Decadal Oscillations Of The Pacific Kind

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

The recent post here on WUWT about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has a lot of folks claiming that the PDO is useful for predicting the future of the climate … I don’t think so myself, and this post is about why I don’t think the PDO predicts the climate in other than a general way. Let me talk a bit about what the PDO is, what it does, and how we measure it.

First, what is the PDO when it’s at home? It is a phenomenon which manifests itself as a swing between a “cold phase” and a “warm phase”. This swing seems to occur about every thirty or forty years. The changeover from one phase to the other was first noticed in 1976, when it was called the “Great Pacific Climate Shift”. The existence of the PDO itself, curiously, was first noticed in its effects on the salmon catches of the Pacific Northwest.

pdo warm and cold phases

Figure 1. The phases of the PDO, showing the typical winds and temperatures associated with its two phases. The color scale shows the temperature anomalies in degrees C.

Figure 1 is a clear physical depiction of the two opposite ends of the PDO swing, based on how it manifests itself in terms of surface temperatures and winds. But to me that’s not the valuable definition. The valuable definition is a functional definition, based on what the PDO does rather than on how it manifests itself. In other words, a definition based on the effect that the PDO has on the functioning of the climate as a whole.

A Functional Definition of the PDO

To understand what the PDO is doing, you first need to understand how the planet keeps from overheating. The tropics doesn’t radiate all the heat it receives. If it did the tropics would be much, much hotter than it is. Instead, the planet keeps cool by constantly moving huge, almost unimaginably large amounts of heat from the tropics to the poles. At the poles, that heat is radiated back to space.

The transportation of the heat from the equator to the poles is done by both the atmosphere and the ocean. The atmosphere can move and respond quickly, so it controls the shorter-term variations in the poleward transport. However, the ocean can carry much more heat than the atmosphere, so it is doing the slower heavy lifting.

The heat is transported by the ocean to the poles in a couple of ways. One is that because the surface waters of the tropical oceans are warm, they expand. As a result, there is a permanent gravitational gradient from the tropics to the poles, and a corresponding slow movement of water following that gradient.

The major movement of heat by the ocean, however, is not gravitationally driven. It is the millions of tonnes of warm tropical Pacific water pumped to the poles by the alternation of the El Nino and La Nina conditions. I described in “The Tao of El Nino” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/28/the-tao-of-el-nino/ how this pump works. Briefly, the Nino/Nina alteration periodically pushes a huge mass of warm water westwards. At the western edge of the Pacific Ocean, the warm water splits, and moves polewards along the Asian and Australian coasts. Finally, at the poles it radiates its heat to space. Figure 1a from my previous post shows the action of the pump.

nino nina tao triton temp and dynamic heightFigure 1a. 3D section of the Pacific Ocean looking westward alone the equator. Each 3D section covers the area eight degrees north and south of the equator, from 137° East (far end) to 95° West (near end), and down to 500 metres depth. Click on image for larger size.

Figure 1a shows a stretch of the top layer of the Pacific Ocean. It runs along the Equator all the way across the Pacific, from South America (near end of illustration) to Asia (far end of illustration). During the El Nino half of the pumping cycle, which corresponds to the input stroke of a pump, warm water builds up along the Equator as shown in the left 3D section. Then in the La Nina part of the cycle, the pressure stroke, that water is physically moved by the wind across the entire Pacific, where it splits and moves toward both poles.

Now, this El Nino/La Nina pumping action is not a simple feedback in any sense. It is a complex governing mechanism which kicks in periodically to remove excess heat from the tropical Pacific to the poles. As such it exerts control over the long-term energy content of the planet.

So here’s the first oddity about the PDO. The two alternate states of the PDO look very much like the two alternate states of El Nino/La Nina. In both, heat builds up in the eastern tropical Pacific, while the poles are cool. And in both, the alternate situation is where the heat is moved to the poles, residual warmth remains along the coasts of Asia and Australia, and the eastern tropical Pacific is cool.

