El Niño-Southern Oscillation Myth 3: ENSO Has No Trend and Cannot Contribute to Long-Term Warming

Guest post by Bob Tisdale

This is the 3rd part of a series of posts that present myths and misunderstandings about the tropical Pacific processes that herald themselves during El Niño and La Niña events. In the posts, I’m simply reproducing chapters from my recently published ebook Who Turned on the Heat?

Many of these myths were created by proponents of manmade global warming who have no understanding of the coupled ocean-air processes that result in El Niño and La Niña events. Those persons look at an El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) index and wrongly assume the index represents all of the processes of ENSO—when, in reality, the index simply shows the impact of El Niño and La Niña events on the variable being measured for that index. ENSO indices (like NINO3.4 region sea surface temperature anomalies presented in the post) do not capture in recharge aspects of La Niña events that are evident in the ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific and they do not capture the impacts of the discharge and redistribution processes of major El Niño events that are plainly visible in the sea surface temperature anomalies of the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific Oceans(90S-90N, 80W-180).

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 7.1 Myth – ENSO Has No Trend and Cannot Contribute to Long-Term Warming. It begins with a reference to Section 5 of Who Turned on the Heat? The chapter titles of that section give a general description of the topics discussed. See the table of contents in the book preview here. Most of those discussions have been presented in numerous posts over the past 4 years at my blog and in cross posts at WattsUpWithThat.

******

We’ve discussed and illustrated in Section 5 of this book how ENSO has been responsible for the warming of global sea surface temperatures over the past 30 years. In fact, the intent of this book was to provide the reader with a strong enough background in ENSO to understand why this myth [ENSO Has No Trend and Cannot Contribute to Long-Term Warming] is wrong. Regardless, let’s examine this myth a little closer and see what else we can learn from it.

The “ENSO has No Trend” part of this myth depends on the dataset. That is, since 1900, some sea surface temperature-based ENSO indices show long-term trends, warming and cooling; another is flat. Let’s look at NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies using a number of different datasets. We’ll start with ERSST.v3b and Kaplan, both from NOAA, and HADISST from the Hadley Centre. Refer to Figure 7-1. NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies for the ERSST.v3b, Kaplan, and HADISST datasets are available through the KNMI Climate Explorer Monthly Climate Indices webpage. The ERSST.v3b version of NINO3.4 sea surface temperatures has a significant warming trend, while the Kaplan version of NINO3.4 data shows significant cooling. The HADISST-based NINO3.4 data since 1900 has a slightly negative trend, but it’s basically flat.

Figure 7-2 presents the average of the ERSST.v3b, HADISST and Kaplan versions of NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies. The linear trend of 0.003 deg C per decade is basically flat.

Figure 7-2

HADSST2 and HADSST3 are also available at the Climate Explorer, but their data for the NINO3.4 region are so sparse at times that there are large gaps, with many missing months. Fortunately, a recent climate paper presented an ENSO index based on HADSST2 sea surface temperature anomalies. The paper was Thompson et al (2009) Identifying signatures of natural climate variability in time series of global-mean surface temperature: Methodology and Insights. We’ll discuss this paper again in another myth. Thompson et al (2009) were kind enough to provide data along with their paper. The instructions for use and links to the data are here. Thompson et al (2009) used the sea surface temperature anomalies for Cold Tongue Index region instead of the more commonly used NINO3.4 region. There are very slight differences between the two datasets. Thompson et al also scaled the data so that they could subtract it from global surface temperatures. We’ll standardize it so the dataset doesn’t look so odd, Figure 7-3. The trend clearly shows cooling. That’s even steeper than the cooling trend in the Kaplan NINO3.4 data.

Figure 7-3

In summary, sea surface temperature anomaly-based ENSO indices do have trends. The trend depends on the dataset. Most show a cooling trend over the 20th century and on into current times.

That’s not the primary fault with that myth. What defies logic with that fairytale is the idea that a variable source of heat with a flat long-term linear trend cannot raise or lower temperatures over periods of time.

For example, let’s say a hospital recently built a new multistory wing. The engineering department has received complaints about the temperature in a storeroom. Rarely does anyone enter the storeroom, but when they do, the temperature there can be very cool or very warm, or sometimes it’s just right. The storeroom is in the center of the building. It’s surrounded by occupied spaces and there are occupied floors above and below it. The temperatures in all of the spaces surrounding the storeroom are controlled by thermostats to maintain temperatures at 21 deg C (70 deg F). The lights in the storeroom are controlled by an occupancy sensor and there is no equipment in that space causing a heat load. Basically, the storeroom has no heat gains or losses when it’s unoccupied. To save on construction costs, hospital administrators elected not to install a thermostat in the storeroom with a separate supply of heating and cooling. The heating and air conditioning system does, however, serve the storeroom, providing a minimum amount of conditioned air for ventilation. The air conditioned or heated supply air comes from a duct that’s controlled by a thermostat in an adjacent office space, which is unfortunately an exterior zone, with heat losses and heat gains and varying occupancy. The head of the engineering department sends a new hire to the storeroom with a couple of temperature sensors and digital recorder.

