Does The Climate-Science Industry Purposely Ignore A Simple Aspect of Strong El Niño Events That Causes Long-Term Global Warming?

PREFACE

It was a little more than 10 years ago that I published my first blog posts on the obvious upward steps in the sea surface temperatures of a large portion of the global oceans…upward steps that are caused by El Niño events…upward steps that lead to sunlight-fueled, naturally occurring global warming.

There is a very simple explanation for those El Niño-caused upward shifts that also make themselves known in the sea surface temperature data for much larger portion of the global oceans than I first presented a decade ago…the upward steps that are blatantly obvious in the satellite-era (starts November 1981) of sea surface temperature data for the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans, as shown in Figure 1, which together cover about 52% of the surfaces of the global oceans.

Figure 1

NOTE: The upward steps are not a peculiarity of the sea surface temperature dataset (NOAA’s Reynolds OI.v2) presented in Figure 1. They are also plainly visible in the graphs for the same region using the UKMO HADISST dataset (graph here) and using NOAA’s “Pause-Buster” ERSST.v5 dataset (graph here). Of course, Tom Karl’s “Pause Buster” sea surface temperature data show the most warming. [End note.]

The explanation for the upward steps for the most part has been overlooked…or the explanation might have been purposely ignored by the climate-science industry, because the financial foundation of their livelihoods is human-induced global warming not naturally occurring global warming. When you see how simple the explanation is for those naturally caused upward steps, you might conclude that the climate-science industry has, in fact, purposely ignored Mother Nature’s handiwork and willfully misled the public about the cause of global warming.

In the preceding paragraph, I wrote the explanation for the most part has been ignored. The only place I know that it wasn’t ignored is in my ebook Dad, Why Are You A Global Warming Denier?, which was first published about a year ago. Now, it’s being discussed once again in this post.

Note: For this discussion, we’re using one of the classic definitions of an El Niño event, where Eastern Equatorial sea surfaces temperatures in the tropical Pacific rise above a threshold due to coupled ocean-atmosphere processes (described later in this post) and stay elevated for more than a couple of months. In other words, this is not a discussion of a different type of El Niño, like El Niño Modoki. More specifically, I use a typical definition of an El Niño event, as reflected in the sea surface temperature anomalies of the NINO3.4 region of the eastern equatorial Pacific. That is, El Niño conditions are said to exist when NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies meet or exceed +0.5 deg C.

The upward steps do not happen in response to all El Niño events. The upward steps shown in Figure 1 occurred in response to the 1986/87/88, the 1997/98, the 2009/10, and the 2014/15/16 El Nino events. They are most likely to occur during strong East Pacific El Nino events that are not opposed by volcanic eruptions. That is, the aerosols emitted by the 1982 eruption of El Chichon counteracted the aftereffects of the 1982/83 El Niño, which was comparable in strength to the 1997/98 “super” El Niño, and the aerosols emitted by the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo overwhelmed any aftereffects from the 1991/92 El Niño.

For further insight to the El Niño events that caused the upward steps, I’ve included the discussion below. It is based on NOAA’s Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature anomaly data for the NINO3.4 region (5S-5N, 170W-120W), with the data downloaded through the KNMI Climate Explorer and the anomalies referenced to the period of 1981-2010. Specifically:

  • For the 1986/87/88 El Niño, NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies reached or exceeded +0.5 C in September 1986, peaked at +1.7 deg C in September and October 1987, and remained above or equal to +0.5 deg C through January 1988.
  • For the 1997/98 El Niño, NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies reached or exceeded +0.5 C in May 1997, peaked at +2.7 deg C in November and December 1997, and remained above or equal to +0.5 deg C through May 1998.
  • For the 2009/10 El Niño, NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies reached or exceeded +0.5 C in June 2009, peaked at +1.7 deg C in December 2009 and remained above or equal to +0.5 deg C through April 2010.
  • For the 2014/15/16 El Niño, NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies reached or exceeded +0.5 C in October 2014, peaked at +3.0 deg C in November 2015 and remained above or equal to +0.5 deg C through April 2016.

All four El Niño events peaked at, at least, a NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomaly of +1.7 deg C, and the NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies remained at or above +0.5 Deg C for a minimum of 11 months.

[End note.]

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE REASON FOR THE EL NIÑO-CAUSED UPWARD STEPS:

First, you have to consider that the tropical Pacific and the ocean gyres in the North and South Pacific are acting as a natural heating system, with the tropical Pacific acting as the boiler and parts of the Pacific gyres outside of the tropics acting as the heating coils and baseboard radiation. That is, in the tropics (the boiler), the ocean surface waters are warmed by the sun as they travel from the Americas in the east to Australia and Indonesia in the west. As those sunlight-warmed waters travel around the rest of the circuits of the North and South Pacific gyres (the heating coils and baseboard radiation), they release the heat gained in the tropics to the atmosphere, primarily through evaporation.

The aftereffects of strong East-Pacific El Niño events are comparable to sending a good amount of the water in a hot-water heating system back through the boiler a second time, with a bypass circuit, before the twice-boiler-heated water is sent out to the heating coils and baseboard radiation. That is, the water is sent back through the boiler another time before it has made its circuit of the rest of the heating system. What? you say. Yup, it’s that simple…so simple that even a child can understand it. Of course, a strong East Pacific El Niño event causes a long-term rise in global surface temperatures. There’s no way it could not.

I’ll provide a more-detailed explanation later in this post, along with an explanation of how La Niña events are NOT the opposite of El Niño events.

Note: For persons having trouble imagining this with a piped heating system, consider that the ocean gyres are not piped, but are open to the atmosphere. So imagine open tanks at the inlet and outlet of the boiler, with the bypass piping and pump from the discharge tank to the inlet tank, in addition to the pump for the boiler and the pump for the piping to the heat coils and baseboard radiation. [End note.]

WHAT PROMPTED THIS POST

Occasionally during his Daily Updates and Saturday Summaries at Weather Bell Analytics, which I watch daily, and while displaying a graph of global Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) anomalies (Figure 2), Joe Bastardi refers to the obvious El Niño-caused upward shift in the global lower troposphere temperature anomalies caused by the 1997/1998 “super” El Niño. He then suggests that another upward step may have been caused by the 2014/15/16 El Niño.

Figure 2

The source of the graph in Figure 2 is the Global Temperature Report from the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, specifically the webpage here.

A MORE-DETAILED PREFACE

The El Niño-caused upward steps in sea surface temperatures were first illustrated and discussed way back in January 2009 in my two-part post Can El Niño Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976 (Part 1 at WattsUpWithThat is here, with the cross post of Part 1 at my blog here, and Part 2 at WattsUpWithThat is here, with the cross post of Part 2 at my blog here.) Years later, I began to include El Niño-caused upward shifts for a much large portion of the global oceans in my monthly satellite-era sea surface temperature anomaly updates, which I haven’t updated for more than 2 years. The South Atlantic, Indian, and West Pacific represent about 52% of the surface of the global oceans.

Between my first two posts ten years ago and the publication of Dad, Why Are You A Global Warming Denier? a year ago, after years of research into El Niño and La Niña processes, after dozens of posts about them and after a multitude of same-topic conversations with the visitors to WattsUpWithThat and my blog Climate Observations, I published my free ebook Who Turned on the Heat? – The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit, El Niño-Southern Oscillation. I can proudly say that Who Turned on the Heat? is the most-detailed introduction to, and discussion of, the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that drive El Niño and La Niña events. It was specifically written for non-technical people, and, for documentation, it presents data that’s readily available to the public. Who Turned on the Heat? should answer any questions you might have now about El Niño and La Niña processes, excluding the discussion of sending the waters a second time through the boiler. For that you’ll need to refer to…

A LONGER INTRODUCTION TO THE EXPLANATION FOR THE EL NIÑO-CAUSED UPWARD STEPS

The following bold-faced text (in italics) comes from my ebook Dad, Why Are You a Global Warming Denier?. It is part of a conversation between a daughter (Anna) and her Dad, and it’s written in the first person by Anna. It provides a reasonably easy-to-understand, non-technical (as non-technical as I can get), explanation for the upward steps in the sea surface temperatures of the South Atlantic/Indian/West Pacific Oceans that are caused by strong East Pacific El Niño events.

In my ebook Dad, Why Are You A Global Warming Denier?, the following text is included under the heading of:

SATELLITE-ERA SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS STRONGLY SUGGEST THE SURFACES OF THE GLOBAL OCEANS WARMED NATURALLY SINCE THE EARLY 1980S

About 40% of the way into the short story, Anna writes, recalling a conversation with her Dad [Begin Reprint]:

He began, “Have you ever heard of El Niño and La Niña events, Anna?”

“Most news stories about El Niños call them unusual warming events in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, off the west coast of South America. They’re the cause of the huge upward spikes we see in the global surface temperature graphs.”

“They are much more than just warming events, and, further, regardless of what the numbskull science reporters say, there’s nothing unusual about them.” Dad shook his head disgustedly. “Magnificent would be a better word. Here are the facts. El Niño events occur every two to seven years. El Niños are the most-amazing, and the most powerful, weather events ever devised by Mother Nature. How powerful? El Niños are often kick-started by series of tropical storms in the western tropical Pacific.

“How’s about we start with an overview about how they cause long-term global warming and do it naturally. Ready?”

“Ever since I got home, Dad.”

“Okay, hold on for a few minutes while I get the globe from your bedroom.” Dad returned with a globe I’ve had sitting on a bookshelf since I was in grade school. He gave it an enthusiastic spin and sat beside me, before placing it on the table between us. He stopped the globe’s spinning and turned it so the Pacific Ocean faced us. From my viewpoint, the Pacific Ocean, with very little land, was all I could see. It was a great reminder of just how massive the Pacific Ocean was.

As if reading my mind, Dad said, “As you can see, Anna, the tropical Pacific Ocean stretches almost halfway around the globe.”

“From Indonesia in the west to South America in the east,” I confirmed, tracing my index finger along the equator. “The Pacific Ocean is humungous!”

“Indeed. Now, the surface waters in the eastern tropical Pacific are normally cooler than the waters in the western portion. And there’s a simple explanation. The eastern boundary currents along the coasts of North and South America return cool waters from the extratropics to the tropics.” He traced his index finger southward along the west coasts of North and Central Americas then traced it northward along the west coast of South America. “During normal conditions, the trade winds push those cool waters from the eastern tropical Pacific all the way halfway around the globe across the tropical Pacific, under the warm tropical sun, pushing it ever westward until all of that sun-warmed water runs into Indonesia and Australia.” While he said the last sentence, he pretended to push water from east to west all the way across the tropical Pacific, from the west coast of South America at Ecuador, to Indonesia and Australia.

He then traced his finger along the equator in the eastern tropical Pacific, as he said, “In the eastern equatorial Pacific, east of the dateline, the trade winds also cause cool water from deep below the surface to be drawn to the surface in a process called upwelling. That cool water is also warmed by the sun as it travels to the west, pushed by the trade winds, almost halfway around the globe in the tropical Pacific.”

“Okay, got that.”

“The western boundary currents carry those sunlight-warmed waters toward the poles where those poleward-traveling waters release the sunlight-created heat to the atmosphere.” As he spoke, he continued his demonstration, finger-tracing poleward in the South Pacific, east of Australia, then switching hemispheres and tracing the North Pacific east of Asia.

“Got that too, Dad. You’re describing ocean circulation.”

“Bingo. However, at the same time, a lot of the sunlight-warmed water accumulates in the western tropical Pacific in what’s called the Pacific Warm Pool.” With his finger, my father roughly circled an area east of Indonesia and north of Australia. “So, imagine a pool of water about the size of the United States, one thousand feet deep.”

“That’s a huge chunk of warm water.”

“Yup. Everything about the Pacific Ocean is huge.

“The massive currents that carry that sunlight-warmed water from east to west in the tropical Pacific are called the North and South Equatorial Currents.”

“Makes sense.”

“Along the equator, there’s also a much smaller current that travels in the opposite direction, from west to east, called the Equatorial Countercurrent. And below it there’s another west-to-east current that runs below the surface called the Cromwell Current, also known as the Pacific Equatorial Undercurrent. Those eastward-moving surface and subsurface currents are normally carrying much less water than the westward-moving North and South Equatorial Currents.”

“I’ve got you so far, Dad. And you’ve said sunlight-warmed a bunch of times.”

“Just setting the stage and reinforcing that fact.”

His use of the word normal in his explanations prompted me to interject, “But something happens that causes changes in those normal conditions.”

