UPDATE: Chris de Freitas responds to comments with an addendum below – Anthony
Readers may recall the recent paper that blamed “the pause” in global temperature on ENSO changes in the Pacific Ocean.
Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Xie Nature (2013) doi:10.1038/nature12534
Dr. Judith Curry called the paper “mind blowing”
Now there’s another paper that reaches a similar conclusion:
Update of the Chronology of Natural Signals in the Near-Surface Mean Global Temperature Record and the Southern Oscillation Index
de Freitas and McLean, 2013, p. 237 (Int J Geosciences – open access):
“All other things being equal, a period dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like conditions will result in global warming, whereas a period dominated by a high frequency of La Niña-like conditions will result in global cooling. Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and perhaps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.”
ABSTRACT
Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index and mean global near surface temperature anomalies are compared for the 1950 to 2012 period using recently released HadCRU4 data. The method avoids a focused statistical analysis of the data, in part because the study deals with smoothed data, which means there is the danger of spurious correlations, and in part because the El Niño Southern Oscillation is a cyclical phenomenon of irregular period. In these situations the results of regression analysis or similar statistical evaluation can be misleading.
With the potential controversy arising over a particular statistical analysis removed, the findings indicate that El Nino-Southern Oscillation exercises a major influence on mean global temperature. The results show the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for mean global temperature variation, although the extent of the influence is difficult to quantify from among the variability of short-term influences.
Since the paper is open access, and available here: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=27382
Here is the link to the PDF:
deFreitas_&_McLean_IJG_2013_SOI_&_Mean_Global_Temp
This figure is interesting:
Figure 1. Four-month shifted SOI anomalies with monthly MGT anomalies shown for periods 1950 to1970 (a), 1970 to 1990 (b) and 1990 to June 2012 (c), where the Y-axis scale is identical in each case. The dark line indicates SOI and light line indicates MGT. Periods of volcanic activity are indi-cated (see text).
Discussion and Conclusions
The results show that, by and large, the Southern Oscilla- tion has a consistent influence on mean global tempera- ture. Changes in temperature are consistent with changes in the SOI that occur about four months earlier. The rela- tionship weakens or breaks down at times of major volcanic eruptions. Since the mid-1990s, little volcanic activity has been observed in the tropics and global average temperatures have risen and fallen in close accord with the SOI of four months earlier; although with the unexplained divergence of NH and SH average temperature anomalies modifying the earlier relationship.
The strength of the SOI-MGT relationship may be indicative of the increased vigor in the meridional dispersal of heat during El Niño conditions and the delay in the temperature response is consistent with the transfer of tropical heat polewards. The mechanism of heat transfer is likely the more vigorous Hadley Cell Circulation on both sides of the Intertropical Convergence Zone distributing warm air from the tropical regions to higher lati- tudes. The process of meridional heat dispersal weakens during La Niña conditions and is accompanied by a lower than normal MGT. Hadley Cell Circulation is weakened when the Southern Oscillation is in a state associated with La Niña conditions (i.e. positive Troup SOI values), but strengthens as the Southern Oscillation moves to a condition consistent with El Niño conditions (that is negative SOI values) [6,7].
The precision of the 4-month lag period is uncertain, but the credibility of a lag of some length is not in dispute. Researchers [31] found that mean tropical temperatures for a 13-year record lagged outgoing longwave anomalies by about three months, while [32] found warming events peak three months after sea surface temperature (SST) in the Niño-3.4 region. On the same theme, [33] found lags between 1 – 3 months with SST in the Niño-3.4 region for the period 1950-1999. Along the same lines [14] determined that the correlation between SST in the Niño-3 region and the MGT anomaly was optimum with a time lag of 3-6 months. The sequence of the lagged relationship indicates that ENSO is driving temperature rather than the reverse. Reliable ENSO prediction is possible only to about 12 months [34], which implies that improved temperature forecasting beyond that period is dependent on advancements in ENSO prediction.
