UPDATE: Even Trenberth is critical of the Cai et al. (2013) study. See the update at the end.
# # #
My apologies to the writers of Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles for the title of the post.
Hedley Lamarr: My mind is aglow with whirling, transient nodes of thought careening through a cosmic vapor of invention.
Taggart: Ditto.
Hedley Lamarr: “Ditto?” “Ditto,” you provincial putz?
Blogger “Andrew” advises that the twitter-sphere is filled with discussions of a new paper claiming that the strengths of the late 20th Century El Niño events were caused by global warming. This argument has been around for years and keeps getting resurrected. Blogger “nevket240” provided a link to the Sydney Morning Herald article by Tom Arup Major El Nino events likely to double in next century, which appears to have initiated the discussions.
The new paper is Cai et al (2013) Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming. The abstract reads:
El Niño events are a prominent feature of climate variability with global climatic impacts. The 1997/98 episode, often referred to as ‘the climate event of the twentieth century’, and the 1982/83 extreme El Niño, featured a pronounced eastward extension of the west Pacific warm pool and development of atmospheric convection, and hence a huge rainfall increase, in the usually cold and dry equatorial eastern Pacific. Such a massive reorganization of atmospheric convection, which we define as an extreme El Niño, severely disrupted global weather patterns, affecting ecosystems, agriculture, tropical cyclones, drought, bushfires, floods and other extreme weather events worldwide. Potential future changes in such extreme El Niño occurrences could have profound socio-economic consequences. Here we present climate modelling evidence for a doubling in the occurrences in the future in response to greenhouse warming. We estimate the change by aggregating results from climate models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phases 3 (CMIP3; ref. 10) and 5 (CMIP5; ref. 11) multi-model databases, and a perturbed physics ensemble. The increased frequency arises from a projected surface warming over the eastern equatorial Pacific that occurs faster than in the surrounding ocean waters, facilitating more occurrences of atmospheric convection in the eastern equatorial region.
A REANALYSIS CONTRADICTS THE MODELS
These are similar to the claims in Power et al. (2013) Robust twenty-first-century projections of El Niño and related precipitation variability. We discussed that paper in the post Will Global Warming Increase the Intensity of El Niño? To save myself some time, I’ll copy parts of that post:
However, Ray & Giese (2012) Historical changes in El Niño and La Niña characteristics in an ocean reanalysis found that El Niño events had not become stronger, or lasted longer, or occurred more often (among other things) since 1871. And manmade greenhouse gases are said to have caused global warming during that time period. The Ray & Giese (2012) abstract ends:
Overall, there is no evidence that there are changes in the strength, frequency, duration, location or direction of propagation of El Niño and La Niña anomalies caused by global warming during the period from 1871 to 2008.
So one wonders how climate models could simulate a future change in ENSO when there have been no changes in almost 140 years.
MODELS CAN’T SIMULATE BASIC ENSO PROCESSES
Additionally, we know climate models can’t simulate ENSO. Here’s another portion of that earlier blog post:
Guilyardi et al. (2009), which is a paper I have referred to numerous times in blog posts (example here). Did Power et al. (2013) overlook one of the critical findings of Guilyardi et al. (2009)?:
Because ENSO is the dominant mode of climate variability at interannual time scales, the lack of consistency in the model predictions of the response of ENSO to global warming currently limits our confidence in using these predictions to address adaptive societal concerns, such as regional impacts or extremes.
In other words, because climate models cannot accurately simulate El Niño and La Niña processes, the authors of Guilyardi et al. (2009) have little confidence in climate model projections of regional climate or of extreme events.
Bellenger, et al. (2013) “ENSO Representation in Climate Models: From CMIP3 to CMIP5,” is a more recent confirmation of how poorly climate models simulate El Niños and La Niñas. (Preprint copy is here.) The section titled “Discussion and Perspectives” begins:
Much development work for modeling group is still needed in order to correctly represent ENSO, its basic characteristics (amplitude, evolution, timescale, seasonal phaselock…) and fundamental processes such as the Bjerknes and surface fluxes feedbacks.
“Amplitude” refers to the strengths of ENSO events.
“Evolution” refers to the formation of El Niños and La Niñas and the processes that take place as the events are forming.
“Timescale” can refer to both the how long ENSO events last and how often they occur.
“Phaselock” refers to the fact that El Niño and La Niña events are tied to the seasonal cycle. They peak in the boreal winter.
“Bjerknes feedback,” very basically, means how the tropical Pacific and the atmosphere above it are coupled; i.e., they are interdependent, a change in one causes a change in the other and they provide positive feedback to one another. The existence of this positive “Bjerknes feedback” suggests that El Niño and La Niña events will remain in one mode until something interrupts the positive feedback.
In short, according to Bellenger, et al. (2013), the current generation of climate models (CMIP5: used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report and by Power et al (2013)) still cannot simulate basic coupled ocean-atmosphere processes associated with El Niño and La Niña events–basic processes.
DATA CONTRADICT THE FLAWED MODELS
And, of course, to further contradict the models, ocean heat content data and satellite-era sea surface temperature data indicate ocean warming was caused by strong naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled El Niño events, not vice versa as claimed by the modelers…who still can’t simulate basic ENSO processes.
If the subject of the natural warming of the global oceans is new to you, refer to my illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge”(42MB). The way data portrays how the oceans warmed may come as a surprise to you, especially with all we’ve been told about human-induced global warming. If you like audio-video presentations, see my two-part YouTube video series “The Natural Warming of the Global Oceans”. Part 1 is here and Part 2 is here. Also see An Illustrated Introduction to the Basic Processes that Drive El Niño and La Niña Events.
And a whole lot more information about El Niño and La Niña can be found in my ebook Who Turned on the Heat? which has been lowered in price to U.S.$5.00. A free preview in pdf format is here. The preview includes the Table of Contents, the Introduction, the first half of section 1 (which was provided complete in this post), a discussion of the cover, and the Closing. Take a run through the Table of Contents. It is a very-detailed and well-illustrated book—using data from the real world, not models of a virtual world.
Who Turned on the Heat? is only available in pdf format…and will only be available in that format. Click here to purchase a copy. Thanks. Unless I can find funding for my research, it will be book sales and tips/donations that allow me to return to blogging full-time.
NOTE: With my new job, I may be a little slow responding to questions. Sorry.
# # #
UPDATE:
Brian Kahn also covered Cai et al. (2013) in his ClimateCentral post Climate Change Could Double Likelihood of Super El Ninos. (Thanks again Andrew for the link to the post at HockeySchtick.) Brian Kahn’s article included the following and a remarkable quote from Kevin Trenberth:
The core of Cai’s results, that more super El Ninos are likely, was disputed by Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Corporation [sic] for Atmospheric Research.
He said some of the models used in the study overestimate the past number of El Nino events by a wide margin and do a poor job of representing them and their impacts.
“This seriously undermines the confidence that the models do an adequate job in ENSO (El Nino-Southern Oscillation) simulations and so why should we trust their future projections?” he said in an email.
Trenberth also said that some long-range climate models also fail to adequately simulate other natural climate patterns that influence El Nino let alone how they might also shift in a warming world.
I’m beginning to enjoy Kevin Trenberth again. (sarc on) I’m sure he’ll be pleased. (sarc off)
OOPS, forgot to thank Andrew and nevket240. Thank you!
Hmm, this paper seems controversial.
