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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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 ??
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.
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/
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.
“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 !
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.
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..
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.
(Let me take this one, Bob.)
sillyfilly, check last 15 years of global temps.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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…)
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.
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.
Paul Vaughan:
Oh, NOW I understand! I think….
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.
Would not such a trend more likely be caused by something else influencing ENSO?
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.
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?
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.
Matthew R Marler says: “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.”
I never wrote anything to that effect, as far as I know. You’ll need to quote me so that I can correct your misunderstanding.
Matthew R Marler says: “You don’t really mean that ENSO is a “source” of heat, do you?”
I thought I’ve been pretty clear about that. El Nino events release heat and La Nina events recharge it. The impacts of the 3-year La Nina events and the 1995/96 La Nina are clearly evident in the ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-11-trop-pac-ohc.png
James at 48 says: “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.”
Do you have 55 minutes? I’ve explained it at a relatively basic level in the following video:
LazyTeenager says: “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?”
Thank you for admitting you didn’t know which graph was being discussed when you made the claim, “The graphs don’t show that. I have no idea where Bob gets this conclusion from.”
Let me help you read that graph. There are two datasets in Figure 7-7. NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies (purple curve) and the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI), which is color coded for different time periods:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-7-72.png
The GISS LOTI data warmed from 1917 to 1944 (red portion) and from 1976 to 2011 (brown portion). The GISS LOTI data cooled from 1944 to 1976 (dirty green portion). There are color-coded trend lines that correspond to those periods. The trend values above those periods are also color coded to correspond with the warming and cooling periods so that you can have an idea of the rates of warming and cooling.
The horizontal lines (two shades of blue and burnt orange) show the average NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies during the GISS LOTI warming and cooling periods. The two blue lines are above zero indicating the El Niño events dominated the two warming periods. And the burnt orange line is slightly below zero indicating La Niña events dominated the period. And that brings me back to what I wrote in the post:
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.
Enjoy your holidays, LazyTeenager.
Bob Tisdale (December 21, 2012 at 12:21 am) wrote:
“[…] 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 ”
Bob Tisdale (December 21, 2012 at 3:15 pm) wrote:
“El Nino events release heat and La Nina events recharge it. The impacts of the 3-year La Nina events and the 1995/96 La Nina are clearly evident in the ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-11-trop-pac-ohc.png “
The three 3-year La Ninas coincide with:
1. HARD phase reversals in ENSO-timescale Indian Ocean Dipole patterns.
2. Tsonis-framework synchronizations.
3. solar Hale cycle.
Caution: The reversal ~1998 differs qualitatively:
Chao, B.F. (2006). Earth’s oblateness and its temporal variations. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 338, 1123-1129. doi:10.1016/j.crte.2006.09.014.
http://www.earth.sinica.edu.tw/~bfchao/publication/eng/2006-Earth%E2%80%99s%20oblateness%20and%20its%20temporal%20variations.pdf
Bob Tisdale says:
December 21, 2012 at 2:59 pm
>> The problem: you can’t remove ENSO from global surface temperatures by scaling and lagging</b< 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.<<
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
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.”
You appear to have thought “lagging” was critical to your argument. It’s not.
We do discuss the possibility to remove the ENSO function from the global temperature function.
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.
The basic point in this discussion is that impedances cannot create heat. The next point is that an oscillating system has one or more frequencies related to a fixed geometry. The principle of an oscillator is that the oscillations decrease in the amplitude depending on the damping coefficient γ . Each oscillator, which is swinging more or minor continuously, must have a driving force, and this is in the case of ENSO a heat force. The heat loads the impedance, which is quantity of heat Q = m * c * delta T. m is the mass of water, c is the specific heat capacity of water in [W sec per K] and delta T is the amount of Kelvin of the temperature elevation. Water has a very high specific heat capacity of 4.2 [W sec per g and Kelvin]. The nature of a capacity is that the height of the load depends on the time constant tau. That means that it takes a defined time length to reach an elevated temperature in the water if the time is given by the known oscillation frequency or frequencies phases of ENSO.
