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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
273 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
PeterM NZ
June 10, 2013 12:46 pm

Long range weather forecasting is farmer business but a gamble.
In Rhodesia in the 70s we used El Nino and the winter rainfall in the South African Cape as an indicator for a dry summer and an option to use wet land for planting maize in an attempt to minimize the financial risk. Alexander has lots to say on the subject. Willis has his feet on the ground.

lgl
June 10, 2013 1:33 pm

Trond A
2/3 of the total downward radiation is LW, all the time.

Trond A
June 10, 2013 2:21 pm

lgl
Your answer is short as usual 🙂
A bit less than that if you use mean values as 161 W/m^2 hitting the ground directly from the sun and totally 390 W/m^2 (calculated from the surface (also calculated) mean temperature of the earth as 15C) because of added LW backradiation. But if you try this relation out on a tropical desert with the incoming radiation from a zenith sun I am afraid it will get terribly hot, maybe twice or more than ever experienced.
I guess I’ll have to interpret your answer in the way that you don’t agree with the described mechanism of warming during La Nina from a direct sun, but that LW radiation heats the ocean more effectively(?).

Paul Vaughan
June 10, 2013 7:19 pm

1) Here I linked to my own graphs of several climate index integrals — including NPI:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/21/hansen-on-the-surface-temperature-record-climategate-solar-and-el-nino/#comment-271900
2) Here I showed the integral of -NPI on both pages 21 & 22:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases.pdf
3) Above I shared a reminder — anyone who linked to that reminder saw a graph of the integral of -NPI featured prominently on p. 1:
http://www.billhowell.ca/Paul%20L%20Vaughan/Vaughan%20120324%20Solar-Terrestrial%20Resonance,%20Climate%20Shifts,%20&%20the%20Chandler%20Wobble%20Phase%20Reversal.pdf
Plenty of other people will have the NPI integral on file. It’s routine to do a graph like that when looking at a new series. Just like we don’t cite hundreds of other people who’ve smoothed a time series when we smooth the same time series, we don’t need to cite other people who have looked at an integral. What I objected to here was comically obsequious commentary attempting to make it appear that Willis had pioneered some heroic breakthrough by trivially plotting the NPI integral.

Paul Vaughan
June 10, 2013 7:31 pm

Trond A (June 10, 2013 at 2:21 pm) wrote:

lgl
Your answer is short as usual 🙂

lgl is a model commentator — concise and focused sharply on tearing down boundaries at the knowledge frontier.

June 10, 2013 8:31 pm

HenryP says:
June 10, 2013 at 11:25 am
Phil. says
O2 absorbs by and is photo-dissociated into 2O by UV shorter than 242nm, i.e. UVC, F-UV and some E-UV.
Henry says
some?
papers?
proof?

Plenty, now read some, I can provide many more if you wish.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1469/769.full
http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_5/5_2.htm

Greg Goodman
June 10, 2013 11:04 pm

lgl says June 9, 2013 at 8:15 am, referring to Bob Tisdale:
“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
lgl, that plot shows a strong correlation with _something_. Is there any chance you could make it into a meaningful graph by explaining _exactly_ what is being plotted.
we now know that DW mean downwards radiation but is this SW,LW, total , TOA, surface, global mean , Pacific. ????
Temp for tropical Pacific is what? Air, SST, which region? nino3.4 all tropics.
A graph like that means _nothing_ to anyone except he who plotted it and knows what the data was.
Now there’s a strong correlation there which may either confirm or refute certain ideas. If you have a point to make how about posting that graph which properly labelled axes and preferably references to data sources so we can reproduce it?
BTW my brain is a bit slow at dividing by 12 and adding 1980, how about a proper x axis that I don’t have to do mental gymnastics to read?
You seem to think it’s important (and you may be right) so how about communicating it in a useful form.