I wonder if the peer reviewers have ahistory of co-authoring papers with any of:
Wenju Cai, Simon Borlace, Matthieu Lengaigne, Peter van Rensch, Mat Collins, Gabriel Vecchi, Axel Timmermann, Agus Santoso, Michael J. McPhaden, Lixin Wu, Matthew H. England, Guojian Wang, Eric Guilyardi & Fei-Fei Ji?
Yet another piece of “Modelling” straight out of the “Picasso” studio – yes it somehow looks human but I`ll bet in never could breathe let alone walk!
Excuse me … the National Corporation for Atmospheric Research ???
Enjoyed the article very much. Note that “Hedley Lamarr” was a name used without permission in ‘Blazing Saddles’; the real Hedy Lamarr sued and achieved some sort of settlement. She had retired from films some years before. That fact has nothing to do with science, but she is famous for a scientific accomplishment: together with composer George Antheil, she helped devise a system of random frequency changes that resisted decryption and was patented and eventually used by the US military in battle, as well as contributing to modern developments such as Bluetooth.
Leon Brozyna says: “Excuse me … the National Corporation for Atmospheric Research ???”
Thanks, Leon. That’s their typo, not mine. I’ll add a “sic”.
Bob Tisdale, be careful with simply picking up quotes from any papers. First on the Ray and Giese: ‘Overall, there is no evidence that there are changes in the strength, frequency, duration, location or direction of propagation of El Niño and La Niña anomalies caused by global warming during the period from 1871 to 2008.’
Bob says: ‘So one wonders how climate models could simulate a future change in ENSO when there have been no changes in almost 140 years.’ That’s just off the mark, regardless whether you’re a skeptic or warmist or denialist. Ray and Giese says no global warming effect detected from 1871 to 2008, but those studies you cited look much further into the future (over the next 100 years from 2000) when greenhouse effect is supposedly to be more intense. Also, Ray and Giese used reanalysis data. Anybody trust reanalysis data going back to 1871?? I’m sure they would have provided a caveat in their paper on that one.
It seems the Cai et al. and Power et al. share the same message. They identify El Nino using rainfall, unlike the conventional approach using sea surface temperature which was the focus of most studies including Guilyardi et al. (2009). Basically Guilyardi et al. and many other studies found no model consensus in ENSO intensity in response to greenhouse gas emission, that is if ENSO is defined in terms of SST variability. The more recent studies use rainfall and find a consensus, for the first time, ever, on how El Nino would respond to global warming. I would say that is a big advancement on the topic, and of course the question then remains whether the results will withstand the test of time, that is, when more observations and better models become available – but many of us would be dead by then to verify. In any case, future projections aside, the processes that they described should be of interest to many ENSO enthusiasts.
Thanks Bob. You seem to squeeze more than 24 hours into a day, your posts seem to increase in number.
I am writing to you on behalf on the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum, we are conducting a survey of those interesting in the climate debate which should be of interest to all involved.
The main focus is on the education and work experience of participants, but it will also assess employment and social factors for their relationship with views on climate.
We would be very grateful if you would take the time to complete the survey. The responses are confidential.
The url is: http://scef.org.uk/survey/index.php/868721/lang/en.
regards,
Mike Haseler
And those looking for a little entertainment, Jan Perlwitz of GISS stopped by my blog to exchange comments on the “Jon Stewart” thread…
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/open-letter-to-jon-stewart-the-daily-show/
…and on the “Tollefson Nature article” thread…
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/comments-on-the-nature-article-climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat/
If you choose to comment, please be courteous and recall that I still moderate comments at my blog, so your comments may not get posted till I break for lunch.
Gotta go.
AH, you’re overlooking the Bellinger and Guilyardi papers, both of which discuss the many flaws with climate model attempts to simulate ENSO. There’s basically nothing the models do properly or consistently…from basic Bjerknes feedback to the use of sunlight.
Regards
“Here we present climate modelling evidence for a doubling in the occurrences in the future in response to greenhouse warming.”
Since when have climate model simulations been classified as evidence?
Bob Tisdale:
Thankyou for your post at January 20, 2014 at 4:34 am which reports that the egregious Perlw1tz has visited your blog.
I am writing to inform others that I read your links and to say that they don’t need to spend their time doing reading them because Perlw1tz only made spurious points which you clearly refuted.
Richard
The AGW community is in scramble mode. More entertainment to come.
Thanks Bob:
An alternative quote which sums up where I feel I am at times –
Hedley Lamarr: My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
Colin Porter:
At January 20, 2014 at 4:45 am you ask
Many people make a good living from asserting that the positions of the stars in the sky are “evidence” of how the future will evolve.
You seem to be questioning that other people make a good living from asserting that the outputs of climate models are “evidence” of how the future will evolve.
sarc on/
Your questioning threatens the livelihoods of people who need to support their families. Can you justify this threat to people who are making a good living?
/ sarc off
Richard
The trend in the ENSO is Zero.
That means trend in the ENSO (temp, frequency, duration, rainfall patterns etc.) is Zero over the period that CO2 has increased from 285.6 ppm in 1856 to 395.2 ppm in 2013.
Trend is Zero for every 109.6 CO2 ppm increase.
Trend is also Zero for every 5.35 * Ln(395.2ppm/285.6ppm) –> 1.74 W/m2 of direct CO2 forcing
The climate model must, therefore, work differently in the hindcast period versus the forecast period.
Colin
Beat me to exactly the same point.
Modelling does not give evidence, and cannot ‘prove’ or ‘demonstate’. At most, it may be possible to say ‘model outputs are consistent with’ and ‘model predictions/forecasts are…’
And we know from looking at the performance of GCMs that ‘consistent with’ anything in the real world needs a rather shall we say generous definition of ‘consistent’…
Ha ha ha!
“climate modelling evidence”
The ultimate oxymoron.
Inviting Taggart’s response, are we? Good one.
from the quoted portion of the post – “.The increased frequency arises from a projected surface warming over the eastern equatorial Pacific that occurs faster than in the surrounding ocean waters.”
It seems to me that this part is simply saying “if we assume that increased atmospheric warming will occur, then that proves global warming.”
Hedy Lamarr’s notion – as I understand – was to switch the frequency of signals to control torpedoes (composer Anthiel’s idea was to use punched-paper, similar to that on a player-piano). With post war computers and transistors it was adapted – I do not think she had anything to do with using the principle for encryption. Modern engineers have adapted their principle. Not that there is anything wrong coming up with the idea — Newton took up ideas suggested to him by Robert Hooke and turned them into his Principa Mathematica. At least Lamarr got some recogintion eventually.
Bob @4.40am, as I said above @4.00am Guilyardi et al., and many other studies including Bellenger et al., defined ENSO based on the Nino3 (or Nino3.4) index which is essentially an area average of SST anomalies in the eastern equatorial Pacific. And as they’ve shown, the models vary in simulating this particular, conventional, aspect of ENSO, although certain models do simulate somewhat ‘realistic’ ENSO (in the sense that they look similar to that seen in the limited available observations). The differing ENSO behavior in models could be due to representation of the shortwave flux (i.e., clouds) that takes part in the Bjerknes feedback. That seems to be the very reason why Cai et al and Power et al. turned to the rainfall variable rather than Nino3 to achieve a consensus in the response of ENSO to global warming. Anyway, all the best in your new job.
Trev: Frequency Hopping as it is now known
http://www.google.com/patents/US2292387
Sadly, Science Daily has this study front and center with all the usual ‘we’re all gonna die’ journalistic pomp. As we say in the deep south – Science Daily jumped on that ‘study’ like a frog on a Junebug.
