The Shifts Hypothesis – an alternative view of global climate change

Guest post by Pavel Belolipetsky

The IPCC, Bob Tisdale and others have presented hypotheses to explain 20th century warming. This article presents another. My co-workers and I call it the “Shifts” hypothesis. And we consider it to have advantages over other hypotheses in terms of simplicity, consistency over time, and homogeneity for the two considered regions. It is described in a submitted paper which can be read here

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.1581.pdf

Its simplicity is that it uses only two factors to obtain an explanation of general features in each considered region. And it displays consistency over time because it provides the same explanation for the warming of the beginning and of the end of 20th century. This consistency enabled a fit of linear regression coefficients of data from first part of century (before 1950) to obtain similar reconstruction for the second part (after 1950). The homogeneity between regions means that shifts occur at similar times in the temperature time series of the tropics and of the north middle latitudes although the two time series differ. This homogeneity provides confidence that the Shifts Hypothesis applies globally.

It is an old idea that climate exists in “regimes” (or states) and that climate variations often occur in the form of shifts between them. Thus, regime shifts are rapid reorganizations from one relatively stable state to another. The idea gained in acceptance in the 1990s.

Many articles have been published [1-20], showing that climate shifts appear to be an essential feature of Earth’s climate system. Yasunaka and Hanawa [20] described a “regime shift” as an abrupt transition from one quasi-steady climatic state to another, and its transition period is much shorter than the lengths of the individual epochs of each climatic state. Kevin Trenberth [15] was among the first to characterize a climate shift and reported a “different regime after 1976”. Douglass and Knox [6] wrote that abrupt shifts in Earth’s climate system are common.

Lo and Hsu [10] provide a good illustration of climate shift in northern extratropical hemisphere at late 80th (Fig. 1)

image

Fig. 1. Time series of 9-year running-mean surface temperature anomalies (°C) in five chosen regions. Modified from Lo and Hsu (2010).

Importantly, the idea of quasi-stable regimes and sharp shifts between them is very different from the widespread view (e.g. of the IPCC) that the climate system is naturally in equilibrium and passively follows changes in radiation forcing. The existence of regimes and shifts between them suggests there may be strong negative feedbacks and buffering spaces holding the system in each regime. And there should be critical thresholds, after reaching which system moves from one regime to another.

The common feature of all studies concerning climate shifts is that causes of observed shifts are unknown. Or, in other words, there are no outstanding changes in known external forcing which induce climate shifts. For example, what extraordinary changes of forcing to northern extratropical regions are known which can produce the changes shown in Figure 1? And it is clear that IPCC climate models showing near constant feedbacks are unable to reproduce these features.

It seems that the only available mechanisms for the observed shifts are weakening of negative feedbacks or strengthening of positive feedbacks over short periods. Why and how the feedbacks would vary is not known, but there is clear need to determine this.

In our studies of regimes and shifts we considered sea surface temperature (SST) and not combined land-ocean temperatures: this was to diminish the level of variability which may mask the shifts. We compared two important regions; i.e. tropics (30S-30N), and the north middle latitudes (30N-60N). We found that probably there were three climate regimes in these regions from 1900 till now: the detected regimes were before 1926, from 1926 till 1987, and after 1988.

It seems that during each of the 1925/1926 and 1987/1988 shifts, the mean temperature rose to a new level around which natural oscillations occur. This assumption of shifts allows for an easy way to reconstruct SST anomalies at the tropics (30S-30N) and north middle latitudes (30N-60N). Of course there are some residuals between observed and reconstructed values, but they are quite homogeneously distributed during the century. This homogeneity of residuals is not the case for reconstruction by anthropogenic forcing.

image

Fig. 2. a) Blue line – SST in tropics, red line – linear regression on ENSO and climate regime, studied by 1900-2012 years b) ENSO influence on tropical SST; c) climate regime influence on tropical SST.

Figures 2 and 3 provide very simple linear regression models for SST dynamics in the tropics and north middle latitudes. Quite adequate reconstructions are obtained as linear combination of shifts with ENSO for tropical SST, and shifts with PDO for north middle latitudes SST. Correlation coefficients for monthly mean anomalies are 0.86 and 0.81, respectively. Is this simple? Yes, I think it is.

And the homogeneity is a remarkable feature. The temperature time series of tropics and north middle latitudes are very different, but the way of warming is common: they each exhibit shifts at near the same times.