June 11, 2013 2:47 am

Willis concludes: „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.”
To predict the global climate one has to separate the effects of the Sun, which gives the heat load power, from the effects of the oscillating Earth, which are generated from the Earth axis wobble of about 433 days (s. my above posting).
It is clear, that an oscillating Earth axis, coupled to the QBO oscillation of the atmosphere wit 2 times 433 days or 2.366 years, and coupled with the ENSO Oscillations of 3.55 years as a sub harmonic main mode 3 besides other ENSO frequency modes cannot lead to prediction of the global temperature for longer than a year, because in that impedance of the ocean oscillations no heat is created; the heat load frequencies for longer and for shorter time than a year coming from the Sun only.
Solving the problem of separating both effects, it helps to remove the ENSO function from the global temperature record function, because the remaining function then is the heat load function from the Sun (Red curve). The remaining function can now compared with the heat load generating function of the Sun (Blue curve).
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/enso_removed.gif
From this mathematics and the correlation of time coherence it is evident that the ignored global temperature frequencies of Earth wobble (ENSO) and Sun tides are the basis of the nature of terrestrial climate.
It seems, that the known basis of the ENSO function as generated from the Earth wobble frequency of 433 days, can be solved and synthesised. This would open the door to a precise global temperature prediction.
However, hints of this kind are blowing in the wind …
V.

Editor
June 11, 2013 3:58 am

lgl, first you quoted me out of context and without attribution, “This recharges (or replenishes) the heat released during the El Niño.” The full paragraph reads:
The recharge of ocean heat in the tropical Pacific during a La Niña is a function of cloud cover and sunlight. Because there is less evaporation during a La Niña, there is less cloud cover. Less cloud cover means more sunlight can enter and warm the tropical Pacific. This recharges (or replenishes) the heat released during the El Niño.
And then, lgl, you said, “Oh not that nonsense again. El Niño heats the tropical Pacific, http://virakkraft.com/Rad-Temp-Trop-Pac.png”
Nonsense? Your grasp of reality is somewhat skewed, lgl. You must be hanging out at SkepticalScience again. Your graph also confirms that downward longwave radiation can’t recharge the heat released by the El Niño—in other words, it contradicts the argument you’re trying (and failing) to make.
I assume the “DW Rad.” you’re showing in your graph is downward longwave radiation. Downward longwave radiation increases in the tropical Pacific during an El Niño because the sea surface temperatures are warmer. And the sea surface temperatures are warmer because warm waters from the surface and below the surface of the west Pacific Warm Pool have sloshed to the east. Some of the increase in downward longwave radiation is caused by the resulting increase in the air temperatures of the tropical Pacific. And some of the increase in downward longwave radiation is caused by the increase in cloud cover caused by the increase in evaporation. All in all, the variations in downward longwave radiation are caused by ENSO.
And with your graph, we can see that downward longwave radiation decreases during La Niñas. If the downward longwave radiation decreases during a La Niña, how then could it be the medium that recharges or replenishes the heat released during an El Niño? It can’t. I’ll repeat my earlier comment:
The recharge of ocean heat in the tropical Pacific during a La Niña is a function of cloud cover and sunlight. Because there is less evaporation during a La Niña, there is less cloud cover. Less cloud cover means more sunlight can enter and warm the tropical Pacific. This recharges (or replenishes) the heat released during the El Niño.
And here’s a comparison graph of downward longwave and shortwave radiation for the tropical Pacific:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/figure-23.png
Sure does look like downward shortwave radiation (sunlight) increases during La Niñas.
That graph is Figure 23 from this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/open-letter-to-the-royal-meteorological-society-regarding-dr-trenberths-article-has-global-warming-stalled/
I described the ENSO processes that cause the relationships between downward longwave and shortwave radiation in detail in that post. See the second paragraph after Figure 22. And I know you at least looked at the graphs in that post because you commented on the thread of the WUWT cross post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/open-letter-to-the-royal-meteorological-society-regarding-dr-trenberths-article-has-global-warming-stalled/#comment-1326041
One last thing: What’s the source of the data in your graph? Your “DW Rad.” data appears a bit high, by about 200 watts/m^2.