“Bingo!” He smiled broadly. “A westerly wind burst, sometimes caused by a tropical storm—or two of them straddling the equator—upsets the balance and sends a huge pulse of warm water from west to east along the equator. Keep in mind that it’s normally warmer in the western tropical Pacific than it is in the eastern portion. That pulse of warm water moves along the surface, but most of it is carried below the surface along the Cromwell Current. If there are enough of those westerly wind bursts in the western tropical Pacific one year, and if enough warm water travels east at and below the surface to raise the normally cooler surface temperatures in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific by more than 0.5 deg C, then El Niño conditions are said to be taking place.”

“That’s pretty cool, Dad.”

“Nope, pretty warm, Dear.”

I groaned, with a smile.

“And if the surface temperatures stay elevated in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific for about half a year, then a full-fledged official El Niño event is said to have taken place.”

“Gotcha. El Niño conditions means the sea surface temperature anomalies in the eastern equatorial Pacific have risen above a 0.5 deg C threshold, and if they stay elevated for about half a year, then an official El Niño event is taking place.”

“And El Niño events typically peak during the boreal winter. The westerly wind bursts start much earlier in the year. It takes a couple of months for the warm water from the West Pacific Warm Pool to travel eastward toward South America. Now keep in mind that it takes multiple westerly wind bursts to send enough warm water eastward to cause an El Niño. So the birth of an El Niño by Mother Nature takes about a half a year, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter. Oh yeah, El Niños typically start in one year and end in the next. Thus you’ll see them expressed, for example, as the 1997/98 El Niño.”

“It must be fascinating to watch El Niños form.”

“NOAA and Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) monitor lots of atmospheric and oceanic variables in the tropical and equatorial Pacific, so you can actually watch the slow birth of an El Niño online as it occurs over many months.

“Now, let me clarify something. In an El Niño, a monstrous volume of warm water traveled from the West Pacific Warm Pool to the eastern side of the tropical Pacific, where it’s normally cooler. No new warm water was created. It was just relocated from the Western Pacific Warm Pool, where it’s normally warmer, to the eastern equatorial Pacific, where it’s normally cooler. And the warm water that had been below the surface, traveling from west to east along the subsurface Cromwell Current, it gets upwelled to the surface in the east.”

“Okay, I understand.”

“And during very strong El Niño events, so much warm water is carried east that most of the warm water, above and below the surface, is now in the eastern tropical Pacific instead of where it normally is in the western tropical Pacific. That is, the surface and subsurface conditions—normally warmer water in the west and cooler in the east—have traded places.”

“That’s a lot more detailed and helpful than the simple explanation we hear on the news. Then, because the news media call it an unusual warming event, people like me who don’t understand the process get mixed up and think the El Niño is caused by global warming.”

“When just the opposite is the case. An El Niño can cause a naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, long-term global warming.”

“So that is the natural causation you were talking about,” I said nodding enthusiastically, “El Niño!”

“Right you are. But before I get into that in more detail, I need to clarify something. Because of the process called upwelling, during the El Niño, there is more warm water than normal spread across the entire tropical Pacific, sometimes as far east as the coast of South America. With all of that warmer-than-normal water spread across the eastern tropical Pacific, much more evaporation is taking place there. So the tropical Pacific is releasing monumental amounts of sunlight-created heat to the atmosphere.” My father paused, gave me an attention-grabbing look, and said, “But, not all of the warm water that has traveled east is cooled all the way back to normal by evaporation. So, and this is very important, the renewed trade winds push all of that leftover warm all the way back across the tropical Pacific, being warmed a second time under the tropical sun—let me repeat that, being warmed a second time under the tropical sun—before being sent poleward by the western boundary currents.”

“In a hot water heating system,” I said, thinking of my current and Dad’s former work, “that would be like recirculating warm water a second time through the boiler, heating it more, before pumping it out to the heating coils and baseboard radiation.”

“Yes!” Dad chuckled. “That’s precisely what I thought when I first realized this.”

[End Reprint.]

After that 1.700-word introduction, the explanations for the upward steps continue for another 3,000 words in Dad, Why Are You A Global Warming Denier?, then move onto a discussion and explanation of the naturally occurring Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which caused the sea surfaces of the North Atlantic in recent decades to warm at a higher rate than the naturally caused warming by strong El Niño events of the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans.

Also discussed is how La Niña events replenish the warm water in the West Pacific Warm Pool. The sea surface temperatures in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific are cooler than normal during a La Niña, and because they’re cooler, there is less evaporation taking place, and further, with less evaporation, there is less cloud cover, so sunlight is able to reach into the tropical Pacific and warm it to depth.

HOW A LA NIÑA IS NOT THE OPPOSITE OF AN EL NIÑO

As a reminder: During normal times the trade-wind driven North and South Equatorial Currents in the tropical Pacific carry waters almost halfway around the globe, and that water warms as it goes halfway around the world under the tropical sun. After that one pass along the tropical Pacific, some of that sunlight-warmed water is stored in a large, deep pool called the West Pacific Warm Pool, without having made a complete circuit of the North or South Pacific gyres where they can more readily release heat to the atmosphere at mid-to-higher latitudes, primarily through evaporation. The volume of warm water in the West Pacific Warm pool increases with time and is often dramatically increased during La Niña events, when a reduction in cloud cover allows sunlight to reach into the tropical Pacific and warm it to depth.

With a strong East Pacific El Niño, a huge volume of warm water from the West Pacific Warm Pool is driven eastward to the Eastern Tropical Pacific, as far as the coast of South America, where the surfaces are normally cooler than in the West Pacific Warm Pool. At the end of the El Niño, when the trade winds resume their normal east-to-west operation, all of the warmer-than-normal water in the eastern tropical Pacific—that’s left over from the El Niño—is driven west to be warmed a second time under the tropical sun as it travels halfway around the globe before it then is driven toward the poles so that it can release heat to the atmosphere, primarily through evaporation. Phrased another way, after the El Niño, the surface waters are warmer than normal in the Eastern Tropical Pacific before they begin their trip across the tropical Pacific under the warm tropical sun. There’s no way that a strong East Pacific El Niño cannot contribute to long-term global warming.

Does the opposite happen during a La Niña? Here’s the real clincher. At the end of the La Nina, when the trade winds weaken to their normal east-to-west strengths, is all of the cooler-than-normal water in the eastern tropical Pacific—that’s left over from the La Niña—driven west to be cooled a second time under the tropical sun as it travels halfway around the globe before it then is driven toward the poles so that it can absorb heat from the atmosphere? Of course not. Anyone who says a La Niña is the opposite of an El Niño is announcing their ignorance of El Niño and La Niña processes for the world to see—or—they are willfully misrepresenting those processes.

THE CHARGE [RECHARGE] OF OCEAN HEAT CONTENT IN THE TROPICAL PACIFIC BEFORE [AFTER] AN EL NIÑO

A tremendous amount of heat is released from the Tropical Pacific during an El Niño. Where does the ocean heat come from and how is it recharged? Part of that heat loss, or all of it (plus some more on occasion) can be created immediately before the El Niño (as was the case before the 1997/98 Super El Niño during the thought-to-be-weak 1995/96 La Niña) or restored afterwards by the coupled-ocean atmosphere processes that take place in the tropical Pacific during La Niña events, as happened during the 1998/99/00/01 La Niña. (You can confirm the timing and length of those La Niña events with the Oceanic Niño Index here.) Colder-than-normal sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific during a La Niña lead to less evaporation than normal there, which results in less cloud cover than normal there, which allows more sunlight (downward shortwave radiation) than normal to enter into the Tropical Pacific thus charging (recharging) the ocean heat.

Thus, El Niño and La Niña events act together as a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, recharge-discharge oscillator, with El Niño events acting as the discharge phase and La Niña events acting as the recharge phase. Simple.

And before someone makes some bizarre claim about longwave (infrared) radiation being responsible for the charge/recharge during La Niñas, there’s a problem with that logic. Why? you ask. Because downward longwave radiation increases over the Tropical Pacific during the El Niño phase, when the tropical Pacific is releasing heat, and downward longwave radiation decreases over the Tropical Pacific during the La Niña phase, when the tropical Pacific is charging heat.

The recharge aspect of La Niña events was discussed and documented with data in lots more detail in Chapter 3.10 The Recharge of Ocean Heat during the La Niña of my free ebook Who Turned on the Heat? – The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit, El Niño-Southern Oscillation.

AND FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO SAY THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSING EL NIÑO EVENTS TO BECOME STRONGER

The sea surface temperature anomalies of the NINO3.4 region (5S-5N, 170W-120W) of the equatorial Pacific are a commonly used metric for the timing, strength and duration of El Niño and La Niña events. During the satellite era, the trend of the sea surface temperature anomalies for the NINO3.4 region is a flat line, with a trend of -0.004 deg C/decade. See Figure 3.

Figure 3

Note: It’s ENSO indices like NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies, Figure 3, that give some people the mistaken belief that La Niña events are the opposite of El Niño events, but ENSO indices do not represent the processes of El Niño and La Niña events. Those indices only reflect the effects of the El Niño and La Niña events on the metric being observed. [End note.]

CLOSING NOTE

You may have a question like, Why didn’t the longest-and-strongest 2014/15/16 El Niño create more of an upward step in the sea surface temperatures of the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific (Figure 1)? We’ll investigate that and present the findings in an upcoming post. And I don’t believe you’ll be surprised.

That’s it for this post.

Have fun in the comments and enjoy the rest of your day.

STANDARD CLOSING REQUEST

And please purchase Anthony Watts’s et al. Climate Change: The Facts – 2017.

To those of you who have purchased them, thank you. To those of you who will purchase them, thank you, too.

Regards,

Bob Tisdale

Advertisements

167 thoughts on “Does The Climate-Science Industry Purposely Ignore A Simple Aspect of Strong El Niño Events That Causes Long-Term Global Warming?

  1. They would have to have actually done *any* science to even notice.

    Right now 100% of what gets shoved in our faces is bullshit “was/will be” projections in excel trying to correlate past temperatures to future ones and the fact that their graphs’ delta due to CO2 doesn’t actually match what CO2 does proves that the whole theory is wrong.

    That simple. Their own math proves their theory wrong. But since it *isn’t* science or done in a scientific manner they have no clue what they produced.

    • As it appears that there is much submarine tectonic activity in the Western Pacific where hot water tends to accumulate on top of the winds that push surface water that way. This huge bolus of warm water then surges east and significantly increases the surface water temperatures. Just like the Blob south of Alaska, which appears to be from submarine tectonic heat sources, we need to start recognizing that we are between two heat sources, the Sun and Earth’s interior. Both are seeking to warm us and, overall, our world is a balance between the two.

      • Bob, I have started to read your magnum opus on “Who Turned on the Heat”. It should be required reading for every climate scientist. I noted that the Climate Change Reconsidered II is a bit skimpy on the whole ENSO process and theory. However you have more than made up for it with your incredibly large contribution. When you say long term global warming do you really mean 60 year cycles? Your quote follows.
        “There’s no way that a strong East Pacific El Niño cannot contribute to long-term global warming.”
        Clouds are the regulator even within these cycles, as you note. They are responsible for 85% of the DWIR. See here.

        http://applet-magic.com/cloudblanket.htm

        Clouds overwhelm the Downward Infrared Radiation (DWIR) produced by CO2. At night with and without clouds, the temperature difference can be as much as 11C. The amount of warming provided by DWIR from CO2 is negligible but is a real quantity. We give this as the average amount of DWIR due to CO2 and H2O or some other cause of the DWIR. Now we can convert it to a temperature increase and call this Tcdiox. The pyrgeometers assume emission coeff of 1 for CO2. CO2 is NOT a blackbody. However clouds contribute 85% of the DWIR. GHG’s contribute 15%. See the analysis in link above. The IR that hits clouds does not get absorbed. Instead it gets reflected. When IR gets absorbed by GHG’s it gets reemitted either on its own or via collisions with N2 and O2. In both cases, the emitted IR is weaker than the absorbed IR. Don’t forget that the IR from reradiated CO2 is emitted in all directions. Therefore a little less than 50% of the absorbed IR by the CO2 gets reemitted downward to the earth surface. Since CO2 is not transitory like clouds or water vapour, it remains well mixed at all times. Therefore since the earth is always giving off IR (probably a maximum at 5 pm everyday), the so called greenhouse effect (not really but the term is always used) is always present and there will always be some backward downward IR from the atmosphere.