This is an important observation because in addition to regulating the amount of incoming energy through the timing of the onset of the clouds and thunderstorms, the planet regulates its heat content by varying the rate of “throughput”. I am using “throughput” to mean the rate at which heat is moved from the equator to the poles. When the movement of heat to the poles slows, heat builds up. And when that pole-bound movement speeds up, the heat content of the planet is reduced through increased heat loss at the poles.

The rate of throughput of heat from the tropics to the poles is controlled at different time scales by different phenomena.

On an hourly/daily scale, the variations in the amount of heat moved are all in the atmospheric part of the system. The timing and amount of thunderstorms directly regulate the amount of heat leaving the surface to join the Hadley circulation to the poles.

On an inter annual basis, the throughput is regulated by the El Nino/La Nina pump.

And finally, on a decadal basis, the throughput is regulated by the PDO.

So as a functional definition, I would say that the PDO is a another part of the complex system which controls the planetary heat content. It is a rhythmic shift in the strength and location of the Pacific currents which alternately impedes or aids the flow of heat to the poles.

The Climate Effects of the PDO

As you might imagine, the state of the PDO has a huge effect on the climate, particularly in the nearby regions. The climate of Alaska, for example, is hugely influenced by the state of the PDO.

Nor is this the only effect. The PDO seems to move in some sense in phase with global temperatures. Since the Pacific covers about half the planet, this should come as no surprise.

How We Measure the PDO

The PDO was first measured in salmon catches. Historical records in British Columbia up in Canada showed a clear cyclical pattern … and since then, a number of other ways to measure the PDO have been created. Current usage seems to favor either the detrended North Pacific temperature, or alternately using the first “principle component” (PC) of that temperature. Since the first PC of a slowly trending time series is approximately the detrended series itself, these are quite similar.

To measure the PDO or the El Nino, I don’t like these types of temperature-based indices. For both theoretical and practical reasons, I prefer pressure-based indices.

The practical reason is that we don’t have much information about the North Pacific historical water temperatures. Sure, we have the output of the computer reanalysis models, but that’s computer model output based on very fragmentary input, and not data. As a result it’s hard to take a long-term look at the PDO using temperatures, which is important when a full cycle lasts sixty years or so.

The same issue doesn’t apply as much to pressure-based indices. The big difference is that the pressure field changes much more gradually than the temperature field at all spatial scales. If you move a thermometer a hundred metres you can get a very different temperature. That is not true about a barometer, you get the same pressure anywhere in town.  Indeed, they don’t suffer from many of the problems in temperature based indices, in part because the instruments used to measure pressure are not subject to the micro-climate issues that bedevil temperature records. This means that you can directly compare say the pressure in Darwin and the pressure in Tahiti. So those two datasets are used to construct the pressure-based Southern Ocean Index.

As a result, it is much easier to construct an accurate estimate of the entire pressure field from say a few hundred stations than it is to estimate the temperature field. Indeed, this kind of estimation has been used for many decades before computers to construct the weather maps showing the high and low-pressure areas. This is because the surface pressure field, unlike the surface temperature field, is smooth and relatively computable from scattered ground stations.

The theoretical reason I don’t like temperature based indices is that people always want to subtract them from the global temperature for various reasons. I see this done all the time with temperature-based El Nino indices. It all seems too incestuous to me, removing temperature of the part from temperature of the whole.

The final theoretical reason I prefer pressure-based indices is that they integrate the data from a large area. For example, the Southern Ocean Index (which measures pressures in the Southern Hemisphere) reflects conditions all the way from Australia to Tahiti.

In any case, Figure 2 shows a typical PDO index. This is the one maintained by the Japanese at JISAO. It is temperature based.

monthly values JISAO pdo indexFigure 2. The temperature-based JISAO Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index. It is calculated as the leading principal component of the North Pacific sea surface temperature. 

As I mentioned, for the PDO, I much prefer pressure based indices. Here is the record of one of the pressure-based indices, the “North Pacific Index”. The information page says:

The North Pacific (NP) Index is the area-weighted sea level pressure over the region 30°N-65°N, 160°E-140°W.

