the UV that makes it into the oceans.
Bill Illis (December 12, 2012 at 1:37 am) wrote:
“I think one needs to show the physical mechanism here whereby the accumulation of the ENSO impacts actual temperatures.
I’m not sure the 1877 super-El Nino is still impacting temperatures today, but the series of successive El Ninos from 1939 to 1942, left a strong lagged response in rising temperatures throughout the mid-1940s. The string of successive La Ninas in the early 1970s left us with a deep downspike in temperatures up until 1976. These also left a signal in the AMO and participated in its longer-term up and down cycle.
I think the question is time. How long does an accumulation actually work. It has to have a limit in physical mechanism terms.”
—
Jean Dickey gives insights:
Dickey, J.O.; & Keppenne, C.L. (1997). Interannual length-of-day variations and the ENSO phenomenon: insights via singular spectral analysis.
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/22759/1/97-1286.pdf
I illustrate the same patterns using a longer record and a different approach:
solar: http://i49.tinypic.com/2jg5tvr.png (from semi-annual LOD or AAM)
lunisolar: http://i50.tinypic.com/11he49z.png (from annual LOD; ~1998 1/4-cycle phase shift relates to oblateness evolution – see Ben Chao (2006))
Dickey, J.O.; Marcus, S.L.; & de Viron, O. (2003). Coherent interannual & decadal variations in the atmosphere-ocean system. Geophysical Research Letters 30(11), 1573.
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/11255/1/02-3203.pdf
I illustrate the same pattern using a different approach:
http://i46.tinypic.com/303ipeo.png
http://i49.tinypic.com/wwdwy8.png
Interpretation: Equator-pole heat & water pump Doppler effect (scrambled by ENSO in a manner that baffles conventional exploration).
The influence decay is exponential. The best tuning (over the record we have) is for a Gaussian envelope extent ~65 years wide. (Stern Caution: Don’t extrapolate.)
NASA JPL has my attention. They appear to harbor North America’s strongest concentration of aggregate constraint awareness.
—
All of these observational insights are consistent with Bob Tisdale’s narrative.
X Anomaly
“A more objective base period would give you an average of ZERO.”
Yes, and detrending the temp record would remove the AGW, right?
You will then find that the ‘AGW-trend’ is 0.07 C/dec and the ‘ENSO-trend’ is 0.13 C/dec (0.4 deg between 1970 and 2000).
http://virakkraft.com/Hadcrut4-Nino34-detrended.png
You’re correct about the anomalies balance out over the time period used for the baseline, but the “myth” is that ENSO will balance out to zero over the long term.
I think Bob has categorically shown that “long term” is not 31 years (the satellite era data) and is probably not 100 years (based on the extended data of lower quality). The base years picked is irrelevant – his comment is only on the shape of the graph produced, not the end result, which is to show that ENSO does not balance out to zero (unless you use the entire dataset as the baseline, which means the balancing out is trivial and meaningless).
Please remember that the entire reason for this “myth” is to counteract claims that climate models are flawed because they can’t reproduce ENSO effects. Therefore, we need to look at the “myth” keeping the climate models in mind.
As a hypothesis, the idea that ENSO will balance out in the long term is not unreasonable, but someone will have to define “long term”. Without that definition, the hypothesis is not falsifiable and hence not scientific.
Personally, I would think “long term” would be at least 1000 years (assuming the hypothesis is true), and as such the hypothesis is useless from a climatic modelling point of view – the models would have to include ENSO effects because the effects will NOT balance out to zero in the range of dates the models work with. This would mean that any model that doesn’t reproduce ENSO effects is flawed and is not representative of the real world, and hence “projections” based on the climate models will also be flawed – a fact demonstrated by the recent Rahmstorf et al (2012) paper.
Falsifying Bob Tisdale,
Is there any evidence that ENSO is non-stationary?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationary_process
Absolutely None. There is no evidence to support the claim that ENSO doesn’t cancel out. It cancels out as much as any random variable would……
Ironically, it has traditionally been warmists who have tried to scare the wits out of everyone by making nonsensical claims that “ENSO is changing in the long term”. Now it seems Bob has caught the disease.
But like much of the so called “science” of climate change, it all turned out to be statistical garbage.
There is no proof that ENSO doesn’t balance out. Period.
“Please remember that the entire reason for this “myth””
The other reason for the myth (balancing ENSO) is so that some climo-statisticians can bump up temperature trends in recent years, see fig 4 here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/02/tisdale-takes-on-taminos-foster-rahmstorf-2011/
X Anomaly, there is no substance in your assertion. ENSO is not a stochastic process at any level.
X Anomaly says: “Falsifying Bob Tisdale…”
In your fantasy world, you may believe you’ve falsified something.
X Anomaly says: “…There is no proof that ENSO doesn’t balance out. Period.”
Your assumption is that the ENSO index you’ve used (NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies) represents the all of the processes and aftereffects of ENSO. It does not, which is why I cautioned you in the first place. I’m not sure why that’s so hard to understand, but be happy—go off and spread your nonsensical opinions. I’m sure the other anthropogenic global warming blunderers will be happy to hear from you.
richard telford says: “Even Bob Tisdale admits it ‘Also, it only works with the base years of 1950-1979’, so cherry-picks the baseline to get the results he wants, and creates yet another myth.”
That’s a odd interpretation, because it conflicts with what was written in the post. It leads everyone reading this thread to conclude that you hadn’t bothered to read the post–or that you have selective-quote syndrome. I haven’t cherry-picked the baseline. I gave a specific reason for selecting 1950-1979. If you’d like to criticize those years, please address your complaints to Kevin Trenberth. Second, I did not create a myth. I, in fact, cautioned about the graph, noting that Figure 7-71 was a curiosity. You might have understood that if you had read the post.
Bob Tisdale says:
December 12, 2012 at 7:43 am
pochas: “So we gain an increment of temperature with every El Niño? When will it all end?”
Tisdale: “That Rest-of-the-World data represents the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific oceans from pole to pole (90S-90N, 80W-180), or about 67% of the surface area of the global oceans. It’s the Rest-of-the-World as opposed to the East Pacific which hasn’t warmed in 30 years.”
Well then, it will certainly end when the Rest-of-the-World’s oceans are as warm as the East Pacific. Or don’t you think it’ll go that far?
“X Anomaly, there is no substance in your assertion. ENSO is not a stochastic process at any level.”
Never said it was. Just said there was no evidence that it had changed. Making stuff up you are.
There is no evidence that it hasn’t changed either, does that make you feel better?
I said “There is no proof that ENSO doesn’t balance out. Period.”
I could also correctly point out that “There is no proof that ENSO does balance out. Period”
Does that make you feel better? Or are you out of “substance”?
X, ENSO can’t be nonstationary as you claim because ENSO is not a stochastic process (or variable). It is a large set of variables or measurements, none of which are stochastic or stationary.
@Bob Tisdale says:
December 12, 2012 at 12:09 am:
Did I get it right? I do not want to misrepresent your science. I think you make a lot of sense and back it up with real observations.