Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I got to thinking about the well-known correlation of El Ninos and global temperature. I knew that the Pacific temperatures lead the global temperatures, and the tropics lead the Pacific, but I’d never looked at the actual physical distribution of the correlation. So I went to the CERES dataset, and Figure 1 shows the result.
Figure 1. Correlation of detrended gridcell temperatures with the global temperature two months later. Blue square shows the extent of the 3D section shown in Figure 2. Gray lines show the zero value.
The joy of science to me is wondering what the final map will look like. This map made me laugh when it came up on the silver screen. I laughed because it’s a very good map of the path of the warm water pumped from the equator to the poles by the magnificent El Nino pump. I didn’t expect that at all.
To understand why a map showing each gridcell’s correlation with the planetary temperature two months later should also be a great map of the path of the water pumped by the El Nino pump, let’s consider the action of the pump in detail. Figure 2 shows a 3D section of the Pacific showing the ocean before and after the power stroke of the El Nino pump.
Figure 2. 3D section of the Pacific Ocean looking westward along the equator. The area covered is the blue box at the equator in Figure 1. Click on image for larger size. ORIGINAL CAPTION: This is a view of the current El Nino / La Nina evolving in the tropical Pacific Ocean. You are looking westward, across the equator in the Pacific Ocean, from a vantage point somewhere in the Andes Mountains in South America. The colored surfaces show TAO/TRITON ocean temperatures. The top surface is the sea-surface, from 8°N to 8°S and from 137°E to 95°W. The shape of the sea surface is determined by TAO/TRITON Dynamic Height data. The wide vertical surface is at 8°S and extends to 500 meters depth. The narrower vertical surface is at 95°W. SOURCE: click on “Animation”.
Now, every intermittent pump has a “power stroke” when it does the actual pumping. For example, the power stroke of your heart is marked by the “beat” of your heartbeat. (The heart has two pumping chambers, so there are two power strokes, with their timing signified by the “lub-dub” of your heartbeat.) The power stroke is the time when the work is done—it is the portion of the cycle where the water is moved by the pump. Figure 2 shows the situation before and after the power stroke of the El Nino pump.
On the left of Figure 2, we have the condition prior to the power stroke of the El Nino pump. In this condition, there is a build-up of warm water on the surface. As you might imagine, this also warms the atmosphere above it, and a few months later the warmth spreads to the planet as well.
However, when the amount of this warm water reaches a critical point, the El Nino phenomenon emerges. The wind that powers the El Nino pump arises, and it begins to blow. This wind blows the warm surface water strongly westwards. Essentially, the wind skims off the warm surface layer and pushes it all along the equator until it meets up with continental arc. This movement of untold cubic kilometres of water is the result of the power stroke of the El Nino pump.
On the right of Figure 2, we have the condition after the power stroke, when the wind has already blown the warm surface water westwards. Note that the cooler subsurface layers have been exposed. These layers are up to as much as 10°C cooler than the surface was before the power stroke. Naturally, the exposure of this huge area of cool water cools the atmosphere and thus the planet.
So with that as prologue, why does the correlation map of Figure 1 show the track taken by the warm water? It’s all a matter of timing.
Consider what happens when the El Nino pump skims off the warm surface of the equatorial Pacific waters. When the cool subsurface water is exposed all across that huge tropical area, first the Pacific atmosphere and then the whole planet starts to cool.
But actually, that’s not quite true. The whole planet doesn’t cool … because the warm surface water moved by the El Nino pump has to go somewhere. This means that the previously cooler areas to which the warm tropical water has been pumped are warming, while the rest of the planet is cooling … and as a result, we get the lovely blue and green areas of negative correlation shown in the western Pacific in Figure 1.
These areas demonstrate that when the warm Equatorial water hits the Asian continent and the shallow-water arc connecting Asia to Australia, the water pumped by the El Nino splits into two parts. One part of the warm water goes north, and one goes south.
And of course, like the other emergent climate phenomena, the El Nino pump functions to keep the Pacific from overheating. When there is a buildup of warm water, the El Nino pump emerges, pumps the warm water to the poles along the path shown in Figure 1, and then disappears until it is needed once again.
I can only stand in awe. This is a most ingenious method for temperature regulation. When the warm Pacific tropical surface waters get overheated, an emergent pumping system arises, which pumps the warm water polewards and exposes the cooler water underneath, and the cooler ocean waters in turn bring down the temperature of the whole planet … brilliant.
My regards to everyone,
w.
AS ALWAYS: If you disagree with something I’ve said, please quote the exact words you disagree with. That way all of us can understand exactly what you object to.