Fig. 3. a) Blue line – SST in north middle latitudes (30oN-60oN), red line – linear regression on PDO and climate regime, studied by 1900-2012 years b) PDO influence on SST in this region; c) climate regime influence on SST in this region.

Symmetry allows fitting linear regression coefficients for data from only the first part of century (before 1950) and obtaining nearly the same reconstruction. In our paper we used the data from 1910 till 1940 (15 years to both side from shift in 1925/1926) and with almost the same quality reproduce the whole period from 1900 till now (Fig. 4).

clip_image010

clip_image012

Fig. 4. a) Blue line – SST in tropics (30oS-30oN), red line – linear regression on ENSO and climate regime with training period 1900-2012 years, purple line – the same linear regression with training period 1910-1940 years; b) the same as “a” but for north middle latitudes (30oN-60oN).

Various studies have indicated the existence of many shifts in the 20th century. And we are not the first to have observed shifts at 1925/1926 and 1987/1988. However, our working definition of shifts has some differences from that used by Yasunaka and Hanawa and many others. We define a climate regime as a quasi-steady state with known sources of variability. Additionally, we assess a climate regime shift as being significant and systematic changes that separate one climate regime from another and occur besides intra regime variability. For example, a step change of SST in the tropics in 1976 is clearly seen in time series, but the shift in 1987 is not obvious at all (Fig. 2).

The 1976 shift is, in general, associated with ENSO and could be almost reproduced by direct linear association with ENSO Nino34 index (Fig. 1b). Therefore, according to our definition, it should not be considered as a regime shift, because it is described by known intra-regime variability.

This is a fundamental difference between our work and that of, for example, R. Tisdale who considers ENSO to be a part of regime shifts.

We claim that our approach has advantages over others because – using our approach – we have shown that most of temperature anomalies produced by apparent shifts could be explained by known sources of variability (ENSO and PDO indexes) and only the shifts of 1925/1926 and 1987/1988 occur independently of known intra regime variability.

More detailed description of our hypothesis is in our preprints:

Belolipetsky PV, Bartsev SI, Degermendzhi AG, Hsu HH, Varotsos CA (2013) Empirical evidence for a double step climate change in twentieth century. Preprint. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.1581.pdf

(Now under review in Climate Dynamics)

Belolipetsky PV, Bartsev SI (2012) Hypothesis About Mechanics of Global Warming from 1900 Till Now. Preprint. viXra:1212.0172.

All the calculations used for producing the figures were made in Excel by standard functions. Archive containing these files could be downloaded by following link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kmvg6ccjy6iy7q2/Calculations2.zip

I want to thank Richard S. Courtney and Robin Edwards who helped to prepare this post.

References:

  1. Beaugrand, G., & Reid, P. C. (2003). Long-term changes in phytoplankton, zooplankton and salmon linked to climate. Global Change Biology, 9, 801–817.
  2. Chavez FP, Ryan J, Lluch-Cota SE, Miguel Niquen C (2003) From Anchovies to Sardines and back: multidecadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science, 299, 217-221.
  3. Deser C, Phillips AS, Hurrell JW (2004) Pacific Interdecadal Climate Variability: Linkages between the Tropics and the North Pacific during Boreal Winter since 1900. Journal of Climate, 17, 3109–3124.
  4. deYoung B, Harris R, Alheit J, Beaugrand G, Mantua N, Shannon L (2004) Detection regime shifts in the ocean: data considerations. Progress in Oceanography, 60, 143-164.
  5. Douglass DH (2010) Topology of Earth’s climate indices and phase-locked states. Physics Letters A 374 4164–4168
  6. Douglass DH and Knox RS (2012) Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts. Physics Letters A.  doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2012.02.027
  7. Fischer T, Gemmer M, Liu L, Su B (2012) Change-points in climate extremes in the Zhujiang River Basin, South China, 1961–2007. Climatic Change, 110:783–799 DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0123-8.
  8. Flint PL (2013) Changes in size and trends of North American sea duck populations associated with North Pacific oceanic regime shifts. Mar Biol (2013) 160:59–65 DOI 10.1007/s00227-012-2062-y
  9. Hare SR, Mantua NJ (2000) Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989. Progress in Oceanography, 47, 103-145.
  10. Lo TT, Hsu HH (2010) Change in the dominant decadal patterns and the late 1980s abrupt warming in the extratropical northern hemisphere. Atmospheric Science Letters, 11, 210–215.
  11. Mollmann, C., Diekmann, R., 2012. Marine ecosystem regime shifts induced by climate and overfishing—a review for the Northern hemisphere. Adv. Ecol. Res. 47, 1–46.
  12. Overland, J., Rodionov, S., Minobe, S., Bond, N., 2008. North Pacific regime shifts: definitions, issues and recent transitions. Progress in Oceanography 77, 92–102.
  13. Rial, J., R.A. Pielke Sr., M. Beniston, M. Claussen, J. Canadell, P. Cox, H. Held, N. de Noblet-Ducoudre, R. Prinn, J. Reynolds, and J.D. Salas, 2004: Nonlinearities, feedbacks and critical thresholds within the Earth’s climate system. Climatic Change, 65, 11-38.
  14. Sarmiento JL, Gloor M, Gruber N, Beaulieu C, Jacobson AR, Mikaloff Fletcher SE, Pacala S, Rodgers K (2010) Trends and regional distributions of land and ocean carbon sinks. Biogeoscinces, 7, 2351-2367.
  15. Trenberth, K. E., 1990: Recent observed interdecadal climate changes in the Northern Hemisphere. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 71, 988–993.
  16. Trenberth KE, Hurrell JW (1994) Decadal atmosphere-ocean variations in the Pacific. Climate Dynamics, 9, 303.
  17. Tian Y, Kidokoro H, Watanabe T, Iguchi N (2008) The late 1980s regime shift in the ecosystem of Tsushima warm current in the Japan/East Sea: Evidence from historical data and possible mechanisms. Progress in oceanography, 77, 127-145.
  18. Tsonis A., Swanson K., Kravtsov S. (2007) A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts. Geophys Res. Lett. 34 L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288.
  19. Veit RR, Pyle P, McGowan JA (1996) Ocean warming and long-term change in pelagic bird abundance within the California current system. Marine ecology progress series, Vol. 139, 11-18.
  20. Yasunaka S, Hanawa K (2002) Regime shifts found in Northern Hemisphere SST Field. Journal of meteorological society of Japan, Vol. 80, No. 1, pp. 119-135.
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

148 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ian W
April 26, 2013 12:39 pm

richardscourtney says:
April 26, 2013 at 12:07 pm
“If 80% of the anthropogenic emissions had made a significant difference to SST then the “similar reconstruction for the second part (after 1950)” would not have been possible.

There is only one thing that will warm the oceans and any damp surface – 90% of the Earth – and that is short wave radiation from the Sun. Longwave radiation will cause extra evaporation from the wet surface and _cool_ the surface. Warm winds hold more water vapor so they will also cool the surface. Get a hair dryer on maximum with all the heating elements red hot and hold it half an inch from your wet hand. Your hand will feel cold _until_ your skin becomes dry at which point it will start to feel unbearably hot very rapidly. Any moist surface, plants and all water surfaces are the same – infrared and warm winds cool them by stripping off the energetic water vapor molecules which take the latent heat of evaporation with them.
There is no way that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm the oceans or most land surfaces. ‘Downwelling Infrared’ (if it exists) _may_ warm desert areas, rocks and urban developments but it will cool surfaces that are damp – this is how plants stay cool. For 90% of the Earth’s surface, once heat is in the atmosphere at long wavelengths it is on its way out of the Earth system.
QED raising the heat content of the Earth by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is not feasible.

Gary
April 26, 2013 12:54 pm

Yes, by eye. Our eyes are good detectors. There are some uncertanities in months and lenghts of shifts. This needs additional investigation that was not performed yet.

Pavel,
Perhaps you might test your hypothesis about the regime shift dates with the algorithm found here: http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/

batheswithwhales
April 26, 2013 12:56 pm

I like to look at the climate system as a double pendulum from hell:

The double pendulum has a number of variables, but the climate system has an almost unlimited number.
In shorter timescales a complex system can express a somewhat regular, almost predictable behaviour. In longer time scales, the interactions of the myriad variables are bound to produce mode shifts that are impossible to predict.
We can look at the past and find patterns and make models, but the predictive power into the future is limited.
One can guess that the future will resemble the past, and it will be the best guess available, but still just a guess.