The next point is that the logic about the heat current driven by the sun through the Earth and to the cold space marks global temperatures in Kelvin. These temperatures are determined by the two different geometries I wrote about above in the thread. The conclusion is that the global temperature is the final result of the two superimposed functions of the ENSO oscillator geometry and the solar heat function which have – as shown – a geometry relation to the planets solar tide functions.
There remains nothing. The heat current IS (true).
V.
I spent some time staring at this page: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Summarizing:
1. Since the 98 super el niño there has not been much el niño or la Nina activity. This corresponds to the CRU temperature plateau you guys are keen on.
2. Centered round the 1970s there was a period of dominant la Nina activity. This corresponds to the cold period of the same era.
3. In the intervening period there was a period of strong el niño activity. This corresponds to the increase in temps over the same period.
Is this what Bob is referring to?
I see two potential problems
1. The method used to calculate the index might have temperature trends leaking into and biassing the index results. The relationship would then be spurious .
2. The variations in the long term temperature trend likely originate from variability in ocean circulation. Such changes in ocean circulation are may also to affect ENSO.
So there is an attribution problem. Correlation is not causation.
@Volker Doormann (December 22, 2012 at 3:00 am)
Whether or not heat participates in a *global* *surface* average depends on whether it is smeared out over the surface from a deep equatorial warm pool. Suggestion: Consider the possibility that you don’t have to be wrong for Bob to be right.
Volker Doormann says: “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.”
You can attempt (and fail) to justify the removal of ENSO from global surface temperatures any number of ways. The bottom line is, you’re only removing the ENSO signal from the portions of the global oceans where El Nino and La Nina events have linear impacts on surface temperatures, like the East Pacific Ocean:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/east-pac-vs-scaled-nino3-4-ssta.png
But the East Pacific only represents about 33% of the surface area of the global oceans. (It also hasn’t warmed in 31 years.) The sea surface temperatures for the Rest of the World do not respond linearly to all El Nino and La Nina events. This subset warmed in response to the 1986/87/88 El Nino but did not cool proportionally during the 1988/89 La Nina. It also warmed during the 1997/98 El Nino but did not cool proportionally during the 1998-01 La Nina. This is blatantly obvious in the following graph:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-8-row-a.png
Bob Tisdale says:
December 22, 2012 at 4:51 am
Volker Doormann says: “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.”
You can attempt (and fail) to justify the removal of ENSO from global surface temperatures any number of ways.
The bottom line is, you’re only removing the ENSO signal from the portions of the global oceans where El Nino and La Nina events have linear impacts on surface temperatures
Circulus in demonstrando “This fallacy occurs if you assume as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach. “
I think it is senseless to explain again and again the physical nature of a physical heat current.
i.) The El Nino and La Nina events are the result of the complex heat current, complex because of thermal -> impedances.
ii.) ENSO is a definition of the result of the complex heat current, complex because of thermal impedances on a very defined location.
iii.) A definition creates neither a heat nor have it an impact on whatsoever.
iv. A definition has no impact on (surface) temperatures.
v. A definition has neither a linear impact on surface temperatures nor a nonlinear impact on surface temperature. Your argument that El Nino and La Nina events have linear impacts on surface temperature is a Circulus in demonstrando fallacy, because you assume as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach. You cannot conclude an impact on the temperature out of a definition of that what you take for the impact.
However. EOD because of no single agree points and ignored arguments.
V.
Bob Tisdale: I thought I’ve been pretty clear about that.
Actually, you have, most of the time. Earlier in this thread, and elsewhere, you have noted how the ENSO modulates the amount of sun that arrives on the Earth surface.
But in this quote you might be a little sloppy: Isn’t ENSO simply a natural, uncontrolled, variable source of heat to the global oceans and atmosphere?
Bob Tisdale: Matthew R Marler says: “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.”
I never wrote anything to that effect, as far as I know. You’ll need to quote me so that I can correct your misunderstanding.