After a period of time, the new hire stops by the boiler room to consult with the crusty old boiler room foreman. The new hire explains his findings to foreman. The temperature of the storeroom does vary, and he provides a graph that shows the temperature there initially warmed, then cooled slightly, and then warmed again. See Figure 7-4.

Figure 7-4

The new hire is baffled, though. The graph of the temperature of the air being supplied to the space, Figure 7-5, shows lots of variability. If he compares the supply air and space temperature, the new hire can see that the temperature of the air being supplied to the space has a strong short-term effect on space temperature. When there’s a short-term supply of warm air, the space temperature warms and, conversely, when there’s a short-term supply of cool air, the space temperature cools. What baffles the new hire is that space temperatures obviously warmed over the long-term, but the supply air temperature shows no trend. In fact, it shows a slight cooling trend.

Figure 7-5

The boiler room foreman suggests the new hire determine the average temperatures of the supply air entering the space during the early and late warming periods and determine the average supply air temperature for the relatively flat temperature period between them. The new hire returns with a revised graph that shows the average supply air temperatures were in heating mode during the two warming periods and in cooling mode, just slightly, during the period between them. All of the variability had hidden the obvious from him when he looked at the data for the first time. The new hire states the supply air was an uncontrolled supply of variable heating and cooling, and it was causing the space temperatures to warm and cool. The foreman and the new hire go into a more detailed discussion to clarify the reasons for the warming and cooling before the new hire reports back to the head of engineering.

Figure 7-6

If you hadn’t noticed, I used scaled and ranged NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies since 1900 to create the supply air temperature data in Figures 7.5 and 7.6, and the space temperature in Figure 7-4 bears a striking resemblance to global surface temperatures since 1900 as well. I’m sure some readers will think it was a poor example and that there are better examples I could have used in the discussion above, but let’s look at the bottom line.

Isn’t that all ENSO is? Isn’t ENSO simply a natural, uncontrolled, variable source of heat to the global oceans and atmosphere? Global Land Plus Sea surface temperatures warmed from 1917 to 1944 and warmed again from 1976 to present, and they cooled slightly from 1944 to 1976. Using period-average NINO3.4 sea surface temperatures, we can see that El Niño events dominated the global warming periods, and La Niña events dominated the period between them when global temperatures cooled.

We’ve discussed this in Chapter 5.8 Scientific Studies of the IPCC’s Climate Models Reveal How Poorly the Models Simulate ENSO Processes. Let’s repeat that discussion.

The strength of ENSO phases, along with how often they happen and how long they persist, determine how much heat is released by the tropical Pacific into the atmosphere and how much warm water is transported by ocean currents from the tropics to the poles. During a multidecadal period when El Niño events dominate (a period when El Niño events are stronger, when they occur more often and when they last longer than La Niña events), more heat than normal is released from the tropical Pacific and more warm water than normal is transported by ocean currents toward the poles—with that warm water releasing heat to the atmosphere along the way. As a result, global sea surface and land surface temperatures warm during multidecadal periods when El Niño events dominate. See Figure 7-7. Similarly, global temperatures cool during multidecadal periods when La Niña events are stronger, last longer and occur more often than El Niño events.

Figure 7-7

The myth “ENSO Has No Trend and Cannot Contribute to Long-Term Warming” is flawed in a number of ways.

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.

2. El Niño-Southern Oscillation Myth 2: A New Myth – ENSO Balances Out to Zero over the Long Term. And please see the WattsUpWithThat cross post.

UPCOMING

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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Thank you for all your work. I just bought your book and will eagerly read it. It looks great on my Ipad and downloaded flawlessly.

El Niño-Southern Oscillation Myth 3: ENSO Has No Trend and Cannot Contribute to Long-Term Warming
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
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.

See. There are two different simple geometry oscillations to discriminate. Earth and Sun.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/oni_fft1.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/had4_minus_oni.gif
Earth oscillations are coupled in modes as the first graph shows. Suns oscillations from solar tides are clear visible, if one detracts the ONI/MEI/ENSO oscillations from the global temperature.
Earth modes are oscillating because of the impedance of the oceans and the power from the Sun. Impedances cannot create heat.
V.

apachewhoknows

Facts run through their brains and out their ears like water off a ducks back.
It is not about facts.
It is about an agenda.