NPI per trenberth hurrell

Figure 3. The pressure-based North Pacific Index, calculated as detailed above.

As you can see, the sense of the NP Index is opposite to the sense of the JISAO PDO Index. They’ve indicated this in Figure 3 by putting the red (for warm) below the line and the blue (for cool) above the line, but this doesn’t matter, it’s just how the index is constructed. It moves roughly in parallel (after inversion) with the JISAO PDO Index shown in Figure 2.

Now, for me, both of those charts are totally uninteresting. Why? Because they don’t tell me when the regime changes. I mean, in Figure 3, was there some kind of reversal around 1990? 1950?  It’s all a jumble, with no clear switch from one regime to the other.

To answer these types of questions, I’ve become accustomed to using a procedure that other folks don’t seem to utilize much. I’ve taken some grief for using it here on WUWT, but to me it is an invaluable procedure.

This is to look at the cumulative total of the index in question. A “cumulative total” is what we get when we start with the first value, and then add each succeeding value to the previous total. Why use the cumulative total of an index? Figure 4 shows why:

cumulative monthly north pacific index

Figure 4. Cumulative North Pacific Index (inverted). The data have been normalized, so the units are standard deviations. The cumulative index is detrended, see Appendix for details.

I’ve inverted the cumulative NPI to make it run the same direction as the temperature. You can see the advantage of using the cumulative total of the index—it lays bare the timing of the fundamental shifts in the system.

Now, looking at the Pacific Decadal Oscillation in this way makes it a few things clear.

First, it establishes that there are two distinct states of the PDO. It’s either going up or going down.

In addition, it shows that the shift from one to the other is clearly threshold-based. Until a certain (unknown) threshold condition is reached, there is no sign of any change in the regime, and the motion up or down continues unabated.

But once that (unknown) threshold is passed, the entire direction of motion changes. Not only that, but the turnaround time is remarkably short. After only a few months in each case the other direction is established.

Finally, to me this shows the clear fingerprint of a governing mechanism. You can see the effects of the unknown “thermostat” switching the system from one state to the other.

RECAP

I’ve hypothesized that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is another one of the complex interlocking emergent mechanisms which regulate the temperature and the heat content of the climate system. They do this in part by regulating the “throughput”, the speed and volume of the movement of heat from the tropics to the poles via the atmosphere and the oceans.

These emergent mechanisms operate at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. At the small end, the scales are on the order of minutes and hundreds of metres for something like a dust devil (cooling the surface by moving heat skywards and eventually polewards).

On a daily scale, the tropical thunderstorms form the main driving force for the Hadley atmospheric circulation that moves heat polewards. Of course, the hotter the tropics get, the more thunderstorms form, and the more heat is moved polewards, keeping the tropical temperature relatively constant … quite convenient, no?

On an inter-annual scale, when heat builds up in the tropical Pacific, once it reaches a certain threshold the El Nino/La Nina alteration pumps a huge amount of warm water rapidly (months) to the poles.

Finally, on a decadal scale, the entire North Pacific Ocean reorganizes itself in some as-yet unknown fashion to either aid or impede the flow of heat from the tropics to the poles.

CONCLUSION

So … can the PDO help us to forecast the temperature? Hard to tell. It is sooo tempting to say yes … but the problem is, we simply don’t know. We don’t know what the threshold is which is passed at the warm end of the scale in Figure 4 to turn the PDO back downwards. We also don’t know what the other threshold is at the cool end that re-establishes the previous regime anew. Not only do we not know the threshold, we don’t know the domain of the threshold, although obviously it involves temperatures … but which temperatures where, and what else is involved?

And most importantly, we don’t know what the physical mechanisms involved in the shift might be. My speculation, and it is only that, is that there is some rapid and fundamental shift in the pattern of the currents carrying the heat polewards. The climate system is constantly evolving and reorganizing in response to changing conditions.