On a previous thread you quoted someone else. If you really mean that the El Niño events arise out of the ENSO, I am content to take that as your assertion. It was in the earlier thread that I made the analogy between El Niño events and “catastrophes” in dynamical systems theory, where a “catastrophe” is a dramatic difference in the appearance and measurements of a system induced by a small change in inputs.
Bob Tisdale, here is what you wrote when you addressed “Myth 1:
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?
Notice the words “randomly release”: but in today’s thread you make clear that the release is not “random”, but occurs during the peak of the ENSO. Also, in today’s thread you elucidate that El Niño and La Niña events are opposite, though not “equal and opposite”.
Your Myth 1 post and Myth 3 post seem to be working in opposition to each other, though I guess that mostly results from the change in emphasis. The Myth 2 post is unaffected because it merely shows that El Niño and La Niña events do not necessarily balance out over particular epochs of time.
Matthew R Marler says: “Notice the words “randomly release…’”
El Ninos are randomly occurring events. And El Nino events release vast amounts of warm water from below the in the from below the surface of the west Pacific Warm Pool.
Matthew R Marler continued: “…but in today’s thread you make clear that the release is not ‘random’, but occurs during the peak of the ENSO.”
Where does this phrase “peak of ENSO” come from, Matthew? I do not recall ever using it. I have written on numerous occasions that ENSO events normally peak in December, because El Nino and La Nina events are typically tied to the seasonal cycle, but I do not believe I have ever written that the release of heat only occurs at the peak of an El Nino event. It occurs throughout the El Nino event.
I believe when we clear up that then the rest of your questions may evaporate.
Volker Doormann says: “Your argument that El Nino and La Nina events have linear impacts on surface temperature is a Circulus in demonstrando fallacy, because you assume as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach.”
You have once again failed to grasp my argument. My argument was that El Nino and La Nina events have linear impacts on surface temperatures for a small portion of the surface of the planet, and that they DO NOT have linear effects on surface temperatures for the remainder of the planet. In order for you, Volker, to be able to subtract ENSO from the surface temperature record, the entire globe must respond linearly to El Nino and La Nina events, and it does not.
Bob Tisdale says:
December 22, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Volker Doormann says: “Your argument that El Nino and La Nina events have linear impacts on surface temperature is a Circulus in demonstrando fallacy, because you assume as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach.”
You have once again failed to grasp my argument. My argument was that El Nino and La Nina events have linear impacts on surface temperatures for a small portion of the surface of the planet, and that they DO NOT have linear effects on surface temperatures for the remainder of the planet. In order for you, Volker, to be able to subtract ENSO from the surface temperature record, the entire globe must respond linearly to El Nino and La Nina events, and it does not.
Its your thread and I do appreciate your work. I do not believe in repetition. I have given up arguing if there is not to see a common basis in the philosophic rules of a discussion, and this especially if I am a guest in a blog or thread, because of the respect I do appreciate more then logic.
I think it is interesting to compare some well known time functions, because it can help to see geometric relations in nature. First there is the ENSO 3.4 function (orange thin) which can be compared with the global temperatures measured by RSS (black thick) and UAH 5.5 (orange thick). I can see first a correlation and a nonlinear time shift between the functions in that way, that the global temperature function comes later in time than the ENSO 3.4. This time shift can be explained with different phases between a special location and the global phase of the temperature.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/enso_vs_xyz.gif
It is said that a main part of the sea level anomaly is connected to the SST because of the thermal property of water. There is a sea level oscillation (blue thick) superimposed to the seasonal anomalies and the linear trend of 3.2 mm per year, and it shows not only a main time period of 6.30 periods per year, but also the temperature functions of RSS resp. UAH 5.5. Remarkable is that there is no time shift between the oscillations layered over the global temperature. But more remarkable is that the oscillation main period of 6.30 periods per year is phase coherent to a heliocentric tide function (blue thin). Remarkable is also that some of the amplitude extreme of the solar tide function has no time shift to the minor high frequency spikes in the ENSO 3.4 function.