AndyG55

It may also be of interest to look at the difference in temperatures between sea and atmosphere in the 2 phases. It is the difference in temperatture that drives any heat loss from the ocean to the atmosphere, and the rate of heat loss may thus vary with the phase of the ENSO.
Looks like a standard energy storage system to me,, just like a battery in a trickle charger. Turn the charger on, you get a build up of energy, turn it off, and the energy dissipates at a much slower rate..

AndyG55

Another question Bob, While you have drawn the correlation quite well, do we know which way the causation goes?
You say ” As a result, global sea surface and land surface temperatures warm during multidecadal periods when El Niño events dominate. See Figure 7-7. Similarly, global temperatures cool during multidecadal periods when La Niña events are stronger, last longer and occur more often than El Niño events”
could it be that when warming, El Nino dominates, and when cooling, La Nina dominates.
chicken or the egg ??

P. Solar

Bob, I’ve often suggested you should get something better than the distorting running mean filter you always use, but I don’t use spreadsheets so didn’t have a simple alternative that you could easily adopt.
Now I have. I just noticed the thread discussing Pratt’s “poster” presentation which has stacked three running means of different frequencies and it ends up making quite a good filter that does not distort peaks etc like a simple running mean does.
You just do one on top of the other. The first one is as you would normally do (eg 13 monthly data points to remove an annual signal) Second one is 1.4 times longer and the 3rd one 1.7 times (or as near as you can get).
That should help in your attempts to spot correlations in different oceans etc since peaks won’t get bent and inverted as can happen with a simple running mean.

P. Solar

Volker: Earth modes are oscillating because of the impedance of the oceans and the power from the Sun. Impedances cannot create heat.
Don’t take your simplistic electronics analogy too far. Impedances don’t evaporate and absorb sunlight either.

AndyG55 says: “Another question Bob, While you have drawn the correlation quite well, do we know which way the causation goes?”
The variations in global surface temperatures are responding to ENSO. Here are links to two animations so you can watch the responses:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/east-indian-west-pacific-97-thru-012.gif
And:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/no-atlantic-maps-only.gif
They’re Animations 6-1 and 6-8 from this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/animations-discussed-in-who-turned-on-the-heat/
AndyG55 says: “It may also be of interest to look at the difference in temperatures between sea and atmosphere in the 2 phases. It is the difference in temperatture that drives any heat loss from the ocean to the atmosphere, and the rate of heat loss may thus vary with the phase of the ENSO.”
It’s more complex than you suggest. The vast majority of heat loss from the oceans is through evaporation. The atmosphere warms when that water condenses and returns to a liquid (as rain).

Volker Doormann says: “Suns oscillations from solar tides are clear visible, if one detracts the ONI/MEI/ENSO oscillations from the global temperature.”
The problem: you can’t remove ENSO from global surface temperatures by scaling and lagging an ENSO index and subtracting it from global surface temperatures. You’re not accounting for the leftover warm water that remains after major El Nino events. That leftover warm water makes its presence known in the divergences between the ENSO index and the detrended sea surface temperature anomalies for the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific (90S-90N, 80W-180):
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-10-detrended-row-vs-nino3-4.png
That’s Figure 10 from this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/blog-memo-to-john-hockenberry-regarding-pbs-report-climate-of-doubt/

pat

And the heat is dialing down:
‘Down to -50C: Russians freeze to death as strongest-in-decades winter hits (PHOTOS)’
http://rt.com/news/russia-freeze-cold-temperature-379/

Poor, freezing folk from Eastern Europe to interior Alaska now suffering the effects of life & death in a La Nina dominated phase. Same as during the exceptionally cold southern winter in Jan, Feb & March.

Oops, meant July & Aug this year, while the heat was on in parts of the US summer.

AndyG55

“milodonharlani says:
Oops, meant July & Aug this year, while the heat was on in parts of the US summer”
chuckle, umm, I was about to query that 🙂
mind you the last few summers down here haven’t been all that “summery”. 🙁
and today in Newy, its only 21C !

Gail Combs

apachewhoknows says:
December 20, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Facts run through their brains and out their ears like water off a ducks back.
It is not about facts.
It is about an agenda.

_______________________________
Given you are pushing all it over the internet in your other identity, you should know.

Bill H

Volker Doormann says:
December 20, 2012 at 2:06 pm
“Earth modes are oscillating because of the impedance of the oceans and the power from the Sun. Impedances cannot create heat. ”
====================================
“Impedance” will not cause heat but it can create the conditions necessary for releasing stored heat. Our oceans are a very big battery..