PS—It does strike me that with both a positively correlated and a negatively correlated area regarding the global temperature two months later, we should at least be able to forecast a few key climate parameters for a couple of months ahead …
dp,
You seem to be picturing the energy flows in the oceans in flat space. A thick column of warm water over in the East Pacific is a whole different kettle of fish than that same volume of warm water spread thin across a wide flat area. Much greater surface area in the latter formation to dump heat into the atmosphere.
Gail Combs says:
February 27, 2014 at 5:44 pm
You could say the ENSO is the governed heat intake for the planet and the poles (and vortex) are the exit. The position of the jets governs part of the ‘Cooling’
————————————————————————————-
By the same token then, when the jets stabilize west to east can they then reduce the rate of cooling for a time and thus allow for a buildup of heat in the overall system?
Sorry, meant West Pacific for location of thicker column of warm water.
Box of Rocks says:
February 27, 2014 at 8:27 pm
So, what controls the energy of the cooler water underneath?
——————————————————————————-
Would part of that energy be derived from the release of the over-pressure from the removal of the weight?
Show the math – how does that work? Recall it begins with an energy concentration X, is reorganized to energy concentration Y which involves a new and lower energy concentration at X. It appears to be a net zero movement of energy.
Greg,
The Indian Ocean has monsoons, not trade winds.
You can look the process up in lots of places on your search engine.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 27, 2014 at 7:56 pm
Cool and even more cool. Thanks much. I look forward to your next work.
Manfred writes “Fish movement isn’t a bad one”
In fact on closer reading of the NOAA article, it looks less likely the fish are swept along with large scale water movements and indeed there are examples of fish that go in the opposite directions towards the colder waters. Obviously they swam that way so my scepticism remains on this point.
dp, Think about the heat exchanging surface area of a sphere vs the heat exchanging surface area of a pancake shape of the same volume of water. Which shape will exchange heat more rapidly? If the flattened shape is swept toward the poles rather than remaining bound up near the equator in a thick column, it will dump it’s heat content far more rapidly.
Willis, you do very well at looking at observations for effects and presenting a summery/compilation of those in a commonsense and easy to picture manner to help see what’s happening. As you mentioned in a comment above, your interest in this post was more of effect as opposed to cause. The effect seems clear and the cause as presented by you and Bob Tisdale also seems clear.
I have a tendency to approach my understanding from a similar point of view. Once I see/understand the effect of something it is often much easier to grasp the cause. Another way to look at something is to view the big picture before getting lost in the details. Those details may not be as complicated as they may first appear.
Another emergent phenomenon, it makes sense to me.
Good work, I’ll keep an eye on you!
I’m not arguing that any energy is created or destroyed. It’s a point about rate of flux. The oceans have a vastly greater thermal capacity than the atmosphere, and the warm waters are NOT uniformly distributed. If you change the rate of exchange (in our thought experiment) because warm waters have spread more widely, you can moderately warm the atmosphere until equilibrium is once again reached.
Oldseadog says:
“Greg,
The Indian Ocean has monsoons, not trade winds.
You can look the process up in lots of places on your search engine.”
Yes, my question was a bit tongue in cheek, since the usual explanation for ENSO is “it creates itself” (the chicken and egg : paradox is not an explanation) from some feedbacks from the trade winds.
Now Bob really interesting animation shows similar but reversed variations in the Indian Ocean. How does that one chicken and egg itself , without trade winds blowing the other way?
The even more fascinating anim. that Willis linked on youtube shows little ‘blobs’ running across the Atlantic and Pacific equatorial zones. These look very much like standing waves being set up in resonance with the passage of sun/moon , at certain times. Once is a while there is flurry of one or two reverse rushes of larger proportion, that Willis says marks the start of El Nino.
I suspect some tidal phenomenon is doing the egg-laying.
To Dp,
The process that transports energy from the sea surface to space is the evaporation of water, the formation of thunder clouds, the strong up drafts that build those clouds into the stratosphere, the freezing of water and water vapor in the tops of those clouds, and the radiation by them to space. CO2 emitted at the sea surface is going along for the ride with water vapor. Some is absorbed by clouds and returns as rain, the rest is pumped out of the top of those tall clouds where it also radiates energy to space. Try doing your energy flow calculations in a square meter vertical column inside a tropical thunderstorm. The change rate in sea surface temperature as the water goes from east to west across the equatorial Pacific (ENSO) is the main driver of these processes.