Depending on the question what to analyse the nature of the global climate processes it can be helpful to experiment with mathematical subtraction of functions, but this must have a strong reason. You are right, if you argue that because of the phase shift of the global temperature and the ENSO3.4 local function it is not adequate simple to subtract both functions, but that was not the strong point. The point was and is to show that in times of low ENSO3.4 values the global temperature functions like hadcrut4 do show a correlation with relevant solar tide functions. And for this purpose it is not relevant that there is a time shift of weeks or months.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/had4_minus_oni.gif
Some people may be pleased with the statement: ‘global oceans over the past 30+ years have warmed naturally.’ I’m not. My point of view is to know what mechanism is behind the climate/global temperature frequencies which can be related to the geometry of the Earth (ENSO) and to the geometries of the solar system (and not to feed the ‘CO2 mob’ or the ‘believer [or unbeliever] in the power of ENSO’).
In the end it maybe is to understand that the sum of eleven relevant solar tide functions fits better with measured global temperatures when the oscillation amplitude of the terrestrial geometry function ENSO3.4 is low.
Earth geometry and solar system geometries are different pairs of boots in ONE nature.
However, as long the solar functions on climate here are not the theme, I thank you for your replies.
V.
LazyTeenager says:
December 20, 2012 at 10:34 pm
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.
The linear trend of the NINO 3.4 region is – 0.11 Centigrade for the last 50 years.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/down_10.gif
Bob: “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.”
V.
Bob Tisdale: but I do not believe I have ever written that the release of heat only occurs at the peak of an El Nino event. It occurs throughout the El Nino event.
I didn’t say you did.
Figure 1 of your Myth 1 post shows El Nino events occurring only during the relative maxima of the nino3.4 surface temperature anomalies, though not at every relative maximum. Likewise, that figure shows the La Nina events occurring only at the nino3.4 relative minima, though not at every relative minimum.
What you have presented is that: El Nino and La Nina arise naturally out of the ENSO oscillation (sorry for the redundancy), with El Ninos at some of the relative maxima, and La Ninas at some of the relative minima. ENSO is a complex oscillation, and a single series like the nino3.4 does not describe it completely (as you have documented), which is why the multivariate ENSO index was created. The components of the index are not linearly related to each other, so a single index will probably never be adequate — something that your presentations document well.
Volker Doormann says:
December 23, 2012 at 9:30 am
LazyTeenager says:
December 20, 2012 at 10:34 pm
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.
The linear trend of the NINO 3.4 region is – 0.11 Centigrade for the last 50 years.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/down_10.gif
REPLY
The NINO 3.4 region shows an increase especially between the 1980’s and 1990’s. The 121 month mean shows how this trend behaves through the data set.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/812/nino341970.png/
The period where warming occurs during more El Nino’s and cooling during more La NInas is so obvious, can’t believe some people are questioning it.
The MEI clearly shows periods of more stronger El Nino’s during warmer periods and more stronger La Ninas during cooler periods.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/ext.ts.jpg
This has been predicted years ago to cycle back again into another period of frequent stronger La NInas and so far this has been happening at least with the increased frequency since the 2000’s.
Mods,
Can you please replace my first link on my reply post at 12.42 pm with this one.
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/963/nino34.png
Please then delete this instruction post.
Thanks.
Matt G says:
December 23, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Volker Doormann says:
December 23, 2012 at 9:30 am
The linar trend of the NINO 3.4 region is – 0.11 Centigrade for the last 50 years.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/down_10.gif
REPLY
The NINO 3.4 region shows an increase especially between the 1980′s and 1990′s.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/down_11.gif
OK. It’s -0.01 °Cel per year.
V.
Volker Doormann says:
December 23, 2012 at 1:54 pm
NO, that’s not what I meant and I think you know it. The 1980’s to 1990’s represents the peak period where it had increased from decades before.
http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/6549/nino341970.png
Why are using v2?
One value says very little about how the overall period behaves, I have shown you the trend for every single month representing a 121 month period. There is a very noticeable change between the decades from the early 20th century.
With one value it easy to show a zero trend with strong warming for 100 years and strong cooling period for 100 years. Overall the 200 years trend is zero, but it hides information that one value doesn’t give and that that is your intent.