sillyfilly

Bob,
Your example requires an external enegy source as you graphed in fig 7.4. Could you like to explain the mechanism that provides that extra heat to the ocean in order to validate your substantive claim.
I also note that many recent scientific studies completely disagree with your hypothesis:
1) GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L23712, 5 PP., 2008
doi:10.1029/2008GL035984
What is causing the variability in global mean land temperature?
Martin Hoerling etal
Diagnosis of climate models reveals that most of the observed variability of global mean land temperature during 1880–2007 is caused by variations in global sea surface temperatures (SSTs). Further, most of the variability in global SSTs have themselves resulted from external radiative forcing due to greenhouse gas, aerosol, solar and volcanic variations, especially on multidecadal time scales. Our results indicate that natural variations internal to the Earth’s climate system have had a relatively small impact on the low frequency variations in global mean land temperature. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the recent trajectory of terrestrial warming can be overwhelmed (and become colder than normal) as a consequence of natural variability.
2) GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L18701, doi:10.1029/2008GL034864, 2008
How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional
surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006
Judith L. Lean1 and David H. Rind2
Natural changes cannot account for the significant long-term warming in the historical global surface temperature anomalies. Linear trends in temperature attributed to ENSO, volcanic aerosols and solar irradiance over the past 118 years (depicted by the lines in Figure 2) are, respectively, 0.002, _0.001 and 0.007 K per decade. Only by associating the surface warming with anthropogenic forcing is it possible to reconstruct the observed temperature anomalies.
3) 2011 Environ. Res. Lett. 6 044022 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Global temperature evolution 1979–2010
Grant Foster1 and Stefan Rahmstorf2
We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.

geran

(Let me take this one, Bob.)
sillyfilly, check last 15 years of global temps.

Paul Vaughan

sillyfilly (December 20, 2012 at 6:05 pm) wrote:
“3) 2011 Environ. Res. Lett. 6 044022 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Global temperature evolution 1979–2010
Grant Foster1 and Stefan Rahmstorf2”

Wishful propaganda.
—-
sillyfilly (December 20, 2012 at 6:05 pm) wrote:
“Bob,
Your example requires an external enegy source as you graphed in fig 7.4. Could you like to explain the mechanism that provides that extra heat to the ocean in order to validate your substantive claim.”

I’m not Bob, but here’s something no one should ignore::
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.

AndyG55

1.. “Diagnosis of climate models reveals:”….. Ok scratch that one straight away.
2 “Linear trends in temperature attributed to ENSO….. ” ENSO is not a linear trend.
“Only by associating the surface warming with anthropogenic forcing is it possible to reconstruct the observed temperature anomalies.” … arguement from ignorance.. scratch that one.
3. “three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU)”
roflmao.. . these have been adjusted up already to give the required temperature increase, the adjustments basically EQUAL the observed increase….. seriously, anyone who still uses these as some sort of reference is undoubtedly working with seriously flawed data.
Both RSS and UAH show the same single step increase due to the 1998 El Nino with basically zero trend before and after.

sillyfilly

For those who have replied to my previous comment, there is one paper quoted. That paper dealt with ENSO lag, so it’s not relevant to my question. As for the others, well……for another days topic, perhaps?
However, I do have another couple of questions for Bob.
From his post above:
That leftover warm water makes its presence known in the divergences between the ENSO index and the detrended sea surface temperature anomalies for the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific (90S-90N, 80W-180):
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-10-detrended-row-vs-nino3-4.png
Firstly, why is the data detrended? Mathematically that obviates any indication of long-term trends over the span of the analysis.
Secondly, why did you choose to omit the Eastern Pacific SSTs from your analysis? You are asserting that the impact on SST’s is global.

trafamadore

You should know, Mr. Tisdale, (I assume “mr”) that most people that work on climate assume the el-things are cyclic variation of normal variability in weather, not things that can cause the temp of the earth to magically rise. If you have evidence to the contrary that you think might be believed by those in the know (real scientists) you should publish it, like normal people. I think, if true, it would make Nature (but you would haf to say it in less than 1000 words, sorry, it’s Nature).
Or are you not interested in real criticism, you know, from those evil reviewer types?
Living life in the blogs is safer, isnt it?

LazyTeenager

Bob says
Using period-average NINO3.4 sea surface temperatures, we can see that El Niño events dominated the global warming periods, and La Niña events dominated the period between them when global temperatures cooled.
————-
The graphs don’t show that. I have no idea where Bob gets this conclusion from. Looking at the ENSO curves I reckon if you integrated them you would get close to zero.
And if they did I would question if Bob had reversed cause and effect.?
I would also check the definition of the ENSO index to see whether or not it represents detrended temperatures by definition.