As a result, it makes perfect sense and is in accordance with the Constructal Law that when the sea temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles gets steep enough, the ocean currents will re-organize in a manner that increases the polewards heat flow. Conversely, when enough heat is moved polewards and the tropics-to-poles heat gradient decreases, the currents will return to their previous configuration.

But exactly what those reversal thresholds might be, and when we will strike the next one, remains unknown.

HOWEVER … all is not lost. The reversals in the state of the PDO can be definitively established in Figure 4. They occurred in 1923, 1945, 1976, and 2005. One thing that we do NOT see in the record is any reversal shorter than 22 years (except a two-year reversal 1988-1990) … and we’re about eight years into this one. So acting on way scanty information (only three intervals, with time between reversals of 22, 31, and 29 years), my educated guess would be that we will have this state of the PDO for another decade or two. I’ve sailed across the Pacific, it’s a huge place, things don’t change fast. So I find it hard to believe that the Pacific could gain or lose heat fast enough to turn the state of the PDO around in five or ten years, when we don’t see that kind of occurrence in a century of records.

Of course, nature is rarely that regular, so we may see a PDO reversal next month … which is why I say that tempting as it might be, I wouldn’t lay any big bets on the duration of the current phase of the PDO. History says it will continue for a decade or two … but in chaotic systems, history is notoriously unreliable.

w.

PS—This discussion of pressure-based indices makes me think that there should be some way to use pressure as a proxy for the temperature. This might aid in such quests as identifying jumps in the temperature record, or UHI in the cities, or the like. So many drummers … so little time.

MATH NOTE: The shape of the cumulative total is strongly dependent on the zero value used for the total. If all of the results are positive, for example, the cumulative total will look much like a straight line heading upwards to the right, and it will go downwards to the right if the values are all negative. As a result, it cannot be used to determine an underlying trend. The key to the puzzle is to detrend the cumulative total, because strangely, the detrended cumulative total is the same no matter what number is chosen for the zero value. Go figure.

So I just calculate the trend starting with the first point in whatever units I’m using, and then detrend the result.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
273 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 9, 2013 3:40 am

Very impressive – I learnt a lot and now have this image of the world’s presure pump beating, like a human heart maintains tempreasture across the whole body. Such forces are stupendous, and surely beyond the influence of humankind.
If you calculate the volume of water in the ocean (wiki: The World Ocean, world ocean, or global ocean, is the interconnected system of the Earth’s oceanic (or marine) waters, and comprises the bulk of the hydrosphere, covering almost 71% of the Earth’s surface, with a total volume of 1.332 billion cubic kilometers.) And then divide this huge volume by the world population which is about seven billion people. So there are five of us to every cubic kilometers of water.
It is as if we are suggesting one daphnia in a jam jar can alter the behaviour of the currents of water in the jamjar. The idea is ridiculous.

Greg Goodman
June 9, 2013 4:18 am

One reason I lost interest in all these “empirical orthogonal function” aka “principal components” extractions was when I compared the actual N. Pacific SST around 1974/5 to the EOF index for the same period. It completely removed the sharp transition.

Johan i Kanada
June 9, 2013 4:22 am

Can we agree that the PDO is an effect, and not a (root) cause, of any potential global energy balance change?

Johan i Kanada
June 9, 2013 4:24 am

And the same with Ninos/Ninas.

Greg Goodman
June 9, 2013 4:31 am

Johan i Kanada says:
Can we agree that the PDO is an effect, and not a (root) cause, of any potential global energy balance change?
I’d tend to agree, I see both ENSO and PDO (and pressure_PDO) as effects.