Kristian
June 11, 2013 4:18 am

Tisdale,
You can just give up on trying to teach lgl anything about reality. He’s contained within his own little bubble and have no intention of leaving it, just switching endlessly from one talking point to the next as one proves his last one wrong.

Paul Vaughan
June 11, 2013 4:21 am

“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.”

In the elaboration decadal ( http://imageshack.us/a/img202/4641/lodjev.png ) was notably skipped and multidecadal (what I’ve called “multidecadal solar throttling of aggregate meridional equator-pole heat & water pumping”) was mislabeled as decadal — see visual summaries I’ve volunteered along with concise notes here:
http://www.billhowell.ca/Paul%20L%20Vaughan/Vaughan%20130224%20-%20Solar%20Terrestrial%20Volatility%20Waves.pdf
With one powerfully concise image, Wyatt, Kravtsov, & Tsonis reminded us to step back from tangles of integrals & derivatives of coupled temperature, mass, & velocity to see holistically:
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kravtsov/www/downloads/Presentations2010-2011/AMO_AGU10.pdf
Interpretive Caution:
Their attribution is misplaced. AMO/AMOC = locally amplified manifestation (not driver).
The phenomenon is global and externally governed:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/scd_sst_q.png
Interpretive Caution:
Temporal cycle acceleration/deceleration indicates spatiotemporal acceleration/deceleration more generally due to a simple relationship:
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/589/1/665/fulltext/57538.fg2.html
… so temporal solar cycle acceleration/deceleration is a proxy for solar spatial pattern change acceleration/deceleration and all related heliospheric spatiotemporal modulation.
This observation challenges us to explore synchronization of gradients (and hence flows) on stars, in heliospheric structures more generally, and on planetary surfaces.

lgl
June 11, 2013 7:29 am

Greg
I’ve told you all you need to know. Downward radiation to the surface, and radiation is total, SW+LW, if not stated otherwise, and I’m sure you recognised the ENSO pattern immediately.
Bob
SW anomaly was positive most of the time 1991 to 2006, when ENSO was also mostly positive.
SW has decreased significantly after 2005, same has ENSO.
Cloud cover has increased a lot since 1995, when ENSO has dropped.
Willis recently showed the upper 100 meters closely follows the surface temps, so your funny notion that LW does not heat below a few millimeters is just – funny. 200 W/m2 solar can’t keep tens of meters of waterdepth at 300 K.
Again, the rule is, the total radiation to the surface, the energy input, is above average when ENSO is above average.
Reality is broader than the single Nino and Nina.
Trond
This should answer your question.

lgl
June 11, 2013 7:49 am

… or maybe I should have said PDO/-NPI instead of ENSO …
Compare SW in 1998-2000 with 2010-2012. Much lower now when PDO is in negative phase, coincidence?

Kristian
June 11, 2013 7:58 am

lgl,
The atmosphere is not a second heat source for the ocean surface. That’s why you can not ADD an inferred LW radiation flux to the solar SW radiative heat flux. Radiation is not in itself heat. There is no extra radiative heat coming down to the surface from the atmosphere. The radiative heat flux between surface and atmosphere goes UP. The Sun is the ocean’s only heat source from above.
Like Tisdale said, SST increases first, the surface in turn heats the atmosphere above it, which thus becomes warmer and hence more DWIR can be inferred (notice, it is not measured, merely calculated, the only thing actually being measured is the heat flux – and it goes up). You’ve got it all backwards …

Richard M
June 11, 2013 8:42 am

A couple of comments:
1) As for noticing the 2005 change … I’ve been pointing this out of several months after I produced this graph,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.8/to/plot/rss/from:1996.8/to/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.8/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/to/trend
The reason I came up with 2005 is that is an ENSO neutral year with the best match of a change from a positive trend to a negative one. No, it is not scientific, it is just something I noticed. However, I only posted this chart recently on WUWT. I’ve referenced it at other sites where I’ve been debating true believers by informing them of the great correlation of the PDO with temperatures for the last 100 years. It doesn’t take anything away from the work Willis has done, but Paul V. is also correct in what he stated.
2) I’ve also noticed something about the AMO that may be helpful. It appears to have it’s upward period (from max negative to max positive) and downward period in correlation with the PDO crossing the zero line. In other words, when the PDO becomes positive the AMO starts rising and when the PDO becomes negative the AMO starts dropping (on average). Maybe someone can put some more meat on the bones.
3) Paul Clark … thank you very much for you contribution to climate discussions. I don’t know what I would do without woodfortrees. You should get some kind of award.