        When there isn’t clouds, there is still DWIR which causes a slight warming. We have an indication of what this is because of the measured temperature increase of 0.65 from 1950 to 2018. This slight warming is for reasons other than just clouds, therefore it is happening all the time. Therefore in a particular night that has the maximum effect , you have 11 C + Tcdiox. We can put a number to Tcdiox. It may change over the years as CO2 increases in the atmosphere. At the present time with 409 ppm CO2, the global temperature is now 0.65 C higher than it was in 1950, the year when mankind started to put significant amounts of CO2 into the air. So at a maximum Tcdiox = 0.65C. We don’t know the exact cause of Tcdiox whether it is all H2O caused or both H2O and CO2 or the sun or something else but we do know the rate of warming. This analysis will assume that CO2 and H2O are the only possible causes. That assumption will pacify the alarmists because they say there is no other cause worth mentioning. They like to forget about water vapour but in any average local temperature calculation you can’t forget about water vapour unless it is a desert.
        A proper calculation of the mean physical temperature of a spherical body requires an explicit integration of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation over the entire planet surface. This means first taking the 4th root of the absorbed solar flux at every point on the planet and then doing the same thing for the outgoing flux at Top of atmosphere from each of these points that you measured from the solar side and subtract each point flux and then turn each point result into a temperature field by integrating over the whole earth and then average the resulting temperature field across the entire globe. This gets around the Holder inequality problem when calculating temperatures from fluxes on a global spherical body. However in this analysis we are simply taking averages applied to one local situation because we are not after the exact effect of CO2 but only its maximum effect.
        In any case Tcdiox represents the real temperature increase over last 68 years. You have to add Tcdiox to the overall temp difference of 11 to get the maximum temperature difference of clouds, H2O and CO2 . So the maximum effect of any temperature changes caused by clouds, water vapour, or CO2 on a cloudy night is 11.65C. We will ignore methane and any other GHG except water vapour.

        So from the above URL link clouds represent 85% of the total temperature effect , so clouds have a maximum temperature effect of .85 * 11.65 C = 9.90 C. That leaves 1.75 C for the water vapour and CO2. This is split up with 60% for water vapour and 26% for CO2 with the remaining % for methane, ozone ….etc. See the study by Ahilleas Maurellis and Jonathan Tennyson May 2003 in Physics World. Amazingly this is the only study that quantifies the Global warming potential of H20 before any feedback effects. CO2 will have relatively more of an effect in deserts than it will in wet areas but still can never go beyond this 1.75 C . Since the desert areas are 33% of 30% (land vs oceans) = 10% of earth’s surface , then the CO2 has a maximum effect of 10% of 1.75 + 90% of Twet. We define Twet as the CO2 temperature effect of over all the world’s oceans and the non desert areas of land. There is an argument for less IR being radiated from the world’s oceans than from land but we will ignore that for the purpose of maximizing the effect of CO2 to keep the alarmists happy for now. So CO2 has a maximum effect of 0.175 C + (.9 * Twet). So all we have to do is calculate Twet.

        Reflected IR from clouds is not weaker. Water vapour is in the air and in clouds. Even without clouds, water vapour is in the air. No one knows the ratio of the amount of water vapour that has now condensed to water/ice in the clouds compared to the total amount of water vapour/H2O in the atmosphere but the ratio can’t be very large. Even though clouds cover on average 60 % of the lower layers of the troposhere, since the troposphere is approximately 8.14 x 10^18 m^3 in volume, the total cloud volume in relation must be small. Certainly not more than 5%. H2O is a GHG. So of the original 15% contribution by GHG’s of the DWIR, we have .15 x .26 =0.039 or 3.9% to account for CO2. Now we have to apply an adjustment factor to account for the fact that some water vapour at any one time is condensed into the clouds. So add 5% onto the 0.039 and we get 0.041 or 4.1 % . CO2 therefore contributes 4.1 % of the DWIR in non deserts. We will neglect the fact that the IR emitted downward from the CO2 is a little weaker than the IR that is reflected by the clouds. Since, as in the above, a cloudy night can make the temperature 11C warmer than a clear sky night, CO2 or Twet contributes a maximum of 0.041 * 1.75 C = 0.07 C.

        Therfore Since Twet = 0.07 C we have in the above equation CO2 max effect = 0.175 C + (.9 * 0.07 C ) = ~ 0.238 C. As I said before; this will increase as the level of CO2 increases, but we have had 68 years of heavy fossil fuel burning and this is the absolute maximum of the effect of CO2 on global temperature.
        So how would any average global temperature increase by 7C or even 2C, if the maximum temperature warming effect of CO2 today from DWIR is only 0.238 C? This means that the effect of clouds = 85%, the effect of water vapour = 13 % and the effect of CO2 = 2 %.
        Sure, if we quadruple the CO2 in the air which at the present rate of increase would take 278 years, we would increase the effect of CO2 (if it is a linear effect) to 4 X 0.238 C = 0.952 C .

        Even if the cloud effect was 0 for DWIR, the maximum that CO2 could be is 10%(desert) of 0.65 + (90% of Twet2) = 0.065 C + (90% *twet2)
        twet2 = .26( see 1st analysis above) * 0.585 C (difference between 0.65 and the amount of temperature effect for CO2 for desert) = 0.1521 C therefore Max CO2 = 0.065 C + (0.1521 * .9) = 0.2 C ((which is about 84% of above figure of 0.238 C. The 0.2 C was calculated by assuming as above that on average H20 is 60% of greenhouse effect and CO2 is 26% of GHG effect and that the whole change of 0.65 C from 1950 to 2018 is because of either CO2 or water vapour. We are disregarding methane and ozone. So in effect, the above analysis regarding clouds gave too much maximum effect to CO2. The reason is that you simply take the temperature change from 1950 to 2018 disregarding clouds, since the water vapour has 60% of the greenhouse effect and CO2 has 26%. If you integrate the absorption flux across the IR spectrum despite the fact that there are 25 times more molecules than CO2 by volume, you get 60% for H20 and 26% for CO2 as their GHG effects. See the study by Ahilleas Maurellis and Jonathan Tennyson May 2003 in Physics World. CO2 can never have as much effect as H20 until we get to 2.3x the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now.

        I fail to understand how climate scientists could get away with saying that water vapour doesnt matter because it is transitory. In fact the alarmist theory needs a positive forcing of water vapour to achieve CAGW heat effects. Since there is widespread disagreement on any increase in H2O in the atmosphere in the last 68 years, there hasn’t been any positive forcing so far. Therefore; the hypothesis is; that main stream climate science theory of net CO2 increases in the atmosphere has major or catastrophic consequences for heating the atmosphere and the null hypothesis says it doesn’t have major or catastrophic consequences for heating the atmosphere. Therefore we must conclude that we cannot reject the null hypothesis that main stream climate science theory of net CO2 increases in the atmosphere does not have major or catastrophic consequences for heating the atmosphere. In fact the evidence and the physics of the atmosphere shows that if we rejected the null hypothesis, we would be rejecting most of radiative atmospheric physics as we know it. So in the end, the IPCC conclusion of mankind increasing net CO2 into the atmosphere, causing major or catastrophic warming of the atmosphere; is junk science.

  2. The naive kid will surely ask: ‘But Dad, if el Ninos caused long term warming and La Ninas do not cause long term cooling, is that not a one way ticket to ever greater warmth? Where is the thermostat in the system which overrides the el Nino warming if the earth starts getting altogether too hot?’

    Any politician worth their salt would ask this question and any climatologist worth their salt would want to research it if the answer were not known……

    • The naive kid has a good question and I think Bob Tisdale’s major insight into this is to point out that it is not a simple net zero “oscillation” like a childs swing or a pendulum. It is a process of ENGERY THROUGHPUT.

      During La Nina , solar energy is absorbed into the oceans, during El Nino this heat is transfered to the atmosphere, on its way back to space. So in actual energy terms it is La Nina which is warming the Earth and El Nino which is cooling the Earth. We live on the surface, which gets hotter as part of the energy loss to space.

      Climatologists have their entire analysis pre-determined by sure and certain belief that there is a steady underlying warming ( a priori caused by GHG ) and all the wiggles are net zero internal variability. Thus everything natural gets called an “oscillation” with the implied a priori assumption that it is net zero. This is then applied to all the *oscillation” indices which are by definition detrended to have zero long term effect. This safely ensures, by definition, that non of them contribute in any way to long term warming.

      Bob T:

      The upward steps do not happen in response to all El Niño events.

      If you have to do subjective pre-selection and special pleading to show the claimed effect, it does not carry any weight.

      The “2010” warming step clearly started in 2008 and predated the feeble and very short 2010 El Nino event. It may be possible to show some linkage to El Nino/Nina processes but you will not be able to do it like this.

      Maybe look at OHC down to 300m right across the tropical Pacific and see how that changes. But you may need to work a little harder than fitting trend lines to Reynolds OI v2. 😉

      • To be more accurate the upward steps only happen with strong El Nino events because lower energy bursts are lost in the noise.

          • In the Hadley cell, both sensible and latent heat are transported equatorward near the surface, while potential energy is transported above in the opposite direction, poleward.

            The region in which the equatorward moving air masses converge and rise, is known as the intertropical convergence zone, or ITCZ. Within that zone develops a band of thunderstorms that produce high-precipitation.

            These take up some of the energy before given chance as potential energy transported poleward and in turn cause these lower energy bursts. Where little of the energy ever gets change to move poleward.

            Smaller rises in SST’s transporting in movement from Tropical ocean often eventually get mixed up or lost to latent heat. Eventually difficult to tell the difference from noise.

            In a strong event lot more energy is available to make this potential energy transport poleward, warming accordingly.

          • MattG, how would this process compare on a timescale with ocean-transported heat reaching the Arctic? Isn’t this a much quicker acting process?

          • “How would this process compare on a timescale with ocean-transported heat reaching the Arctic? Isn’t this a much quicker acting process?”

            Yes, it takes a lot less time than about 5 months, but the atmosphere has less effect than the ocean.

      • Greg Goodman said, “The “2010” warming step clearly started in 2008 and predated the feeble and very short 2010 El Nino event. It may be possible to show some linkage to El Nino/Nina processes but you will not be able to do it like this.”

        And that is why I considered eliminating the South Atlantic and Polar Oceans, i.e. presenting only the Indian and West Pacific data:

        The impacts of the 2009/10 and 2014/15/16 El Niño events stand out much better.

        I’ll discuss it in part 2 of the post. Thanks, Greg.

        Regards,

        Bob

        • Bob,
          Here’s another potential interesting interpretation of the OI v.2 time series. Wavelet analysis shows 3-4 year periodicities pre-2003 after running a high pass filter of 72 months.
          https://imgur.com/a/gAct4T2

          Examining the filtered time series, one can see possible quasi-oscillation peaks at about 1987, 1991, 1995, 1998, and 2002. Post 2002 during the global warming “pause” these 3-4 year oscillations are not as clear. Why do the periodicities become less pronounced post 2002?
          https://imgur.com/a/sau9RRq

          Wavelet analysis also shows that the 1998 El Niño event is most prominent with the strongest wavelet power. El Niño events at 2010 and 2016 have a weak to absent wavelet power. 1987 is trying to make a statement but is at the edge of the cone of influence.

          Here’s the data I used.
          https://imgur.com/a/PEDsFB3

    • Firstly, may I say thank you very much to Bob for another wonderful piece of detailed research articulated perfectly.
      Rhys’s point, however is valid and I am still very unsure of:
      1) what causes the disruptions that lead to El Ninos in the first place and is it really just random weather events? and
      2) if El Niños, if not mitigated by other factors like volcanic eruptions, really are the most important cause of the recent decades of (albeit minor) warming, how will this warming trend be stopped – as history tells us it undoubtedly will?
      Assuming that longer term climate cycles are caused by the Earth’s orbital and angular relationship with the Sun, how do these solar-related relationships react with El Ninos and vice versa? Which is more important and over what timescales?

      • Orbital influences are 10s or 100s thousands of years.

        It is necessary to understand the interactions of things like El Nino ( ENSO) to perturbations like major volcanic eruptions. It is not , as climatologists often make out, a simple addition of different independent effects.

        Climate is a very complex interactive system. The cooling effect of a stratospheric eruption will affect tropical climate and that will affect the energy budget in following years. One could suggest that 1998 super El Nino was a climate reaction to the cooling effect ( a corrective feedback ).