Matthew R Marler
April 26, 2013 1:14 pm

I am in favor of post-hoc modeling, but the test is always with respect to data not included in the modeling. In this case, two such come to mind: (a) do you have testable hypotheses about what caused the shifts to occur when they did — is there relevant evidence? (b) will your model make accurate predictions over the next couple of decades for the regions modeled?
On the whole, Vaughan Pratt’s model fit the extant data better, and it included noise (modeled post-hoc) and a CO2 effect. There is no reason to prefer this post-hoc model to Pratt’s post-hoc model. This does show what has already been shown — it is possible to model 20th century temperature increase without including CO2 in the model (contra IPCC). No model has been stringently tested against out-of-sample data.

milodonharlani
April 26, 2013 1:20 pm

Climate is clearly cyclical at Milankovitch resonances. Dansgaard-Oeschger events have been observed in glacial phases, while Bond finds cycles at similar periodicity in interglacials. Data such as GIS cores IMO confirm cycles rather than chaos. And the trend of their warm peaks & cool troughs is down, headed toward the next glaciation in one to a few more such cycles.

richardscourtney
April 26, 2013 1:39 pm

Matthew R Marler:
re your post at April 26, 2013 at 1:14 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/26/the-shifts-hypothesis-an-alternative-view-of-global-climate-change/#comment-1288868
You assert

Vaughan Pratt’s model fit the extant data better

Really? If true then that is interesting, but you only provide assertion. Please provide some evidence.
And you say

There is no reason to prefer this post-hoc model to Pratt’s post-hoc model.

Untrue. The model of Belolipetsky only has two factors but the model of Pratt has more; e.g. it includes a CO2 effect which the model of Belolipetsky does not need.
Richard

April 26, 2013 3:27 pm

“Really? If true then that is interesting, but you only provide assertion. Please provide some evidence.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/04/multidecadal-climate-to-within-a-millikelvin/
And whats better is that he doesnt use regressors ( as this post does) which have collinearity issues.. eg you cant use enso and pdo to explain SST because they are in some sense — SST.
in short SST is used to compute ENSO and PDO.. is it any surprise that regressions of the latter against the former will show you a significant relation. as in duh.
The ontology of “explaining” global temperature via ENSO and PDO is wrong.

X Anomaly
April 26, 2013 3:30 pm

Richard, No.
I’m just pointing out that including ENSO in this analysis is a little stupid. Around r squared 0.5 for the climate steps, and around 0.2 for ENSO (is that all?). And then they are adding them together, so r equals around 0.86.
Why don’t you negate the noise in the SST record by applying an average or best fit, so you are only left with the signal (and forget about noisy ENSO)? And then match the signal to the steps. Remember the goal is not to have any residuals, ENSO is doing a terrible job getting rid of them so get rid of ENSO. Simple enough?
The residuals (signal minus steps) may then actually show you something useful, or not..

Theo Goodwin
April 26, 2013 3:55 pm

RobRoy says:
April 26, 2013 at 11:49 am
Stephen Wilde says:
April 26, 2013 at 10:30 am
“All I see in this article is a description of shift changes, but the article clearly says the causes remain unknown.
The entrenched warmista will not be swayed.”
Well, Rob, that is because Warmista argue in a tight little circle. They argue that the causes that make up natural variation have not changed but temperatures went up 1980-1996 and they have the explanation, increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
How is that a circle. It is a circle twice. They assume that natural variation cannot explain the warming 1980-1996. See that assumption in their premises.
They assume that the causes that make up natural variation are known. That too is in their premises. But no one knows the causes that make up natural variation. When intelligent people refer to natural variation, they are referring to the range of our data, top to bottom.
Warmista continually assert that their critics must produce their own theory of what caused the warming 1980-1996. They crow that skeptics have nothing to compare to their beloved CO2. But their challenge is based on their circular argument, not to mention other fallacies.

richardscourtney
April 26, 2013 4:11 pm

Steven Mosher and X Anomaly:
This is a brief response to each of you re your posts at April 26, 2013 at 3:27 pm and April 26, 2013 at 3:30 pm, respectively. I intend no insult by this: the time is midnight here and I checked in on my way to bed. This brief reply shows I have not ignored either of you.
Steven Mosher, sorry, but I fail to understand your point. You say

in short SST is used to compute ENSO and PDO.. is it any surprise that regressions of the latter against the former will show you a significant relation. as in duh.
The ontology of “explaining” global temperature via ENSO and PDO is wrong.