P. Solar

trafamadore says:
December 20, 2012 at 9:56 pm
You should know, Mr. Tisdale, (I assume “mr”) that most people that work on climate assume the el-things are cyclic variation of normal variability in weather, not things that can cause the temp of the earth to magically rise. If you have evidence to the contrary that you think might be believed by those in the know (real scientists) you should publish it, like normal people. I think, if true, it would make Nature (but you would haf to say it in less than 1000 words, sorry, it’s Nature).
Or are you not interested in real criticism, you know, from those evil reviewer types?
Living life in the blogs is safer, isnt it?
=======================
Most people that work on climate (of which a very small proportion work on ENSO) ASSUME is it a cyclic variation internal to the climate system. That assumption is what Bob is questioning.
Life safer in the blogs? Hardly. I and others have been very critical of some of his workings like the arbitrary detrending, however, I do think he has a valid point to make: that El Nino and La Nina are not two sides of the same coin , they are very different mechanisms.
It is just this difference that provides a means for getting more solar energy in or out of the system even with a constant sun. So it is not “magical” as you suggest.
Bob lacks the technical training to present this in a way that would be credible in a journal and sadly is so defensive to criticism that others cannot help him improve his idea, which is a shame. I think he has highlighted a fundamentally flawed assumption.

P. Solar

LazyTeenager says:
December 20, 2012 at 10:34 pm The graphs don’t show that. I have no idea where Bob gets this conclusion from. Looking at the ENSO curves I reckon if you integrated them you would get close to zero.
================
You usual garbage Lazy, I’ve just checked and Bob’s statement is correct. Shame you’re too lazy to post a graph or a link that demonstrates you are not just talking out of your AR5E.

sillyfilly says: “Your example requires an external enegy source as you graphed in fig 7.4. Could you like to explain the mechanism that provides that extra heat to the ocean in order to validate your substantive claim.”
The ultimate source of fuel for ENSO is the sun, sillyfilly, but ENSO dictates the amount of downward shortwave radiation that warms the tropical Pacific. Further, the tropical Pacific sea surface temperature gradient, trade wind strength, cloud amount and downward shortwave radiation are coupled. During La Ninas, trade winds are stronger than normal. This reduces cloud cover over the tropical Pacific, which, logically, allows more downward shortwave radiation (visible sunlight) to enter and warm the tropical Pacific. If you had studied ENSO, sillyfilly, you would understand that’s the reason why the ocean heat content for the tropical Pacific warmed only during the three 3-year La Nina events of 1954-57, 1973-76, and 1998-2001 and during the La Nina event of 1995/96. See here:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-11-trop-pac-ohc.png
And here:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/trop-pac-ohc-trends-between-3-yr-ln-w-o-1995-96-ln2.png
sillyfilly says: “I also note that many recent scientific studies completely disagree with your hypothesis…”
That’s not surprising, sillyfilly. The climate science community feels obligated to continue to promote a flawed hypothesis. They’re fixated on extremely flawed climate models. And studies like Lean and Rind (2008) and Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) assume in error that the effects of ENSO on global surface temperatures are linear. If they had studied the surface temperature records for the past 30 years, they would have discovered their methods only apply to the 33% of the surface area of the global oceans:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-7-east-pac.png
But that portion of the globe hasn’t warmed in 31 years. And they would have discovered the only times the sea surface temperatures warmed for the other 67% of the surface area of the global oceans was during strong El Nino events:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-8-row-a.png
Without those El Niño events, there’s no warming:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-9-row-b.png
And they would have discovered that when they attempted to removed ENSO from the sea surface temperature records for this area, they would leave an ENSO caused residual, because the sea surface temperatures for that portion of the global oceans do not cool proportionally during La Ninas that follow strong El Ninos:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-10-detrended-row-vs-nino3-4.png
All of the graphs above were presented in the following:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/blog-memo-to-john-hockenberry-regarding-pbs-report-climate-of-doubt/

sillyfilly says: “Firstly, why is the data detrended? Mathematically that obviates any indication of long-term trends over the span of the analysis.”
Thanks for bringing that graph to everyone’s attention.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-10-detrended-row-vs-nino3-4.png
The data was detrended to show how the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific data do not cool proportionally during the La Nina events of 1988/89 and 1998-01, sillyfilly. That illustrates why the papers you linked (Lean and Rind and Foster and Rahmstorf) cannot use the statistical methods they employed to remove ENSO from the surface temperature records.
sillyfilly says: “Secondly, why did you choose to omit the Eastern Pacific SSTs from your analysis? You are asserting that the impact on SST’s is global.”
I excluded the East Pacific data for a very specific reason. The East Pacific hasn’t warmed in 31 years, sillyfilly:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-7-east-pac.png
And the reason it hasn’t warmed is because that portion of the global oceans cools proportionally during La Nina events:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/east-pac-vs-scaled-nino3-4-ssta.png

ss

I would like to know how it would be possible for a long term cooling trend to occur…as la ninas don’t drop the temps the same way el ninos raise them.

trafamadore says: “You should know, Mr. Tisdale, (I assume “mr”) that most people that work on climate assume the el-things are cyclic variation of normal variability in weather, not things that can cause the temp of the earth to magically rise.”
Nothing magical about it. The instrument temperature records, not climate models, confirm my understandings of ENSO and contradict yours.
trafamadore says: “If you have evidence to the contrary that you think might be believed by those in the know (real scientists) you should publish it, like normal people.”
I have no interest in the opinions of the climate science community, trafamadore. The climate science community lacks something very important—and that something is credibility. The instrument temperature record contradicts the hypothesis of manmade global warming and anyone who can read a graph can see it.
And thanks for using the not-peer-reviewed argument, trafamadore. It broadcasts to all those reading this thread that you are incapable of discussing the subject matter. Plain and simple. You, trafamadore, do not have a sufficient understanding of the topic at hand to enable you to provide an argument that counters what has been presented.
Have a nice day.