        In this article I calculated the tropical climate feedback following Mt. Pinatubo, there was about 3W/m^2 extra power coming into the tropics in the years following the eruption. Climate automatically self-corrects. The probably happens for GHG too !

        https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/06/on-determination-of-tropical-feedbacks/

        https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/tropical-feedback-adjusted.png

        • That energy was presumably going into the tropical oceans. Some of that came out in 1998. Would that have been such a large event if it was not for Mt Pinatubo ? Such things need to be understood before you can evaluate the supposed effects of GHG.

      • Ian El Nino and La Nina are surface events they don’t drive anything but local weather they are responses it is clear by the lag.

        If you do decide to actually get outside the stupidity of climate science Earth’s atmosphere expands and contracts and we know it and measure it because it effects low orbit satelites. The ISS flies in the middle of the one of the upper atmosphere zones called the thermosphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere) which we continually monitor and know it’s energy balance.

        In fact in 2010 a currently unexplained change occured which won’t be talked about in climate science because it’s effect is thought to be minimal on that area
        http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/07/16/nasa.upper.atmosphere.shrinking/index.html

        The point is climate science makes assumptions which they don’t often discuss and one of those assumptions is the system is wobbling in a range that is metastable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability) to only the effects it covers. So you are trying to put long term and hard limits on stuff without realizing there are a lot more controls than those covered by climate science.

        • Yes, I think the belief in long term internal stability leads many astray. Physics and Geology had to move from the idea of stability to evolution, as did Biology. Climate science just needs to catch up.

          • Climate Science can’t do that otherwise it loses certainty it’s a political issue not a scientific one 🙂

        • “We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

          They developed a Thermosphere Climate Index

          As 2018 comes to an end, the Thermosphere Climate Index is on the verge of setting a Space Age record for Cold. “We’re not there quite yet,” says Mlynczak, “but it could happen in a matter of months.”

          I tried to put the graph in this post but the png format didnt seem to work.
          However if you look at the graph, they extended SABER’S 17 year data back to 1950 by using geomagnetic activity and the sun’s UV output which have been measured since 1950. This will not go well for Al Gore’s Church of Climatology and his main disciple Gavin Schmidt at GISS.
          The graph shows an ice age type of pattern with the y axis being POWER 10^11 W. There is a total variation of 5x. The graph corresponds very well with the sunspot solar cycles.

          https://spaceweatherarchive.com/category/thermosphere/

          We now have a US government agency that is tracking the solar minimums and maximums and showing actual data of Power being emitted to space. It seems that variation is so huge that it is the SUN after all. Prepare for much colder weather in next 5 years that will be colder than in the 70’s. I will accept cold weather if it destroys Al Gore’s Church of Climatology .

          http://www.spaceweather.com/

          However NASA seems to have decreed that they will not show the Thermosphere Climate Index. You can get it at the above link (go figure, a private site). It looks like the Langley Research Centre (LRC) in Virginia is also a Global Warming shop.
          https://www.nasa.gov/langley/overview I predict that the internal program funding will cut for SABRE.. Trump needs to fire both Gavin Schmidt (GISS) and David Bowles (LRC)

          “We are especially pleased that SABER is gathering information so important for tracking the effect of the Sun on our atmosphere,” says James Russell, SABER’s Principal Investigator at Hampton University. “A more than 16-year record of long-term changes in the thermal condition of the atmosphere more than 70 miles above the surface is something we did not expect for an instrument designed to last only 3-years in-orbit.”

          So that explains what happened. When they originally planned this program whoever was in charge realized that this would destroy Al Gore’s Church of Climatology. So they only gave it a 3 year run which is ridiculous. Don’t forget that this machinery is piggybacking onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. However the machinery outperformed its wear date and lasted a full 16.5 years. Somehow whoever was in charge did not manage to sabotage its mission with a real best before date coding strike. So now we have another piece of the radiation puzzle which will this time rear its beautiful head and show us the reality of COLD climate like we had in the 70’s which of course will cause Al Gore’s Church of Climatology to crumble to dust like make up clouds. But this time it will be the SUN stupid.

    • Rhys Jaggar, you wrote, “The naive kid will surely ask: ‘But Dad, if el Ninos caused long term warming and La Ninas do not cause long term cooling, is that not a one way ticket to ever greater warmth? Where is the thermostat in the system which overrides the el Nino warming if the earth starts getting altogether too hot?’”

      Rhys, please tell the naïve kid we are presently running through a period of naturally occurring warming…primarily through naturally occurring coupled ocean-atmosphere processes. So I can’t answer his question about “the thermostat in the system”. We haven’t seen evidence of one yet.

      When we reach the point at which the surfaces of the global ocean cool over a multidecadal period, we’ll find the answer.

      Regards,

      Bob

      • Bob, you state: “…we are presently running through a period of naturally occurring warming…primarily through naturally occurring coupled ocean-atmosphere processes.”

        How du you know that the observed warming is “naturally occuring”? I miss every evidence for this claim.

    • For the naïve kid, one of the problems with the early sea surface temperature data is there are periods with very few and very sparse observations. In fact, many researchers won’t bother with sea surface temperature data before the 1950s. An example: NOAA’s Oceanic NINO Index (ONI) begins in 1950. And I limit most presentations to the satellite era of sea surface temperature data, which starts in November 1981.

      With the following graph, I asked the KNMI Climate Explorer to present ICOADS sea surface temperature anomaly data for the Indian and West Pacific Oceans (60S-60N, 20E-180), when there are at least 50% valid points, and my request was for the period of 1900 to 1980. ICOADS is the source of the NOAA and UKMO sea surface temperature datasets. Note the missing months and years of data:

       

      Before the 1950s, there’s no way to see if the El Niño-based steps happened due to insufficient data.

      And if we wanted more valid points to assure a better view, there would be even greater gaps.

      Regards,

      Bob

    • Simply tell the child that the Oceans have a thermal mass of around 1100 times that of the atmosphere. And that the idea that the Atmosphere could cause ocean temperatures to change at the observed rate would not be ‘physically possible’?

      • State intervention. Restrictions on what comsumers can buy e.g. no need for gas-guzzling SUVs. Replacement of fossil fuel tecnologies at the end of their natural lifespans with renewables. Rationing of meat consumption to force consumers to eat healthier and more eco-friendly alternatives. Mass roll-out of carbon capture technologies. Mass subsidisation of a circular economic model: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/concept

          • Yes, I believe radical solutions are required and that eventually these will be implemented. It is simply a matter of when not if. Leave it up to the individual and they will not or be slow to act, which is why I advocate state intervention. The interest players ref. AGW are businesses – they operate on the ‘self-interest principle’ and it seems many (but not all) are already demanding more action be taken on combatting AGW’s planetary impact.

          • Ivan,
            “they operate on the ‘self-interest principle’ and it seems many (but not all) are already demanding more action be taken on combatting AGW’s planetary impact.”

            Free people operate on the ‘self-interest principle’, business being merely a method of doing so. That is straight out of Adam Smith and “The Wealth of Nations”. It is called Capitalism, and while not perfect, is the best system known to mankind.

            Where “many (but not all)” are demanding more action, that is nowhere near a significant number demanding the arcane blueprint you propose. I conclude that you (and they) believe your innate higher intelligence and intellect make you more equal than the rest of us. That is Communism, perhaps the worst system known to mankind.

        • Where is all this supposed to happen?

          Are you arguing that China and India should stop driving and cut back on their coal fired generators? And actually reduce the tonnage they are emitting?

          Is there the slightest evidence they are willing to do this, even thinking about doing it?

          The usual tack is to say we, meaning the world, have to do things, and then move to proposing that only we, the West, do any of it.

          Is this where you are coming from? If not, what would you like to see China emitting in 2035?

          To play its important role in tackling global warming and leading the fight against climate change….

        • Mr. Kinsman – Between 30-40 years ago, I would have agreed with you. Back when I first became aware of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) in the late 70’s, I began offering it as on of several reasons why nuclear power development should be strongly supported by government (as it had been for a time in the 50’s and early 60’s). However, radical environmentalists opposed nuclear. These environmentalists took over the Democratic Party (the 1980 platform of which called for phasing nuclear out) while the NRC, which REGULATED nuclear power, became hyper-conservative and throttled development. Thee NRC was eventually taken over by environmentalists while manifesting Type I error. A large chunk (around 1/3 if memory serves) of carbon dumped into the atmosphere, comes from energy generation. The fact that neo-Luddite, eco-fascists were able to effectively gain control of one of the two political parties while influencing several important government bureaucracies demonstrated that “State Intervention” was demonstrably detrimental. (Incidentally, it is also one of the the reasons I went from being a liberal, big government Democrat though the beginning of the 90’s to a limited government, free market libertarian thereafter.) History doesn’t support your assertions. I will point out that, to his great credit, Barak Obama and his administration, got nuclear construction licensing started up again and was instrumental in moving the Democratic party to something approaching a neutral position. But, more than a generation was lost, thanks to the fact that government regulatory bodies CANNOT maintain the sort of objective, Olympian detachment to operate that is required. The fact is that, to the extent that global warming is a problem today the Democratic Party and environmentalist bear a MAJOR responsibility for it.

        • @Ivan – Your remarks are redundant and a waste of time and effort. When will you realize that?
          The climate is fine. It is the AGW proponents that are unstable. Go start a commune with your fellow travelers and report back to us about the success of what you want forced on all of us.
          The few countries that took tentative steps in that direction have found it to be a waste of resources and a drag on their economy. And it did not result in any change for the climate. All pain, no gain. Try to sell that slogan to the voters.

        • IK Now all you have to do is develop a form of renewable energy that works (is fit for purpose in a modern technological society- you could use nuclear) and an efficient and effective method of carbon sequestration. Good luck.

        • Hmm, scratch a Greenie and see the Totalitarian inside. so is this to be a socialist modelled Totalitarian system or a Fascist one?

          And yes, with the government deciding all these things you are advocating a Totalitarian regime. Good luck with that.

        • Ivan Klinsman Do you admit that you are [pruned]?

          [His party affiliation should not be a factor in the forum. Only his facts. Or lack thereof. .mod]

    • Next Monday, unshine of my life. Trump will be impeached, oil wells corked, coal mines closed, and Bangladeshis will start using Elon Musk’s minipowerwslls to keep school leds on.

      + should’ve been sunshine, but suits so well.

    • Ivan Kinsman, according to the climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive (with Historic and RCP8.5 forcings), which rely on the laughably flawed hypothesis you’re peddling, the surfaces of the global oceans should have warmed in patterns as shown in the sea surface temperature anomaly trend map below for the period of 1981-2018:

       

      Are you aware that observations show that the surfaces of the global oceans have NOT warmed as the models hindcast, but warmed in ENSO-related and AMO-related patterns as shown in the next trend map for the same period?

       

       

      That’s the difference between supposition (which is a synonym for hypothesis) and reality, Ivan.

      Explain for me, please, Ivan, and for all those reading this thread, why the Eastern Pacific Ocean from pole to pole (90S-90N, 180W-80W) shows so little warming! It’s really simple.

      And before this post, were you aware that sea surface temperature data indicated that the surfaces of the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans warmed in very clear steps in responses to strong East Pacific El Niño events, as shown in Figure 1 from the post?


      Ivan, go peddle your laughably flawed hypothesis somewhere else. You only make us laugh.
      Sincerely,
      Bob

    • Not so in real science circles.

      Unfortunately, CAGW is a political construct of the UN. It is a theory promulgated by charlatans and pseudoscientists feeding at the gravy train of ever more grant funding. CAGW is about control not science through which climate science has been turned into a religion.

      If you understood even 10% of the travesties of the scientific method enacted by “the team” in furtherance of “the cause” you would have a more enlightened opinion.

    • Are you saying that when they tell a big enough lie long enough, it becomes hard to resist?

      I would say that WUWT is important for skeptics like me to gain knowledge and hone skills. We see from the history of the 20th century that it is important for people to stand up to totalitarian disinformation. The totalitarians will, of course, say it’s futile and that the truth seekers should just give up.

      The picture at the top of your link is interesting. I see a third world child marching through an ocean of plastic bottles. It doesn’t seem to be random plastic. Is it a recycling facility?

      re. Pollution, etc. in the third world. The developed world is pretty darn pristine. Almost all the plastic crap in the oceans comes from the third world. link We are told that we must give up our plastic grocery bags. Doing so will have zero effect on the plastic in the oceans. It’s time to stand up to the environmental bullies.

      • Tell me what the big lie is about AGW? What exact facts do you dispute in the CNN article I posted?

        Also on the plastic issue I totally agree with you that the Asian nations are the main culprits. They need to get their houses in order.

