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.
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.
Figure 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.
Figure 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.
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:
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.



This is a juicy article, Willis. No wonder people start appropriating your insights! I found myself saying wow, this must mean there is a holding or resisting mechanism that gets over-powered at each end…and Anthony Watts comes up with the drinking bird pendulum analogy and a number of other commenters explore this unknown in different ways:
Greg Goodman says:
June 9, 2013 at 2:36 am
“Another excellent insight Willis. The cumulative integral or cumulative distribution function (CDF hereafter ) is indeed quite revealing….Now what is not always obvious is that a straight line slope in such a plot represents a constant . Clearly much of this record is dominated by essentially constant values of the pressure_PDO . Much of the record seems dominated by one of two values which on this representation are roughly equal in magnitude.”
Werner Brozek says:
June 8, 2013 at 9:33 pm
[Anthony’s -The key question: what tips the pendulum?]
Could it be plasma speed from the sun? Recent large El Ninos were 1987, 1998 and 2010. Check out the low plasma speeds each time at:
http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg
IMHO as an engineer, we lighten our burden prematurely by surrendering to ‘climate is a chaotic system’ which we have heard quite enough of – maybe it’s so but it isn’t much help in advancing anything. Such precise mechanisms as elucidated by Willis’s explorations of heat dynamics on all scales is an illuminated doorway into the problem. These things HAVE TO HAPPEN. I think we have to clean up the chaotic debris of thinking to date by the main body of climate science and start over, building the climate from the outside in.
External Factors:
1) Crudely, the sun is The primary component in terms of energy – the farther away we are from it, the colder we are (the only reversal of this occurs between Mercury and Venus and this is where extreme atmospheric climate makes its contribution).
2) The sun varies in its energy output – have we quantified this adequately?
3) The earth varies in distance from the sun – I’m given to understand we have quantified this adequately.
4) Earth’s rotation, wobbles, tilt.
5) The moon’s effects
4) Other factors – earth-sun magnetism, cosmic rays, etc.?
Internal Factors (
1) The components and behaviors of the Swiss clockwork of interconnected engines that respond to the heat received. What do we know? Well, we do know that there has been an uninterrupted string of significant macro life (bacteria seem to be able to stand anything) for a billion years, a proxy for an engine with controlled maximum and minimum temperature extremes. We also have a tropical sea that can’t seem to get over 31 degrees in surface temperature and we have mechanisms that move this heat up in the atmosphere and also poleward and out into space to control this. Even the hot deserts have an upper limit to its temperature extremes.
2) Atmosphere composition, its mass and distribution of mass.
3) Ocean mass, distribution.
4) Other characteristics- atmospheric pressures, temperatures, winds and ocean salinity variations, temperatures, currents are all manifestations of external factors and the engines’ cycles.
We may be at a point where CO2 can be thoroughly discounted. If it does “trap” heat in the parlance, this would be handleable as merely an increment to the engine heat dissipation work to be done (clouds form, say, an hour earlier in the tropics). It makes sense, for rebuilding the science, we treat the atmosphere as an ideal gas subjected to physical parameters driven by the Engine. I would go with the engine governor(s) as the PC – a new direction, thanks to Willis. The CO2 status quo hasn’t been “robustly” successful despite several decades of desperate data manipulation to bend it up onto the graph. Thinking in holistic terms, CO2 now seems like the absurd peep peep of a European steam locomotive’s whistle as the controlling mechanism for the engine.
lgl says:
“This recharges (or replenishes) the heat released during the El Niño.”
Oh not that nonsense again. El Niño heats the tropical Pacific, http://virakkraft.com/Rad-Temp-Trop-Pac.png
That plot is interesting, but doesn’t that rather confirm the idea of cooler SST allowing the OHC to recover. There is also a difference in evaporation which goes in the same sense.
Add in Willis’ tropical storms which will be less present in a cooler tropical ocean and I think it proves the point.
Since you don’t explain DW (in or out) of what (air or ocean) or label you x axis, it’s a little hard to interpret what the graph does represent. Maybe you could explain what is shown.
Steve Keohane says:
Thanks Willis, very interesting. Your statement about gravity deltas driving the poleward flow made me wonder. You are correct, there is a gravity delta in both the Atlantic and Pacific towards the poles.
http://i44.tinypic.com/2uqk49e.jpg
Jeez, more unlabelled unattributed graphs, What are we looking at?
Pacific looks pretty “flat” to me, where’s you “gravity deltas”?
Greg
Sorry, DW is downward to surface and x-axis is months since 1980. It shows energy input is above average when ENSO is above average (except around 1987).
Gary Pearse says:
June 9, 2013 at 8:50 am
….
I would like to add to your list one more item: tectonics.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDOt.htm
Yeah. It would require subtlety to tease out correlations.
Seen this article/paper about Moon atmospheric tides regulating when ENSO events happen?
It’s an interesting hypothesis. Perhaps this is a partial explanation.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/can-the-moon-change-our-climate-can-tides-in-the-atmosphere-solve-the-mystery-of-enso/
Stephen Wilde says
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.
Henry@Stephen Fisher Wilde, Gary Pearse
Are you aware that as we are cooling from the top,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger, so very likely something will also change in the atmosphere.. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, less clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier. Without weather, as predicted by me from 2019-2026, it will be disaster droughts waiting for the north of the USA and Canada.
I figure that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.
Remember that what heats the oceans is mostly the F-UV and if there is more Ox and HxOx and NxOx, at the TOA then the F-UV will become la bit less.
I have found three confirmations for the dates of the turning points of my A-C wave for energy-in. The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the E-UV. Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched (planets?) every 44 year, affecting the sun’s output of E-UV. It is part of creation. Otherwise there could be run away warming or runaway cooling, and probably no weather (rain!) at all, making life impossible…..
Cycles, waves, bipolarities, reversals, tipping points… they are all expressive of the dynamical processes in nature, observable everywhere and to be expected everywhere.
Saying: “it is just natural and to be expected” is no explanation of course. But it is kind of reassuring.
So even a hockey-stick in the end will curve down in nature’s reality. Without us trying for something silly. But that tipping point may need the time it takes for a new generation to grow up.
Great post, Willis, thanks.
Stephen Singer
I posted this at Jos,
“Keep up the good work Chief Lunatic!
http://virakkraft.com/Apse-Volcanoes.png
http://virakkraft.com/hadcrut-eclipse.png”
but she didn’t like it. Being both a lunatic and a cyclomaniac myself I don’t see the problem.
lgl, interesting plots.
I’ve been looking at power spectrum of W. Pacific wind speed (squared to get wind energy) and it looks a lot more apsey than nodal.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=283
Also be careful using Hadley derived temperature series for this kind of thing. Their processing does a marvellous job of removing the 9.0 year peak from N. Pacific (amongst other things).
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/icoad_v_hadsst3_ddt_n_pac_chirp.png
from article:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/61/
HenryP says:
June 9, 2013 at 9:30 am
Remember that what heats the oceans is mostly the F-UV and if there is more Ox and HxOx and NxOx, at the TOA then the F-UV will become la bit less.
Not a chance F-UV is absorbed by O2 high up in the atmosphere (stratosphere).
Greg Goodman says:
>Steve Keohane says:
>Thanks Willis, very interesting. Your statement about gravity deltas driving the poleward flow >made me wonder. You are correct, there is a gravity delta in both the Atlantic and Pacific >towards the poles.
>http://i44.tinypic.com/2uqk49e.jpg
Jeez, more unlabelled unattributed graphs, What are we looking at?
It’s the geoid. I found this exact image using a search engine. Since the geoid represents an equal-gravity surface, this image does not show what Steve claims. The image you are looking for is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_surface_topography
Paul Vaughan says:
June 9, 2013 at 6:16 am
“Partial but incomplete conceptual foundation” … I like that, gotta remember to use it.
Paul, if I’d wanted to have the integral start and end at zero, I’d have done so.
However, your partial but incomplete conceptual foundation seems not to have included the possibility that your whiz-bang procedure REDUCES the amount of information available from the process … if you force the endpoints to be the same, as you are doing, rather than simply detrending it as I do, you are removing information from the answer.
You also say:
June 9, 2013 at 5:41 am
“Incorrect”? That’s your whole comment? Look, Paul, I know your math-fu is strong, but your arrogance is neither pleasant nor useful. My statement may well be wrong, I’ve been wrong before.
But you saying “incorrect” just makes you look like a jerk, all it does is it raises the arrogance level without any corresponding increase in actual information.
Give it a rest, Paul, and join in like a human being rather than someone judging from on high … you’ll get more traction.
Thanks,
w.
Paul Vaughan says:
June 9, 2013 at 6:41 am
And you bust me for lack of mathematical understanding? There is exactly one change point in your uncited, unlabeled, unreferenced graph. It occurs in 1950 … and you claim this shows the NPI is controlled by “solar activity & asymmetry”??? What about the NPI changepoints in 1922, 1945, 1976, and 2005, the actual change points? Where are they in your laughable graph?
People are starting to point and laugh, Paul … you need something more than an uncited graph to pull your chestnuts out of the fire.
w.
Phil. says
Not a chance F-UV is absorbed by O2
Henry says:
whatever UV comes through the atmosphere and slams into water is what heats the oceans, mostly,
because of the strong aborptive nature of water in the UV region, see here,
http://www.google.co.za/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/watopt.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html&h=452&w=640&sz=50&tbnid=mqV1VTNQej6nnM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__pmn_KwwocXoudfNjZhvzt-r8oOs=&docid=NrHvwXf4L6-AJM&sa=X&ei=FrC0UemUGoaN7AaJ-oGoDQ&ved=0CDAQ9QEwAA
not much re-radiation of UV there,,,,,once it is in the oceans. It has to convert to heat.
the O2 has little mass so it will re-radiate, allowing some through
but I have no desire to enter into a debate with you again about the difference between a gas and a liquid as to what each does with radiation…..
Greg Goodman says: June 9, 2013 at 8:58 am
Steve Keohane says:
Greg, It is NASA, a satellite measured this in 2010. Light blue, off the west US coast is lower gravitationally than the yellow green north and south.
< Toto says:June 9, 2013 at 10:12 am
I did not mean to imply I agreed with Willis’ reasoning for the gravity delta, only that I confirmed one exists..
” It is NASA, a satellite measured this in 2010.”
You don’t even seem to know what you’re looking at so you are probably drawing the wrong conclusions.
Willis, I agree with you about Paul’s attitude. He gives the impression that by being imprecise and cryptic he will appear more knowledgeable and if it goes wrong he can say the recipient misunderstood.
I would also appreciate a more down to earth attitude but sometimes he provides useful stuff so I grin and bear it. Takes diff’rent folks, etc.
2) asymmetry is interesting but I don’t think it is as relevant as he implies. We all have our pet hypothesis.
1) Incorrect . A bit terse but factual . The first PC is not the same thing as the detrended dataset.
Partial but incomplete conceptual foundation:
Paul repeatedly refers to “the integral” and implies the differential is the inverse of it. The diff is the inverse of indefinite integral not the cumulative integral. He seems to have a partial but incomplete conceptual foundation in there somewhere.
However, in the case of a constant offset leading to a constant slope he is correct as I explained in my notes on the volcano stack.
And clearly if you mean-zero the data the cumulative sum will be zero at the end.
As I’ve said I don’t like the idea of detrending anything at least not without saying what the trend is and why it needs removing. Here we see the “trend” is a constant in the time series , so what is it?
If it’s the mean , the mean of what period and why. When you have an oscillatory signal and in incomplete number of cycles why subtract the mean? What does the mean , mean?
It’s all arbitrary, which is why I suggested _choosing_ it such that +’ve and -‘ve slopes are equal and thus _defining_ that to be the neutral point of your pressure_PDO index.
I think the results of NASA’s SABRE satellite experiment should be considered too. Not only did NASA find that the radiation output of the planet varied (they thought, and models were so programmed, that it was a constant), they found out that the very atmosphere of our planet expands and contracts by several hundred miles in depth between low solar output periods and high solar output. If you’re looking for a controlling “trigger”, the very fact that the atmosphere can and does expand and contract should be considered a major factor. This must have an effect on the jet stream patterns, and by default, the PDO through cloud cover placement due to the jet stream.
Me says: “It’s all arbitrary, which is why I suggested _choosing_ it such that +’ve and -’ve slopes are equal and thus _defining_ that to be the neutral point of your pressure_PDO index.”
In fact I’m not sure that there’s much need to normalise all this to std devs. You could do the whole thing in real numbers and determine the “neutral” pressure of 20th c. and the pressure of the two stable, average pressures either side. Could be interesting.
If you want a “detrend” approach I’d be inclined to average over a complete cycle since they are fairly well defined: 1925:1975 or 1945:2005 , they should come out about the same and will leave the whole period fairly well levelled out. (I’d ignore the earlier period as being settling time or spin-up of the cumulative integral).
I’ve never taken the time out to properly study what’s going on with ocean dynamics, ENSO and PDO and so on. It’s on my to do list. I will say this much, from my position of relative ignorance. There’s a plausible level of complexity here that seems to be lacking from traditional / mainstream thinking about climate. If anything, I’d bet the workings of our climate are considerably more complicated than this, but this seems like thinking in the right direction to me.
Anthony Watts says:
June 8, 2013 at 9:06 pm
The key question: what tips the pendulum?
Interacting of angular momentum has no cause; because angular momentum can neither created nor absorbed. Because of that we can see the oscillating Earth axis as pendulum, which do resonate with other angular moments like the oscillating frequency of Jupiter, which is in a 10:1 resonance; the pendulum frequency of the Earth axis is 0.84217 periods per year, and the frequency of Jupiter is 0.084317 periods per year.
Taking the more precise oscillation ocean index MEI instead of ONI or PDO, a simple FFT analysis shows a lot of sub harmonic modes of the 0.84217 Chandler periods per year.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/fft_mei.gif
There is only one power peak of 11.196/2 = 5.598 years, which is equal to 4.73 chandler wobble periods, while the period of 11.196 years is the long time average sunspot period.
The key question was, whether the PDO or another index like MEI can help to predict the global climate, and the answer is yes, but ….
It can be shown, that the global temperature follows the MEI function with 1/e * 1.186 years = 0.44 years, while 1.186 years is the Chandler period.
But this method of forecast is limited by this time span of 0.44 years, because the nature of MEI is taking differences of temperatures, but not from absolute temperatures.
But another method of forecasting can be used, to simulate the MEI using all sum harmonics to reconstruct the function back in time. Then it works also for the future.
Because this oscillating pendulum is a complex slave function of the heat current from the sun and takes no account of the suns variation of heat generation, it is only a part of the global temperature function.
V.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 8, 2013 at 9:12 pm
Anthony Watts says:
June 8, 2013 at 9:06 pm
The key question: what tips the pendulum?
Indeed. As I said, it has to be temperature related, but what temperature, and where, and what else is involved? Gotta love settled science … only thing for sure is that CO2 isn’t directly involved.
Could deviations in Earths orbit be what tips the pendulum? if so, how much of a role could this have?