LazyTeenager

P. Solar blusters
You usual garbage Lazy, I’ve just checked and Bob’s statement is correct. Shame you’re too lazy to post a graph or a link that demonstrates you are not just talking out of your AR5E.
————
Checked what? Describe what you checked and what by reasoning you think there is more El niño than Il Nina over the same period that AGW is supposed to have been active.
And refer to the same graphs that Bob was referring to when proffering and justifying his hypothesis.

LazyTeenager says: “The graphs don’t show that. I have no idea where Bob gets this conclusion from.”
You must have been looking at the wrong graphs, LazyTeenager. Here’s the one I was referring to when I wrote, Using period-average NINO3.4 sea surface temperatures, we can see that El Niño events dominated the global warming periods, and La Niña events dominated the period between them when global temperatures cooled:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-7-72.png
Anyone who understood the instrument temperature record would know what I wrote was correct.

Tisdale’s post suggests that the earth’s climate has a high sensitivity. How else could small changes in the mean state of ENSO generate global warming?
Fortunately for those who abhor the idea that climate sensitivity might be high, Tisdale’s cherry picked correlation cannot demonstrate causation.

Bob Tisdale says:
December 20, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Volker Doormann says: “Suns oscillations from solar tides are clear visible, if one detracts the ONI/MEI/ENSO oscillations from the global temperature.”
The problem: you can’t remove ENSO from global surface temperatures by scaling and lagging an ENSO index and subtracting it from global surface temperatures.
You’re not accounting for the leftover warm water that remains after major El Nino events.

There is no problem in general. I have shown by remove the ENSO function from the global hadcrut4 function by scaling without lagging and subtracting it from the global hadcrut4 data
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/had4_minus_oni.gif
There is a resulting function (red), which is very near to the solar tide function of the relevant planets (blue).
Then I have shown, that the ENSO function has a strong geometric nature containing the Chandler wobble period of 432/365.242 days or 1.18277 years, the QBO period of precise two times the Chandler wobble period = 2.3655 years, and the two main ENSO periods of three times the Chandler wobble period of 3.5483 years and four times the Chandler wobble period of 4.7311 years. Moreover, the analyse of the ENSO spectrum since 1950 shows many more harmonic modes of the Chandler wobble basis mode. http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/oni_fft1.gif
This means that you can remove ENSO in general from global surface temperatures, because the geometric structure including the phases in time can be described. In detail you can find the time constants of the impedances which are shown by the frequencies of the main ENSO oscillation periods. From this it is a simple step to calculate the lags.
V.

P. Solar says: “I and others have been very critical of some of his workings like the arbitrary detrending , however, I do think he has a valid point to make: that El Nino and La Nina are not two sides of the same coin , they are very different mechanisms.”
It’s not arbitrary, and you, in fact, later in that same compound sentence indicate that it’s not. The detrending of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific (Rest-of-the-World) data…
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-10-detrended-row-vs-nino3-4.png
…was done for a specific reason. It’s done to show, as you say, “that El Nino and La Nina are not two sides of the same coin , they are very different mechanisms.” And, therefore, global surface temperatures do not respond to them proportionally.
P. Solar says: “Bob lacks the technical training to present this in a way that would be credible in a journal and sadly is so defensive to criticism that others cannot help him improve his idea, which is a shame.”
1. I am not defensive to criticisms—when they are relevant. I have corrected errors I have made.
2. I have received numerous offers by persons with the required statistical and technical backgrounds to write a paper about my findings.
3. A paper co-authored by me, if I would elect to participate in it, would be an extension of the Compo and Sardeshmukh (2010) “Removing ENSO-Related Variations from the Climate Record” http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2008b.pdf
4. That single paper would be up against decades of climate model-based nonsense and would get me no farther than I am with blogging about it.
5. The only way to overcome the 2 decades of inertia of the IPCC and other manmade global warming proponents is to make the general public aware of the blatantly obvious flaws in the hypothesis—that is, that the sea surface temperature and ocean heat content records do not support manmade global warming. Anyone who can read a graph can see the problems. For that to happen, the mainstream media needs to pick up on the flaws. And that’s my goal for 2013.
Enjoy your holidays.

elftone

trafamadore says:
December 20, 2012 at 9:56 pm
You should know, Mr. Tisdale, (I assume “mr”) that most people that work on climate assume the el-things are cyclic variation of normal variability in weather, not things that can cause the temp of the earth to magically rise. If you have evidence to the contrary that you think might be believed by those in the know (real scientists) you should publish it, like normal people. I think, if true, it would make Nature (but you would haf to say it in less than 1000 words, sorry, it’s Nature).
Or are you not interested in real criticism, you know, from those evil reviewer types?
Living life in the blogs is safer, isnt it?