Belolipetsky says that ENSO and PDO explain SST within each regime but the regimes and shifts between them are not explained by ENSO and PDO.
As he says in the above article

The 1976 shift is, in general, associated with ENSO and could be almost reproduced by direct linear association with ENSO Nino34 index (Fig. 1b). Therefore, according to our definition, it should not be considered as a regime shift, because it is described by known intra-regime variability.
This is a fundamental difference between our work and that of, for example, R. Tisdale who considers ENSO to be a part of regime shifts.

Are you sure you read the article and/or the paper it reports?
X Anomaly, My reply to you is the same as that I have just written to Steven Mosher.
You say

I’m just pointing out that including ENSO in this analysis is a little stupid. Around r squared 0.5 for the climate steps, and around 0.2 for ENSO (is that all?). And then they are adding them together, so r equals around 0.86.

But that is a clear misunderstanding of what Belolipetsky is saying. He says that ENSO does NOT explain the two regime shifts which he identifies.
Gentlemen, I am wondering if you glanced at the article and assumed it says the same as Bob Tisdale. It does not.
Tisadale says ENSO accounts for SST changes over the twentieth century.
Belolipetsky says ENSO and PDO account for variation in SST within regimes, but there are two regime changes – which he calls “shifts” – between different regimes during the twentieth century.
It would be interesting to read critique of what Belolipetsky does say.
Richard

Theo Goodwin
April 26, 2013 4:30 pm

Steven Mosher says:
April 26, 2013 at 3:27 pm
“The ontology of “explaining” global temperature via ENSO and PDO is wrong.”
How honest of you to use a philosopher’s word, ‘ontology’. Ontology is the study of what exists. Today it is known as science.
The greatest among the many virtues of Mr. Tisdale’s work is that he is doing the empirical research necessary to describe ENSO as a system of physical processes. He has made great progress even though he has no budget for research. Everything he gives us is a gift out of his own pocket.
Mainstream climate scientists will not touch empirical research with a ten foot pole. There is one exception. In desperation, they will delve into the empirical to save their beloved CO2 hypothesis from becoming a complete laughing-stock. (It was falsified long ago; now it is becoming a laughing-stock.) Trenberth has turned his attention to the warmth hidden in the deep oceans. Inevitably, he will be brought to empirical research to justify his work. He won’t like it.
If someone with the bucks to support Mr. Tisdale’s work made the bucks available to Mr. Tisdale, he could hire the researchers and equipment necessary to show that ENSO is a set of physical processes, along the lines of what he describes, and that those physical processes can explain much of what has been called “global warming.”
You claim that SST explains ENSO. But not as physical processes with their own integrity. In fact your claim that SST explains ENSO is yet another effort to dismiss the importance of describing physical processes.
Mainstream climate science and all funding agencies, including all US government agencies, will continue to refuse such research. In fact, they will do what they can to prevent it.

Rob JM
April 26, 2013 4:46 pm

The recent regime shift was due to a 5% decrease in clouds between 1987 and 2000.
The ISCCP (international satellite cloud climatology project) has been running since 83 yet hardly any one on either side of climate science is even looking at the obvious diver of climate change,
Ole Humlum has all the details on his climate4you.com website under climate and clouds.
For instance the comparison between tropical cloud cover and global temp (hadCRUT3)
http://smu.gs/10itOV1 shows the 87 regime change
Also equilibrium is maintained in regime changes.
Equilibrium is the minimisation of all the different types of energy in the system (entropy maximisation/2nd law thermodynamics) Each regime represents a change in the make up of the different energy types. For instance you could have one regime with high thermal/low kinetic energy flip flow with another of low thermal/high kinetic.
Negative feedback is still preserved across the total energy (le chateliers principle) but you can have positive feedbacks due to internal cannibalisation of other energy types.
CAGW fails though because the increase in thermal energy was theorised to cause an increase in latent heat energy (water vapour positive feedback).
This is basically a violation of the 2nd law and would require an even greater decrease in energy in another part of the system to account for both increases.

Rob JM
April 26, 2013 4:55 pm

Theo Goodwin.
While we shouldn’t need our own theory to falsify CAGW, it strengthens our case if we do!
The fact is that observed changes in cloud cover (5% decrease between 87 and 2000 corresponding to a 0.9w/m2 forcing) obviously drive climate change and matches other observation like increasing OLR at TOA. Its so obvious that the fact is was missed is bordering on criminal negligence!