        • What I said was:

          Are you saying that when they tell a big enough lie long enough, it becomes hard to resist?

          I was just trying to clarify what you were saying.

          Rich Davis, below, has a point. You are hard to understand and apparently you have trouble understanding others.

        • The first temperature graph is the big lie. If you don’t see that, then you have not paid attention to ‘adjustments’, error bars, and ‘we just made it up’.

    • Ivan, is English your native language? Charitably I assume not.

      “it and their remarks”
      “over the denial”

      Incomprehensible word salad

    • Ivan Kinsman
      “When will the commentators on this site….etc.”

      When will the adolescent trolls on this site realise that gratuitous assertions derived from links to -cnn ( is that climate news nonsense?) are irrelevent to “the commentators on this site” who come to learn. Of course ‘If ignorance is bliss, then ’tis folly to be wise’…. stay blissful! The truth could be painful when (if) you grow up.
      Cheers
      Mike

    • When will Ivanski realize that commentators on this site actually know science, as opposed to Ivanski who’s limited to worshiping those idols who agree with hime.

      • What facts do you disagree with in the article I posted? Be precise in your criticism, rather than make sweeping negative generalisations.

        • I feel no need to read more agitprop from CNN, so I skipped the article.

          However, before we move on to your proposed draconian solutions, please answer two simple questions.

          1.) What is the optimum global average temperature?

          2.) What is the optimum CO2 level for life on earth?

          • Global temperature could be a bit lower than they are today, and CO2 levels back to pre-Indusruial Revolution.

          • Global temperature could be a bit lower than they are today, and CO2 levels back to pre-Industrial Revolution.

          • Kinsman
            You said, “…could be a bit lower than they are today, and CO2 levels back to pre-Industrial Revolution.”

            OK, I can accept that you are expressing your personal opinion. However, can you justify that opinion with some facts about how that would improve the world ecosystem? After all, the tropics are the most diverse ecosystem on the planet and probably have the largest biomass.

          • Ivan what are the global temperature today compared to days gone by higher or lower. I will state we don’t know, neither do the so call called climate scientist if they did they would not have to adjust the temperature recorded every few years.. Optimum CO2 is well above 400 PPM for life, that a know fact 280 PPM is starvation diet for plants.

    • My suggestion is that you drop this site from your reviews. I went and read the CNN article. What tripe! Example: They still refer to the “97%” term. Hopeless…

    • I am pretty sure that Ivan links to propaganda.

      The picture at his link is a small child in an enormous pile of PET plastic bottles, and only PET plastic bottles.

      This is not a picture of planetary destruction – it is a picture of a recycling center. Be wary of those who would lie for a cause.

    • OK. Would you kindly answer the following.
      What is the pre-industrial global average temperature?
      What is the pre-industrial CO2 level?

      • “OK. Would you kindly answer the following.
        What is the pre-industrial global average temperature?
        What is the pre-industrial CO2 level?”

        You should be asking, What are the pre-industrial ‘levels’?, plural. According to the Paris Convention there are more than one, although they haven’t told us how many or what any of them is.

  3. I can’t say I’m as convinced by this article as by most of Bob’s offerings. As far as I’m aware, El Niño have been around for a long time, so to only start blaming them for a long term warming fairly recently raises doubts.

      • It is not simply the presence of El Nino. Since Nino/Nina “cycle” is a throughput of solar energy , it is at least a credible suggestion that a change in the frequency or intensity of such events could affect decadal changes in climate. From previous work , I think that is what Bob is suggesting. Though you need to do more than fitting trends to selective snippets of SST to establish that is the case.

    • Bloke, your assumption is that strong East Pacific El Nino events were not responsible for the warming during earlier periods, like from the 1910s to the 1940s. Please prove that they were not responsible during that period. It would be difficult if not impossible, because the sea surface temperature data before the 1950s rely on much fewer observations that are situated mostly along shipping routes, leaving much of the oceans unobserved.

      Regards,

      Bob

      • And before 1900? Or are you asserting that El Nino didn’t exist before then? If El Nino events are responsible for most of the warming over the past hundred years – say 0.5K warming – then the Medieval Warm Period would have to be several degrees cooler than today.

        • PaulS, you asked and stated, “And before 1900? Or are you asserting that El Nino didn’t exist before then? If El Nino events are responsible for most of the warming over the past hundred years – say 0.5K warming – then the Medieval Warm Period would have to be several degrees cooler than today.”

          No, I am not asserting that El Nino did not exist before 1900. That’s an absurd deduction from my post and comments on this thread.

          And your comment about the Medieval Warm Period is also absurd. Do you have data to support your assumptions?

          Good-bye.

          • It’s certainly absurd, but it appears to be an accurate reflection of your theory.

            If the existence of El Nino as a phenomenon caused ~0.5K warming in the 20th Century and El Nino events also happened in every prior century explain how there hasn’t been 5K warming over the past 1000 years.

          • Paul – apparently El Ninos with step function temperature increases started occurring only in the 20th century! Haha.

      • Bob
        Kym and Bloke are correct. You’ve described the mechanism whereby heat is collected and transferred. You have not explained why there is a net increase in energy absorbed in the Pacific and thus a net warming.
        Cube

    • I agree.

      If this theory is true we should all have boiled away aeons ago as each plateau settled at a higher level than the last.

      Bob needs to explain:-
      1. When the El Niño plateaus started.
      2. Why they started.
      3. Will they continue unabated?
      4. Will they stop?
      5. If so, when?

      The gyre mechanism is fine however as it stands the overall theory doesn’t explain the cause of the seemingly endless increases. Or have we missed something?

      The slowly increasing global temperature plateaus are clear but we need better explanations.

      FWIW, my layman’s stance is that, while CAGW is pure pseudoscience in the name of global politics and the pause plunged a stake into the alarmists’ model heart, we need something like a unified theory of climate science that takes the minimal natural, post LIA, warming as its base and demonstrates clearly that CO2 is not the cause therefore it is not man’s planetary heat thermostat. To date, the global, geopolitical, alarmist charlatans have won handsomely with their lies: we need a stronger scientific argument against them.

      (I have some pre Climategate knowledge of the then main alarmist protagonists that confirmed my scepticism.)

      • Mardler, you stated and asked:

        “Bob needs to explain:-
        “1. When the El Niño plateaus started.
        “2. Why they started.
        “3. Will they continue unabated?
        “4. Will they stop?
        “5. If so, when?…”

        I can’t say if the long-term aftereffects of strong El Nino events were responsible for the warming from the 1910s to the 1940s, because the history of sea surface temperature observations is so poor before the 1950s, so I can’t answer your first two points.

        Regarding your last three, I don’t know the future. Do you? I present observations-based data, and I, unlike the climate-science industry, do not make crystal-ball-like prognostications of the future.

        Regards,

        Bob

        • What I see here is a conflict between people who have different reasoning styles.

          Bob is displaying inductive reasoning, applying specific cases toward the development of a general principle (which he cannot yet formulate or induce, given insufficient data).

          Others are objecting based on their preference for deductive reasoning. They start from premises about first principles and work backward to predict (deduce) the data.

          The inductive thinker’s objection is “that’s fine in theory, but does it work in practice?”

          The deductive thinker’s objection is “that may be what we observe in this case, but what is the theory to explain it?”

          Both approaches have value. If we can’t explain why, we can’t make predictions, but if we let the data tell the story, we can’t make disastrously wrong predictions that cause us to act rashly.

          I tend toward a deductive preference and can say from experience that when the premises are correct, deductive reasoning can be very powerful, but when there is a false premise, deductive reasoning can lead to delusion.

          Those who reject Bob’s insight here are saying in effect, “that’s fine in practice, but does it work in theory?”

          • Rich, I think this is a perceptive comment. Taking it a little further, I think that the IPCC is dominated by the theorists. The empiricists tend to be on the outside saying, “The models are not working — look at this or that data.” The theorists retort, “Where is your model? It takes a model to beat a model, and if you don’t have one how can you say the predictions from mine are wrong?”

            I think that the theorists’ objection is becoming less convincing as more data shows the Russian model to be substantially more consistent with observations. At some point, the other modelers are going to have to talk to the Russians about what is different about their model and the process of eliminating the worst models has to happen. The practice of the IPCC of simply averaging the predictions from all the models cannot last…

          • Peter,
            I agree that the IPCC is dominated by deductive thinkers. They begin with a set of premises that follow logically (for the most part) to their conclusions about reality. These premises are mistaken so their predictions will fail.

            Rather than testing their hypotheses with data, and discarding them when their predictions fail, they torture the data to make it fit the theory.

            That is not because of their deductive reasoning. It is because they have powerful conflicts of interest. So I’m afraid that you’re too optimistic if you expect that they will suddenly start applying the scientific method and forget their conflicts of interest. Careers will be destroyed if the truth is admitted.

      • Proving a negative is not possible. The problem is that we are probably at least half a century away from any real understanding of how climate works and pretending that we know enough to blame CO2 with enough certainty to turn the world upside down is dishonest.

        There are massive uncertainties and our understanding extremely limited and that needs be recognised. If there was simple answer it would have been worked out long ago. Simply saying “what else could it be ” is not a proof. Neither is it encumbant on anyone to have a full proof of something else causing warming to question the validity of the CO2 hypothesis.

    • Kym notso Smart:

      The oscillation is just overlaid on a rising trend caused by, well us.

      Wow, the “by well us” hypothesis. The killer argument no one can “deny”!

      The simple fact of labeling all these various internal climate variations as “oscillations” is just a word game. It does not constitute a scientific proof that they are pendulum like , net zero, swings. Clearly your uncritical,uneducated mind has been fooled by this semantic trick since you seem to consider it a proof that nothing except, “well by us”, can be responsible for a net change in climate.

      Bob spend quite some time explaining how El Nino/Nina is NOT simply two symmetric sides of a simply pendulum oscillation. You probably did not even get as far as reading that though since you seem unaware of that in you notso smart comment.

    • There is nothing about an oscillation that requires a zero slope on the trend line, nor that the amplitude remains constant. It sounds like you imagine an ocean-atmosphere model analogous to an AC power sine wave with a constant frequency and RMS. To imagine that a natural chaotic process would be tightly controlled like that is not reasonable.

      I guess that Bob is saying is that the true physical phenomena are not accurately described by your mental model.

    • maybe i can meet you down there to talk about this. Bob provides a good description of the phenomenon but not an explanation of why el nino causes long term warming rather than an exchange of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere. Indeed, the actual increase in heat content from solar radiation is actually indicated as consequent of less clouds during la nina. But there doesn’t seem to be an explanation of why, over time, the averaged temperature either or ocean or atmosphere should change.

      It seems to me there would need to be some associated change in the heat budget at the top of the atmosphere which I don’t see described if this phenomenon really contributed to warming vs. surface temperature or lower troposphere anamoly. And the answer to why this phenomenon would explain warming on average during the recent period depicted vs. say the little ice age when reconstructions (right, educated guesswork, e.g. : El Niño modulations over the past seven centuries ) show the phenomenon active although not as strong a signal as during the the 1800s when temperatures were also notably cooler than now.

      It’s self evident that el nino changes surface temp. There may be mechanisms by which it actually alters the overall radiation budget, but I don’t see those described or distinguished from its action at colder times. Of course there are multiple variables so its not implausible that el nino has a ‘natural’ warming effect, but doesn’t seem obvious from this post which was meant to make it so.

      • In my humble opinion the change over time of heat is caused by the sun. Variations in the sun intensity reaching earth either by changes to the sun itself or by clouds on earth either add more heat or less heat to his engine. Unfortunately the data to prove my guess are unavailable.

    • Bob Tisdale: And as I also stated in the post, Thus, El Niño and La Niña events act together as a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, recharge-discharge oscillator, with El Niño events acting as the discharge phase and La Niña events acting as the recharge phase. Simple.

      Not too simple. With nonlinear dissipative systems, steady increases in input can produce step changes in measured output. As usual, I refer interested parties to the later chapters of Modern Thermodynamics by Kondepudi and Prigogine. Thus, the step increases in global mean temp, even if fed by El Ninos, do not rule out the possibility that the overall warming since the late 1800s has been caused by increased atmospheric CO2.

      The analysis is of course still of great interest.

  4. Thank you Bob. A very good and clear presentation. It made it easier to understand. So how big part is this South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans warming of the total global surface warming? And how much is the South Atlantic change affected by el Nino?

    • I wonder if the el Nino warming and the Arctic warming is responsible for almost all global warming the last 50 years.