Greg Goodman
June 11, 2013 8:42 am

lgl says:
June 11, 2013 at 7:29 am
Greg
I’ve told you all you need to know. Downward radiation to the surface, and radiation is total, SW+LW, if not stated otherwise, and I’m sure you recognised the ENSO pattern immediately.
No you have not. And you still refuse to say what you have plotted for some obscure reason.
Bob Tisdale says:
I assume the “DW Rad.” you’re showing in your graph is downward longwave radiation. Downward longwave radiation increases in the tropical Pacific during an El Niño because the sea surface temperatures are warmer.
Why _assume_ anything? If the guy can not even be arsed to say what he is plotting, just ignore it. I for one am not interested is guessing what it may be and then trying to interpret what it may or may not mean.
If he wants to say your work is “nonsense” , without even having the good manners to refer to you directly, he’d damned well better come up with something coherent and at least learn to label a graph so that it is meaningful.
With his Mickey Mouse graph and comments like – AMO, well add a bit of NAO – he is really just posting meaningless drivel.
I would demand that he posted something meaningful before feeling the need to defend yourself. You can’t answer someone who is incapable of showing their basic arguments, so don’t try.

lgl
June 11, 2013 8:43 am

Kristian
I’m not going to discuss that skydragon nonsense. The LW is measured every day around the world. You can’t explain the high temps of the surface without it, for instance 300 K in tropical Pacific and only 200 W/m2 solar input. What’s the temperature of a black-body emitting 200 W/m2? (or make that 60 W/m2 if you like because there is also 140 W/m2 latent transfer)

Greg Goodman
June 11, 2013 9:00 am

Richard M. “2) I’ve also noticed something about the AMO that may be helpful. It appears to have it’s upward period (from max negative to max positive) and downward period in correlati2) I’ve also noticed something about the AMO that may be helpful. It appears to have it’s upward period (from max negative to max positive) and downward period in correlation with the PDO crossing the zero line. In other words, when the PDO becomes positive the AMO starts rising and when the PDO becomes negative the AMO starts dropping (on average). Maybe someone can put some more meat on the bones.
on with the PDO crossing the zero line. In other words, when the PDO becomes positive the AMO starts rising and when the PDO becomes negative the AMO starts dropping (on average). Maybe someone can put some more meat on the bones.”
I started looking at cross-correlation of N.Pacific and N. Atlantic SST last year and it was very interesting how the two played off against each other.
…. until I realised that none of what I saw was in the original ICOADS data and was infact an artefact of HadSST3 processing.
At that point I resolved to stop using Hadley data “products” for any kind of spectral analysis and cross correlation work.
AMO is not hadley based but ERSST, but they adopt many of the hadley “corrections”.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/icoad_v_hadsst3_ddt_n_pac_chirp.png
This is not sampling “corrections” , their data processing is doing some (apparently unintentional) frequency adjustments.

Greg Goodman
June 11, 2013 9:07 am

Also AMO is “detrended” whatever that means is subjectively linked to the assumption that there is a linear trend to be removed, and PDO is the invserse of NP SST minus the global mean and then some EOF magic.
After all that , if there is some relationship between the two I’d be hard pressed to accord it any physical meaning.
IIRC, when I looked at ICAOADS SST all the interplay implied in the cross-correlations disappeared.

lgl
June 11, 2013 9:13 am

Greg
When I’m writing downward radiation without specifying any wavelength, what else than all wavelengths would that be? Why would it be only LW or only SW? Why wouldn’t I say LW if that was what I was graphing?

lgl
June 11, 2013 9:23 am

Richard
“when the PDO becomes positive the AMO starts rising and when the PDO becomes negative the AMO starts dropping”
Just like it is supposed to if AMO is the integral of PDO (or ENSO)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/normalise/integral/detrend:-10/normalise/plot/esrl-amo/from:1900/mean:90/normalise
Then Greg, add or remove some NAO integral. Temps of the north atlantic is of course also influenced by what’s happening in the north atlantic, so nothing wrong with that.