X Anomaly
April 26, 2013 5:57 pm

Richard, Sleep tight.
Including ENSO in the analysis leaves a very nice zero trend in the residuals and there appears not to be a specific artifact from the step process, but is that a good thing? Not in the sense if you want to be skeptical about the effect of the steps on the residuals, it’s very difficult to see anything with all the noise. Why hide the potential effect of the steps on the residuals? I’m just trying to falsify (and make the paper more robust). It could be a dead end.

Theo Goodwin
April 26, 2013 6:00 pm

Rob JM says:
April 26, 2013 at 4:55 pm
I am all in favor of empirical research on clouds. But you will most likely have to do it yourself.. Our climate-socialist-media establishment will not discuss empirical research aimed at describing physical processes.

April 26, 2013 8:15 pm

Thanks, Pavel.
Very interesting article that brought many interesting comments.
Your paper deserves reading.
Thanks, Anthony.
This WUWT at it’s best; Science!

April 26, 2013 8:28 pm

Is there an Elevator Speech version of this somewhere?

Greg Goodman
April 26, 2013 9:08 pm

I don’t think that geomagnetic activity can be left out of the equation. It would seem to be a significant factor.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=213
In particular the very sharp rise in 1957-58 and similar drop 1963-64 that stand out in temperature record, would seem to be almost totally explained by a similar change in geomagnetic AP* index.

Greg Goodman
April 26, 2013 9:33 pm

Updated the geomag-sst plot with latest hadSST3, new link.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=214

April 26, 2013 11:08 pm

I don’t think Bob Tisdale’s work is hypothetical. It’s observational, and it clearly shows where the heat comes from. Maybe I’m wrong here. But I give credence to his works.

Greg Goodman
April 26, 2013 11:44 pm

Mario Lento says: I don’t think Bob Tisdale’s work is hypothetical. It’s observational
It is based on observation data rather than models which is a good point. However, his attributions and conclusion are hypothetical.
What he has pointed out is a mechanism, which I think is an important result. The asymmetry of El Nino / La Nina processes allows a means to get extra solar energy into the climate system. However he persists in calling this the cause which IMO is not justified and causes many people looking for an alternative cause to “the cause” to be mislead.
If ENSO oscillations are causing (at least a part of ) the global rise, that begs the question what is causing ENSO oscillations.
If they are just random oscillations then the world would be forever warming and it is not. On the millennial scale it is cooling. So for ENSO to be causing 20th c. (or post LIA) warming there must be something driving/modulating ENSO, ie. the real cause and not the mechanism.
As far as Pavel’s regression idea presented here, I’m afraid I have to agree with Mosh, using SST derived indices to explain SST is rather circular and does not actually tell us anything.

April 26, 2013 11:51 pm

Greg Goodman says: “If ENSO oscillations are causing (at least a part of ) the global rise, that begs the question what is causing ENSO oscillations.”
Well it’s clear that CO2 is NOT causing the ENSO process for a number of reasons. This has been shown. Also ENSO is not cyclic… in that ENSO does not hover around some mean… La Nina and El Nino are not even and opposite. La Nina’s cool things off, but they also allow more warming of the ocean along the equatorial regions… CO2 has not been shown to cause this ocean warming, but sunlight has been shown to cause this warming.
The fact that you don’t know what causes ENSO processes does not mean that CO2 causes them.

Greg Goodman
April 27, 2013 12:09 am

It would appear that there is mileage in the idea of there being a step around 1925. I also detected such a step by comparing SST to accumulated cyclone energy (ACE).
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=215
I rather suspect that this is either a sampling issue or an incorrect “bias correction”.
Pavel may have detected the same issue by an independent means.

David Jones
April 27, 2013 12:15 am

Richard111 says:
April 26, 2013 at 5:31 am
“I am curious as to why no mention of the jet stream. It is having a marked effect on the UK climate currently.”
Weather?

Greg Goodman
April 27, 2013 12:25 am

Mario Lento says: “The fact that you don’t know what causes ENSO processes does not mean that CO2 causes them.” A pointlessly obvious statement. I never suggested it did.
“Well it’s clear that CO2 is NOT causing the ENSO process for a number of reasons. This has been shown. ”
It is not “clear” , neither has it been shown. Instead of making pointless assertions perhaps show it or link to somewhere else that you think has shown it.
I’m NOT saying CO2 is the cause but there is nothing so far to say that ENSO cycle is not simply the climate mechanism for evacuation of the excess heat that has built up. Since ENSO is a non periodic oscillation such a release will happen in steps. How frequent anyone wishes to make those steps or whether they call it “stochastic” noise.depends on the way they look at the records.