Matthew R Marler says: “Figure 1 of your Myth 1 post shows El Nino events occurring only during the relative maxima of the nino3.4 surface temperature anomalies, though not at every relative maximum.”
It does? Here’s Figure 1 from Myth 1:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/el-nino-southern-oscillation-myth-1-el-nino-and-la-nina-events-are-cyclical/figure-1-47/
Please advise how you deduced that.
Volker Doormann says: “I have given up arguing if there is not to see a common basis in the philosophic rules of a discussion…”
Agreed. There’s no reason to continue that argument.
Volker Doormann says: “The linear trend of the NINO 3.4 region is – 0.11 Centigrade for the last 50 years.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/down_10.gif”
The ONI data you’ve plotted is NOT a “Three month running mean of NOAA ERSST.v2 SST anomalies in the NINO3.4 region (5S-5N, 120-170W) based on the 1971-2000 base years” as you note on your graph. You provided this link to the data:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/oni.data
Problem 1: NOAA stopped using ERSST.v2 for its ONI index a few years ago. They now use ERSST.v3b.
Problem 2: NOAA stopped using 1971-2000 as the base years for anomalies earlier this year. They use (freakish) shifting base years now, described here:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
And further described here:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_change.shtml
And I critiqued their changes to ONI here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/comments-on-noaas-recent-changes-to-the-oceanic-nino-index-oni/
Matt G: See above reply to Volker Doormann regarding ONI.
Bob Tisdale says:
December 24, 2012 at 12:35 am
Volker Doormann says: “The linear trend of the NINO 3.4 region is – 0.11 Centigrade for the last 50 years.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/down_10.gif
The ONI data you’ve plotted is NOT a “Three month running mean of NOAA ERSST.v2 SST anomalies in the NINO3.4 region (5S-5N, 120-170W) based on the 1971-2000 base years” as you note on your graph.
The data I have used in my graph are taken from the web site
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/oni.data
You gave a data link to this URL
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
The mean value of both 754 data points is +0.0101 Centigrade, have minimum of -2 Centigrade, a maximum of 2.4 Centigrade.
This result tells me that the two data tables are identical. Moreover the mean value of +0.0101 Centigrade @ a standard deviation of 0.809 tells me that there is no significant offset in the 754 data points, which means to me that ENSO has no (significant) trend and cannot contribute to long-term warming.
Bob: “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.”
V.
Matt G says:
December 23, 2012 at 2:53 pm
One value says very little about how the overall period behaves, I have shown you the trend for every single month representing a 121 month period. There is a very noticeable change between the decades from the early 20th century. With one value it easy to show a zero trend with strong warming for 100 years and strong cooling period for 100 years. Overall the 200 years trend is zero, but it hides information that one value doesn’t give and that that is your intent.
I have given my basic statements above.
I can add as a comment, that each try to suggest that an impedance – here an (oscillating) tank of water – can produce more heat than the heat, which is loaded into the impedance, is senseless .
V.
Bob Tisdale: Please advise how you deduced that.
Which part? Not at every relative maximum, or only at relative maxima? And the corresponding inference about the La Ninas at the relative minima?
The easy part is that the the El Ninos never occur at the relative minima. Next you can see that the El Ninos occur in between relative minima. The relative maxima where the El Ninos occur are broader and less extreme than most of the relative maxima at which the El Ninos do not occur.
Bob Tisdale: Proponents of anthropogenic global warming apparently have difficulty comprehending that, so they use misinformation to try to contradict what’s plainly visible.
Possibly there is disagreement about what Is plainly visible .
Volker Doormann says:
December 24, 2012 at 4:38 am
Your reasons are noted and this still hides the behavior in-between the overall trend. The failure to notice a step up from the 1970’s to the 1980’s also weakens your argument.
When a El Nino event declines to average SST’s can you explain where it moves too and support that it only affects the NINO 3.4 narrow strip?
This is from the same data.
The surface for NINO 4 shows significant warming especially towards the recent warm period.
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/3429/nino4.png
The surface for NINO 3 shows significant warming again towards the recent warm period.
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/5819/nino3.png
The surface for NINO 1.2 shows warming towards the recent warm period.