June 11, 2013 9:28 am

Phil. says
Phil. says
O2 absorbs by and is photo-dissociated into 2O by UV shorter than 242nm, i.e. UVC, F-UV and some E-UV.
Henry asked:
some?
papers?
proof?
Phil. says
Plenty, now read some, I can provide many more if you wish.
http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_5/5_2.htm
Henry.
I quote from the above paper that you quoted to me:
……..the Chapman reactions. He proposed that atomic oxygen is formed by the splitting (dissociation) of O2 by high energy ultraviolet photons (i.e., packets of light energy with wavelengths shorter than 242 nanometers) via
O2 + hc/ y–> O + O
Where h is the Planck constant, c is the speed of light, and y is the wavelength of the photon, given in nanometers (abbreviated nm, where 1 nm=10-9 meter). Collectively, hc/y represents the photon of light that breaks up the O2 molecule. The top panel of Figure 5.01 displays the absorption cross section for oxygen multiplied by 10,000. The cross-section is proportional to the probability that a photon from the Sun will be absorbed by an oxygen molecule. While this probability increases for the shorter, more energetic photons, the amount of UV radiation with wavelength shorter than 242 nm reaching into the atmosphere falls dramatically with decreasing altitude.
end quote
While this probability increases for the shorter, more energetic photons
end quote again
now,
as I was saying,
\not “some” (which is what you suggested) but most, if not all, of the E-UV is used to convert oxygen into ozone and HO into HxOx and NO into NxOx at the TOA. The atmosphere protects us from the E-UV. When the sun is quiet, (less SSN) you get more E-UV. More ozone and others TOA means more UV (all types) being back radiated, and less UV coming through the atmosphere. . It is the UV, mostly, that fires up the oceans. If you do not get that bit right, you miss all the fun.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
now look up when ozone started declining and when it started increasing again both SH and NH and compare that to my graph quoted above??
Have a nice day, Phil.

Kristian
June 11, 2013 10:51 am

lgl says, June 11, 2013 at 8:43 am:
“I’m not going to discuss that skydragon nonsense.”
Sorry, but this is not ‘skydragon nonsense’, lgl. I’m simply telling you that the atmosphere is not a second heat source for the ocean. So you cannot add a DWIR flux from the atmosphere, which is not a radiative heat flux, to the solar flux, which is a radiative heat flux. Apples and oranges. If anything, the DWIR is subtracted from the UWIR from the surface (you know, your ‘reduced radiative cooling’). The radiative heat (you know, what you would call ‘the net’) flux between surface and atmosphere goes up. Do you seriously disagree with these facts?
What you need to do is look at the total net air/sea flux at the tropical Pacific Ocean surface and see when the most heat and when the least heat goes into the ocean. I can assure you that you will find that during La Niña or neutral conditions more heat is absorbed by the ocean and that considerably less is absorbed during El Niño conditions – the stronger the event, the less net gain of heat:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Pacificair-seaflux_zpsf8421585.png
Total net air/sea flux is ‘net solar’ (positive) + ‘latent heat’ (negative) + ‘sensible heat’ (negative) + ‘thermal radiation (IR)’ (negative). Notice how the tropical Pacific always gains heat, only to a greater or lesser degree. The swings are really much larger than rendered here, since the curve is smoothed to eliminate the seasonal cycle. The one (and very significant) heat transfer mechanism that must be considered besides the air/sea flux represented in the graph above is advection, ocean currents bringing absorbed solar heat mainly out of the region in question and which is also far from a constant variable.