The reason for the post-1995 period shift in the SOI- MGT relationship illustrated in Figure 1(c) is puzzling. An explanation may lie in changes in global albedo due to changes in lower-level cloud cover. In an analysis of Australian data, [34] found positive values of SOI anomalies to be associated with increased cloudiness and decreased incoming solar radiation. Data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) indicate that, from 1984 to 2005, mid-level cloud cover in the tropics was relatively constant but both lower and upper level cloud cover declined slightly. In the exotropics (latitude > 20 degrees, low-level cloud progressively decreased from 1998 onwards. It is not clear whether the change is a cause or an effect of a parallel temperature change [35]. The post-1995 shift appears unrelated to carbon dioxide increase because it occurred long after atmospheric CO2 was known to be rising. It is important to see the shift as more of discrete (i.e. step) change rather than a divergence, with the relationship reestablished after 2 – 3 years. Another possibility is that there are problems with the HadCRUT4 1.1.0 data. For example, we note that the published monthly average global temperature anomalies are not equal to the mean of the two published corresponding hemispheric values.
The approach used here avoids a focused statistical analysis of the data, in part because the study deals with smoothed data, which means there is the danger of spu- rious correlations, and in part because the ENSO is a cyclical phenomenon of irregular period. In these situations, the results of regression analysis or similar statisti- cal evaluation can be misleading. With the potential con- troversy arising over a particular statistical analysis re- moved, the findings reported here indicate that atmos- pheric processes that are part of the ENSO cycle are col- lectively a major driver of temperature anomalies on a global scale. All other things being equal, a period dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like condi- tions will result in global warming, whereas a period dominated by a high frequency of La Niña-like condi- tions will result in global cooling. Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and per- haps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.
================================================================
UPDATE: 9/5/13 4:15PM PDT Chris de Freitas asked for this addendum to be posted in response to comments/discussion – Anthony
I understand concerns of the global warming alarmists. I too have been looking high and low for evidence that human-caused carbon dioxide increase is a major driver of mean global temperature. Our current is not part of that quest.
The intention of the work reported in the paper (de Freitas and McLean, 2013) was to stay as far away as possible from statistical massaging of the data. The reason is that, in our earlier 2009 work (McLean, de Freitas and Carter – references below), we were roundly criticised for the statistical methods we used. It detracted from the main finding of the work (i.e. Fig 7), which was free from statistical massaging; namely, that ENSO accounted for a great deal of the variability in mean global temperature; similar to that reported in the more recent paper in Nature (Kosaka and Xie, 2013).
In de Freitas and McLean (2013) we also stayed away from looking for trends. Determining trends and implementing detrending procedures can be important steps in data analysis. However, there is no precise definition of ‘trend’ or any ‘correct’ algorithm for extracting it. Consequently, identification of trend in a time series is subjective because a trend cannot be unequivocally distinguished from low frequency fluctuations. For this reason, a variety of ad hoc methods have been used to determine trends and to facilitate detrending methods (which are also subjective). As regards the correlation routine (Table 2 of our IJG 2013 paper), the idea there was to look for guidance in aligning the X-axis of Figures 1 and 3. It could have (even) been done by eye.
The overriding message is this. Climate is never constant; it is always cooling or warming. Various things cause these trends. Ever since I began studying climate 40 years ago I have been looking for patterns along with possible mechanisms and explanations. I have not had great success; if fact nobody has, and we have all been wrong once or twice. Notwithstanding that, our IJG (2013) paper shows that ENSO correlates well with global temperature. A possible reason (as described) is enhanced (or reduced) Hadley circulation, which increases (or decreases) the effectiveness of meridional heat transfer from the vast tropical zone of surplus towards the poles. It could be that the same process causes vast amounts of stored ocean heat to be fed into the atmosphere over extended periods (or moved back into the ocean over lengthy periods) The result is planet-wide warming (or cooling). If this persists, we get decadal scale global warming (or cooling) trends.
Like the work of Kosaka and Xie (2013), our IJG (2013) and earlier work (2009) shows that the current (or past hiatus), or multi-decadal-scale cooling or warming (‘climate change’), are possibly a reflection of natural climate variability tied specifically to ENSO decadal-scale processes. I assume these are superimposed upon what seems for the moment to be the less potent CO2-caused warming, and likely other less potent mechanisms as well.
Whether the ENSO-caused multi-decadal trends are internal or forced is unknown. My guess is that cooling and warming trends we see, or hiatus, are probably due to natural internal variability rather than a forced response. But we don’t know.
Chris de Freitas
de Freitas, C.R. and McLean, J.D., 2013. Update of the chronology of natural signals in the near-surface mean global temperature record and the Southern Oscillation Index. International Journal of Geosciences, 4(1), 234-239.
Open access at:
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=27382&
McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter, 2009b. Correction to ”Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature”, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D20101, doi:10.1029/2009JD013006. ISSN 0148-0227
McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter, 2009a. Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637. ISSN 0148-0227
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pamela Gray says:
“Mechanism Ulric, mechanism.”