Aurora Australis:
“Preparations continue for our arrival on Wednesday morning at 0700hrs alongside Macquarie No. 3 wharf. Cheers Leanne and Mark”
Meantime they’ve raised A$12,700:
” At last count $12,700 had been raised. It was a fun night for a very worthy cause and I am sure the donations will go some way to helping sick kids.”
Contributions towards the rescue extra…
https://secure3.aad.gov.au/proms/public/schedules/display_sitrep.cfm?bvs_ID=19335
Mel Brooks says it all here:
This was wishful thinking, confirmation bias par excellence, and I mean it, a brilliant demonstration. Kiddoes, first you have to understand Bob Tisdale’s work.
====================
Trenberth, ca 1998:
NCAR press release titled: El Nino Impacts: Weaker in the Past, Stronger in the Future?, Jan 1998.
Trenberth, ca 2014:
From his forthcoming autobiography, titled: My life on Both Sides of the Coin (How I made a lucrative career on the public dole from self delusion, bluff, and bluster).
Ahhhh, the circle of life.
Why, indeed. For the same reason, Kev, why should we trust yours?
I notice one of the co-authors had published the global warming was slowing do the trade winds and that paper went viral as well. But as the Pacific switched to more frequent La Ninas the trade winds sped up. Seems like this group is intent on showing global warming will affect natural cycles no matter how much contradictory data. LIkely they learned from Hansen’s failed prediction of a Super El Nino in 2006 so the safest haven for unsupported speculation is to have a the model predict way into the future, so rigorous scientific testing and validation become impossible.
Trenberth must criticize the paper because he is hanging his hat on the current increase in La Nina-like conditions are hiding the heat. It all goes to show any researcher can make models to validate their personal bias. Despite the controversy, this paper will be added to the list papers “proving” a global warming consensus.
Why did I want to stop reading at the bit above? How are the IPCC’s model ensembles doing so far regarding surface temperatures? They failed in the near future so what hope should we have?
JJ @ 6-58am.
no need to show me how a cold wind can cool a pool but do please a warm wind that can warm a cool ocean…..
And it appears we are currently going into another La Nina?
“Can we have some more beans Mr. Taggart?” I think they would compliment the climate simulations.
Ladies and Gentlemen including Moderator
Here I am in my element. It is about modeling, and I live in the area.
I see the that “Bjerknes feedback” is mentioned. That seems to be according to Jacob Bjerknes.
http:/Carl Anton Bjerknes invented this. Together with his son Vilhelm Bjerknes they went to Paris and won Gold medal for the fameous Bjerknes Water Bath, where they both had been splashing in water for a while.
That money was invested in a study for young Vilhelm in Paris, and Vilhelm went to Heinrich Herz to help Herz with his antennae. From that situation I have red a book, “Über die elektrische Resonans” by V.Bjerknes, really worth reading. And that is all I have red from Bjerknes. From that book we have the quite extreemly important “Bjerknes` theorem” or statement:
“Waves are reflected on dimensional boarders between media of different wave mechanical conductivity. Theese dimensional boarders, point, line, surface,…. according to the nature of the wave…. make the END-CONDITIONS of the reflected wave!”
Read that again and again and again and again and again….
Until you grasp it and know that sentece by heart!
I repeat……!
It is about the eccho and the radar and the sonar and the monochord and violin & guitar strings, and, sea- waves onto a steep rocky wall. Reflection an “back radiation” and wave- interference and superposed waves.
Then you are further due to conscider the sea serpent or dragon or Midgardsormen also. The sea serpent is the Gulf stream of course, and to be well conscidered. But Midgardsormen is rather the jet- stream or the “polar vortex” as you falsely call it. The large serpent that goes all around the world and bites itself in the tail , making large meanders all around the world
That bite is by weak forces, thus it may also slip. and then the Serpent is making rumble and chaos until it manages to bite again.
That rumble and chaos is called “Wolf im Ton” and can be found in Violins, long flute instruments, Radio transmitters, and in the chladni plate. The unstable “sound figure” that cannot decide which “Modul” for swinging and cykling.
That occurs when the coherent laminar and phase- couppled, complex, material wave gets into strain and conflict with its end- conditions.
Then you also may have “Tone break”. It breaks and jumps into another Modul, or it breaks into more or less total CHAOS, the tone simply vanishes, it “ceases to exist..”
The coherent and laminar material figure and form dissolves into thermal CHAOS..
See also Breakers at sea, and over underwater rocks, and onto the shores, for instance in California.
CHOSMOS & CHAOS, you see. = 2 greek consceps, also to be red again and again and again until taken serious.
In order to worship theese things right and the proper Historically correct way, you must seek up
http:/Urnes stave church.com
There you see the fameous Urnes- dragons, that are to be studied until you never forget them again, becaquse they are on the UNESCO world heritage list.
Without proper Mental ideas and contemplation on the Urnes- dragons, you are simply not enlighted or inaugurated and qualified to grasp what`s really going on at sea and elsewhere, where it sounds and splashes and rumbles and where there even may be Wolf im Ton, but also steady trade winds and just fine weather.
Jacob Bjerknes went to California having learnt all theese things from his father and grandfather, thus he could clear up both Nino and Nina and the very ENSO for you.
Further just to shock you, the end conditions of waves according to definition, may be more than just 1,2 and 3- dimensional. They may even be 6- dimensional, which is the square of space or space times space, believe it or not.
That is the square of molar volume according to J.van der Waals, Nobel price of physics in 1910, or the dimesional boarder between media of different wave mechanical conductivity, namely between thermo- molecular moovement and infrared electromagnetic radiation.
I think we rag on Trenberth a little too much. He does some solid research, his belief in incoming/outgoing differential heat isn’t unreasonable, nor his suggestion it’s been going into the deep ocean implausible. He tows the line sometimes and implies AGW catastrophism, but this is likely just to keep himself working with access to good researchers and resources. He might even be a closet skeptic.
I detect a pulse.
==========
kim. another bot is on the thread
Surely you jest. Kevin “invert the null hypothesis” Trenberth deserves far more derision than he gets.
Suggestion? Implies? Get real. He doesn’t toe the line. He invented it.
Kevin Trenberth, founding member of the “Climate Rapid Response Team”, a closet skeptic? That’s a pretty deep closet. Maybe the missing heat is in there with him.
“climate modelling evidence” – anyone who uses this phrase should be stripped of their Ph.D.
kim,
Steven Mosher has given you the ultimate set-up line! ☺
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wonko,
Exactly right. Models are not evidence!
There is essentially no trend in the SOI since 1876 and a *negative* trend in the variance (ie absolute deviations from the long term mean). This means that there has been no trend towards a more El Nino like state, nor has there been an increase in the magnitude of ENSO events-the reverse is true, in fact.
Based on precipitation increase where? Precipitation increase occurs in El Niño analogue years in certain areas to varying probabilities. The precip pattern shifts to other areas under La Niña years. But what about El Nado and La Nada conditions? Or when ENSO is in truly neutral territory? Basing El Niño occurrence on precip projections in an atmospheric model that is loaded up with a water vapor fudge factor is complete wild-ass guess nonsense. These authors are on flights of fancy with very little thought towards even the basic tenants of meteorology.