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2504/nino12.png
The level has been raised from previous periods and it may not continue to rise, but when has warming or cooling only occurred straight away?
Once the level is reached what ever generally happens, it is always around say 0.5c to 1.0c higher on average. That makes quite a difference to global temperatures from previous decades even if it remains the same.
Matt G says:
December 24, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Volker Doormann says:
December 24, 2012 at 4:38 am
Your reasons are noted and this still hides the behavior in-between the overall trend.
No. That impedance cannot create heat because it is a passive element in a heat current hides nothing; it’s a physical law. Regarding ‘behavior in-between the overall trend’ the question is what you talk about and/or what your argument is.
When a El Nino event declines to average SST’s can you explain where it moves too and support that it only affects the NINO 3.4 narrow strip?
The surface for NINO 4 shows significant warming especially towards the recent warm period.
The surface for NINO 3 shows significant warming again towards the recent warm period.
The surface for NINO 1.2 shows warming towards the recent warm period.
The level has been raised from previous periods and it may not continue to rise, but when has warming or cooling only occurred straight away?
We can talk about A.) the measured global temperature function. We can talk about B.) a defined Index called ENSO or MEI or ONI or NINO xyz.
If we talk about A.) we talk about physics of heat, heat current, heat convection, heat radiation. If we talk about B.) we talk about social defined landmark christmas indices for fisherman, and we talk about an ocean oscillator and its geometric and complex elements.
If one would like to analyse global warming he do argue on A.) because (global) warming is invariant to earth locations.
You do argue on B.) claiming that ‘shows significant warming’, but the point is that because B.) is a relative value it is nonsense to speak on ‘significant warming’.
You can crosscheck all NINO data tables for its mean values. Because the values are differences of an terrestrial oscillator, but not absolute temperature values, the mean value should be zero after many ENSO cycles of 3.55 years and 4.73 years (subharmonics of the Chandler wobble period of 1.182783 years), or near zero after about 60 years. This is fulfilled with values between -0.15 °C. and -0.27 °C. for all four indices for standard deviations of 0.625 to 1.072 ° C.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/nino_4.gif
A 3rd order polynomial on the data of NINO 3.4 with a maximum in the 1990s confirmed with that global temperature like function, that the definition of this NINO 3.4 is not free from the global temperature function using this time span of 60 years. But it is nonsense to argue B.) using A.)
The data I have used in my prior graph are taken from the web site http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/oni.data
Bob gave this URL;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
The mean value ofboth 754 data points is +0.0101 Centigrade, have minimum of -2 Centigrade, a maximum of 2.4 Centigrade.
I do not know, what the reason of the difference in definition is, but this mean value confirms that ENSO is free from the global warming function.
V.
Volker Doormann says:
December 25, 2012 at 6:29 am
The ENSO was only made free from the global warming function by removing the warming from the data shown in my previous post. The bottom half in quotation marks is the description what was done and why. Hence, the reason why the data you use shows a mean +0.0101 Centigrade. This is the reason why I was saying this was hiding the behavior in the overall trend because it has already had warming removed. What will conclude this disagreement in future if a period of mainly La Ninas occur and global temperatures fall, it will back my point of view from observed science data.
It is fair to describe the ENSO as an indices that doesn’t describe on it’s own how much it really affects global temperatures. Bob’s mentioned about the process before, what this involves and the ENSO indices looks only a little part of it. The warm ocean pool from NINO 3.4 can be seen moving towards the western Pacific ocean and then moving slowly NE until it reaches the NW part of the Pacific ocean.
With your A & B description despite B only being a part of the process it still affects A very significantly while it is pooling in the NINO 3 and 4 regions. I agree after 60 years this seems to cover both the peak and trough, but saying it doesn’t affect global temperatures in the long run during it’s peak or trough is wrong.
“Due to a significant warming trend in the Niño-3.4 region since 1950, El Niño and La Niña episodes that are defined by a single fixed 30-year base period (e.g. 1971-2000) are increasingly incorporating longer-term trends that do not reflect interannual ENSO variability. In order to remove this warming trend, CPC is adopting a new strategy to update the base period.