      • nobodysknowledge, it would be better to say that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the long-term effects of strong East Pacific El Nino events were responsible for the warming.

        Regarding your question about the South Atlantic, it would be difficult to find an ENSO related signal in the SSTa data there:

        Back in 2012, when I first isolated the South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific subset from the North Atlantic (with its high rate of warming from the AMO) and from the East Pacific, the surfaces of the East Pacific had shown little-to-no warming from 1981 to 2012 based on the linear trend:

        Basically, warm water from the West Pacific Warm Pool sloshed into the East Pacific during El Niño events and sloshed back out during La Niña events (being warmed again under the tropical sun as it left and continued across the tropical Pacific).

        Then along came THE BLOB in 2014/15/16 and the El Niño of 2014/15/16 and their combined effects spoiled that flat linear trend:

        The warm water from THE BLOB and that strong and long El Niño just didn’t want to leave the East Pacific.

        Regards,

        Bob

    • And with Steven Mosher, we found someone who didn’t bother to read the post.

      Good-bye, Steven. You make me laugh.

    • Of course solar energy causes warming and if it wasn’t for these El Nino burst’s of energy the planet would warm a lot more gradual.

      If natural cycles sum to zero then why has the Tropical ocean down to 700m warmed especially in the ENSO region? This indicates that the energy has been imbalanced and don’t sum to zero. That is why with each sudden strong outburst of solar energy from ocean to the atmosphere there is a step up in global temperatures almost immediately.

    • “451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons
      Sorry, this content is not available in your region.”

      Thanks Steve.

    • Hi Steven. I get:

      451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons
      Sorry, this content is not available in your region.

      When I try to visit that site. Why might that be?

    • Mr. Mosher, you said : “natural cycles sum to zero. have to”.

      In the long run that may be true, but the question is how long is the long run? This reminds me of a comment I once heard about slot machine payouts; whereas its true that in the long run a particular slot machine will payout at a rate of 98.6%, most people don’t appreciate how long the long run is.

    • Steven: over what time period do what aspects of natural cycles have to sum to zero. I live in an area dominated by continental glacial features (moraines, eskers, deltas, old shorelines, under fit valleys, remnant glacial lakes) – recent ones in geological time. Obviously things didn’t sum to zero to allow a mile of ice to occupy my back yard just 10-12 thousand years ago. And they obviously didn’t sum to zero during the few thousand years it took to melt that mass of ice. It is obvious that summing to zero is not the primary modus operandi for our climate. Assuming it must apply over a few hundred years is not very smart. You also might like to answer the question about how steps in temperature increase can results from increasing CO2. CO2 is increasing fairly steadily by 1-2ppm. What does it do? Store heat for 2-7 years between el ninos and then release it all at once to cause a step increase? Nobody knows why climate changes as it does. We do know it changes slowly in human time frames, and never has shown runaway warming. It has shown runaway cooling, even though there always was enough CO2 to sustain plant life. Geological evidence of CO2 levels much higher than man ever could cause by burning fossil fuels didn’t result in over-heating. You need to take a few degrees in geology (earth science), and at least one course in common sense reasoning.

    • I believe what Steve is pointing out with his plot is the Nino/Nina events are smaller scale interannual temperature variations and his straight line through the events are reflective of an underlying longer term trend. It is this multi-decadal quasi-oscillation that will eventually cool the climate, not ENSO. SST anomaly plot of interannual events in green and multi-decadal oscillation in red.
      https://imgur.com/a/GVxOkWn

      • Renee:

        I agree with your comment though I also think that a plot showing data from 1967 to 2007 is the very short run and even data from 1850 to 2020 is the short run. The long run is more likely to be an order of magnitude or two longer than those time frames.

      • Renee,

        This is figure 3 from:

        Wilson, I.R.G., 2013, Are Global Mean Temperatures Significantly Affected by Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric Tides? Energy & Environment, Vol 24, No. 3 & 4, pp. 497 – 508.

        http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Bf6SbcTyHos/TtoV9dTF_TI/AAAAAAAAAIc/lrjTEFRHRaY/s1600/CE_MEI.jpg

        The Extended Multivariate ENSO index (MEI) is the un-rotated, first principal component of the MSLP (HadSLP2) [20] and SST (HadSST2) [18] over the tropical Pacific [21]. As with the Niño3.4 index, negative values of the MEI represent the La Niña ENSO phase, while positive values of the MEI represent the El Niño ENSO phase [21].

        The green curve in figure 3 shows the annual global HadCRUT3 combined land and sea-surface temperature anomalies between 1879 and 2006 [22,23]. This curve has been arbitrarily scaled for the purpose of ready comparison with the blue and red curves giving the MEI index.

        Superimposed on these curves are vertical lines delineate four 30 year periods of alternating cooling and warming, starting in the years 1887, 1917, 1947, and 1977. In addition, red straight lines have been drawn upon the green temperature anomaly curve showing the approximate temperature gradient for each of the four climate epochs.

        The dotted red curve gives the extended MEI index integrated over four separate 30-year climate epochs starting in the years 1880, 1910, 1940, and 1970. If these starting years are used, the cumulative MEI indices change sign (from + to – and reverse) in three out of the four climate epochs. However, if the starting year for each epoch is shifted forward seven years to 1887, 1917, 1947 and 1977 (dark blue curve), then the cumulative MEI indices do not change sign during each of the climate epochs.

        What figure 3 is telling us is that whenever the relative strength and/or frequency of the El Niño events are greater than that of the La Niña events (i.e. the cumulative MEI is trending positive) then global mean temperatures increase, and that whenever the relative strength and/or frequency of the La Niña events are greater than that of the El Niño events (i.e. the cumulative MEI is trending negative) then global mean temperature decreases.

        Hence, I believe that figure 3 supports the claims made by Wilson [15], Tisdale[1], and the subsequent claims of de Freitas and McLean [16].

        References:

        [1]. Tisdale R., Who turned up the heat? – The unsuspecting global-warming culprit – El Niño-Southern Oscillation, 2012

        [15]. http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/world-mean-temperaturewarmscools.html. 2011, Last accessed 20/03/13.

        [16]. de Freitas, C.R. and McLean, J.D., Update of the chronology of natural signals in the near-surface mean global temperature record and the Southern Oscillation Index, International Journal of Geosciences, 2013, 4(1), 234-239.

        [18]. Rayner N.A., et al., Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in sea surface temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 data set, J. Climate. 2006, 19(3), 446-469.

        [20]. Allan R.J. and Ansell T., A new globally complete monthly historical gridded mean sea level pressure dataset (HadSLP2): 1850-2004. J. Climate, 2006, 19, 5816-5842.

        [21]. Wolter K. and Timlin M. S., El Niño/Southern Oscillation behavior since 1871 as diagnosed in an extended multivariate ENSO index (MEI.ext). Intl. J. Climatology, 2011, 31, 14pp., in press. Available from Wiley Online Library.

        [22]. Brohan P., Kennedy J.J., Harris I., Tett S.F.B., and Jones P.D., Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research, 2006, 111, D12106

        [23]. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ – Last accessed: 07/11/12

    • “natural cycles sum to zero.
      have to”

      Only if you believe the world was created perfect by God. Even if the Sun was utterly stable, which it isn’t, it’s the internal cycles etc that govern what the planet does with the energy received. That’s why we can have Ice Ages in times of very high CO2

  5. Bob, thanks for all of your work through the years, and for this article.

    I have missed something. If El Ninos cause global warming, and La Ninas do not reverse the warming, how can the globe ever cool?

    • Don B, it won’t cool as a result of ENSO.

      Since we haven’t seen a long-term cooling during the satellite era of sea surface temperature data, I can’t answer your question. But when it happens, I’ll be happy to present and discuss it.

      Regards,

      Bob

    • The ENSO process is about how build up of extra solar energy periodically occurs over time is exchanged between the ocean and atmosphere. This balance over the long term either way causes the atmosphere to cool or warm.

      La Nina’s store energy into the ocean with upwelling and El Nino’s release energy into the atmosphere.

      The planet cools when more energy is lost from El Nino’s compared to the energy put in by La Nina. Since the 1970’s more energy has been stored in the ocean then released by El Nino’s.

  6. Bob, your basic point about the asymmetry of Nino/Nina phases is very important and climatologists presenting this as an “oscillation” is just a semantic trick to pretend that it must be long term neutral.

    However, you need to get beyond trend fitting SST. You have been saying this for about 10y now. How about digging into OHC to see whether you can find more evidence of the heat transfers going on.

    I showed more heat was stored in the years following Mt. P, the climate’s self regulation to the cooling effects of the eruption in action.
    https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/tropical-feedback-adjusted.png

    Maybe you can find the difference in energy budget between El Nino and Nina years.

  7. IMHO El Nino, La Nina and Hurricanes are the say to understand global temperature. If you understand the oceans you understand the climate. That is why I’ve always said there needs to be a controlled experiment to demonstrate that LWIR between 13 and 18 microns can actually warm the oceans. If they can’t, all this CO2 driven warming is for naught.

    CO2 Can’t Cause Catastrophic Warming as Long as El Niño, La Niña and Hurricanes Exist
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/01/19/co2-cant-cause-catastrophic-warming-as-long-as-el-nino-la-nina-as-well-and-hurricanes-exist/

    An Einstein Thought Experiment on Climate Change
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/01/12/an-einstein-thought-experiment-on-climate-change/

    • Unfortunately you kill yourself with your own thought experiment and nothing that happens has very much to do with mother nature she is a passenger. The earth existed and had a balance long before life and it will have a balance long after life dies, so life and geology is a modifier not a driver.

      What climate science does to get around this is picks a climate on Earth it “likes” and you try and hold the climate within a certain range. The real problem with that and your thought experiment is you are still trying to proxy temperature as some indicator of global energy. Energy can go into many places many of them hidden from your analysis and some of them with exceeding long cycles like chemical storage. As examples consider an Earth with no photosynthesis and hence energy currently absorbed stays free OR alternatively try tinting the atmosphere more red (do you know for a fact the earth atmosphere wasn’t tinted more red in history?).

      So your thought experiment fails along the same problems with climate science you make assumptions about earth energy most of which are blatantly false or at least suspect.

  8. Doc? I am linking this to a whole bunch of friends with school age children, and with your permission I want to cut&paste sections of it and email directly to several people. The world has been lied to about this for so long we have to start over from scratch explaining it all. Thank you for all the work you do, good sir!!!!

    Oh, and I hope that my linking it directly to people’s timelines on farcebbook won’t cause Markee Mark Zucckerburger to set the dogs on you, again. My apologies in advance.

  9. Steven M, I can`t get your reference.
    You say: elnino doesnt cause warming.
    it is a pattern of warming.
    I think Bob Tisdale shows this. It is sun radiation and ocean currents that cause warming. And i think GHGs are a part of it.
    “natural cycles sum to zero”.
    I don`t think they have to. Ocean currents and wind patterns do a tricky job.

  10. Heat comes into the system in the Tropics and exits basically at the Poles. The oceans are the storage, transport mechanism and buffers.

    If warmer water gets transported into the polar regions quicker, heat will be released at a faster rate. If it slows down, the water stays warmer longer and the heat content builds up. So it’s probably this overall net transport ocean current speeds and directions that determine if the planet has a gain or loss of temperature in the end.

    The problem is there are a lot of other contributing factors that also effect the system, both on the input side and output side. On the input side you have cloud cover, heat released from thunderstorms and an active/quiet Sun to name a few. On the output side you have cloud cover, sea ice cover and also an active/quiet Sun that influences storm tracks, Stratospheric warming, etc. plus many others. And you also have the oceans that buffers the whole system.

    Looking over the past decades and centuries, we have had net warm spells and net cold spells. Personally I think if you go back and look at the net speed of transport of water in the oceans to the poles, the answer to overall global warming and cooling are found there. Unfortunately changes occur at a very slow rate (compared to human lifespans) so we may have to wait a lifetime (or half a lifetime) to see it.

    My theory anyway.

    • There is a hard limit outside all the junk you list because the oceans are deep and the heating is from above. Cold water sinks and so you can only ever heat the top bit of the ocean. You would literally have to boil the ocean away and make it a lot shallower to heat it all up.

      So realistically at some point you will reach a limit where the hot surface water evapourating loses the amount of energy trying to heat the surface water and you will reach an equilibrium. If you assume no clouds or volcanic activity and looked at the ocean thermocline versus the solar energy per square meter you could work it out (the calc is probably around on a physics forum).

      It’s probably going to be hot enough to kill or upset a lot of life in the ocean but it isn’t going to be excessive.

  11. Does The Climate-Science Industry Purposely Ignore A Simple Aspect of Strong El Niño Events That Causes Long-Term Global Warming?

    They ignore it because it is not true. El Niño is a cooling mechanism for the planet. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum La Niña conditions predominated. The increase of El Niño activity in the planet has paralleled the cooling of the planet during the Neoglaciation. Just the opposite of what you would expect if it causes long-term warming.
    https://i.imgur.com/iTjpFQf.png

    You got an artifact from data there. The long term increase in temperature due to global warming becomes more obvious after the big Las Niñas that usually follow the big Los Niños. The 1878 big El Niño demonstrated that you don’t get the apparent step change in temperature if the big El Niño is not followed by a big La Niña, as it is happening now.

    This is a same-scale comparison of the 1878 and 2016 Niños and, sorry to say it, the demonstration that your hypothesis is incorrect.
    https://i.imgur.com/b3D6nwK.png

    • They ignore because it is inconvenient.

      It is impossible for a cooling ocean mechanism not to warm the atmosphere before it is lost to space. While in this process it will appear if the atmosphere has been warmed for a while. (during human life time for example) The problem only measuring temperature in the atmosphere and not the energy of the atmosphere and oceans leads to different conclusions. On the longer term when more energy is lost due to El Nino’s than absorbed by the oceans, the cooling mechanism will show up.

      I agree with your content except it doesn’t show that this below is incorrect.

      “Does The Climate-Science Industry Purposely Ignore A Simple Aspect of Strong El Niño Events That Causes Long-Term Global Warming?”

      • It is still not true. The heat released by an El Niño is gone in a few years unless the planet is warming by other causes. The second figure I linked shows that. Only the ocean and the cryosphere have the capacity to store changes in enthalpy, the surface does not, and the atmosphere has such low mass that its capacity to store changes in enthalpy can be ignored. Therefore it is impossible for El Niño to cause a long-term warming of the surface. It can however cool the planet if the energy lost is not replenished by other mechanisms.

        There are literally dozens of hypotheses for why the planet is warming. A few of them are correct in identifying significant natural and anthropogenic factors contributing to the warming. All the rest are wrong, and Tisdale’s El Niño hypothesis is one of them.

        • The ocean depth involved with El Nino’s goes down to near 200m so this depth easily has the heat capacity to keep temperatures warmer for much longer than a few years.

          The energy reaching the pole from El Nino’s via SST’s or atmosphere affect albedo there so do have longer term consequences.

          The second figure shows the El Niño in 1997/98 cooling less than it warmed before a strong La Niña took over. The other comparison did cool as much as it warmed, but I don’t about the ENSO back then.

          Global temperatures cooled overall slowly after the strong El Nino in 1997/98 until the next one developed, indicating it’s influence on global temperatures slowly easing.

          • The ocean depth involved with El Nino’s goes down to near 200m so this depth easily has the heat capacity to keep temperatures warmer for much longer than a few years.

            Except that El Niño extracts heat from the Pacific surface and sub-surface, so it becomes colder after an El Niño, than it was before it.

            The energy reaching the pole from El Nino’s via SST’s or atmosphere affect albedo there so do have longer term consequences.

            What consequences? Do you have evidence of them or of how they affect global temperatures? Considering that the 2016 El Niño has not affected sea-ice extent, I seriously doubt your albedo claims.

            Global temperatures cooled overall slowly after the strong El Nino in 1997/98 until the next one developed, indicating it’s influence on global temperatures slowly easing.

            Too many assumptions there for my taste. If you start assuming that the slow cooling was due to El Niño’s influence you end up concluding that El Niño affects temperature long-term, but that is called circularity and it only proves that you are not looking at the evidence in an unbiased way. Then you cherry-pick the Niños that show what you are looking for and ignore the ones that don’t.

        • Javier,

          It is quite interesting that warming trends occur after super La Niña episodes. That certainly was true after the 1976 La Niña resulting in a climate shift to our current warming trend. Also if you believe earlier temperature data, around 1910 La Niña conditions prevailed preceding the 1940 warming trend.

        • Except that El Niño extracts heat from the Pacific surface and sub-surface, so it becomes colder after an El Niño, than it was before it.

          Some of energy escapes into the atmosphere, but a lot still remains in the top 200m and this is moved in ocean currents around the world away from the Tropics eventually towards the pole. Therefore a sub surface region does cool, but the movement elsewhere causes other regions to warm. This loss in energy here is easily replaced with lengthy tropical sunshine when it returns again.

          What consequences? Do you have evidence of them or of how they affect global temperatures? Considering that the 2016 El Niño has not affected sea-ice extent, I seriously doubt your albedo claims.

          “Our results provide evidence of differences between the NAO and the AO, and of their influence on the ice conditions in the Baltic Sea. We have shown that the AO contains tropically forced components represented by signals in the 2.2–3.5, 5.7–7.8 and 12–20 year bands. The highest variability in ice conditions occurs with the same periodicities and is linked to the AO and with SOI and Niño3 signals. The influence of equatorial Pacific Ocean SST variability is more evident in the AO than the NAO”

          https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2003JD003417

          “It is found that, during the critical springtime period, spatiotemporal structures in hemispheric‐scale vegetation activity are highly correlated with overlying patterns of surface temperatures. In addition, it is shown that surface temperature signatures associated with two predominant modes of global climate variability, namely the El Niño‐Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Arctic Oscillation (AO), are also the principal drivers for interannual variability in Northern Hemisphere greenness”

          Too many assumptions there for my taste. If you start assuming that the slow cooling was due to El Niño’s influence you end up concluding that El Niño affects temperature long-term, but that is called circularity and it only proves that you are not looking at the evidence in an unbiased way. Then you cherry-pick the Niños that show what you are looking for and ignore the ones that don’t.

          I am really trying to be unbiased as possible, but I used that El Niño because it was the one you used. There is less of an assumption when all background signals are included. How would you explain if this happens again in the near future?

          1) Why were global temperatures slowly cooling back towards the initial temperature before the strong 1997/98 El Nino?

          2) Why was it that only another strong El Nino later stopped this decline?

          ENSO has by far the largest variance in global temperatures in the short term, so what else could it possibly be? Taking into account the other responses above.

          I can’t use the other El Nino because data is lacking and the recent strong El Nino has not finished long enough to determine anything. The strong El Nino around 1982 was affected greatly by large volcanic eruption and later in timeline around 1991 or there would had likely been slow cooling until the next strong event.

    • Javier: “El Niño is a cooling mechanism for the planet. (….) The increase of El Niño activity in the planet has paralleled the cooling of the planet during the Neoglaciation.” https://i.imgur.com/iTjpFQf.png

      WR: A very interesting graphic.
      During warmer periods the ‘warm surface layer’ extends pole ward (horizontally) and deepens (vertically). The volume of the warm surface layer increases and so her heat content. ‘Cooling’ requires a system that the Earth gets rid of the absorbed energy (‘heat’) that was sequestered in the broader and deeper warm surface layer.

      Los Ninos cause less trade winds. Trade winds cause cold upwelling that (as Bob explains) cause a higher uptake of Sun energy. Los Ninos cause less (!) heat uptake: cooling.

      Besides, the standard strong trade winds cause mixing of warm surface layers with colder subsurface layers. The absence of those strong trade winds during Los Ninos cause less cold upwelling (and less uptake of sun energy), less mixing and a spread of the warm waters of the West Pacific Warm Pool. Together those processes are causing a warmer sea surface. It is well known that warmer sea surfaces cool stronger (by more radiation, evaporation, convection). Indeed, more and stronger Los Ninos might be part of the big cooling system of the Earth in the second part of our warmer interglacial.

      A side effect of Los Ninos could be that (average) winds over the warm surface layer diminish for a longer period. If so, during a period of a century / two centuries a warming Sea Surface trend will be shown. That warming will cool the warm surface layer of the oceans and the Earth as a whole, but on the long-term. The century SST warming can show a stepwise performance as noticed by Bob. On a yearly / decadal time scale warming seems (!) to be the case.

      If such a mechanism is working, both Javier (long-term) and Bob (mid-term) are right.

      • The heat of El Nino is not from deep ocean because it is cooler than sea surface. The heat comes from the sun. If you slow down heat flow from surface to deep ocean, the sea surface would warm. The rate of heat flow is proportional to temperature gradient. Decrease the gradient and the heat flow decreases too and sea surface will warm. Ocean currents may change the thermocline. This is a possible mechanism for ENSO.

        Trade winds cool the sea surface by convection and evaporation. It is well-known in mechanical engineering that evaporation and convective heat transfer are proportional to fluid (air) velocity. (That’s why cooling towers and car radiators have fans)

      • CO2 radiative forcing since 1997:
        5.35 ln (406/367) = 0.58 W/m^2

        Evaporative cooling rate at 20 C:
        Let: h = heat of vaporization = 2454 kJ/kg, v = wind speed = 7.9 m/s (moderate breeze, Beaufort no. 4), Rs = saturated humidity ratio = 0.01466, R = humidity ratio = 0.0098

        (25 + 19 v)/3600 (Rs – R) h = 0.58 W/m^2

        Therefore, CO2 emissions since 1997 can be negated by moderate breeze in the sea

  12. The problem with Bob’s claim is that his evidence would look exactly the same under any warming scenario. El Nino events create a visual break-point naturally so drawing a line between them can just be showing warming from any cause. Not saying he isn’t right, but his evidence is very weak.

    I prefer another scenario that is also based on oceans. There are two primary cycles:

    1) The 60-70 year AMO
    2) The millennial cycle.

    The warming we have seen over the last 40 years which Bob graphs is from the warm phases of these primary cycles. As the AMO goes negative in a few years I would expect to see strong cooling. However, the millennial cycle (which started around 400 years ago) may offset some of the cooling and lead to overall warming once again when the AMO goes positive in another 30+ years.

    I believe this alternate explanation is stronger as it supports not only the recent warming but the cooling that occurred during the previous negative AMO cycle.

    • There is no data to correlate with in the long run.

      Historic cold periods have been found to have strong frequent El Nino’s and warm periods frequent La Nina’s.

      Why the confusion?

      El Nino’s warm the atmosphere, but cool the ocean.

      La Nina’s warm the ocean, but cool the atmosphere.

      In a warm period like now El Nino’s will warm the atmosphere more than usual, but global temperature will remain relatively high because of the already high energy ocean content.

      In a cold period like the LIA, El Nino’s will still warm the atmosphere relative to the time, but will still be much cooler than now.

      No one event can be compared between different climates.

  13. Bob’s graph ….
    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/indian-west-pacific-ssta-steps-no-polar-reynolds-oi.v2.png

    Could just as easily be redrawn showing a saw tooth pattern on top of an upward trend.
    Look at it!
    Which it is.
    The ENSO plus the long-term trend of AGW.
    Drawing it as EN rises followed by plateaus is where the fallacy springs.

    “That is, the water is sent back through the boiler another time before it has made its circuit of the rest of the heating system. What? you say. Yup, it’s that simple…so simple that even a child can understand it. Of course, a strong East Pacific El Niño event causes a long-term rise in global surface temperatures. There’s no way it could not.”

    No, there is no way it could.

    It does that explain the addition of heat, that is, the PERMANENT addition of forcing to the climate system. Just because circulating ENSO waters pick up double the solar heat before being released to the atmosphere?
    First it’s still solar SW energy that would otherwise have been assimilated into the OHC.
    Second when it comes out it dissipates in the normal way to eventually exit the Earth to space.

    This is nothing more than “lifting by it’s own bootstraps” magicing of permanent forcing violating the 1st LoT!
    ENSO is nothing more than a ocean/atmosphere coupling, oscillating to move energy through the climate system.
    It does not, cannot, ADD heat to the system (ocean and atmosphere) on an ongoing basis.
    The sum total of the climate system is warming (ocean and atmosphere) and the overlying GHE warming, is skewing an otherwise saw-tooth trend into a stairway-like one that has been given some sky-dragon slaying theory by virtue of a step-wise curve being fitted.

    • AGW does not exist never has and never will. The reason the oceans had been warming was due to the high solar activity since the end of the Little Ice Age -2005.

      Lag times have to be appreciated and ocean surface warming has topped out and will start to decline.

