Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
In my peripatetic meandering through the CERES satellite data, I’ve been looking at the correlation between the temperatures in the NINO3.4 region and the temperatures of the rest of the planet.
The NINO3.4 region is an area in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean. It covers five degrees north and south of the Equator, from 170° West to 120° West. Temperatures in that area are used to measure the strength of the El Nino / La Nina phenomenon.
Now, people often discuss procedures like “removing the effects of the El Nino from the global temperature record”. What they mean is that they have noted the similarity between the temperature of the NINO3.4 region and the global temperature. Figure 1 shows that relationship as seen in the CERES data.

Figure 1. Surface temperature of the globe (blue) and of the central Pacific ENSO3.4 area (red). Note the large “El Nino” event at the end of 2015. Both datasets are normalized (set to a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one).
Seeing this relationship, people have “removed” the NINO3.4 temperature variations from the temperature record. They have done this by subtracting out, in one form or another, the variations that are “caused” by the El Nino swings. However, I have disagreed numerous times with this procedure. Let me propose a more encompassing way to understand the relationship shown in Figure 1.
This is to note that although there are areas of the surface which show a good positive correlation to global temperatures, there are also areas that show a good negative correlation to global temperatures. Figure 2 shows this relationship on a gridcell by gridcell basis. It displays how well the temperatures in each gridcell agree or disagree with the global average temperature variations shown in Figure 1.

Figure 2. Correlation of each gridcell with the global average temperature. Note the large areas of negative correlation (green and blue)
Looking at that, I ask you to reconsider the idea that we can simply subtract out the temperature variations in the NINO3.4 area (blue box) from the global temperature … clearly, the relationships are far from simple. Is the fact that certain areas correlate well with the global variations a sufficient reason to “remove” them from the temperature record?
And if so, why limit ourselves to the ENSO3.4 area of the Pacific? Why not use a much larger area of the Pacific and “remove” half of the Pacific from the temperature record?
Setting those questions aside, the overall pattern in the Pacific is clearly related to the heat which is moved by the El Nino / La Nina pump. These two phenomena act together to pump warm Equatorial water across the Pacific in a westward direction. Once this warm surface water hits the Asian mainland/islands it splits and moves toward the two poles.
Now, many people say that this shows that the El Nino / La Nina is causing the global temperature changes. I say that the causation is going the other way. When the earth warms and excess heat accumulates in the eastern tropical Pacific, it triggers a cycle of the El Nino / La Nina pump. This pump moves warm water to the poles, where it is lost to space. Overall this cools the planet. The results of this pumping action can be seen in Figure 2 as the green areas in the western Pacific heading towards the north and south polar regions.
In other words, the El Nino doesn’t control the temperature—the temperature controls the El Nino.
We can look at this from another perspective. Rather than comparing gridcells to the average global surface temperature as in Figure 2, we can compare gridcells to the average NINO3.4 area temperature. Figure 3 shows that result.
Figure 3. As in Figure 2, but comparing ENSO3.4 area temperatures with gridcell temperatures. Note different color scale than that used in Figure 2.
Again, a most interesting result. It makes the El Nino pattern even clearer. Note that both the Western Pacific and the North Atlantic move in opposition to the NINO3.4 area.
The source of the pattern seen in Figure 3 is clear. It is driven by the El Nino / La Nina pump. When enough heat has accumulated in the eastern Pacific, the El Nino / La Nina pump pushes warm water first westward, then poleward. This cools the eastern Pacific and warms the western Pacific. In the South Pacific, you can see how it goes around Cape Horn at the south end of South America.
The oddity from my perspective is the North Atlantic. It moves in opposition to the NINO3.4 area, but the physical nature of the connection (or teleconnection) between the two is not clear to me.
In any case, I wanted to look at how temperatures in the areas in blue changed with respect to changes in the NINO3.4 temperatures. I restricted the analysis to the areas with a correlation more negative than – 0.3. Those areas are outlined in Figure 4 below. It is the same as Figure 3, but with the most negative areas outlined by the gray contour lines.

Figure 4. As in Figure 3, but with the gray contour line at a correlation of – 0.3.
Note that the North Atlantic is included among the areas with a strong negative correlation to the NINO3.4 area. To see the difference between the positively and negatively correlated areas shown in Figure 4, I graphed them up in Figure 5.