Well I’m glad you’re impressed with the correlation, just look at those 1997/98 and 2009/10 Nino;s:
http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg
We took the mechanism discussion as far as it could go on the other thread, which was postulating a direct solar plasma speed effect on the polar air pressure, which moves the jet stream latitude, and modulates the trade winds. That’s all you are getting.
Pamela Gray says:
“yet these folks think that something magical happens to these sub-parts of TSI (solar wind, UV, etc), to make the Earth dance to their tune.”
It’s called “Joule heating” of the upper atmosphere, it at least creates strong turbulence, particularly in the polar regions where the heating is stronger.
“these folks think that something magical happens to these sub-parts of TSI (solar wind, UV, etc), to make the Earth dance to their tune. Don’t buy it. It is the exact same argument espoused by CO2 folks. Something infinitesimally small gets amplified to the degree that Earth notices it. And what is the mechanism? ”
Nothing magical unless one thinks that the temperature inversion through the stratosphere whereby temperature rises instead of falling with height is magical.
That inversion is solely a result of direct solar interactions with ozone.
Change the balance of ozone creation / destruction differentially with height and/or between equator and poles and then one gets changes in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles which is enough to shift climate zones latitudinally with the cloudiness and albedo changes that we do actually observe.
The variations in the UV and EUV are large enough (10% or more) to have the observed effect and we know that those wavelengths are involved in the ozone creation / destruction balance along with a range of other particles and chemicals that vary with the suns behaviour.
It isn’t an energy issue but a chemistry issue.
Other aspects of solar behaviour such as cosmic rays, magnetic field and solar wind don’t directly act on ozone and so I don’t think they are involved in the temperature changes observed. They merely serve as proxies for the level of solar activity with no causative influence themselves.
Ulric Lyons said:
“Yes they all show more El Nino during cold periods and less El Nino through the warm periods.”
Could you link to that data please.
An El Nino during a period of quiet sun and meridional jets with less solar energy entering the oceans would have a significant cooling effect due to its heat shedding nature.
Remember hat I propose a balance between the top down solar effect and the bottom up oceanic effect so short term misalignment between El Ninos / La Ninas and warming or cooling is perfectly possible.
In the end though I would expect to see more El Ninos during the MWP and today than there were during the depths of the Maunder Minimum / LIA.
Bob Tisdale said:
“I will also ask you once again to stop portraying it as being incomplete because it does not support the time period of your research interests.”
I have no problem accepting the accuracy and completeness of your work on the time scales you reasonably seek to work within.
I remain of the view that for a complete climate (as opposed to ENSO) description it is necessary to take account of your findings over the longer periods of time which interest me.
Although I am a trained lawyer I seek to use words as simply as possible so readers should not worry about any lawyerly subtexts. None such are ever intended.
Smartypants Janice Moore take note.
Ulric.
It would be theoretically possible to have more, smaller El Ninos during a period of weak sun due to the top down solar effect working from the poles pushing the air circulation equatorward and limiting the regional extent of the Pacific oscillation.
Research into that area could be a useful longer term refinement of my basic hypothesis if what you say is true.
In the end hough Occam’s Razor keeps it nice and simple in the first instance.
The sun changes the global air circulation so as to affect global cloudiness which alters the amount of energy entering the oceans to drive the climate system.
The more solar energy gets into the oceans the stronger or bigger can be El Ninos and the less gets in the weaker or smaller they must be.
No solar input, no El Nino.
A La Nina would be best characterised as a non El Nino. A mere ‘resting’ period between El Nino events during which the oceans can recharge as Bob tells us.
An analysis as to how the timing works out in practice can await another day.
Friends:
This thread is about the publication of a paper which reports ENSO has a significant effect on global temperature over decadal time scales.
The subject has much interest to WUWT reasons for several reasons. e.g.
How does the paper accord with the series of WUWT articles by Bob Tisdale which have presented his ideas of how ENSO effects global temperature over decadal time scales?
And what does this paper imply about climate sensitivity?
And how will this paper affect contents of the IPCC AR5 when its closure date for considered papers has passed?
And etc..
All of these matters deserve consideration. But advocates of solar effects are hijacking this thread. Their interest is the NOT the only subject that matters, whatever some of them may think.