  14. Good post Bob. I think the confusion that most people have with your description of ENSO is the frequency of warming, without similar corresponding cooling events, in this short window. And if we are narrowly looking at this we would extrapolate this to continued warming until the oceans boil.
    The missing concept is that the oceans have roughly 1000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere. A minuscule change in ocean “discharge” of heat can have a much larger, and noticeable change in the temperature of the atmosphere.
    I like your model of a boiler and radiator system. But it looks at the entire system and the distribution of heat in the system. The confusion is based on the “boiler” operation, and it’s control mechanism. I prefer to look at that as a heat storage functionality.
    The oceans are constantly heating, and constantly discharging heat into the atmosphere. The net heat storage is the sum of heat input and heat discharge. That heat storage could be increasing or decreasing on multi-decade time scales. Just like a capacitor or battery, can be going through charging and discharging “oscillations”, there is no guarantee that they will be equivalent over a short term usage pattern.

  15. Bob: Playing the devil’s advocate for the moment: Given global warming at a rate of roughly 0.2 K/decade an random spikes in temperature of up to 0.3 K, I suspect one will always be able to draw some sort of horizontal line from the backside of an El Nino to the frontside of the next El Nino, as in Figure 1. Any comments?

    For me, analysis of ENSO states with the Equatorial Pacific warming from 24K in the East to 30K in the West, despite the fact that skies are cloudier in the West. In other words, ENSO starts with the upwelling of cold water from the deep ocean off South America. That water is warmed as it crosses the Pacific. Like all currents, upwelling can be expected to show chaotic behavior. When upwelling chaotically slows, warm was spreads to the East, transferring large amounts of heat to the atmosphere compared with the normal SSTs. (There is also an atmospheric component to ENSO.) So this all appears (to me) to be a form of internal (unforced) variability (+0.3 K and -0.3 K in one year laid on top of a long-warming in the vicinity of 0.2 K/decade.

  16. Doesn’t BEST use an algorithm for detecting such upsteps and sliding the lower older segments of the record upwards to eliminate such a step? Am I wrong that this is how the rise out of the reported (and experienced) deep cooling period between 1940 and 1980 was eliminated. In the adjusters toolbox, this removal of “incontinuities”, along with strategic selected station closures and the ever present station moves that can be employed for inviting adjustments for overcoming any inconvenient trends. I hate what all this has done to my trust of science. Perish the thought that a station move might be strategically employed for an ulterior purpose!!

    • Gary: No BEST doesn’t use such an algorithm. BEST splits all station records into segments at all breakpoint and treats them as multiple independent records. BEST uses kriging (see Wikipedia) to extract a temperature field, T(lat,long) for the entire land surface from all available nearby station records (perhaps 100 stations. This produce a “regional expectation” for this field.

      You can go to the BEST website and see how a station showing 0.5 degK can be turned into a station that closely matches a regional expectation showing 1 K of warming by adjustments at breakpoints. However, the regional expectation is created from the unadjusted data (after splitting).

      In my personal opinion, some breakpoints are created when a gradually growing bias (UHI) is corrected (perhaps a station move). Such breakpoints should not be corrected. When BEST splits records at such breakpoints, they are discarding needed corrections. The result is the same as homogenizing data at breakpoints. All homogenization corrections are only worth about 0.2 K of additional warming and some corrections are needed, so this isn’t a big deal (IMO).

      The “deep cooling period from 1940-1980” (more accurately from the late 1940’s to the late 1970’s) now appears to be a period when the warmest years remained about the same as the 1940’s and the coldest years (not single months) were about 0.2 K cooler. Today, your “deep cooling” appears to be an average of 0.1 K cooler for three decades. The NH with aerosols showed more cooling than the SH. The US was extremely warm in the Dust Bowl years and cold in the 1970s. And TOB was a problem in the US. Breakpoint correction also changed things slightly.

  17. Perhaps increased ghg concentrations means that more of the additional heat from El Nino events is retained in the atmosphere. I’m not saying that’s correct but I am sceptical of a mechanism that causes step-wise increase in warming indefinitely.

    • Bob does not posit warming indefinitely. Go over to his blog, Climate Observations, read, maybe buy and try to comprehend his OBSERVATIONS!

  18. Bob offers up an explanation for how global heat is distributed and transferred during a period of global warming. A high percentage of commenters, particularly the huffy ones, seem to be denying the earth has warmed. What are you people smoking? The legitimate scientific debate has never been about WHETHER the earth has warmed. The legitimate debate has been over “how much” and “what caused it”.

  19. “That is, the aerosols emitted by the 1982 eruption of El Chichon counteracted the aftereffects of the 1982/83 El Niño, which was comparable in strength to the 1997/98 “super” El Niño, and the aerosols emitted by the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo overwhelmed any aftereffects from the 1991/92 El Niño.”

    Moreover these El Nino episodes were due to the effects of the aerosols.

  20. HOW A LA NIÑA IS NOT THE OPPOSITE OF AN EL NIÑO

    is not the question.

    The question is

    HOW ends AN EL NIÑO

    to be followed by A LA NIÑA.

    What’s the /meteo/mechanics.

  21. Bob if the Spainish had not reported on the El and La Nino way back in the 14th century, the Greens would be telling us that we humans and our production of CO2 is what causes it.

    Trouble with your article is that its all too hard for the average person, so its much easier to just blame it all on CO2. That is the maim problem today.

    MJE

  22. “comparable to sending a good amount of the water in a hot-water heating system back through the boiler a second time, with a bypass circuit, before the twice-boiler-heated water is sent out to the heating coils and baseboard radiation. That is, the water is sent back through the boiler another time before it has made its circuit of the rest of the heating system.”

    What utter drivel. Not worth the time to read.

  23. Drival ?. , I thought that the bit on the Father explaining to his daughter how it all worked was brilliant , I am going to send it on to my friends.

    MJE

  24. Ocean warming events is not global warming. Currents change and oceans overturn periodically. Climate only refers to the atmosphere.

  25. The NINO 3.4 for just fell below 0.5C, so this year’s El Nino was a real dud:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png

    I think we’re due for Strong La Nina event from 2020/21 as these occur every 10 years or so, and we haven’t had one since the 2010/11 Strong La Nina event. If there is 2020/21 Strong La Nina event, UAH 6.0 could hit -0.3C…. I’d like to see the alarmists explain that…

    BTW, when the PDO/AMO/NAO are all in their respective 30-year cool cycles from earl 2020’s, and the 50-year Grand Solar Minimum starts from 2020, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a new “Super La Nina” phenomenon, with a peak-low temp anomaly of close to -2.5C.

    Over the past 70 years, the strongest La Nina event was in 1973/74, which hit -2.0C during the last 30-year PDO cool cycle (and during the 1933~1996 Grand Solar Maximum event).

    With the PDO in its 30-year cool cycle, another Super El Nino seems unlikely for the next 20+ year as there weren’t any Super El Nino events during the last 30-year PDO cool cycle event.

    We’ll see soon enough.

  26. Thus, El Niño and La Niña events act together as a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, recharge-discharge oscillator, with El Niño events acting as the discharge phase and La Niña events acting as the recharge phase. Simple.

    Less simple is the question of why ocean heat content is increasing over the long term at the same time as the atmosphere is also warming. If the heat that’s warmed the atmosphere over the past 4 decades is coming out of the ocean then why has ocean heat content increased over the same period?

    An “oscillator” can’t introduce energy into a system, it can only distribute existing energy . So what is supplying this *extra* energy to the ‘heating’ system? Can it really be the Sun, the energy output of which has been observed to reduce over the same period that the oceans and atmosphere have warmed?

    • Look at their fig. 3. It shows annual NOAA data ending 2013 (heavy black line) and thereafter projects a steep decline (light grey line representing their ‘forecast’ model). We already know that the opposite happened. What kind of review has this paper undergone, one wonders?

  27. Circular arguments are always right, but they do not tell anything new. The definition of El Nino is the warm phase of ENSO. So what is said here is that the warm water is caused by the warm water.

    So then we know.

    /Jan

    • That has always been the basic unanswered problem with Bob’s hypothesis. It’s why there’s no way he could ever get it published (as is) in a reputable journal. Basically it’s a “free energy” machine. Warming makes warming with no outside contribution. It’s a ‘wish’.

      • Wow, your neck is so stiff you can not look up and see the “free energy machine” in the sky. Got it. Why don’t you just euthanize yourself and let the real human race advance without your self-hating negativism? Oh, yea! Just like Accusatory Occasional-Cortex you want everyone else to go away whilst you rule over what is left. Okey dokey, then. Let us know how that works out for you.

        • The ‘free energy machine’ in the sky has been *reducing* in output over the period that the oceans and atmosphere have been warming. Easy enough to check this. How does that work again?

          • It is reducing output and still warming the planet quite nicely, and will continue to do so for millions and millions of years to come. Try again. Co2 is plant food and the Sun is the primary external driver of climate activity of all types. And yes, turning over control of anything to leftists is stupid.

  28. Bob, your presentation of the steps of warming after strong El Ninos is an excellent contribution.

    What we need to know is why these steps are happening now, in the last 35 years or so.

    Recent journal articles suggest that medium depth ocean waters are becoming warmer, but the researchers didn’t adequately take into account error bands, so their conclusions can’t be relied upon.

    So there are open questions regarding:

    * how fast the oceans are warming,

    * how much is due to CO2 and other contributors to atmospheric warming, and

    * the extent to which warmer oceans might be contributing to the stair step warming Bob demonstrates.

    It remains possible, to me anyway, that there could be a link between higher CO2 levels and stair step warming of the planet via El Ninos.

    • John and Bob,

      I’m not convinced there are steps after the El Niño events during this current warming trend. If the underlying longer term trend is removed then quasi-oscillations of 2.5 – 4 years are apparent. This is demonstrated by wavelet analysis after detrending. The steps could merely be an artifact of the underlying decadal trend. See wavelet analysis plots provided earlier in the comment section. It’s always a good idea to have several hypothesis.

  29. Why are we not allowed to say that ” La Niña is the opposite of an El Niño”?
    @BT said:

    Does the opposite happen during a La Niña? Here’s the real clincher. At the end of the La Nina, when the trade winds weaken to their normal east-to-west strengths, is all of the cooler-than-normal water in the eastern tropical Pacific—that’s left over from the La Niña—driven west to be cooled a second time under the tropical sun as it travels halfway around the globe before it then is driven toward the poles so that it can absorb heat from the atmosphere? Of course not. Anyone who says a La Niña is the opposite of an El Niño is announcing their ignorance of El Niño and La Niña processes for the world to see—or—they are willfully misrepresenting those processes.

    I believe the use of “opposite” here is legitimate because La Niña is the cold “negative”phase of the Southern Oscillation and El Niño is the warm “positive” phase, with respect to the sign of the Southern Oscillation index. Negative and positive are “opposite” polarities, are they not?

    You then went on to say:

    the Southern Oscillation Index only represents the effects of El Nino and La Nina events on the sea level pressures of Tahiti and Darwin, Australia. That is, the Southern Oscillation Index does not represent the processes of El Nino and La Nina or their after effects.

    So, are you aware that the index is computed from a MSLP differences, because the negative-positive polarity of these differences does indeed characterize the Walker cell behavior that spawns _both_ of these southern oscillation phenomena?

    The Walker circulation is caused by the pressure gradient force that results from a high pressure system over the eastern Pacific Ocean, and a low pressure system over Indonesia. When the Walker circulation weakens or reverses, an El Niño results, causing the ocean surface to be warmer than average, as upwelling of cold water occurs less or not at all. An especially strong Walker circulation causes a La Niña, resulting in cooler ocean temperatures due to increased upwelling.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_circulation

    Furthermore, instead of using the SO index, you seem to want us to characterize these oscillations as some kind of “recharge-discharge” system:

    Thus, El Niño and La Niña events act together as a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, recharge-discharge oscillator, with El Niño events acting as the discharge phase and La Niña events acting as the recharge phase.

    But ‘discharge’ and ‘recharge’ are semantic opposites. So doesn’t that make La Niña and El Niño “opposites” of each other? 😐

    You are certainly entitled to express your own theories about this, but I don’t think you should reproach and demean others who have different beliefs, with accusations that they are “ignorant” and “willfully misrepresenting” the truth.

  30. Bob wrote:

    which together cover about 52% of the surfaces of the global oceans.

    What happened to the other 48%? Do they show a different or the same result?

  31. If the worlds oceans are truly warming then as water expands the this should show as a rise in the sea level.

    Other than the present very slow sea level rise from either the LIA, or much earlier, then where is this real evidence that we have found the “Missing Heat which is said to be hiding in the Oceans ?”

    MJE

Comments are closed.