Figure 5. This shows the two areas outlined in Figure 4 above. The red line shows the average of the NINO3.4 area, shown as a rectangle in Figure 4. The blue line shows the average of the areas shown in blue and outlined with a gray contour line.
Dang … I certainly didn’t expect that nearly perfect mirror-image. When the NINO3.4 area warms up the North Atlantic and the other areas cool down, and vice versa.
So this highlights the problem. Given that we have an alternating phenomenon wherein the North Atlantic cools down when the Eastern Pacific warms up, and vice versa … just exactly how should we “remove” this phenomenon from the global record?
And more to the point, why should we remove it? The El Nino / La Nina pump is a central part of the natural thermoregulatory mechanisms that keep the temperatures within a very narrow range (e.g. ± 0.3°C during the 20th Century). The Nino pump kicks into gear whenever excess heat accumulates in the equatorial Pacific waters and moves that warm water to the poles.
As such, “removing” the El Nino / La Nina / North Atlantic signal from the global signal is cutting out a vital emergent climate heat-removing mechanism … I don’t even have a name for what remains once that radical surgery is performed.
=================
Here, I’m putting the finish touches on this post and getting some needed hydration before going back to my current fun … driving a 1.5 tonne excavator, leveling an area on our tilted patch of dirt in order to make a level patio garden … big boys do love our big toys.

A summer’s day, an excavator, and red-tailed hawks circling in the distance … what’s not to like?
Best to all,
w.
PS: If you comment please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING, so we can all be clear about your subject.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What’s with the 0 month lag?
The lag is 3 months. This has been very clear since the beginning of any discussion about the ENSO.
And the north Atlantic appears to have an 8 month lag.
Start over.
Now what drives the ENSO? The temperature of the water itself which circulates east-to-west at the surface but 200 metres down, there is the strongest current on Earth in terms of how much water volume moves in it.
It circulates the water west-to-east (opposite to the surface) until it runs up against the Galapagos Islands at which point the force of the water flowing in from behind forces it to the surface. This is the start of the ENSO. This 200 metre depth current is what drives the ENSO. You can see what it is going to do as much as 8 months before the global temperature impact occurs.
Anybody see a Super El-Nino coming here? April 2015. Nino 3.4 peaks in November 2015 and global temperatures peak in February 2016 (3 months later, not 0 months later – and this has been the same pattern over the last 150 years – yeah 150 years).
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/mnth_gif/xz/mnth.anom.xz.temp.0n.2015.04.gif
Nino 3.4 projection from 7 months ago. How close did I come? Bang on that is.
Very nice. Feb-April 2015 were the three peak TSI months of SC24.
2015 1 1361.5359
2015 2 1361.8859
2015 3 1361.6749
2015 4 1361.6690
Bill Illis June 24, 2017 at 4:14 pm
I always start with the current condition before I start evaluating the lagged condition. It appears you don’t like that … not sure why.
Well … no. Not according to the CERES data. The cross-correlation function for the two curves shown in Figure 5 reveals a lag of … wait for it …
0 months.
w.
Great, you’ve already done it. Would you care to post the CC fn it would be interesting to see. How does the claimed 8mo correlation compare to zero lag ? As I commented above it does not look like a lagged relationship but figures would be good to see.
That is a key indicator of whether this is a common driver or ‘teleconnected’ causation.
Here are the RSS-UAH Lower Troposphere versus the Nino 3.4 Index with Zero Lag.
I am using a volcano-adjusted Lower Troposphere temperature here (unadjusted is shown as well) because the El Chichon eruptions in 1982 cut-off the impact of the 1982-83 Super El Nino and the Pinatubo eruption of 1991 also cut-off a large El Nino at that time.
There is clearly an on-going lag impact here whether surface temperatures or lower troposphere.
Regarding what I said about an 8 month Lag of the north Atlantic compared to the Nino 3.4 Index, it needs a qualifier in that it sometimes or often lags behind the ENSO by 8 months.

This is not consistent but it shows up often enough, especially in the larger ENSO events. (Maybe I am just seeing things but it seems to do so a lot although there is still lots other variability). Nino 3.4 vs the AMO back to 1979.
We can go way back with these two measures. AMO goes way way back but I think the Nino 3.4 Index is only accurate enough back to 1871.