There are other WUWT threads about solar effects on climate. I submit that those who want to flog their solar hobby horses should go to appropriate WUWT threads: two are active at present, i.e.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/30/accuracy-precision-and-one-watt-per-square-metre/
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/29/a-new-understanding-of-the-solar-dynamo-published/
Richard
Stephen Wilde says:
September 3, 2013 at 11:29 pm
“…Although I am a trained lawyer I seek to use words as simply as possible so readers should not worry about any lawyerly subtexts. None such are ever intended…”
/////////////////////////////
Stephen
Whilst it is good to use simple and readily understandable language, words inevitably carry with them their ordinary and accepted meaning. Some part of this meaning is implicit subtext. The word ‘avoid’ is one such word. It is not neutral in subtext, and I understand why Bob takes offence. Since he has raised this objection before, I would have thought that you would have refrained from expressing what you consider to be limitations in Bob’s analysis in similar fashion and more neutral wording would be employed by you.
If you desire to be neutral and use simple and understandable wording, you can state that ‘Bob does not deal with X’ or ‘Bob only deals with X and does not deal with Y’.
In Climate Science there is lots of data, the issue is its quality. In my opinion, most, if not very nearly all, is not fit for purpose, and one of the problems in this field is that data is overstrained, and there is not a proper recognition of its short comings, limitations and errors.
I consider that Bob’s comment that you are working without data to be more than harsh, in fact to be wrong, but likewise I understand his point as to why he works with more recent data. But inevitably, that recent data is of short duration. Working with data of short duration even if that data is of better, or even good quality, imposes its own limitation.
Given the age of the planet and the length of glacial and interglacial cycles, all data that we possess is woefully short in duration and incapable of addressing the heart of the issue, namely is planet Earth experiencing something unusual at this stage of an interglacial cycle? We would need high resolution data dealing with numerous glacial/interglacial cycles to shed light on that question.
It is good to see that more attention is at long last being paid to the oceans. It is obvious that the oceans control the climate (are the driving force behind it) given that they account for two thirds of the surface and their heat capacity wholly overwhelms that of the atmosphere. We are a water planet and given the behavoir of water and its phase changes, this is fundamental. It has always baffled me why research has not concentrated on understanding the behavoir of the oceans, how they are heated, how they distribute that heat, the interaction with the atmosphere immediately above them, the generation of cloud formation and how they drive the jet streams etc.
In my opinion, Willis will be able to refine his model once he appreciates that the equitorial/tropical oceans would not freeze over even if they received no DWLWIR, and the excess solar that they receive (ie., that which would heat them to above 28 to 30degC) is pumped around the globe thereby preventing the oceans outside the tropical regions freezing, or only freezing for part of the year.
I am also of the view that the ‘new’ research looking more at the natural world, will reveal that the radiative model is misconceived and has been overplayed.
Ulric Lyons says: “So that may seem to invalidate comparison of El Niño to La Niña strictly by frequency alone as they don’t necessarily each have the same value…”
ENSO indices were chosen in efforts to reflect the impacts of El Nino and La Nina on surface conditions, not OHC. See Trenberth and Stepaniak (2001):
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/tniJC.pdf
and Klaus Wolter’s Multivariate ENSO Index webpage:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
richard verney said:
“The word ‘avoid’ is one such word. It is not neutral in subtext, and I understand why Bob takes offence”
Then if that is the case I must express regret.
In my mind the word ‘avoid’ is neutral. If I were to try to add a judgmental subtext I would have used the term ‘evade’.
In my world, for example, tax evasion is illegal but tax avoidance is not.
If I need to refer to the issue again I will simply say that Bob chooses not to go beyond the data which he uses in connection with his ENSO work and which is largely limited to the period since 1982.
To get a better grip on the climate system as a whole one has to go way beyond that period because no discussion of natural variability can omit consideration of the Roman Warm Period, MWP, LIA and the other warm and cool periods.
A similar point applies to Willis’s Thermostat Hypothesis which is limited to events in the tropics whereas it needs to be extended globally.
Both Bob and Willis have done fine work but in both cases it needs to be extended for an integrated climate solution. Each is just a small part of the whole.
Their work needs to be integrated one with the other, extended globally, extended back in time and integrated with the solar variations that appear to influence the entire global air circulation system on multiple time scales.
That is what I have attempted to do. With some success, I hope.
richardscourtney said:
“There are other WUWT threads about solar effects on climate”
Are there any that discuss how solar variation could skew the balance between El Ninos and La Ninas for centuries at a time to produce MWP, LIA et al?