Just a heads up on modelling. We tend to assume the models are designed to accurately reflect the scientific reality. Often now that’s not the purpose at all. The models exist solely to influence policy makers to propose regulatory changes that will drive social and economic change. Most contributors see the word science and assume hard science. Often times these days, especially anywhere in the vicinity of UN entities science means the social sciences like sociology and psychology and even anthropology.
For examle, the UN has created an entity-PRME-Principles for Responsible Management Education to reform business schools globally. The purpose is to change the nature of business and the economic system. Its foundation? “Rigorous theories and models for a sustainable world, the creation and management of platforms for meaningful public debate, as well as sustainability incubators which provide a suitable environment and practical support for sustainable business creations.”
So be careful, those “theories and models” only exist to try to force change without the rent-seekers being honest about what they are really up to.
“Our Climate Models Are Aglow with Whirling, Transient Nodes of Thought Careening through a Cosmic Vapor of Invention…”
I LOVE that movie! Harvey Korman (and others) at their absolute best.
Trenberth condensed: “Where’s the heat? It’s a travesty!” Gosh, warm fuzzies — maybe he could be our poster boy.
Carbomontanus <-I bet this guy lives in Colorado.
Arrrrrggggghuuuughhhhh! Once again, I’m STARVING trying to eek out my living as an Engineer, with 3 degrees…(age prejudice is part of this problem) and these MENTAL midgets are drawing huge salaries to product CLAP TRAP as this? DO THEY HAVE NO BASIC HEAT TRANSFER UNDERTANDING? Do they NOT realize that the overall thin film heat transfer coeficient is about 1.5 to 2 BTU per square foot, per degree F. on the ocean? That the OVERALL atmospheric temperatures are such that the RATE OF TRANSFER to the Oceans CANNOT be responsible for the temperature shifts of an El-nija, or El-nino events? Do these guys WALK BACKWARDS everywhere. It’s so discouraging. But then 90% of the population (in the USA, of course) doesn’t have the intellectual horse power to use a pencil to cut their way out of a paper bag, much less “logic” which has thinner basis than the thinness paper bag on the market. If it wasn’t for the fact that IT WILL HURT ME TOO..I’d say, “Let them completely have their way, and throw us back to a 19th century life style…!!”
If you use HADSST3 there is no trend with ENSO and you can see 2 warmer periods with one cooler period sandwiched in between.
BUT, if you use ERSSTv3b there is almost a perfect match for global temperatures with Nino3.4 on smooth 121-month filter.
This is due to ERSSTv3b Nino3.4 warm during the 20th century and there is no zero trend like with HADSST3.
Both data sets show the most strongest El Nino like Nino3.4 SST peaks and least La NIna Nino3.4 SST troughs over recent decades since the duration of these graphs.
Neither support a possible affect from any AGW because ENSO is completely down to moving solar energy around the ocean surface and the energy involved from the sun is orders larger than any AGW retention could contribute. With HADSST3 shows no warming trend overall so impossible to claim any AGW influence. With ERSSTv3b warming there have only been 2 strong El Ninos since the early 1980s with both almost identical. Therefore since AGW was suppose to have a significant affect El Ninos have not become any stronger and still wait the next strong one since 1997/98 over 15 years ago. The frequency of strong El Ninos hasn’t increased since the early 1980s. This is despite the significant increase in CO2 during this period with no global warming since the last strong El Nino.
Error, the link above actually shows Nino4 not nino3.4 ERSSTv3b.
The correct link is shown here.
as i pointed out on the “Rabbit Ears” thread, this “story” was provided to the MSM by Chris Turney’s AAE “volunteer” spokesman, Alvin Stone at University of New South Wales:
19 Jan: Eureka Alert Media Release: Contact: Alvin Stone
alvin.stone@unsw.edu.au – University of New South Wales
Get used to heat waves: Extreme El Nino events to double
An international team of scientists from organisations including the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (CoECSS), the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and CSIRO, published their findings in the journal Nature Climate Change.
“We currently experience an unusually strong El Niño event every 20 years. Our research shows this will double to one event every 10 years,” said co-author, Dr Agus Santoso of CoECSS. ..
“The question of how global warming will change the frequency of extreme El Niño events has challenged scientists for more than 20 years,” said co-author Dr Mike McPhaden of US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
“This research is the first comprehensive examination of the issue to produce robust and convincing results,” said Dr McPhaden…
“During an extreme El Niño event countries in the western Pacific, such as Australia and Indonesia, experienced devastating droughts and wild fires, while catastrophic floods occurred in the eastern equatorial region of Ecuador and northern Peru,” said lead author, CSIRO’s Dr Wenju Cai…
“For Australia, this could mean summer heat waves, like that recently experienced in the south-east of the country, could get an additional boost if they coincide with extreme El Ninos,” said co-author, Professor Matthew England from CoECSS. …
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-01/uons-gut011714.php
Third time lucky, cant even read the numbers now. Nino 3 now shown above with the real Nino3.4 over here.
A moment for getting numbers mixed up, HADSST2 in original post not HADSST3.
“For Australia, this could mean summer heat waves, like that recently experienced in the south-east of the country, could get an additional boost if they coincide with extreme El Ninos,” said co-author, Professor Matthew England from CoECSS”
Still find heatwaves and droughts in Australia amusing, its like claiming might get blizzards at the north pole like in 2011. SO WHAT, there happen there all the time, Australia is mainly a desert that has occurred due to frequent heatwaves and droughts from the past. The north pole has blizzards because its so cold, nothing unusual is happening.
JJ says: @ January 20, 2014 at 9:38 am
…Kevin Trenberth, founding member of the “Climate Rapid Response Team”, a closet skeptic?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Conmen don’t actually believe their own cons because that way lies disaster. If you believe then you lose control. The IPCC and the “Climate Rapid Response Team” have always been all about political propaganda. They just neglected to label the reports Pravda.
Dr. G.Combs
Engl.Pravda.ru is on your contrarian side today, as allways more or less. Just look for yourself.
Do you really want to destroy that situation for yourself?
Max Hugoson says: @ January 20, 2014 at 1:31 pm
…..If it wasn’t for the fact that IT WILL HURT ME TOO..I’d say, “Let them completely have their way, and throw us back to a 19th century life style…!!”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Being retired and without children I often have the same thought at times or as Doreen put it Let them Eat Grass!
Perhaps it is time to scrub out the gene pool. So the question really begs to be asked. Will it take another (let’s call it the next, since its actually time for the next one now) ice age to “smarten us up” some more?
(Zombies of the Gene Pool by Sharyn McCrumb immediately comes to mind.)
AH says, “Bob @4.40am, as I said above @4.00am Guilyardi et al., and many other studies including Bellenger et al., defined ENSO based on the Nino3 (or Nino3.4) index which is essentially an area average of SST anomalies in the eastern equatorial Pacific”
Are you trying to spin this, AH, and put climate models in a good light?
I think you had better go back and read Guilyardi et al (2009) again. I think you’ll find the discussions of ENSO failings in that paper are much more detailed than simply a discussion of sea surface temperatures. It’s hard to find any portion of the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes of ENSO that climate models simulate properly.
With respect to Cai et al using precipitation, here’s a quote from the ScienceDaily article to confirm what you’d written earlier:
“To achieve their results, the team examined 20 climate models that consistently simulate major rainfall reorganization during extreme El Niño events. They found a substantial increase in events from the present-day through the next 100 years as the eastern Pacific Ocean warmed in response to global warming.”
In other words, Cai et al found 20 models that performed one aspect…let me repeat that, one aspect…of ENSO properly, precipitation. In the real world, during an El Niño, warm waters from the west Pacific Warm Pool flood into the eastern tropical Pacific, and the convection, clouds and precipitation accompany it. So in some models (but apparently not all models), the precipitation accompanies the warm water into the eastern tropical Pacific during a poorly simulated El Niño. What’s remarkable is that somehow that serves as the basis for a scientific study!
In order to come to their conclusions, Cai et al (2014) had to overlook the fact that the models can’t simulate the basic, fundamental processes that drive ENSO events…or their frequency, or their magnitude, or their duration, or their evolution, or their feedbacks, or their teleconnections, etc. That is, Cai et al have had to ignore that the models have no relationship to real world El Niños and La Niñas.
Regards
Matt G: Regarding NINO3.4 trends. NOAA’s ERSST.v3b is the only sea surface temperature dataset to show a positive NINO3,4 region trend since 1900. HADISST is basically flat and Kaplan shows a slight cooling since 1900.
Regards
Robert W Turner says: “And it appears we are currently going into another La Nina?”
You’re correct that weekly NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies have dropped below the threshold of La Nina conditions. But it’s awfully late in the season for it to turn into a real La Nina–it’s also way too early to be thinking about the one for next season. Also NINO1+2 sea surface temperature anomalies have recently ended their almost year long “cold” spell and they’re now about +0.6 deg C.
I just posted the mid-January 2014 SST update:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/mid-january-2014-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
Sorry about my delay in responding to comments and the late posting of the update.
Bob Tisdale says:
January 20, 2014 at 3:04 pm
Thanks, but because none of them agree with the same trend how do we know which one is correct?
All have very restricted data and different techniques from the earlier periods, so cant be too confident with any of them. I don’t think I will be convinced which one is correct until get longer period of data from much better observations over recent decades. Covering a future full negative PDO phase should do it.
Tilsdale says “Did Power et al. (2013) overlook one of the critical findings of Guilyardi et al. (2009)?”
First off, the Guilyardi paper is a commentary and a bit of a review; how can it have “findings”. They are only opinions. (Sort of like a blog article)
But really, am I looking at the same paper you are seeing? The one sentence summary (one sentence, Bob!) of the Guilyardi paper is “New community strategies to improve understanding and modeling of El Niño in state of the art climate models provide opportunities for more accurate tropical climate predictions”. Not only is Guilyardi on the Power paper but the Power paper is exactly what the Guilyardi review was suggesting that we need.
In any case, the Power paper makes a prediction, and they use data to make their suggestion. We can only wait to see if they are correct or not.
In 1947 an unidentified object crashed at a ranch near Roswell, with controversy ensuing about the identity of the object. While official explanations at the time centered around a secret military balloon, rumours to the contrary although met by official denial were confirmed when coupled models of interplanetary travel and civilization interactions gave strong theoretical underpinning to the conclusion that the Roswell object was indeed an alien spacecraft. First contact between civilizations has grave potential to destabilise and irreversibly transform established civilizations which are contacted by xenoplanetary intelligent beings, not to mention the severe and indeed intolerable threat posed by intelligence in general to the proud edifice of human science. Here we develop further interplanetary interactiion models to show incontrovertibly that all complex human technology particularly that emitting CO2 and having connections however indirect with Republican congressmen is likely to approxximately double the risk of a xenoplanetary invasion of earth within the next century. The solution proposed to mitigate this risk is a carefully planned and coordinated return of human civilization to the stone age with special priority in putting an end to blogging and any radio or other communication technology.
Here we present climate modelling evidence for a doubling in the occurrences in the future in response to greenhouse warming.
==============
OK, so how many El Niño’s have there been since 97/98? Double the number previous? I don’t think so. So, even with the advantage of knowing the future (because it is now the past) the models still get it wrong!!
The pulse is in the toe he’s stepping over the set-up line.
===========
Steven Mosher says:
January 20, 2014 at 9:28 am
kim. another bot is on the thread
=============
kim and steven are bots?
phlogiston says: @ January 20, 2014 at 3:45 pm
In 1947 an unidentified object crashed at a ranch near Roswell….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you channeling Al Gore?
“We currently experience an unusually strong El Niño event every 20 years. Our research shows this will double to one event every 10 years,” said co-author, Dr Agus Santoso of CoECSS
—————–
2014-1998 = 16 years and counting. So your research prediction of 10 years is a fail. Thus, your hypothesis is WRONG.
If we get an unusually strong El Niño in 4 more years it will simply be normal climate, though Climate Science will see it as Armageddon. If we don’t Climate Scientists will be running around with their heads on fire, solving the problem of the missing heat.
Carbomontanus on January 20, 2014 at 8:18 am
Ladies and Gentlemen including Moderator
Your pompous diatribe of doggsdickery makes you the ideal spokes-err-something for the AGW establishment, as does the grating pomposity of giving yourself a name derived from one of the Renaissance founding fathers Regiomontanus. Crappomontanus would be closer to the mark one feels. Your kind are the anti-renaissance attempt to undo the scientific method and all that has been achieved by the systematic application of honesty.
Your attempt to discredit Bjerknes is quite understandable. His insight into the intermittent positive feedback between Peruvian upwelling and trade winds lies at the core of any understanding of ENSO. It points inescapably to the nature of ENSO as an intermittent nonlinear oscillator. You are of course in good company being uncomfortable with this conclusion, many are nervous of Bjerknes and where his discovery leads and shy away from mentioning his name.
Bjerknes means that you cant have an ocean driven climate that is passively driven, either by CO2 or astrophysical cycles or volcanos or any other trivial externality. It has its own dynamic and drives itself.
Bob @3pm, no I was just trying to point out your tendency in cherry picking quotes which can in effect misrepresent the message that others are trying to make. Just be careful not to swing too much to the other side. Otherwise it would reflect badly on you and those who just blindly support whatever point you are trying to make.
Pippen Kool says: “First off, the Guilyardi paper is a commentary and a bit of a review; how can it have ‘findings’”.
You can’t spin this, Pippen Kool. Guilyardi et al cited about 100 papers and were quite explicit in the presentation of the failings of climate model depictions of ENSO. If you had any comprehension of ENSO you’d understand the significance of the paper.
Pippen Kool says: “Not only is Guilyardi on the Power paper but the Power paper is exactly what the Guilyardi review was suggesting that we need.”
Eric Guilyardi is not listed as a contributor to Power et al, Pippen Kool.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12580.html
Power et al focused on precipitation, just like Cai et al. The lead authors of both papers are affiliated with CSIRO, so one might assume the papers are linked. That is, one paper is an attempt to reinforce the other.
With respect to precipitation in the tropical Pacific, Guilyardi et al (2009) cited earlier papers, but states:
The “double Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ)” problem, in which a symmetrization of the circulation across the equator leads to a spurious Southern Hemisphere ITCZ and is associated with excessive precipitation
over much of the tropics, remains a major source of model error in simulating the annual cycle in the tropics (Lin 2007a), and it can ultimately impact the fidelity of the simulated El Niño (Guilyardi et al. 2003; Sun et al. 2009).
In other words, the model simulations of precipitation in the tropical Pacific during La Niña and ENSO-neutral conditions times are flawed. So both Power et at and Cai et al had to focus on something that the models seemed to simulate properly.
I’m going to cut and paste part of my earlier reply to AH for your Pippen Kool:
…Cai et al found 20 models that performed one aspect…let me repeat that, one aspect…of ENSO properly, precipitation. In the real world, during an El Niño, warm waters from the west Pacific Warm Pool flood into the eastern tropical Pacific, and the convection, clouds and precipitation accompany it. So in some models (but apparently not all models), the precipitation accompanies the warm water into the eastern tropical Pacific during a poorly simulated El Niño. What’s remarkable is that somehow that serves as the basis for a scientific study!
In order to come to their conclusions, Cai et al (2014) had to overlook the fact that the models can’t simulate the basic, fundamental processes that drive ENSO events…or their frequency, or their magnitude, or their duration, or their evolution, or their feedbacks, or their teleconnections, etc. That is, Cai et al have had to ignore that the models have no relationship to real world El Niños and La Niñas.
“rumours to the contrary although met by official denial were confirmed”
Following the basic and universally accepted principle (supported by years of experience) that one should never believe any rumour until it has been officially denied.
phlogiston says: @ January 20, 2014 at 4:40 pm ….
>>>>>>>>>>>
A talk delivered as a tribute to J. Bjerknes on the 100th anniversary of his birth
“Pippen Kool says: “Not only is Guilyardi on the Power paper but the Power paper is exactly what the Guilyardi review was suggesting that we need.”
Eric Guilyardi is not listed as a contributor to Power et al, Pippen Kool.”
My mistake. Guilyardi is on the Cai paper. Did you know that when you corrected me? Why didn’t you just correct the statement?
Anyone spins reviews as “findings” is not a scientist, 100 refs or 1000 refs. Reviews are cool, students like them, and they are often done in conjunction with submitting a grant, since you can get a publication out of your work for the grant application. But Cai’s work and Powers for that matter need to be based on primary literature not reviews. In point, the Guilyardi paper is not referenced in the Cai paper, I think because it is just a review and somewhat dated. (My respect for Guilyardi, he doesn’t use it to pad his citation index).
The thing about this review is that it really doesn’t come out with anything particularly insightful, it just identifies now old problems that were current problems 5 years ago. So not only is it just a review, but it’s a dated review. I personally don’t know why you so taken with it.
In terms of your problem with the narrow focus of the Cai or Power papers, just exactly how do you think that science is done? The whole thing at once? No, you focus on a small part of the problem and solve it before moving on. in the Guilyardi review, they said that models (I assume the ones that existed at the time) had flaws, and that people need to work them out. So I can’t imagine why you can’t imagine that the Cai or Power Power papers are what Guilyardi was referring to when he wrote “New community strategies to improve understanding and modeling of El Niño in state of the art climate models provide opportunities for more accurate tropical climate predictions”.
So much as for “spin”.
Pippen Kool, you miss the obvious. The models do not properly simulate the basic processes that underlie El Nino events or La Nina events. Therefore, every subsequent feedback, aftereffect, teleconnection, seasonal component, etc., is flawed. I find it hard to believe you can’t grasp that.
Are you aware that in many models El Nino and La Nina events occur in the wrong part of the year? Are you aware that their amplitudes are wrong, which means they presently don’t simulate strength properly now? If they can’t simulate the current strength of ENSO events, then any forecast of future strength is worthless.
Have a good day.
Bob Tisdale says: “Pippen Kool, you miss the obvious. The models do not properly simulate the basic processes that underlie El Nino events or La Nina events. Therefore, every subsequent feedback, aftereffect, teleconnection, seasonal component, etc., is flawed.”
Well, 40 years ago the national weather service couldn’t have told me the high and low temps for 5 or 6 days in the future, like they do now. So I guess we should have just given it up there, it was ‘obviously’ hopeless!
What I think is that now we consider ENSO weather noise super imposed on the climate…but it will be figured out some day. There just aren’t enuf people working on it now, so progress seems glacial. Cheer up.
To all andeveryone exept Dr Phlogiston
Q1: How many promillers and/ or what kind of cocaine is that?
Q2, How does he draw out his cash?
Pip at 6:50 says “What I think is that now we . . .”
Who is “we”?
Who are “we”?
John F. Hultquist says: “Who is “we”?”
People who think about the problem on an hourly basis.
MaxH @ 1 31pm – following david @ 7 41am
You do realize I hope pal that a high proportion of posters here are either just players or warmists posing as skeps seeking to keep the climo` ball in the air by pumping into it as much self-applauding gas as they can.
SO DON`T come here with your simple engineering pin seeking to pop it and spoil the (rewarding) fun.
Please.
Miss David
Some like it hot.
Pippen Kool says: “What I think is that now we consider ENSO weather noise super imposed on the climate…”
Therein lies one of the problems with the AGW hypothesis. The contribution of ENSO to long-term warming is not considered.
Regards
“Blogger “Andrew” advises that the twitter-sphere is filled with discussions of a new paper claiming that the strengths of the late 20th Century El Niño events were caused by global warming.”
El Nino episode strengths are the response to short term cooling such as at a larger decline in solar wind speeds, and from stratospheric volcanic events: http://www.snag.gy/nf9SK.jpg
Ct A`, @. 8 48pm
Well cut the Gas then heh!
Bob Tisdale says: “Therein lies one of the problems with the AGW hypothesis. The contribution of ENSO to long-term warming is not considered.”
Well, you must mean warming and cooling, because the ENSO can’t create energy. And actually, I thought the current idea is that the La Niña is sucking heat out of the atmosphere (and eventually dumping it into the deep layers of the Indian Ocean or something, but don’t quote me on that.) So it would seem the ENSO can heat and it can cool.
Hmmmmmmmm….??????????
“Solar energy creates ENSO so your saying the sun doesn`t create energy?”
ENSO is 4 letters.
Do we withness sheere sales promotion of the “free” or the “Psi-..” energy here again?
In his last Punctum “Solar enertgy warms and the enso blablablablabla punctum,” we see sale of Lindzens Iris theory again
If I were to kill the Gro Harlem Brundtland(peace be with her) invention namely the IPCC, I would do it with the clouds. But those who try to do that all seem very unqualified and very far away from knowing how to design a good argument for proof. Brundtland & Hansen simply are above you in the grades.
She (peace be with her) comes from the faculty of medicine, where she graduated orderly and legally, and she was / is no quack.
But you know how doctors are. She first ruled Norway as a University clinic hospital with herself as the chief top doctor, an later on the whole world as a university clinic hospital with herself as the chief top doctor in charge.
That is why.
Pippen Kool:
Your post at January 21, 2014 at 8:22 am says in total
If you were to attend a high school course in elementary physics then you would cease your habit of making such silly posts on WUWT.
The Earth gains energy from the Sun and returns it to space.
Some of that energy goes into the ocean before it returns to space.
Energy that accumulates in the oceans warms the oceans.
No energy needs to be created.
You see, Pippen Kool, increased energy retention can increase temperature and an increase to temperature is warming.
I know from your past posts on WUWT that you have difficulty understanding concepts such as energy, heat, temperature and warming. But they are not really difficult to understand and I assure you that many school children could help you to understand.
Richard
Pippen Kool says:
January 21, 2014 at 8:22 am
“Well, you must mean warming and cooling, because the ENSO can’t create energy.”
Solar energy creates ENSO so your saying the sun doesn’t create energy? Nino3.4 SSTs may warm or not over the decades depending on the data source, but energy is transferred away from the ENSO region. Therefore it cant be judged like you have, to claim it cant create energy. Where does the energy go after an El Nino and it just doesn’t disappear into thin air? Cool ocean currents from below caused by up-welling with trade winds are responsible for negative trends in ENSO. Solar energy still warms this region though but because of up-welling it seems there is an overall cooling. ENSO is just a cycle transporting solar energy from the tropics to other regions of the planet.
Since when is noise solar energy distributed around ocean surface currents from the natural ENSO build up and disperse cycle? It is not noise, it is how the planet moves the build up of too much energy in the tropics to the rest of the world. It is natural thermostat that prevents the tropics warming too much. The reason why during major ice ages the tropics hardly changed and only cooled about 1c.
http://morriscourse.com/elements_of_ecology/images/ocean_currents.jpg
http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/plantsciences_Faculty/Bloom/CAMEL/Art/CurrentsOcean.jpg
The ocean currents above show how energy from the E equatorial Pacific move west with trade winds and spread into 3 different directions from the W equatorial Pacific. One warm current moves N toward the Arctic, the other moves S towards Antarctica and the main one moves energy towards the Indian ocean which joins surface currents that eventually reach the tip of South Africa and move up the Eastern side of North and South America until reach Europe and finally the Arctic. This is how the planet naturally removes energy from a hot tropical regions preventing it from positive feedback.
Only surface ocean water cant last that long before cooling can it? Yes it can and does because the surface ocean current varies between around 200m and 400m deep.
The diagram below shows how the warming in E equatorial Pacific formed back in 1997.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/mnth_gif/xz/mnth.anom.xz.temp.0n.1996.04.gif
How can it be noise when it causes a step up roughly half of the original El Nino in global temperature rise. Then stays flat with maybe a very slight cooling trend until the next strong El Nino appears. This shows that global temperatures are only rising when a strong El Nino occurs. When there isn’t one, global temperatures remain generally flat like recent years since the last strong El Nino back in 1997/1998.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1982/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.5/trend/offset:-0.05/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:1996.5/trend/offset:-0.05
The strong El Nino back in the early 1980s would have been larger on global temperatures if it had not been for a major volcanic eruption back then.
Solar energy warms and the ENSO is solar energy based so it can only warm. When less solar energy reaches the tropics with especially increased global low cloud levels we will see a reverse in this trend of ENSO that occurred between the 1980s and 1990s.
Carbomontanus says:
January 21, 2014 at 9:37 am
Go on then describe where the energy comes from in ENSO?
“In his last Punctum “Solar enertgy warms and the enso blablablablabla punctum,” we see sale of Lindzens Iris theory again”
Whether that is true or not doesn’t matter when we know that global low cloud levels have declined with satellite data. This is where the extra energy comes from what ever caused this decline.
The rest of your rant is not worth responding too.
Bob, on the Australian BOM site there is a list of past El Nino events together with discussion of the impact on Australian weather, mainly drought. I notice they show no El Nino event between 1925/26 and 1940/41. In other words right through the hot thirties. We seem to be having heatwaves rather like the thirties now, with no El Nino since 2009/10. Are they right or have they missed some? Any comments?
richardscourtney says: “The Earth gains energy from the Sun and returns it to space. Some of that energy goes into the ocean before it returns to space. Energy that accumulates in the oceans warms the oceans. No energy needs to be created. increased energy retention can increase temperature and an increase to temperature is warming.”
But in a world that is not warming, the energy in should equal the energy out (of course, on the average over years.) That means that in the long run, the heating due to El Niño needs to equal the cooling due to La Niña.
Matt G says: “Where does the energy go after an El Nino and it just doesn’t disappear into thin air?”
Seems to me you are arguing that the convection of water in a boiling tea pot is responsible for its heating.If the pot is warming, I bet more heat is going in than going out. A tea pot may not be as complex as the climate, but in both cases the heat causes the movement (of water/of air), and in both cases, things only heat if you change the balance of heat in and heat out (by the burner/by AGW).
Matt G says: “How can it be noise when it causes a step up roughly half of the original El Nino in global temperature rise.”
Just like a cold spell or a heat wave, ENSO is not predictable five or ten years out. But, its average effect is predictable, but only like dice. So noise. Or random variation, if you like that better.
Pippen Kool says:
January 21, 2014 at 11:43 am
“Seems to me you are arguing that the convection of water in a boiling tea pot is responsible for its heating.If the pot is warming, I bet more heat is going in than going out. A tea pot may not be as complex as the climate, but in both cases the heat causes the movement (of water/of air), and in both cases, things only heat if you change the balance of heat in and heat out (by the burner/by AGW).”
No the energy has increased not just moved around, The stronger El Ninos of recent years are caused by greater amounts of energy in the ocean surface than before. (0 m-400 m) This was down to lower global cloud levels with increased solar energy. The convection does bring the warmer water to the surface, but was originally caused by increased solar warming reaching the ocean surface and beyond.
“Just like a cold spell or a heat wave, ENSO is not predictable five or ten years out. But, its average effect is predictable, but only like dice. So noise. Or random variation, if you like that better.”
Step up occurred each time straight after a strong El Nino, that it not random. Solar energy if its enough to cause a strong El Nino and break equilibrium, will cause a step up. A certain amount of solar energy will cause a step up whereas any mount smaller will not. That’s down to how the ocean surface can only lose a certain threshold of energy at any one time.
Law of physics, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it is transformed. In the case of ENSO, movement of the thermocline facilitates storage of potential energy which is then transformed into kinetic energy through currents. And of course all these are coupled to the winds, a chicken and egg situation (which is first?). If you traced everything back, it is the sun that provides the source of heat and gets redistributed via the mean climate (i.e., that is why we have the Wind systems, e.g., Trade Winds), facilitated by the configuration of land masses, curvature of the Earth. ENSO can be thought of either a damped system perturbed by external stochastic forcing (such as the westerly wind bursts), or unstable system that allows the events to develop and decay in which the irregularity is then due to noise. During El Nino a large part of the Pacific Ocean warms which then heats up the atmosphere, warming the globe. A lot of processes then take place at the peak of an El Nino to cool things down again. We can think of the opposite occurring during La Nina. Warming or cooling of the mean climate due to increased or reduced solar forcing (e.g., through more or less clouds, aerosols, greenhouse gasses, wobble of the Earth’s rotation, sunspots, etc.) can alter processes that control ENSO (e.g., deeper thermocline, weaker Trade Winds, etc.). On longer geological time scale the mean climate can be altered due to different configuration of the land masses. The Earth’s climate system is a very complex thing.
Geoff Cruickshank, a couple of years ago I created a longer-term table that looked like NOAA’s Oceanic NINO Index.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/long-term-oni-like-table-of-el-nino-and-la-nina-events/
It’s based on NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies from the HADISST dataset.
Here’s the NOAA link for their oceanic NINO Index as a reference. It only runs back to 1950, and they use shifting base years for anomalies:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
Sorry for the delay in replying,
Regards
Pippen Kool says: “Well, you must mean warming and cooling, because the ENSO can’t create energy.”
You’re exposing your lack of understanding about ENSO with statements like that, Pippen Kool.
La Nina events reduce cloud cover over the tropical Pacific and allow sunlight to penetrate and warm the tropical Pacific to depth. They create the warm water that is subsequently released and redistributed by the El Nino, and that warm water created by La Ninas also serves as the source of the heat that is released through evaporation during the El Nino. See the post “Untruths, Falsehoods, Fabrications, Misrepresentations”:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/untruths-falsehoods-fabrications-misrepresentations/
Have a nice day.