Manfred says:
“After an El Nino, you will find tropical fish up to Alaska.
http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/enso4.html ”
During an El Nino and not after according to your link.
http://youtu.be/oZVE8JHxRAc
Climate Change Driven By The Oceans
@Old woman of the north
Benguela Niño:
“Similar to the Pacific El Niño, a thick slab of warm, nutrient poor water enters the northern part of the Benguela upwelling system off the Namibia coast about once per decade.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benguela_Current#Benguela_Ni.C3.B1o
Thank you Willis. Most interesting!
TimTheToolMan says:
February 28, 2014 at 4:58 am
Manfred writes “Fish movement isn’t a bad one”
In fact on closer reading of the NOAA article, it looks less likely the fish are swept along with large scale water movements and indeed there are examples of fish that go in the opposite directions towards the colder waters. Obviously they swam that way so my scepticism remains on this point.
———————————————————————————————————————–
There are fish that prefer cooler waters, just as there are fish that prefer warmer waters for their food needs.
dp,
ENSO is one of the pumps helping to move energy from equator to other parts of the world, as mentioned some of it from storms moving along the jet stream (which changes position due to the state of the ENSO), but also there are significant currents moving warm water pole ward, where lower amounts of solar energy in allows the balance between in and out to be net cooling.
Box of Rocks asked about the cold water upwelling, that has to get replenished from downwelling cold polar waters. More open water in the arctic losses more heat than frozen ice.
Longer than ENSO is the PDO and AMO, and the cyclic melting of the Arctic, somewhere in this mess of oscillations there is a 60 or so year cycle.
IMO the rate of these cycles should increase with increased energy accumulation, and they should slow down with lesser amounts of energy accumulation.
“And of course, like the other emergent climate phenomena, the El Nino pump functions to keep the Pacific from overheating. When there is a buildup of warm water, the El Nino pump emerges, pumps the warm water to the poles along the path shown in Figure 1, and then disappears until it is needed once again.”
There is an established relationship between El Nino episodes and more frequent negative AO/NAO states, and it is during negative AO/NAO states that poleward ocean transport is increased. So the polar regions tend to warm during El Nino episodes, and cool during La Nina episodes.
A more southerly jet stream track and associated circulation during negative AO/NAO could be responsible for both increased poleward sea water transport, and inhibition of the trade winds, particularly in the north hemisphere winter when an El Nino peaks.
I would see the synchronous warming of El Nino and the polar regions as effectively moderating mid latitude cooler than normal land temperatures in these periods, and the inverse with La Nina, providing cooling when mid latitude land temperatures are generally higher.
Would the east Pacific overheat without a La Nina, or would increased tropical storms and albedo keep it around 30°C maximum anyway?
TimTheToolMan says:
February 28, 2014 at 4:58 am
Manfred writes “Fish movement isn’t a bad one”
In fact on closer reading of the NOAA article, it looks less likely the fish are swept along with large scale water movements and indeed there are examples of fish that go in the opposite directions towards the colder waters. Obviously they swam that way so my scepticism remains on this point.
——————————————
Look at Curtis et al. and what happens to the wind during El Ninos:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/71740main_sst_wind_20030121_web.jpg
(taken from here
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/elnino_ocean.html)
It is blowing along the North American coast from Mexico up to the Bering Strait. You also can see a clear “feed” from the El Nino leftover warm water region.
El Nino leftover warm water stays on top. That is a major difference to La Nina. La Nina upwelled cold water just sinks down, once upwelling stops. El Nino leftover water can’t go anywhere, if it is not puished down or somewhere else by force or otherwise very slowly cools. That leftover water is then very susceptible to wind and ocean currents.
During El Ninos, a very strong low pressure system develops in the Northern Pacific, which produces above northward winds.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/maf/research/nino3.gif
Even the southbound California ocean current is so stopped during an El Nino event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Current
Another interesting read is here and reports the transfer of warmer water through “coastal waves”. (It also says, that in Winter winds are generally northbound, reports alteration of ocean currents and displacement of drifting ocean creatures)
“El Niño can affect the Pacific Northwest through two primary pathways: the oceans and the atmosphere. The atmosphere and ocean can link the conditions in two areas that are thousands of miles apart, by forming teleconnections (or connections that act over considerable distances) between these areas. Noticeable changes in oceanic conditions off the Pacific Northwest have been reported to occur as rapidly as one month after El Niño conditions were first spotted off Peru. These initial effects are transmitted by coastal waves that originate off South America and that bring warmer water to areas off the Pacific Northwest.”
http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/sgpubs/onlinepubs/g97008.html
Manfred writes ” if it is not puished down or somewhere else by force or otherwise very slowly cools.”