Can you show that an 8mo lag produces a larger magnitude correlation than 0 lag? Figure 5 looks more like a mirror image than an inverted lag relationship.
Hi Bob and Willis,
Thank you both for your work.
I get a four month lag vs Bob’s three, but let’s define my lag – it is the lag of Global UAHLT temperature after Nino3.4 temperature.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/01/spectacular-drop-in-global-average-satellite-temperatures/comment-page-1/#comment-2250067
Based on the previously-discussed relationship, I compared the actual UAHLT global anomaly with a projected UAHLTcalc, calculated from Nino34 divided by 3, wherein Nino34 leads UAHLT by 4 months.
The relationship does not work well during the 1982-83 El Nino, allegedly because of the El Chichon volcanic eruption.
Note the projection over-predicts to the negative several times, especially after the 1997-98 El Nino.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1030302183714010&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/23/december-2016-global-surface-landocean-and-lower-troposphere-temperature-anomaly-update-with-a-look-at-the-year-end-annual-results/comment-page-1/#comment-2404993
My work suggests that The Pause would extend back to 1982, were it not for two huge volcanoes in 1982 and 1991; Bill Illis’s work suggests The Pause extends back to at least 1958.
Since there was global cooling from about 1940 to 1975, one could conclude that there has been no net global warming since about 1940.
Regards, Allan
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/16/october-2016-global-surface-landocean-and-lower-troposphere-temperature-anomaly-update/comment-page-1/#comment-2342825
NOT A WHOLE LOTTA GLOBAL WARMING GOIN’ ON!
[excerpt} … Bill Illis has created a temperature model that actually works in the short-term (multi-decades). It shows global temperatures correlate primarily with NIno3.4 area temperatures – an area of the Pacific Ocean that is about 1% of global surface area. There are only four input parameters, with Nino3.4 being the most influential. CO2 has almost no influence. So what drives the Nino3.4 temperatures? Short term, the ENSO. Longer term, probably the integral of solar activity – see Dan Pangburn’s work.
Bill’s post is here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/23/lewandowsky-and-cook-deniers-cannot-provide-a-coherent-alternate-worldview/comment-page-1/#comment-2306066
Bill’s equation is:
Tropics Troposphere Temp = 0.288 * Nino 3.4 Index (of 3 months previous) + 0.499 * AMO Index + -3.22 * Aerosol Optical Depth volcano Index + 0.07 Constant + 0.4395*Ln(CO2) – 2.59 CO2 constant
Bill’s graph is here – since 1958, not a whole lotta global warming goin’ on!
My simpler equation using only the Nino3.4 Index Anomaly is:
UAHLTcalc Global (Anom. in degC, ~four months later) = 0.20*Nino3.4IndexAnom + 0.15
Data: Nino3.4IndexAnom is at: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices
It shows that much or all of the apparent warming since ~1982 is a natural recovery from the cooling impact of two major volcanoes – El Chichon and Pinatubo.
Here is the plot of my equation:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1106756229401938&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
I agree with Bill’s conclusion that
THE IMPACT OF INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS SO CLOSE TO ZERO AS TO BE MATERIALLY INSIGNIFICANT.
Regards, Allan
_____________________________
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/01/spectacular-drop-in-global-average-satellite-temperatures/comment-page-1/#comment-2250667
I plotted the same formula back to 1982, which is where I (I think arbitrarily) started my first analysis. Satellite temperature data began in 1979.
That formula is: UAHLT Calc. = 0.20*Nino3.4SST +0.15
It is apparent that UAHLT Calc. is substantially higher than UAH Actual for two periods, each of ~5 years,
BUT that difference could be largely or entirely due to the two major volcanoes, El Chichon in 1982 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991.
This leads to a startling new hypothesis: First, look at the blue line, which shows NO significant global warming over the entire period from 1982 to 2016. Perhaps the “global warming” observed after the 1997-98 El Nino was not global warming at all; maybe it was just the natural recovery in global temperatures after two of the largest volcanoes in recent history.
Comments?
Regards, Allan
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1030751950335700&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3
Now I remember – it’s terrible getting old.
Bill’s 3-month lag is between NIno34 anom and TROPICAL UAHLT anom.
My 4-month lag is between Nino34 anom and GLOBAL UAHLY anom.
Global temperature tracks ~1 month after Tropical.