Pippen Kool says: “Well, you must mean warming and cooling, because the ENSO can’t create energy.”
Bob Tisdale says: “You’re exposing your lack of understanding about ENSO with statements like that, Pippen Kool. La Nina events reduce cloud cover over the tropical Pacific and allow sunlight to penetrate and warm the tropical Pacific to depth. They create the warm water that is subsequently released and redistributed by the El Nino, and that warm water created by La Ninas also serves as the source of the heat that is released through evaporation during the El Nino.”
Right. My lack of understanding and anyone who works on ENSO. What you have described is shuffling energy around not making more of it. You know, you have pushed that idea for years now, and you have never really answered the Q of where your magical energy comes from. You need to do a spreadsheet or something, you make energy from nothing. Really. Because you can not warm the earth with ENSO anymore than you can with hurricanes or cold spells.
I mean think about it, Bob. If ENSO only worked one way the earth would as hot as Venus. But it’s not. So ENSO is like everything else on earth, normal in balance.
Pippen Fool says:
“you have never really answered the Q of where your magical energy comes from.”
How many times do you have to be told by other commenters here: energy ultimately comes from the sun. Your side is the one that claims that energy is produced by CO2 to create global warming. ‘Back radiation’ and all the rest of that alarmist nonsense.
As richardscourtney clearly explains:
How many times does that have to be explained to you, before it starts to sink in?
stealey says: “you have never really answered the Q of where your magical energy comes from. How many times do you have to be told by other commenters here: energy ultimately comes from the sun. Your side is the one that claims that energy is produced by CO2 to create global warming. ‘Back radiation’ and all the rest of that alarmist nonsense.
As richardscourtney clearly explains:
The Earth gains energy from the Sun and returns it to space.
Some of that energy goes into the ocean before it returns to space.
Energy that accumulates in the oceans warms the oceans.
No energy needs to be created.
How many times does that have to be explained to you, before it starts to sink in?”
So, sorry, where was the answer to my Q? Where does the extra magical energy come from? The sun? Well, the sun has been shining for many years now, and ANSO has not consumed the planet yet with the ENSO energy synthesis machine.
So I have come up with a sarcastical play for you all:
stealey, “Oh look, Oh look, the teapot is suddenly heating up”
richardscourtney, “but I don’t think the burner has been turned up. I didnt bother to measure it, it but I am sure.”
tisdale, “It must be because the convection currents in the teapot are releaseing their heat which must come (somehow) from the heat that hasnt been turned up!!!”
stealey and richardscourtney, “Amen, Amen, That must be it!! That must be it!! Quick, we should publish this on a blog so we don’t haf to worry about the real world!!!”
and watts, “sure. that seem reasonable, why not?”
Pippen Kool says:
January 21, 2014 at 7:46 pm
“I mean think about it, Bob. If ENSO only worked one way the earth would as hot as Venus. But it’s not. So ENSO is like everything else on earth, normal in balance.”
ENSO does only work one way partly described on January 21, 2014 at 9:05 am. Warmer water reaches the surface to give the El NIno and this energy is lost eventually by being transported via ocean surface currents to other parts of the planet. If there is too much energy it will cause a short term future step up. Cooler water replaces it during La NIna and this in turn is warmed by solar energy in the tropics. ENSO is a ocean natural cycle for moving solar energy from the tropical regions to other parts of the planet.
It is always derived from solar energy that warms and remember the planet is always losing energy. Solar energy generally maintains the energy balance that is always lost to space. Lower solar energy reaching the tropics will change this balance between energy incoming and the planets outgoing. In this case will cause it to warm less and if the planet is still losing the same energy as before, a downwards trend occurs in ENSO. This evidence is shown by a period of less El Ninos and more La NInas because when cooler water replaces it during La NIna, this is warmed less than previously. Therefore less energy to fuel an El Nino and the La Ninas are colder than before because before the transition to El Nino it is also warmed less.
Forgot to mention during a La Nina while being warmed less due to a reduction in solar energy if there is too much energy loss this will cause a short term future step down. While satellite data has been observing this has so far yet to have happen.
Ladies and Gentlemen
look up
http:/Reidar/Finsrud/perpetuum/mobile
I know him very well. I live just a short distance from there. We went to public school together. I did help him quite a bit with science on basic energetics, because allthough being a really very clever mechanics, he is lacking Baccalaureus 1 on physics and chemistery. And able to discuss that with me. He was planning to make “free energy”.
To put him on elementary right track I told him:
§1, Of God, we know less
§2, Of the sun, we know that it is relatively perpetuum
§3, Of anything under the sun we know that it is due not to violate the 2nd law of energetics- thermodynamics
§4 Then we will have our Mobiles to “shillyshally” and go (Tuttle og gå)
(We may say verbum: to “skingle” which is probably shillyshally.)
That showed exactly right. Dr. R.Finsrud had pondered on the problem in vain for years, and got his Mobile to shillyshally and go ony 2 weeks after I made him aware of §§§§1,2,3 and 4, see above.
The University, despite of all efforts, have not yet found out how it really works and what drives it, allthough it is rather trivial and easy. The very “shillyshally” is only for camouflage.
Thus,the University got really jelaous, and made their own mobile in revenge. That Mobile hangs apparently perpetuum in the entrance hall of the institute of Physics in Oslo, and does also shillishally and go.
I had my own Mobile ready for the Venus festival in Oslo, after I really had to wrap myself together and make a shillishally, the fameous Kolberg Tictack device, =the higly refined Barndoor device or scotch mount for longtime astrophoto exposures, for Hale Bopp. That works just as fine for solar occular projections at the festivals. Driven by gravity and passive ecapement ticktack- regulation, which is the big ben or Horologium oscillatorium principle. Later I found out that I had re- invented Focaults pioneering method for longtime astrophoto exposures.
==============000
I must say quite in general that the large drawback and handicap of the climate- deniers and “sceptics” and Surrealists is that they are the flat earth typical blind believers, who believe blindly in the experts and in the scriptures.
Whereas I,…. and Reidar Finsrud… rather have learnt to look to Nature and to natural reality and to set on our own senses, and to take it out of the raw materials of Nature, as directly as possible the understood way without having to ask the experts or to buy it half fabricata as LEGO or Kits from them. Thus he has become a very clever artist and…. magician. And I have become a very clever musical instrument maker and acoustician and………scientist.
You see,…. i do not seek it up in virtual reality from the experts; i seek it up and find it in the Tungsten filament of an incandescent lamp for instance, and in an iron rod.
Without being thorroughly aquainted to Carl Anton Bjerknes`water bath and just a few things more, you hardly are qualified for the study and arrangement and tackeling of and even living with and disussing…….. streaming and oscillating, massive and molecular matter in wild nature.
I was not aware of it before I red it here, but when it comes to it, who else but the grandson of Carl Anton Bjerknes could clear up and tell you very much more about the largest water- bath on earth?
[Is all of that quoting the piece from (about) Reider, or your words? Mod]
Pippen Kool says: “Right. My lack of understanding and anyone who works on ENSO. What you have described is shuffling energy around not making more of it. You know, you have pushed that idea for years now, and you have never really answered the Q of where your magical energy comes from.”
Apparently your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Did you read the post I linked for you earlier?
Dr. Mod
It is all my own words.
Galleri Finsrud Perpetuum mobile
may come better.