June 9, 2013 4:31 am

Henry@Willis
Thanks, this is an impressive post where we all can learn, about predicting the weather.
I prefer to look at figure 3 as it tells me exactly what I had already figured out from my own results…
Namely, looking at the fall in maximum temperatures, it appears we are on an apparent 88 year cycle, that is called the Gleissberg weather cycle.
What earth is doing with energy coming in is another ball game. You could say that the average temp. on earth is like energy-out and the change in that average temp, if you know what pattern to look for, follows on a seemingly similar sinus curve, now heading downwards. See the second table here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
The PDO is something in the middle, in between these two parameters, as the oceans operate like our stores of energy.
What I note from figure three is the lull in any (much) pressure change between 1932-1939. That means: little or no “weather”, if you know what I mean.
Now if you look where we are now, 2013, and compare with 1926, (2013-87.4=1926), it looks we are coming up and soon, in about 6 years, we will be back again at that same point in history, when the weather will go for a stand still, for about 7 years, so to speak.
I am not a prophet of doom, but a scientist. A such I need to put out this warning to all of you.
The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable.
WHAT MUST WE DO?
1) We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
2) We need to tell the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the cold and/ or due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
3) We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), (The Germans did not listen to me, even when I warned them….)
I wonder if you Willis, or anyone, can see what is coming?

Bill Marsh
Editor
June 9, 2013 4:57 am

Thinking about this mechanism to regulate the temperatures in the tropics …. it might help explain why the planet was so much warmer when there existed only a single continent , Gwandonoland. When there was no ‘Pacific Ocean’ bounded by Asia and the Americas, there was (speculation) no PDO, AMO, El Nino, or La Nina to regulate tropical temperature, thus the higher heat in that period. I suspect this may have been true up until the separation of the continents allowed the oscillations to form. If you could identify when they first began operating, it may give you a clue as to the mechanism.

Greg Goodman
June 9, 2013 5:05 am

lgl says:
“So I would say hat’s off to Willis, I think you have defined a useful index”
Except I defined that “index” years ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/17/frank-lansner-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-2011/#comment-836884
>>
You are refering to this?
http://virakkraft.com/PDOint-SST.png
hardly the same as :
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cumulative-monthly-north-pacific-index.jpg?w=640
is it ?
“Except I defined that “index” years ago:” , except that you didn’t.

June 9, 2013 5:05 am

Willis has now begun to expand his original tropics based Thermostat Hypothesis to a consideration of the entire global ocean and air circulation which is something I suggested he might wish to do some time ago.
I previously pointed out that the oceans should also be regarded as part of Earth’s atmosphere for climate analysis purposes because they are partially transparent to incoming solar energy and ‘process’ far more energy than does the air.
Willis’s expanded hypothesis is now coming very close to my global overview and emphasises an important point I have made many times in the past.
Namely, that if there are any other internal system features or forcing elements that seek to divert the system energy content away from that set only by mass, gravity and insolation then the system response is always negative and sufficient to maintain stability over time.
That system response involves changing the global oceanic and air circulation patterns to adjust the rate of throughput of energy so as to negate any such other forcing element.
Of course, the ocean circulation has a powerful effect on the air circulation pattern above the ocean surfaces.
So, to the extent that any physical characteristics (other than mass) of the constituent gases of the atmosphere vary (including radiative ability) then all that changes is the circulation pattern and the distribution of the available energy and not the amount of energy that the system is able to hold on to.
On that basis we can see that a slight logical extension of Willis’s new thoughts, relying on changes in the rate of energy throughput, can allow GHGs to alter the air circulation pattern but not necessarily allow any increase in system energy content or any increase in average surface temperature.
Then, one can say that such air circulation changes as might be caused by our emissions would be rendered insignificant by the circulation changes already occurring naturally from solar and oceanic variations which are on the scale of those observed from MWP to LIA to date.
There is however a proviso in that the length of time lag introduced by the internal mechanics of the oceans does mean that during periods of transition between an initial disturbance and the return to the ‘base’ state there will be variations of system energy content either side of the mean but as long as no further changes occur the system would eventually return to the original energy content and average surface temperature.
In reality, lots of other things are changing all the time so the system never actually returns for long to the base state. It simply oscillates around it constantly.
As for predicting anything I suggest that global cloudiness and albedo is the best tool since it represents the current net state of the global air circulation.
Zonal, poleward jets and climate zones result in less clouds and system warming whereas meridional, equatorward jets and climate zones result in more clouds and system cooling.
One can simply ascertain the current net temperature trend for the system as a whole by observing those features.
Finally, someone needs to ascertain just how far a doubling of CO2 would shift the jets and climate zones.
I would guess that it would be less than a mile compared to 1000 miles from solar and oceanic causes between MWP and LIA and LIA to date.