Alan
I did some work on the climate response to Mt Pinatubo and found that within a month or two of the eruption there was an excess of incoming solar energy:
?w=843
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/on-determination-of-tropical-feedbacks/
UAH TLS gives us a clue to the volcanic effects; The two volcanoes produced two persistent downward steps in TLS ( after the initial peaks ). This implies less radiation getting blocked in the stratosphere and making it into the lower climate system.
I think this is evidence of , not just “recovery” but an actual warming effect produced by these eruptions. This is likely due to destruction of ozone ( which was SO2, not CFCs ) and probably natural purging of built up anthropogenic stratospheric pollution along with the volcanic aerosols.
That is my view and it seems to go in the same sense as what you are saying.
Don’t think I’ve ever seen someone use a track hoe to ‘level’ an area, front loader maybe, tractor or bulldozer with an articulating blade sometimes but mainly a grader. My 1948 collectable grader works fine, check the fuel and fill the hydraulic tank! Keep up the good work Willis.
My Ford 1810 compact 4wd farm tractor has a detachable 770b hydraulic loader bucket with 1100# breakaway, plus a 7 foot reversible/angleable grader blade for the leveling rear 3point implement hitch. Together, leveling that patch would take about an hour including moving dirt spoil to wherever.
Both tools used to cut about 3 miles of reasonably level ‘roads’ through the woodlots for firewood removal (snake out using tractor with logging chains/tines), hunting ATV access, and dirt bike/snomobiling once the trees within the lanes were cut out. Took four years, mostly in winter, to mark and cut the lanes and summer bucket out problematic flush stumps.. Then used the 3pt hitch 6 foot brushhog to maintain the trails every couple of years from saplings, small deadfall, and multiflora rose. Main brushhognuse was pasture maintenance and corn stubble shredding prior to plowin or notill planting. More than enough natural dead tree firewood each year to provide for three farm families heating mostly with wood in winter, plus sell some cut/split into the local town.
There is an elephant here nagging me to point out the following. HadSST don’t follow RSS that well. Individual NH and SH don’t either. Crutemp (land) does after detrending slightly ( adjusting for similar linear trend) but not as well as all three combined.
There is no physical reason for the discrepancy.
“Dang … I certainly didn’t expect that nearly perfect mirror-image. When the NINO3.4 area warms up the North Atlantic and the other areas cool down, and vice versa.”
Your figure 5 blue line is getting drowned out by all the other blue areas, it does not represent the timing of North Atlantic anomalies well.
Can anyone explain the Brazilian current? I expected it to be warm but when I dove off Cabo Frio (there’s a hint in that name I didn’t take) I froze my equipment off. Where is that warm tropical water heading South along the Eastern edge of a continent as it should do?
Good question, Robert. Almost all of the equatorial warm water striking South America flows north, because of the geometry of the equatorial area of eastern South America. As a result, there’s no significant south-flowing current as there is in the Pacific.
Regards,
w.
The Brazilian Current is a “warm” current, but the term is relative to surrounding water temperatures and that of the part of a gyre from which it springs. As with all western boundary currents in the SH, it flows north to south, ie poleward.
Please see the map I posted above. Thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_Current
Close in to shore, it’s possible for water temperature to differ from that of the current farther out, as well.
Cabo Frio has got it’s name (‘Cold Coast’) because of it’s underwater topography that in combination with prevailing winds during seasons results in a strong cold upwelling. That has given it it’s name. For it’s relative coolness it is a popular resort for the nearby Rio de Janeiro.
The literal translation of ‘Cabo Frio’ is ‘Cold Cape’.
Am I on the right page here?
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0248.txt
I notice the split between cold and warm areas in the Pacific is across a north south axis whereas in the Atlantic it is across an east -west line. These are dynamic systems with no obvious connection between them via their water bodies. So I would look at this as two separate systems in which the water bodies respond to broadly similar thermal forcings but within different geographic constraints – shapes of land masses, depths of the seas and shape of ocean floors. The latter affect the masses of the water bodies and their flows. Other properties such as salinity are also different between them. Therefore I would expect them to respond differently to the same external thermal forcings. It may be only by coincidence that the differences between the properties of the water bodies and the physical constraints on their dynamic behaviour result in an anti-phase relationship. The relationship is with the forcings, not between each water body.
I’m replying to myself to add a postscript. Another factor would be the behaviour of the atmosphere (primarily cloud cover) over each water body may also differ such that, other factors being equal, solar forcing is modified at the surface of each water body differently in a cyclic way.
Unlike the rest of us, who only reply to ourselves because the dog just doesn’t listen anymore.
“Unlike the rest of us, who only reply to ourselves because the dog just doesn’t listen anymore.”
LOL 😉
“In my peripatetic meandering through the CERES satellite data…”
Sounds painful! I’ve heard if it lasts more than a few hours you should have a doctor look at it, it can be very dangerous.
Try Viagradril. If your erection starts sneezing, call your doctor for an over the phone high five!
What’s an erection?
What’s a pup-tent in the morning?
It’s like an election, only different.
“What’s a pup-tent in the morning?”
A happy day?
“What’s a pup-tent in the morning?”
A happy day?
Sort of like a Trump Presidency.
Here’s my problem.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150623-why-looking-at-the-light-makes-us-sneeze
I would love for my erection to start sneezing.
IMHO, “photic sneezing” really doesn’t hold a candle to “penile sneezing”.
Wait.
I could have that wrong…
wonting (sic)
It seems to me that since the major surface areas that are negatively correlated to the NINO3.4 temperature are over oceans rather than land, the removal of NINO3.4 temperatures from the temperature record just provides an interesting, normalizing statistic for us living on land.
To be more accurate, one could track the average departure for each grid cell over many El Ninos, and then add or subtract accordingly for your region.
Thanks Willis.
Idea 1:
The cold Atlantic is water pushed out of the Arctic as happened a few years ago when the inflow through the Bering Strait was strong, relatively, melting the ice NW of Alaska and the hearts of polar bear savers everywhere.
Idea 2:
What is the distribution of temperature measuring points? Could it be that the sampling of the ‘global temperature’ prior to ‘infilling’ is such that ‘removing the El Niño’ results in something closer to the global average in non-El Niño years?
In other words it ‘usefulness’ could be an artifact of sampling inhomogeniety.
The same could of course apply to the numbers you used as inputs. If they are similarly gapped, I the output can create correlation numbers that are not really there.
However, I agree with the position that subtracting anything is not justifiable. The implication of leaving in all readings is that the instantaneous average global temperature is a heck of a lot more variable than anyone wants to admit, especially on the AGW side.
Think about what the claims are: they ‘have detected the AG signature in the global temperature. Really? Not if the actual temperature is used.
The only way to subtract the El Niño is to misrepresent what the measured temperature is. How is that helpful in identifying AG influence? Who says the El Niño is not ‘human influenced? How can humans emitting CO2 influence the temperature of only select parts of the ocean surface.
Conclusion: the surface temperature of the Earth is a lot more variable than previously assumed, and there is zero chance of identifying the influence of AG CO2.
I see a lot of comments about how the two things can effect each other. It appears that a third thing is causing both since they are occurring at the same time.
“We’ve done over 1400 shows, so it’s not surprising one could eat, suck or blow.”
— KPIG.com
Bringing you pure pork goodness since the FCC shut down KFAT.
El Niño is an effect.
Not a cause.
It is a pattern of how heat is released.
A simple look at units should clue you in.
Oh come on Steve!
CO2 is an effect.
Not a cause.
A simple look at the timeline should clue you in?
The climate has no beginning or end. It is continuous and everything affects everything else. That is why you cannot model it, because you cannot produce an initial state (and of course because you don’t understand it well enough, but that is actually a less important point).
Saying one element is an “effect” is simply nonsense, literally.
There are two distinctive fallacies with this type of studies, namely the basic temperature data and (2) ENSO. The data present high variability in space and time. Such data can be used to infer something at individual station level without modifying but averages over a region have their inherent defects. Also, ENSO is not new this is part of science of meteorology. The global warming and ecological changes form part of trend but not influenced by the ENSO system as such but effected by the averaging of data. This is the falacy of presenting every month changes.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Willis, see my comment above. It may be worth adding corr fn as an update. It seems to be the crux of the argument about lags and causation.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/24/the-north-atlantic-seesaw/comment-page-1/#comment-2534874
OK, here’s the deal.
Earth is a liquid water planet. No other planet in the solar system has liquid water on its surface. This is the most important fact about our planet and its climate system.
Regardless of the configuration of the continents, Earth almost (probably always) has a water hemisphere and a hemisphere with substantial amounts of land. IOW, there has in effect always been a Pacific Ocean-equivalent.
Earth’s climate system is driven by the sun shining on this half-world ocean. Nothing else matters much. More sun for decades, centuries, millenia, etc, and there will be warming. Less and there will be ice.
Ocean circulation moderates these heat transfers and regimes.
CO2 above ~200 ppm isn’t even in the picture.
I couldnt agree more.
Similarly I agree and add to it two points:
First is that we all tend to agree that the atmosphere/water interface is around 70% of the earth’s surface: but in fact when the close interface between air and plants is considered the actual area is huge.
Second is that very little is said about the vaste reserves of energy beneath our feet which intermittently makes its presence known in volcanic and tectonic activity. Do we really know what is happening in the depths of the mid pacific when these El Nino events occur?
Is this a case where the unknown is conveniently ignored or perhaps considered a constant in the calculations with no influence on anomalies.?
As usual, clear and thought provoking. Not something I know much about or am capable of knowing much about. Two thoughts though.
1. You refer several times to “global temperature”. I agree, there probably is such a thing. But I’m far from sure we’re measuring it “properly”. What we probably want is a metric that tells us how much heat energy is available to the surface of the Earth. What we have is a guess at the integrated sum of surface temperatures across the planet. I doubt those are the same thing. How different? I don’t know. But the difference may be significant.
2. It’s pretty well established that tropical and mid-latitude wind patterns change worldwide during El Nino. e.g. less Atlantic tropical storm activity. Perhaps the North Atlantic temperature anomaly is simply a reflection of the altered wind patterns?
Re your excavator. I got to watch guys who know what they are doing with those dig up my street last Summer to replace a km or so of water and sewer lines. It’s amazing how precisely they can control a large bucket on the end of a long set of lever arms. They did, nonetheless, manage to cut my phone line once and my power line twice.
“What we probably want is a metric that tells us how much heat energy is available to the surface of the Earth. ”
Well in that case you do NOT want to be using an average temperature of different physical materials whose specific heat capacity. Temperatures are NOT additive quantities and thus can not be averaged.
Mean temps only have a statistical meaning as in the probability of finding a particular temperature if you land somewhere on Earth . They are NOT suitable for energy budget calculations.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/10/are-land-sea-temperature-averages-meaningful/
Greg:
Right on. The use of an intensive metric to report an extensive quantity is a fundamental error.
Averaging temperatures measured in different parcels of air with different water vapour contents is pointless. What is it supposed to indicate?
As an ‘indicator’, maybe it tells us what to wear today but we have people reporting the average global temperature to 0.001 degree precision from temperatures measured (at best) at 0.02 without any consideration of the enthalpy of the air involved. The absolute humidity varies enormously.
Can we propose a metric that has meaning? Can the OCO Satellite measure H2O as well?
In the update to that article on C Etc. I suggested possibly weighting land and sea temps before averaging together. It’s still technically, fundamentally wrong but trying to get the whole of humanity to realise that global temps are BS at this stage may be too late. It’s a hack to reduce the error.
For my money you’d be better off just using SST and maybe OHC if you want a calorimeter. Land is 30% and if you downscale it a factor of two that 15% and you may as well just leave it out.
The oceans capacity to store heat is probably no greater than the suns ability to fill it with energy, the oceans are not more powerful than the sun so it cannot just decide to take in more energy whatever the sun decides to do. the energy going into the oceans is constrained by the level of solar radiation which means that you can have less energy entering the oceans if there are more clouds but you cannot have more radiation entering the oceans without clouds unless solar radiation increases and solar radiation did not increase before the last el nino that we have had so where did this extra heat come from which made this latest event apparently larger than the last. Is it because the oceans can store more heat than the land(filled to the same extent as the land even though the ocean can store more heat than the land) or ocean currents (controlled by the level of solar radiation also). The real global temperature is determined by the level of solar radiation falling on the land plus the amount of solar radiation entering the oceans, the large positive anomalies of the oceans relative to the land are false and do not indicate that the earth is heating up at all.
Willis,
Regarding your Figure 1, exactly what data have you used? The global data seems to trend distinctly up over the period compared to the NINO3.4 data.
When I go the the CERES data page, download their latest data (CERES EBAF Ed4 Sfc) and plot it, the two curves (global and NINO) seem to correlate much more tightly over time than what your plot appears to suggest:
Ah, so this is temperature “anomaly” data. Willis constantly refers to temperature and I suspected that it was ‘anomalies’. I intended to ask.
Willis – Interesting Post – I am from Western Australia and I have noticed over the last 12-24 months a persistent and anomalous cloud band streaming SE from the west side of south east Asia and Indonesia across Western Australia’s Pilbara Coast. There are some traces of it in today’s satellite photo but it is by no means as dense as it has been in the past two years. The climate of the southern west coast of WA has also been much more influenced by tropical cloud bands than the typical winter frontal events over the last few years. The normal alarmists are saying this is the end of the world due to climate change but I am thinking it is pretty natural climate variation (we only have a 200 year record of weather here as the place was only settled in 1829). The distribution and extent of cloud cover I would think correlates closely with the green and blue anomalies highlighted in several of your figures. It may be something that links this post with your views of thermal regulation by thunderstorms and cloudiness in tropical latitudes if you want look at correlating these anomalies with cloudiness.
@ur momisugly Willis Eschenbach
“The oddity from my perspective is the North Atlantic. It moves in opposition to the NINO3.4 area, but the physical nature of the connection (or teleconnection) between the two is not clear to me.”
Hypothesis:
The Gulfstream moves water north along the east coast of North America. Some of the water go east, south the west coast of Europe, North Africa and back west. Some of the water continues north of Scandinavia and below the Arctic icecap.
If the water isn’t allowed to continue under the icecap to the North Pacific, could that influence the temperature in the North Atlantic?
At El Niño conditions, the east-west equatorial current in the Pacific is slowed or reversed. If the Kuroshio is slowed because of this, the current under the icecap from the North Atlantic could speed up leading to lower temperatures in the North Atlantic.
At La Niña conditions, the east-west equatorial current in the Pacific is strong. If the Kuroshio is also strong because of this, the current under the icecap from the North Atlantic could slow down leading to higher temperatures in the North Atlantic.
As the influences are mechanical, they are instant, so the anti-correlation would be without lag.
To falsify this hypothesis, you need to check the speed of the ocean current in the Arctic and compare it to the El Niño/La Niña conditions.
Osnap data may help there, but is as yet unreleased from its deployment.
It is possible to track Argo bouys via a filter on google earth, a data savvy type may be able to extract velocities from this and get all kinds of info??
I write “equatorial current”, and I don’t mean the actual “equatorial counter current”. I mean the current just north and south of the Equator.
John Harmsworth
Basically the Gleissberg is 86-87 years but there is an upturn and downturn of the sine wave, e.g. as I discovered in Alaska,
http://oi60.tinypic.com/2d7ja79.jpg
admittedly I was out by a little more than 1-2 years with the minimum [of maxima)] having been reached in 2014-2015
Taking into account that the GB is a sinewave, you can count back about 1/2 GB = 43.5 years ,
i.e. 2017.5 – 43 = 1974.
You observation that the weather / smell is similar to 1974 makes therefore perfect sense [to me],
however, don’t make the mistake of thinking it will get warmer. You must start counting back now (i.e. 2017.5) from 1974 down to the sixties if you get my drift….
Excellent analysis, and I think you are right. The temperatures may well cause the El Nino / La Nina, but I have problems with this statement:
The problem is that if El Nino / La Nina works as a regulator for the pacific, the effect for the globe as a whole will be the opposite.
If some local temperature regulator causes the temperatures to be more evenly distributed around the globe, the heat radiation to space will decrease and the global temperatures will rise.
This is because the radiation is governed by Stefan-Boltzmanns law where the radiation increase with the fourth power of temperature. This means that a small increase in temperature cause a lot more radiation. A globe with large temperature differences will on average be cooler than a globe with even temperatures, all others held unchanged.
/Jan
“When enough heat has accumulated in the eastern Pacific, the El Nino / La Nina pump pushes warm water first westward, then poleward. This cools the eastern Pacific and warms the western Pacific. In the South Pacific, you can see how it goes around Cape Horn at the south end of South America.”
Are east and west mixed up here, or what am I missing ?
I wondered that, but IMO it refers to conditions after an El Nino has formed.
I think that is what he intended to write. It’s Willis’ rewrite of ENSO.