There will be multiple centered 30-year base periods that will be used to define the Oceanic Niño index (as a departure from average or “anomaly”). These 30-year base periods will be used to calculate the anomalies for successive 5-year periods in the historical record: ”
I have failed to see scientific evidence that this warming trend does not reflect interannual ENSO variability. Any assumption in science is usually the dangerous route to take. What would happen if we took these 5 year periods on 30 year bases and applied that to global temperatures?
Matt G says:
December 26, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Volker Doormann says:
December 25, 2012 at 6:29 am
[….]
EOD.
V.
Volker Doormann says:
December 25, 2012 at 6:29 am
The entire process of ENSO shows a mechanism involving energy from the sun.
Without taking into account changing TSI reaching the surface of the ocean this will be greatly incomplete and missing the main input of solar energy over the period. A 4 percent increase in global low cloud levels will put the Earth back to global temperatures of the 1970′s. Dismissing solar warming without even considering this important observation of the period is complete ignorance.
Notice El Nino’s roughly got stronger during the period while global low cloud albedo was declining. Since 2006 low global cloud has stopped declining therefore based on the ENSO knowledge so far future El Nino’s will not be stronger than the 1997/98 one unless a further decrease in global low cloud albedo occurs in future. Therefore based on what’s been happening recently El Nino’s should become stable/ weaker and any increases in global low cloud albedo in future will further weaker them. The process of ENSO moving warm surface water around the globe towards the pole will be reduced and therefore rises in global temperatures also reduced. This will then lead to peaks and troughs in the ENSO swings at lower levels than compared over the recent warm period.
This below mainly describes the energy mechanism involving the process of ENSO and therefore the indices can only reflect the energy available to it, just on the surface of the ocean in these NINO regions. This is combined with the other observation regarding the solar/ocean mechanism and why a TSI stable period doesn’t show up soon as the sun cycle does.
This is because when the solar activity reached an increased level during the 1950′s the trade winds were generally strong over this period right through to mid 1970′s. These resulted in plenty of up welling ocean water and warming ocean water from the sun was piled towards the western side of the Pacific Ocean circling to greater depths. This resulted in energy not calculated in surface temperatures because it was below the surface and not allowed to spread East over the ENSO surface region. Data during this period in the ocean depths were very limited so missed this increased energy around the western areas of the Pacific Ocean.
Post 1970′s the trade winds declined for longer periods especially beginning with the Pacific shift and moderate/strong El Nino in the early 1980′s . (What you should note is that this Pacific shift warmed the ENSO region up after this event and therefore the new changes to the ENSO indices are based on removal of the Pacific shift. This resulted in the warmed sub-ocean water that had not been calculated over the recent decades surface temperatures, (1950/1960′s etc) surfacing across the central and eastern Pacific and warming global temperatures in it’s wake. This process delayed the warming from the increased solar cycle until the trade winds become weak and allowed warmer water to form much more over the surface and be eventually lost by the atmosphere. Suddenly this warmed the planet from the tropics to the poles via the process of ENSO.
Matthew R Marler says: “The easy part is that the the El Ninos never occur at the relative minima. Next you can see that the El Ninos occur in between relative minima. The relative maxima where the El Ninos occur are broader and less extreme than most of the relative maxima at which the El Ninos do not occur.”
I’m still puzzled by your claims about the maxima and minima of an ENSO index. The data in the graph you referenced…
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-1.png
…is a graph of a commonly used ENSO index—the sea surface temperature anomalies of the NINO3.4 region. When sea surface temperatures there rise above a threshold (not the fact that they have reached a maximum), an El Nino is taking place. Conversely, when the sea surface temperatures in the NINO3.4 region drop below a threshold (not the fact that they have reached a minimum), a La Nina is said to be taking place.
Volker Doormann says: “This result tells me that the two data tables are identical. Moreover the mean value of +0.0101 Centigrade @ a standard deviation of 0.809 tells me that there is no significant offset in the 754 data points, which means to me that ENSO has no (significant) trend and cannot contribute to long-term warming.”
You obviously overlooked portions of my reply to you. I’ll repeat the appropriate portion:
Volker Doormann says: “The linear trend of the NINO 3.4 region is – 0.11 Centigrade for the last 50 years.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/down_10.gif”
The ONI data you’ve plotted is NOT a “Three month running mean of NOAA ERSST.v2 SST anomalies in the NINO3.4 region (5S-5N, 120-170W) based on the 1971-2000 base years” as you note on your graph. You provided this link to the data:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/oni.data
Problem 1: NOAA stopped using ERSST.v2 for its ONI index a few years ago. They now use ERSST.v3b.
Problem 2: NOAA stopped using 1971-2000 as the base years for anomalies earlier this year. They use (freakish) shifting base years now, described here:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
And further described here:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_change.shtml
And I critiqued their changes to ONI here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/comments-on-noaas-recent-changes-to-the-oceanic-nino-index-oni/
HHHHHHHHHHHHH
In summary, Volker Doormann, the ONI data you plotted and continue to misunderstand does not represent sea surface temperature anomalies against a 30-year base period.
Additionally, a variable source of heat does not need to have a trend in order to contribute to a long-term warming. That was the subject of this post, which you have also failed to grasp.
Good-bye, Volker Doormann. You appear to have purposely overlooked portions of my earlier reply to you. I’m finished with my efforts to explain this.
„El Niño-Southern Oscillation Myth 3: ENSO Has No Trend and Cannot Contribute to Long-Term Warming
Let’s look at NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies using a number of different datasets. 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.
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. 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.
Isn’t ENSO simply a natural, uncontrolled, variable source of heat to the global oceans and atmosphere?
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.
Similarly, global temperatures cool during multidecadal periods when La Niña events are stronger, last longer and occur more often than El Niño events.”
The ONI function over time contains a lot of harmonic modes.
Using some of this modes the ONI spectrum can be reconstruct also for the future.
The global temperature spectra like hadcrut4 shows anomalies from these harmonic modes especially if there are amplitudes of different modes have their extremes at the same time like 1998 to 2000.
Despite a phase shift between the ONI spectrum and the global temperature a subtraction shows that the remaining function is freed from the ONI modes.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/oni_modes.gif
The remaining temperature function, containing mostly periods under a calendar year cannot explained with terrestrial geometric functions, and not by an damped oscillator like ONI, but can explained with solar tide functions of the inner planets of the Sun.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/oni_etc.gif
This is shown by the high resolution functions of global temperatures and solar functions
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_rss_ghi11_r_nov_2012.gif
All these investigations show that as well the ONI is based on a very geometrical function but also the high frequency temperature anomalies of ~6.30 periods per year connected time coherent to the global sea level oscillations.
Thank You all.
V.
Bob Tisdale: “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.“
Volker Doormann says:
December 20, 2012 at 2:06 pm
There are two different simple geometry oscillations to discriminate. Earth and Sun.
Suns oscillations from solar tides are clear visible, if one detracts the ONI/MEI/ENSO oscillations from the global temperature.
This is also confirmed if the (scaled) ONI function is taken and shifted by a phase step of 0.45 years to match the low frequency pattern of the RSS global land/ocean data, and is subtracted from the monthly RSS global land/ocean temperature data.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/oni_cleaned_rrs_temps.gif
The remaining RSS temperature curve (Red thick) shows a remarkable correlation with the solar tide function (Blue thick) for this time span or any other time span.
That means simple that the ENSO cleaned RSS global temperatures do show only temperature anomalies which are coherent in phase with solar tide functions.
The conclusion that because the global warming pattern cannot explained or created by a greenhouse effect and must therefore be created by the ENSO resonances, is a fallacy known as ‘Bifurcation, also referred to as the “black and white” fallacy and “false dichotomy,” bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.’
One other known alternative exist to explain the global warming pattern as a superimposition of solar tide functions corresponding to a solar heat power processand the terrestrial ocean stream resonances known as ONI or ENSO, which cannot create more heat as the heat input it gets from the Sun, as everybody knows.
V.