Bill Marsh
Editor
June 9, 2013 5:11 am

One explanation for the swing in Salmon populations during the different phases of the PDO may be related to the ‘Sardine – Anchovy’ population swings in the Pacific Northwest which seems to vary with the PDO phase. During the warm phase of the PDO the sardine population increases and the Anchovy population decreases. During the cold phase of the PDO the opposite occurs. I don’t know that much about salmon diet when they are at sea, do they eat anchovy over sardines or do they not care or not eat either)? I couldn’t find anything specific during an admittedly cursory search.

June 9, 2013 5:21 am

I should have additionally mentioned that cloudiness changes alter the amount of energy entering the oceans so as to skew ENSO between El Nino events and La Nina events over and above the basic PDO.
Thus one can reconcile a multi centennial solar induced warming or cooling effect in the background with the multi decadal PDO (or Pacific Multi decadal Oscillation PMO) and the even shorter term ENSO process.
I think it is that multi centennial aspect which Bob Tisdale could add to his work to explain the upward stepping observed in temperatures during the 20th century. Between the MWP and LIA one would have observed downward stepping.
To answer Willis’s initial question about the PDO as a diagnostic climate indicator I would say that it could be useful if one relies upon the upward or downward stepping between PDO phases of the same sign.
That is too long a timescale for significant utility which means we should look instead at atmospheric circulation, the climate zone positions and jet stream behaviour and ultimately global cloudiness and albedo.

Greg Goodman
June 9, 2013 5:34 am

Bill Marsh says: “I don’t know that much about salmon diet when they are at sea… ”
I do know they don’t eat much pizza, so anchovies are probably irrelevent.

Editor
June 9, 2013 5:35 am

Neville.: Sorry. I’m really don’t pay much attention to paleoclimatological data. And even if I did, I wouldn’t be able to answer your question.
Paleo-reconstructions of the PDO vary significantly from one study to the next. Graph here:
http://i40.tinypic.com/2vjbj91.png
And zoomed in here:
http://i40.tinypic.com/14c6zpg.png
Those graphs are from the post here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/is-there-a-60-year-pacific-decadal-oscillation-cycle/
Regards

Paul Vaughan
June 9, 2013 5:41 am

Incorrect:
“How We Measure the PDO […] detrended North Pacific temperature, or alternately using the first “principle component” (PC) of that temperature. Since the first PC of a slowly trending time series is approximately the detrended series itself, these are quite similar.”

Editor
June 9, 2013 5:42 am

Stephen Wilde says: “I think it is that multi centennial aspect which Bob Tisdale could add to his work …”
Bob Tisdale has no interest in paleoclimatological data. If AGW does not make it’s presence known in ocean heat content data and satellite-era sea surface temperature data, I have no real need to travel any further back in time–other than to show that the El Nino-caused upward shifts exist in the sea surface temperature data of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans during the early warming period of the 20th Century. And they show up quite well in the HADSST3 data.
Regards.

Sean
June 9, 2013 5:42 am

A good post and good comments. Well worth it to go through them all. But one comment in particular is most intriguing, that is the one by Werner Brozak who notes that the swing in direction for the PDO seems to coincide with low plasma speeds from the sun. If this holds up it could tie solar changes (which changes the upper atmosphere) to climatic changes.

CodeTech
June 9, 2013 5:44 am

Salmon seem to like sardines:
http://www.fishingmag.co.nz/salmon-eat-at-sea.htm
And anchovies make great bait for Salmon, so it appears they like them as well.
In fact, it appears Salmon just love eating any fish smaller than them. The sea is a harsh place.

Greg Goodman
June 9, 2013 5:56 am

Stephen Wilde says: “Finally, someone needs to ascertain just how far a doubling of CO2 would shift the jets and climate zones.”
Actually, someone needs to ascertain whether CO2 make a damn bit of difference, rather than assuming it does and then multiplying it up.
As far as I can tell even significant changes to radiation input make no change beyond 6 years.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=285
The surface just captures more or less of what is available to balance the budget.
The next stage of the regulatory system which Willis has not got to yet is the Arctic region.
He’s mentioned (as I pointed out in his earlier discussion about tropical ‘governor’) that a proportion of what gets evacuated from the tropical surface gets pumped towards the poles.
In the Arctic is is clear that, far from “tipping points” and positive feedback, what we actually see is a strong negative feedback due to the increased area of open sea.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=160
Here we also see an apparent turn around in both N. Atlantic SST and arctic ice coverage around 2005.

Paul Vaughan
June 9, 2013 5:58 am

A ridiculously silly argument has broken out above about who first defined the integral of NPI. My guess would be that whoever first assembled the time series years ago looked at the integral a few seconds later …but that isn’t (!) noteworthy. Almost every sensible data explorer that has ever looked at the time series since then will have independently rediscovered the integral a few seconds after obtaining the data. Similarly, Hurst didn’t invent the integral. It was known and used long before Hurst.

June 9, 2013 6:11 am

Bob Tisdale says:
June 9, 2013 at 5:35 am
Paleo-reconstructions of the PDO vary significantly from one study to the next.
And zoomed in here:
http://i40.tinypic.com/14c6zpg.png

Ah well…the experts
I can only conclude that my reconstruction from the N. Pacific tectonics
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDOt.htm
isn’t that bad after all.
Perhaps we were looking at the sun for far too long and neglecting what is going underneath our feet.

Greg Goodman
June 9, 2013 6:15 am

“My guess would be that whoever first assembled the time series years ago looked at the integral a few seconds later …”
Most unlikely. The vast majority of climate science is anally focused on simple time series, where they try to guess rate of change from the TS rather than plotting the rate of change and looking at it directly.
Try doing a diff to remove autocorrelation before attempting a spectral analysis and you’ll get some over self-confident propagandist like Grant Forster attempting to “school” you to it incorrectly.
If someone at Met. Office Hadley had looked at the cumulative integral of sea level pressure in ICOADS data and notices a regime change before somewhat arbitrarily deciding that the 1940 jump is SST was spurious and needed subtracting from the _rest of the climate record_ they may had thought twice.
a few seconds later …, I doubt it. Thirty years later, possibly but still doubtful.

Paul Vaughan
June 9, 2013 6:16 am

“MATH NOTE: The shape of the cumulative total is strongly dependent on the zero value used for the total. If all of the results are positive, for example, the cumulative total will look much like a straight line heading upwards to the right, and it will go downwards to the right if the values are all negative. As a result, it cannot be used to determine an underlying trend. The key to the puzzle is to detrend the cumulative total, because strangely, the detrended cumulative total is the same no matter what number is chosen for the zero value. Go figure.
So I just calculate the trend starting with the first point in whatever units I’m using, and then detrend the result.”

Mention of detrending in this context suggests a partial but incomplete conceptual foundation.
Just center the series (i.e. subtract the mean) before integrating.
That way the integral starts and ends at zero.
You can tilt the integral one way or the other by offsetting the centered series before integrating. (Recognize the equivalence to detrending: the derivative of ax is a.)

Greg Goodman
June 9, 2013 6:19 am

BTW, I did not suggest Hurst invented the cumulative integral , I pointed out that he had used it long ago to derive this kind of ‘regime change’. Something that was discussed here not so long ago.

Paul Vaughan
June 9, 2013 6:20 am

Greg Goodman (June 9, 2013 at 6:15 am)
You actually don’t have the integral of NPI in your files??

Justthinkin
June 9, 2013 6:30 am

jai says… It seems that if the seas are colder then they will receive more warming.
Could you please link to any empirical study that proves this? And proves just where the extra heat comes from? Seems to me the coldest place on earth,the Antarctic,isn’t getting its share of “extra heat”