Given that the recent pause coincided with a quieter sun and the past warming coincided with an active sun that issue is at the heart of this thread especially since a similar relationship goes back to at least the MWP going by Jetstream tracks at the time as revealed by ships logs and contemporary weather reports.
Has anyone else ever suggested that that is what is going on ?
richardscourtney says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:11 am
“…And what does this paper imply about climate sensitivity?…”
//////////////////////////
Quite obviously if the conclusion is correct that “Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and per- haps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature….” it follows that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 is lower than the IPCC presently ‘estimates’. I would say ‘guesses’ since until such time as natural variation is fully understood; precisely what it comprises of, the forcing associated with each and every constituent component, the direction of those forcings, and the upper and lower bounds of each and every constituent forcing, it is impossible to seperate the signal of CO2, from the noise of natural variation. Presently, we do not have sufficient knowledge and understanding of natural variation to do this, and hence any assessment of Climate Sensitivity is simply a guess, not an estimate. in my opinion, given the present state of play, it is highly disengenuous to talk about Climate Sensitivity estimates, when in reality they are nothing more than guesses.
If one looks at the satellite data set (on the basis that it is not polluted by UHI, poor station siting, station drop outs etc) as being the most accurate record of atmospheric temperatures these past 33 years, there is no first order correlation between CO2 and temperature. There is no linear rise in temperature. Merely a one off and isolated temperature shift in and around the Super El Nino of 1998. That is quite remarkable if CO2 is the dominant driver of temperature here on planet Earth.
Unless ENSO is in some way driven by CO2 (and no one has yet propsed a mechanism whereby this could be the case) one is left to conclude that from the satellite data set (which admittedly is only 33 years in duration but which covers a substantial proportion of manmade CO2 emissions), Climate Sensitivity is zero or so close to zero that presently it cannot be measured within the limitations imposed by the resolution, sensitivity and errors of our present day measuring equipment.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 4, 2013 at 2:10 am
///////////////////////
Stephen
We both know that evade is a stronger word than avoid.
The fact that evade is stronger does not mean that avoid is devoid of subtext.Even your illustration over tax illustrates the point. I accept the legal distiction raised, but you are no doubt aware of the political arguments being run against companies who quite legitimately arrange their corporate affairs so as to keep their tax liabilities to a minimum. The perception of this is that somehow tax avoidance is immoral. Politicians (and indeed commentators/MSM) are playing upon the sub text of the word avoidance. By using this the politicians are trying to give the impression that the actions of companies is wrongful and that they are legitimate targets to go after. As a side comment, the public are being duped, since they fail to appreciate that a company never bears any expense; all expenses (including tax) are passed onto the customers. Accordingly, if Starbucks, Amazon, Google etc are forced to pay more tax, the price of a cup of coffeee, or items bought on the internet etc will rise so that the general public will foot the bill of the increased tax burden imposed on companies, the cost of living will go up, people’s wages will not, in today’s economic environment, rise in line with this, and living standards will be squeezed. This might not be a problem, if it was only Starbucks who do not pay much tax, but it is widespread throughout large businesses (indeed some large businesses are even encouraged to domicile themselves with incentives of favourable tax status). As I say, that is a side issue, whether you or not you intend to play upon subtext, the word avoid does carry with it adverse sub text (albeit not as patent as the meaning of evade).
Stephen, I do not join issue with the last 5 paragraphs. All of these are pieces of a jigsaw in the natural world, and when collated as a whole (with other pieces) we will begin to know and understand how the natural world functions. Whilst I sometimes have serious disagreements with some of what Willis has to state on some issues, I fully agree that Bob, Willis and you are all making valuable contributions and that your work (by which I mean all of you) is to be respected.
PS. Whilst I understand Richard’s desire that a thread should not become hijacked or side tracked, I too share the view that solar is of some relevance to the ENSO issue. We need to know what drives it. Subtle solar variations may be a driver whether due to cloud formation, changes in jet streams or otherwise, and hence I see the relevance of discussing this to the extent that this is coupled into ocean heating and preferably into ENSO, its cycles and ENSO effects.
“The perception of this is that somehow tax avoidance is immoral”
I would submit that to be a corruption of the former neutral tone of the word.
Nonetheless I do appreciate that Bob did take the word in a manner that was not intended.
Note, though, that Bob expresses himself pretty robustly too and I could have taken more offence than I did at some of the things he has said to me.