Ah, Mr. Trafamadore – we’re still waiting for your “less than one sentence” explanation from your comment on December the 3rd at 8:36 pm:
“While the idea of explaining my extra weight with jumping cats is attractive, it seems you really can’t explain where the extra energy comes from.
I think I can.
And I could say it in less than one sentence.”

Pamela Gray

This proposal makes good sense. La Nina warmed water, or anything that is suspended in the oceans, moves with the wind and currents. That warmed water will then travel to other places and enter into our weather pattern variations at those other places. Meanwhile, back where that warm water came from, it would be impossible for an El Nino to release that heat. It is no longer in El Nino territory. El Nino will release whatever heat is there but cannot reverse or cancel out a previous La Nina. That this does not make sense to warmers or modelers is beyond me.

DR

For sillyfilly
Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming
I’m wondering, what empirical experiments have been done to determine how much 2xCO2 can warm the oceans? It isn’t much, and I’d bet on it.

Paul Vaughan

sillyfilly (December 20, 2012 at 9:48 pm) misunderstood:
“For those who have replied to my previous comment, there is one paper quoted. That paper dealt with ENSO lag, so it’s not relevant to my question.”

Perhaps you need deeper background to understand & appreciate:
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
You may need further background beyond that. (We shall see…)

Paul Vaughan

Bob Tisdale wrote (in the article):
“All of the variability had hidden the obvious from him when he looked at the data for the first time.”
Prescient observation.

Bob Tisdale wrote (in the article):
“UPCOMING […] 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.”
I’m looking forward to this in particular. If it’s not on the very near horizon, I request that Bob give a background reading list now. I’m quite eager to do some serious homework on this topic…

Best Regards.

Paul Vaughan

P. Solar (December 20, 2012 at 11:42 pm) wrote:
“It is just this difference that provides a means for getting more solar energy in or out of the system even with a constant sun. So it is not “magical” as you suggest.”

The lights are starting to go on. Changes in the rate of multidecadal solar input are effectively passed through an interannual spatiotemporal scrambler. The laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum provide us with a means of CLEARLY identifying aggregate constraints on lower-scale spatiotemporal turbulence. It could help tremendously if some fluid mechanics people would bring to the climate discussion table some time series from analogous controllable settings so we could do illustrations of the derivation of aggregate constraints for multiple physical systems.

richard telford (December 21, 2012 at 3:26 am) wrote:
“[…] Tisdale’s cherry picked correlation cannot demonstrate causation”

Causation by something perfectly synchronized with solar variation is ASSURED by the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum. Lucidly differentiate between macroscopically certain observation and micromodeler inability to micromodel details of spatiotemporal turbulence that is constrained in aggregate by universal laws.

mrmethane

Paul Vaughan:
Oh, NOW I understand! I think….

Matthew R Marler

Bob Tisdale: Isn’t that all ENSO is? Isn’t ENSO simply a natural, uncontrolled, variable source of heat to the global oceans and atmosphere? Global Land Plus Sea surface temperatures warmed from 1917 to 1944 and warmed again from 1976 to present, and they cooled slightly from 1944 to 1976. Using period-average NINO3.4 sea surface temperatures, we can see that El Niño events dominated the global warming periods, and La Niña events dominated the period between them when global temperatures cooled.
It seems from this that you make the El Niño events a part of ENSO, rather than something distinct. Previously you wrote that they were something distinct that sometimes occurred during the peaks of the ENSO oscillation.
You don’t really mean that ENSO is a “source” of heat, do you? It’s a modulation in the process by which solar heat is transferred to oceans and atmosphere, not a “source” of heat. Modulations, oscillations, occur in most non-linear dissipative systems, even with constant input.

Laurence Crossen

Would not such a trend more likely be caused by something else influencing ENSO?

Paul Vaughan

Volker Doormann (December 21, 2012 at 4:38 am) wrote:
“Then I have shown, that the ENSO function has a strong geometric nature containing the Chandler wobble period of 432/365.242 days or 1.18277 years, the QBO period of precise two times the Chandler wobble period = 2.3655 years, and the two main ENSO periods of three times the Chandler wobble period of 3.5483 years and four times the Chandler wobble period of 4.7311 years. Moreover, the analyse of the ENSO spectrum since 1950 shows many more harmonic modes of the Chandler wobble basis mode. http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/oni_fft1.gif
This means that you can remove ENSO in general from global surface temperatures, because the geometric structure including the phases in time can be described. In detail you can find the time constants of the impedances which are shown by the frequencies of the main ENSO oscillation periods. From this it is a simple step to calculate the lags.”


It appears you’re familiar with the Russian literature, but in your focus on *global* *surface* temperatures you should be prepared to acknowledge the concert of:
a) Chandler-timescale turbulence.
b) ocean subsurface heat storage.
c) the spatiotemporal version of Simpson’s Paradox, which is known as the modifiable areal unit problem in simpler 2D contexts in the field of geography.
The problem with oversimplistic decomposition is that true aggregate constraints as known via the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum are locally aliased in different, nonrandomly-biased ways by the various differently-defined ENSO indices even though multivariate ENSO-index correlations are strong in a temporally global sense.
I suggest that you think more carefully about what Bob is showing about equatorial deep warm pool poleward surface export via gradient-driven coupled air-sea western boundary spin up. Bob is bringing to your attention a cumulative imbalance that is masked by 5D turbulence. Once you have had time to think very carefully about this, you may realize that you actually have no dispute with Bob, but rather an opportunity to make a small but very important improvement to your conceptualization of what has been reported in the probing Russian literature.

James at 48

Harmonics, beat frequencies, constructive superposition, destructive superposition, etc – how can there not be long term trends as a result of this oscillation? Beyond that, we really don’t understand other separate processes which may modulate this oscillation explicitly.

Boy, am I ever glad I didn’t get queried from Newy!
Would have served me right though, for such a boner.
Can I say that on WUWT?

LazyTeenager

Bob says
You must have been looking at the wrong graphs, LazyTeenager. Here’s the one I was referring to when I wrote, Using period-average NINO3.4 sea surface temperatures, we can see that El Niño events dominated the global warming periods, and La Niña events dominated the period between them when global temperatures cooled:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-7-72.png
———–
Probably. But that graph is a visual mess. Am I supposed to look at the area of the ENSO curve above the baseline with the area below the baseline or what?

ss says: “I would like to know how it would be possible for a long term cooling trend to occur…as la ninas don’t drop the temps the same way el ninos raise them.”
Short answer: Strong El Nino events like the ones in 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 need to end and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation has to switch from the “warming faster than the other oceans” mode.

richard telford says: “Tisdale’s post suggests that the earth’s climate has a high sensitivity. How else could small changes in the mean state of ENSO generate global warming?”
It does? Please show us how you concluded “Tisdale’s post suggests that the earth’s climate has a high sensitivity.” Otherwise it may to those reading this thread that you’re simply making a nonsensical claim with nothing to support it.
richard telford says: “Fortunately for those who abhor the idea that climate sensitivity might be high, Tisdale’s cherry picked correlation cannot demonstrate causation.”
You must be referring to Figure 7-7:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-7-72.png
Looking at the annual GISS LOTI data, it warmed until 1944, then cooled until 1976, and warmed again until present. The break points (1944 and 1976) are pretty clear. How is that cherry picking, richard?
Regarding causation (ENSO versus surface temperatures), do you understand that, during an El Niño, the tropical Pacific is releasing more heat than normal into the atmosphere and redistributing more warm water than normal within the oceans? And do you understand that the opposite occurs during a La Niña? If so, let me repeat a paragraph for you:
The strength of ENSO phases, along with how often they happen and how long they persist, determine how much heat is released by the tropical Pacific into the atmosphere and how much warm water is transported by ocean currents from the tropics to the poles. During a multidecadal period when El Niño events dominate (a period when El Niño events are stronger, when they occur more often and when they last longer than La Niña events), more heat than normal is released from the tropical Pacific and more warm water than normal is transported by ocean currents toward the poles—with that warm water releasing heat to the atmosphere along the way. As a result, global sea surface and land surface temperatures warm during multidecadal periods when El Niño events dominate. See Figure 7-7. Similarly, global temperatures cool during multidecadal periods when La Niña events are stronger, last longer and occur more often than El Niño events.

Volker Doormann says: “There is no problem in general. I have shown by remove the ENSO function from the global hadcrut4 function by scaling without lagging and subtracting it from the global hadcrut4 data…”
You appear to have thought “lagging” was critical to your argument. It’s not. You’re still assuming global surface temperatures respond linearly to El Nino and La Nina events. They do not. In other words, as I wrote before, You’re not accounting for the leftover warm water that remains after major El Nino events.

Paul Vaughan says: “I’m looking forward to this in particular.”
I’ll make it (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) the next post.
Enjoy your hoildays.