I dont disagree with anything you wrote but am sceptical about the suggestion that the “leftover” warmer water can travel thousands of miles without cooling. My instinct tells me there is more going on than simply warm waters travelling long distances moving energy away from the equator (which Willis is focussing on) and instead there are other important (warming) factors in play that need to be considered.
Manfred writes “You also can see a clear “feed” from the El Nino leftover warm water region.”
There is no clear feed in that diagram that supports the idea of a “pump”. The vast majority of the warming appears to come from much further North originating from the West. And then the warming anomaly is much greater the further North one looks. Now either the water is refusing to cool or is warming some other way the further North it goes. My instinct tells me its the latter.
“I knew that the Pacific temperatures lead the global temperatures, and the tropics lead the Pacific” you write in the foreword to this post. As a simple statistician, four years ago I wrote a paper which I submitted for publication to Climate Dynamics, edited by E.K. Schneider.
The paper was a Principal-Component analysis to find the most effective forcings on temperature changes, 1850-2010. The forcings included PDO, sunspot numbers (SSN), CO2 emissions, GHGs, etc., and PDO was found together with SSN to be the major culprit of GW.
The editor’s response was: “The paper calls the PDO a “forcing,” yet the PDO is the spatial average SST in the North Pacific, which is a substantial fraction of the global average temperature– thus, the paper attributes fluctuations in global average temperature to … the Pacific Ocean! Most readers would not call the Pacific Ocean a forcing.”.
On the basis of your opinion and that of quite a few climate scientists this comment seems BS to me. Right or wrong?
Here’s the paper:
http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/pramprapa/23600.htm
Nice work Willis,
I suggest you may now be close to solving one of the greatest intellectual contradictions of our time:
“CO2 is alleged to be a primary driver of global temperature, so how is it that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales?”
Regards, Allan
___________
From a previous post:
The “mainstream” global warming debate centres on the magnitude of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (“ECS”) to atmospheric CO2, which is the primary subject of contention between global warming alarmists (aka “warmists”) and climate skeptics (aka “skeptics”).
Warmists typically say ECS is high, greater than ~~3 degrees C [3C/(2xCO2)] and therefore DANGEROUS global warming will result, whereas skeptics say ECS is 1C or less and any resulting global warming will NOT be dangerous.
The scientific evidence to date strongly suggests that if one had to pick a side, the skeptics are more likely to be correct.
However, BOTH sides of this factious debate are in all probability technically WRONG. In January 2008 I demonstrated that CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales*, so the mainstream debate requires that “the future is causing the past”, which I suggest is demonstrably false.
In climate science we do not even agree on what drives what, and it is probable that the majority, who reside on BOTH sides of the ECS mainstream debate, are both technically WRONG.
Hypothesis:
Based on the preponderance of evidence, temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature, so ECS may not exist at all at the “macro” scale, and may be utterly irrelevant to climate science except at the “micro” (and materially insignificant) scale.
There may be other significant sources of CO2 that contribute to its increase in the atmosphere, but increasing CO2 just does not have a significant or measureable impact on global warming (or cooling), which is almost entirely natural in origin.
I therefore suggest that the oft-fractious “mainstream debate” between warmists and skeptics about the magnitude of ECS is materially irrelevant. ECS, if it exists at all, is so small that it just does not matter.
Wait 5 to 10 more years – I suggest that by then most serious climate scientists will accept the above hypo. Many will claim they knew it all along… 🙂
________
* If ECS (which assumes CO2 drives temperature) actually exists in the Earth system, it is so small that it is overwhelmed by the reality that temperature drives CO2.
Proof:
In this enormous CO2 equation, the only signal that is apparent is that dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature, and CO2 lags global Lower Troposphere temperatures by about 9 months.
Reference my January 2008 paper at
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
CO2 also lags temperature by about 800 years in the ice core record on a longer time scale.
To suggest that ECS is larger that 1C is not credible. I suggest that if ECS exists at all, it is much smaller than 1C, so small as to be essentially insignificant.
Regards, Allan
________
My January 2008 hypo is gaining notice with the recent work of several researchers. We don’t always agree on the fine details, but there is clear agreement in the primary hypothesis.
Here is Murry Salby’s address to the Sydney Institute in 2011:
Here is Salby’s address in Hamburg 2013:
See also this January 2013 paper from Norwegian researchers:
The Phase Relation between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature
Global and Planetary Change
Volume 100, January 2013, Pages 51–69
by Ole Humluma, Kjell Stordahlc, Jan-Erik Solheimd
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
Highlights
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
– Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
– Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.