For the future I would hope for more mutual tolerance of words that might have slightly different meanings to different people.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 4, 2013 at 3:43 am
///////////////////////
Stephen
I accept that the interpretation of language is complicated because there is inevitably a subjective element. No matter how objective one tries to be, there are always slight subjective variations. As a lawyer, you no doubt have more experience of this than most.
In the tax argument (which is all the rage at the moment since governments are anxious to lay their hands on more money to keep their spendthrift desires afloat) avoiding tax is conflated with ‘not paying their fair share of tax’. This is all subtle sub text because governments wish to give the impression that companies are evading tax when in truth (at least for the main part) they are not, and politicians cannot use a word as strong as evade (which has a patent meaning) without being called out on their language.
Avoid can (but not always) carry with it some underhand practice. A lay person may consider that terms and conditions are used to avoid liability which they see as an underhand practice, whereas, a lawyer may see them as simply defining the scope, terms and provisons of the contract. May be that is a subtle distinction, but I would venture to say that it is more than just a perceived distinction, and that is why there is Unfair Contract Terms legislation and indeed why there are various tenets of construction that may restrict reliance upon some such provisions.
Anyway, enough of the semantics. I do not wish to side track this thread on such issues.
Stephen Wilde says:
“In the end though I would expect to see more El Ninos during the MWP and today than there were during the depths of the Maunder Minimum / LIA.”
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N1/C3.php
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N10/C1.php
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V8/N37/C2.php
“The more solar energy gets into the oceans the stronger or bigger can be El Ninos and the less gets in the weaker or smaller they must be.”
No the stronger they are, the more energy gets out, else the SST would be lower, and the OHC higher.
Ulric.
Energy has to get in first before it can come out.
I don’t disagree that an El Nino is an energy releasing process.
As regards the links I see that the findings of others are very contradictory.
I think the problem is that since the ENSO signal is then heavily modulated by events in other ocean basins the timing is all over the place and the signs vary from region to region depending on other factors such as the atmospheric circulation changes that follow from the interplay between top down solar and bottom up oceanic influences.
As I said, I think the timing issues need to be resolved another day when the data is far better.
The basic fact though is that more energy in must give more El Ninos and less energy in must give less or less strong El Ninos.
Stephen Wilde says:
“As regards the links I see that the findings of others are very contradictory.”
Cough them up, or else you are just hand waving.
“The basic fact though is that more energy in must give more El Ninos and less energy in must give less or less strong El Ninos.”
Impossible anti-physics, energy in is La Nina, energy out is El Nino.
richardscourtney says:
“But advocates of solar effects are hijacking this thread. Their interest is the NOT the only subject that matters, whatever some of them may think.”
As far as I can see, the AGW Gorgon is now a headless zombie, as it got the Arctic all back to front: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/#comment-1398577
Proving a solar driven case for ENSO would finish it off for good, why spoil such a good opportunity?
“Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and perhaps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.” ”
It seems to me that several people are piggy backing onto what Bob Tisdale has been saying for years. Too bad Bob couldn’t patent all of the work he’s done and charge royalties.
Ulric Lyons:
At September 4, 2013 at 6:09 am you ask me
I answer
because your performance on other threads demonstrates you are not capable of presenting a cogent case so it is not credible that you could ‘prove’ anything, why spoil this thread, too?
Richard
richardscourtney says:
“because your performance on other threads demonstrates you are not capable of presenting a cogent case”
Hot air, I am always concise and cogent. Not until it can be proved that ENSO is internally forced will I desist from pointing to the solar correlations: http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg
richardscourtney says:
“But advocates of solar effects are hijacking this thread.”
I actually see it as you hijacking the thread with your agenda against solar hobby horses. You have not given any grounds for ruling out a solar influence.
The null hypothesis is internal variation, of which this thread is focused on. There is much to discuss with Bob and related to this paper. The thread has been hijacked. I have a solution. Ulric and Stephen wish to pursue a solar agenda. Let them hash it out between the two of them. I am done with both of them.
As for patterns of frequent El Ninos and patterns of frequent La Ninas, this has always been a focus of data. But I am wondering if a pattern of El/La Nadas holds the key for coming coolness. I have pondered the ENSO anomalies and wondered if a pattern emerging with Nadas and subsequent deep cooling is there. But the data isn’t long enough. With neutral ENSO, the oceans are not getting recharged to the degree they should to lead up to a period of hotness. So maybe the key to predicting serious cooling is in the Nadas?
Notice anything about Nadas in this data?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml