Fidelity of El Niño simulation matters for predicting future climate

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA

A new study led by University of Hawai’i at Mānoa researchers, published in the journal Nature Communications this week, revealed that correctly simulating ocean current variations hundreds of feet below the ocean surface – the so-called Pacific Equatorial Undercurrent – during El Niño events is key in reducing the uncertainty of predictions of future warming in the eastern tropical Pacific.

IMAGE
IMAGE: FUTURE INCREASE OF EL NINO AND LA NINA INTENSITY LEADS TO ENHANCES WARMING IN THE EASTERN TROPICAL PACIFIC (LEFT). FUTURE DECREASE OF EL NINO AND LA NINA INTENSITY LEADS TO… view more CREDIT: DATA FROM NOAA.

Trade winds and the temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean experience large changes from year to year due to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), affecting weather patterns across the globe. For instance, if the tropical Pacific is warmer and trade winds are weaker than usual – an El Niño event -flooding in California typically occurs and monsoon failures in India and East Asia are detrimental to local rice production. In contrast, during a La Niña the global weather patterns reverse with cooler temperatures and stronger trade winds in the tropical Pacific. These natural climate swings affect ecosystems, fisheries, agriculture, and many other aspects of human society.

Computer models that are used for projecting future climate correctly predict global warming due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions as well as short-term year-to-year natural climate variations associated with El Niño and La Niña.

“There is, however, some model discrepancy on how much the tropical Pacific will warm,” said Malte Stuecker, co-author and assistant professor in the Department of Oceanography and International Pacific Research Center at UH Mānoa. “The largest differences are seen in the eastern part of the tropical Pacific, a region that is home to sensitive ecosystems such as the Galapagos Islands. How much the eastern tropical Pacific warms in the future will not only affect fish and wildlife locally but also future weather patterns in other parts of the world.”

Researchers have been working for decades to reduce the persistent model uncertainties in tropical Pacific warming projections.

Many climate models simulate El Niño and La Niña events of similar intensity. In nature, however, the warming associated with El Niño events tends to be stronger than the cooling associated with La Niña. In other words, while in most models El Niño and La Niña are symmetric, they are asymmetric in nature.

In this new study, the scientists analyzed observational data and numerous climate model simulations and found that when the models simulate the subsurface ocean current variations more accurately, the simulated asymmetry between El Niño and La Niña increases–becoming more like what is seen in nature.

“Identifying the models that simulate these processes associated with El Niño and La Niña correctly in the current climate can help us reduce the uncertainty of future climate projections,” said corresponding lead author Michiya Hayashi, a research associate at the National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan, and a former postdoctoral researcher at UH Mānoa supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Overseas Research Fellowships. “Only one-third of all climate models can reproduce the strength of the subsurface current and associated ocean temperature variations realistically.”

“Remarkably, in these models we see a very close relationship between the change of future El Niño and La Niña intensity and the projected tropical warming pattern due to greenhouse warming,” noted Stuecker.

That is, the models within the group that simulate a future increase of El Niño and La Niña intensity show also an enhanced warming trend in the eastern tropical Pacific due to greenhouse warming. In contrast, the models that simulate a future decrease of El Niño and La Niña intensity show less greenhouse gas-induced warming in the eastern part of the basin. The presence of that relationship indicates that those models are capturing a mechanism known to impact climate–signifying that those models are more reliable. This relationship totally disappears in the two-thirds of climate models that cannot simulate the subsurface ocean current variations correctly.

“Correctly simulating El Niño and La Niña is crucial for projecting climate change in the tropics and beyond. More research needs to be conducted to reduce the biases in the interactions between wind and ocean so that climate models can generate El Niño – La Niña asymmetry realistically,” added Fei-Fei Jin, co-author and professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at UH Mānoa.

“The high uncertainty in the intensity change of El Niño and La Niña in response to greenhouse warming is another remaining issue,” said Stuecker. “A better understanding of Earth’s natural climate swings such as El Niño and La Niña will result in reducing uncertainty in future climate change in the tropics and beyond.”

###

From EurekAlert!

64 thoughts on “Fidelity of El Niño simulation matters for predicting future climate

  1. I find it interesting (and depressing) that the authors of the study are more interested in attempting to model and predict climate change than to predict weather for the coming twelve months.

    Predicting weather is a lot more useful. If farmers in Australia (say) can have some certainty an El Nino drought is coming they can decide whether it is worth planting crops this year. Similarly, an increased likelihood of El Nino rain in Chile may help South American farmers decide whether it’s worth planting.

    I suppose that the applications for funding for research are more likely to succeed if slanted towards AGW than towards gaining knowledge than can more obviously be applied to real-world (“existential”) problems.

    • Operational forecasters have to live by the sk1ll of their products. Cargo cultists can just keep on scamming year after year, applying for grants to fund their junk modeling.

      The world will always have charlatans, con-artists, hustlers like the climate modeling community, because as PT Barnum said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
      The world is thus filled with suckers ready to hand over their money who believe the climate change garbage the climateers produce. It’s a cottage industry of fakery, just like taking money from people who like to read astrology horoscopes, buy into crystal healing power scams and other such nonsense.

      The climate scammers are not really any different than the witchdoctor promising a fearful bunch of villagers living at the base of volcano to quell the angry volcano gods if the people will just provide him with baskets of their best fruits and foods and a virgin as sacrifice. Of course we know what the witchdoctor will do with both.

      • It’s more than just suckers handing over their money. It’s the money managers who know they can get more of it by pandering to those who give it away. A self percipitating largesse.

      • Computer models that are used for projecting future climate correctly predict global warming due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions as well as short-term year-to-year natural climate variations associated with El Niño and La Niña.

        Another utter and total lie from Urea Alert’s freshman undergrad in “media and gender studies”.

        NO ONE is correctly predicting even whether El Nino conditions will occur at all, more than two or three months ahead of time.

        Models generally over estimate warming by about 100%. Whatever they attribute it to , they are wrong.

    • A prediction of “50% chance of increased rainfall” can never be wrong but is as useful as a bingo wheel for farmers. You can swap the “increased” for “decreased” and it’s the same. It’s funny how their models can be made more complicated to make them more precise and yet the results are less accurate, less reliable and therefore less useful.

    • “I find it interesting (and depressing) that the authors of the study are more interested in attempting to model and predict climate change than to predict weather for the coming twelve months.”

      in many cases the GCM is simply a weather model run for longer time periods at lower resolution.

      they are interested in both

    • “Computer models that are used for projecting future climate correctly predict global warming due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions as well as short-term year-to-year natural climate variations associated with El Niño and La Niña.”

      The whole thing fails with the first half of this sentence. No gas at any concentration can warm the climate, as they claim it is the “greenhouse” gases in the upper tropical troposphere that warms Earth’s surface. Since it is -17 deg C ain that part of the atmosphere and the surface is +15 deg C, it is impossible for a cold body, even a gas, to warm a warmer body. Simple thermodynamics.

      In addition, the models do not do night-time, which is when these gases actually cool the atmosphere. During the day, and it’s daytime in the models 24/7, these gases are saturated and absorbing and emitting IR, amounting to no effect.

  2. “Correctly simulating El Niño and La Niña is crucial for projecting climate change in the tropics and beyond.”

    No, no, and no. It should read…

    “Correctly simulating El Niño and La Niña is crucial for predicting weather in the tropics and beyond.”

    You can’t predict with any hope of accuracy El Niño and La Niña out more than a few years at best – ever. They are too complex to simulate in any computer model we have or will likely have in the near future, and are likely chaotic as well meaning impossible to simulate with high accuracy.

    The very same issues that prevent us from correctly and accurately simulating 100-year climate prevent us from simulating future events like El Niño and La Niña. You have a good shot at the next one, and then you have to start over. Using predicted results from one round of simulation to feed the next simulation results in ever growing error margins – I don’t know why this process is so hard to understand for climate scientists.

    • “Using predicted results from one round of simulation to feed the next simulation results in ever growing error margins – I don’t know why this process is so hard to understand for climate scientists.” They do but the money is to good. Not telling the truth pays to well. Beside if they did it right they would need to find real jobs.

  3. “Computer models that are used for projecting future climate correctly predict global warming due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions as well as short-term year-to-year natural climate variations associated with El Niño and La Niña.”

    The word “correctly” is of course grossly wrong. Why is that word even there?
    The GCMs only “predict” the warming they were programmed and parameter-tuned to produce in response to a CO2 forcing input. Additionally with the “as well as” claim, this statement also implies the GCM “correctly” predict the ENSO phases. They do not even come come to doing that, not the timing of El Nino/La Nina in the future nor the phases in the past unless they are hand-fed historical ocean temperature and and pressure patterns datasets to “reanalyze.”

    • After ten years most of the models become nothing more than a linear equation, mx+b, with some kind of noise signal added to it. That’s all the multiple simultaneous differential equations wind up as, a linear equation. Anyone who believes our climate is a linear equation whose slope, m, is determined by the singular factor, CO2, simply doesn’t understand our planets history.

  4. More research needs to be conducted to reduce the biases in the interactions between wind and ocean so that climate models can generate El Niño – La Niña asymmetry realistically,” added Fei-Fei Jin, co-author and professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at UH Mānoa.

    More to say ?? 😀

  5. Wonderful! They have the phases of ENSO all figured out and their computer models showed them the way. When I consult the WATTS “Reference Pages” and “ENSO Forecast Pages”, it starts out “Our ENSO forecast skills are very low,…”, and now I find myself being forced to decide, who to believe. I’ll go with Anthony because he has always been not only competent but also honest. The idea that a very complex and chaotic earth system can be modelled sufficiently correctly to serve as a forecast is ludicrous. By the way, I’m predicting a great wine grape harvest this season.

  6. Fidelity of signals, of assumptions/assertions, the scientific frame. Miss a source, a sink, a parameter, a calculation, an evolutionary path, and you diverge into the catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling… warming… change ditch.

  7. I can’t believe they always talk about predictions. Isn’t it they produce scenarios, within upper and lower limits, showing the possiblöe range of future climate, if the models are good, but they aren’t.
    A crystal ball is much cheaper, so, go on.

  8. “Fidelity of El Niño simulation matters for predicting future climate”

    Call me old fashioned, but I’ll wait and see whether it matters, when the future climate arrives.

    It seems inappropriate to judge one’s predictions before those predictions have had a chance to eventuate. But, hey ho, I guess we’re in climate-science cuckoo land now.

  9. Why is an El Nino called a warming event?
    An enormous amount of energy is dissipated into space during such an event.
    Likewise, during El Nina conditions, the Western Pacific warm pool absorbs and
    retains a large amount of Solar energy. It seems that things a backward.

      • Even that is not a certainty. Plus, when have you seen projections on humidity, winds, pressure, clouds, or other parameters of climate?

    • I just love the line ‘ The high uncertainty in the intensity change of El Niño and La Niña in response to greenhouse warming is another remaining issue’. Call me stupid (I only have BSc (Eng) after my name and I am not a ‘Professor’) but I thought it was the other way round. They are still trying to find a sink for all that disappearing heat in the RIRO models.

  10. I think it will be interesting to see if the developing La Nina will become moderate during this winter or remain week, I think it will remain week. It will be interesting to see if we have a mid-Atlantic ridge this winter as we did in 2009-2010, it may happen the year after solar minimum.

  11. “reducing the uncertainty” < that cracked me up!

    They've been trying to do that for 100 years….the whole time claiming they know what they are talking about

  12. Where did they get their warming rates from? The average rate for the NH land areas looks like about 7 C per century by their scale. They appear to have grossly exaggerated the warming rate to try to make their results seem significant.

  13. “…Computer models that are used for projecting future climate correctly predict global warming due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions as well as short-term year-to-year natural climate variations associated with El Niño and La Niña…”

    Damn. Well then they should be spot-on year-after-year…and they aren’t.

  14. “Remarkably, in these models we see a very close relationship between the change of future El Niño and La Niña intensity and the projected tropical warming pattern due to greenhouse warming,” noted Stuecker.

    I call BS. Greenhouse warming probably has little or no impact on global temperatures. The short-term warming AND cooling mechanism is described in this paper. Longer term, it’s probably solar variation.

    CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
    by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
    Excel: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Rev_CO2-Global-Warming-Climate-and-Energy-June2019-FINAL.xlsx

    1a. In 2008 I made the following major observations:
    a. The velocity of changes of atmospheric CO2 [dCO2/dt] varies ~contemporaneously with changes in global temperature (Fig.1a).
    b. Therefore the integral of dCO2/dt, changes in atmospheric CO2, lag changes in global atmospheric temperature by ~9 months (Fig.1b).

    Later I was advised that Kuo et al (1990) made a similar observation to ‘b’, as did Keeling (1995), in papers published in Nature. Neither noted point ‘a’ above.

    Kuo’s and Keeling’s findings have been carefully ignored for decades by the warmist camp – another “inconvenient truth”.

    Fig.1a – The very close relationship of dCO2/dt vs global temperature is clearly apparent. Major volcanoes disrupt the relationship.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14

    5. UAH LT Global Temperatures can be predicted ~4 months in the future with just two parameters:

    UAHLT (+4 months) = 0.2*Nino34Anomaly + 0.15 – 5*SatoGlobalAerosolOpticalDepth (Figs. 5a and 5b)

    Note the suppression of air temperatures during and after the 1982-83 El Nino, due to two century-scale volcanoes El Chichon (1982) and Mount Pinatubo (1991+).
    Much of the atmospheric warming from ~1982-1996 (blue trend) was a recovery from the two major volcanoes – Nino34 SST’s (purple trend) cooled slightly.

    Note that Nino34 temperatures have cooled strongly in the past month – will we see a repeat of the failed 2019 harvest on the Great Plains again this year?
    tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png

    6. The sequence is Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms, Global atmospheric temperature warms, atmospheric CO2 increases (Figs.6a and 6b).

    Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. may also cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2. However, global temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.

    7a. Why does the lag of atmospheric CO2 changes after temperature changes equal ~9 months?
    In a perfect sine wave, the integral lags its derivative by pi/2, or 1/4 cycle.
    There should therefore be approximately a (4 times 9 months = 36 months) 3 year average period in the data.
    And there is – the inter-related datasets above show a ~3-year period, with the integral lagging its derivative by ~1/4 cycle.

    • “The short-term warming AND cooling mechanism is described in this paper.”

      Does it explain why there’s been precious little cooling for two hundred years.

      • Loydo asked: “Does it explain why there’s been precious little cooling for two hundred years?”

        Au contraire, Earth cooled from ~1945 to 1977, despite a huge increase in fossil fuel consumption that began with WW2. That observation, among many others, disproves the false “increasing fossil fuel combustion drives dangerous global warming” mantra preached by global warming alarmists. That global warming (CAGW) hypothesis has always been false – not only false, but deliberately fraudulent, a global-scale scam and the most costly scientific fraud in history.

        Your answer is in the last sentence of my first paragraph, capitalized below:
        “Greenhouse warming probably has little or no impact on global temperatures. Climate is INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2. The short-term warming AND cooling mechanism is described in this paper. LONGER TERM, IT’S PROBABLY SOLAR VARIATION.”

        The Sun-global temperature relationship is apparent – see Sections 11 and 12 in this paper – re Shaviv and Soon.
        THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (CAGW) AND THE HUMANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE CRISES ARE PROVED FALSE
        By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng., January 10, 2020
        https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-cagw-and-the-humanmade-climate-change-crises-are-proved-false.pdf

        Here are more details in a recent note from Nir:

        Allan: Here are several papers:

        These are two papers that show that the amount of heat going into the oceans every solar cycle is huge (an order of magnitude more than just changes in the solar irradiance).
        Paper I: http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/%7Eshaviv/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf
        Shaviv, N. J. 2008. Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing.Journalof Geophysical Research (Space Physics),113(A12), 11101.

        Paper II: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JA020732/abstract
        Howard, Daniel, Shaviv, Nir J., & Svensmark, Henrik. 2015. The solar and Southern Oscillationcomponents in the satellite altimetry data.Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics,120(5), 3297–3306. 2014JA020732

        This is a more recent graph using ocean heat content, showing exactly the same thing (though not in a refereed paper):
        twitter.com/nshaviv/status/1182704967242661891

        I also suggest you take a look at my blog post from last summer in which I discuss why the arguments against a strong solar forcing are incorrect.
        sciencebits.com/solar-debunking-arguments-are-defunct

        Cheers
        — Nir

        • I would describe that as “precious little” cooling – in comparison to the warming. I suppose if you assume there are no such thing as decadal fluctuations you’d be right.

          Btw it is futile to endlessly repost opinion pieces about what your past opinions were.

        • Alan Macrae:

          “You wrote “Au contraire, earth cooled from ~ 1945 to 1977, despite a huge increase in fossil fuel consumption that began with WW2”

          Correction: Earth cooled from ~1945 to 1977 BECAUSE of a huge increase in fossil fuel consumption that began with WW2.

          The reason for the cooling was because of a massive increase in dimming anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions, which increased from a reported 45 Megatons in 1945 to a reported 133 Megatons in 1977 (actually peaked at 136 Megatons in 1979).

          This information is available from the Community Emissions Data System (CEDS), which tracks reactive atmospheric gasses. At this time, it ends at 2014, with 111 Megatons reported, currently est, at < 80 Megatons.

          Removal of the SO2 pollution by global Clean Air efforts is the actual cause of the temperature increase which has occurred since them. As you say, it has NOTHING to do with CO2.

          With respect to El Ninos, ALL of them are caused by decreases in Atmospheric SO2 levels, and all La Ninas are due to increased SO2 levels in the atmosphere. A random VEI4 or higher volcanic eruption causes a La Nina (unless it erupts during an El Nino), and when its SO2 settles out, temperatures warm up to pre-eruption levels, and usually enough higher to form an El Nino. Other causes of El Ninos are large reductions in SO2 emissions due to Clean Air efforts, and business cycles, where many industries temporarily shut down and reduce the amount of SO2 pollution in the atmosphere. The shutdowns also reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which hypothetically should cause cooling, but it is never seen, because CO2 is harmless.

          There are NO La Nina or El Nino cycles, and because their occurrences are strictly random, they can never be modeled, although their aftereffects are predictable.

          So, just track the amount of SO2 in the atmosphere, it is the control knob for Earth's climate.

          • Burl – aerosol cooling is a pretty story that was disproved long ago.

            It takes a century-scale volcano to significantly impact global temperatures – like El Chichon in 1982 or Mt Pinatubo in 1991+.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/29/this-is-how-climate-works-part-2/#comment-1968651

            COMMENTS FROM DR. D V HOYT IN 2006 RE CLIMATE MODEL TUNING, TO FALSE-FORCE THE MODELS TO HINDCAST THE GLOBAL COOLING THAT OCCURRED FROM ~1940 TO ~1975:

            We’ve known the warmists’ climate models were false alarmist nonsense for a long time.

            As I wrote (above) in 2006:

            “I suspect that both the climate computer models and the input assumptions are not only inadequate, but in some cases key data is completely fabricated – for example, the alleged aerosol data that forces models to show cooling from ~1940 to ~1975…. …the modelers simply invented data to force their models to history-match; then they claimed that their models actually reproduced past climate change quite well; and then they claimed they could therefore understand climate systems well enough to confidently predict future catastrophic warming?”,

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/new-paper-global-dimming-and-brightening-a-review/#comment-138331

            Allan MacRae (03:23:07) 28/06/2009 [excerpt]

            Repeating Hoyt : “In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly.”
            ___________________________

            Here is an email received from Douglas Hoyt [in 2009 – my comments in square brackets]:

            It [aerosol numbers used in climate models] comes from the modelling work of Charlson where total aerosol optical depth is modeled as being proportional to industrial activity.

            [For example, the 1992 paper in Science by Charlson, Hansen et al]
            sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/255/5043/423

            or [the 2000 letter report to James Baker from Hansen and Ramaswamy]
            74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:DjVCJ3s0PeYJ:www-nacip.ucsd.edu/Ltr-Baker.pdf+%22aerosol+optical+depth%22+time+dependence&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

            where it says [para 2 of covering letter] “aerosols are not measured with an accuracy that allows determination of even the sign of annual or decadal trends of aerosol climate forcing.”

            Let’s turn the question on its head and ask to see the raw measurements of atmospheric transmission that support Charlson.
            Hint: There aren’t any, as the statement from the workshop above confirms.
            __________________________

            IN SUMMARY

            There are actual measurements by Hoyt and others that show NO trends in atmospheric aerosols, but volcanic events are clearly evident.

            So Charlson, Hansen et al ignored these inconvenient aerosol measurements and “cooked up” (fabricated) aerosol data that forced their climate models to better conform to the global cooling that was observed pre~1975.

            Voila! Their models could hindcast (model the past) better using this fabricated aerosol data, and therefore must predict the future with accuracy. (NOT)

            That is the evidence of fabrication of the aerosol data used in climate models that (falsely) predict catastrophic humanmade global warming.

            And we are going to spend trillions and cripple our Western economies based on this fabrication of false data, this model cooking, this nonsense?

            *************************************************

          • ALAN MACRAE:

            Whoever “disproved” the aerosol connection was COMPLETELY wrong.

            Earth’s climate is extremely sensitive to the amount of SO2 aerosols circulating in the atmosphere.

            For example, a simple event such as a business recession will cause temperatures to rise, typically by 0.2 deg. C or more, because there are fewer industrial emissions of SO2 into the atmosphere at that time. This is the roughly the same amount of warming seen after the SO2 aerosols from a VEI4 volcanic eruption have settled out of the atmosphere.

          • Hi Burl. You wrote:
            “So, just track the amount of SO2 in the atmosphere, it is the control knob for Earth’s climate.”
            We disagree.

            In part, you are arguing with D.V. Hoyt, a world-class scientist of the “old school” (pre-Climate-Fraudster). I have great respect for Doug Hoyt.
            http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/guido/PHY2502/articles/solar-activity/Hoyt-Schatten.pdf

            The Sato Optical Air Index shows NO trends related to industrial activity – it’s ~all caused by major volcanoes. See Fig. 1 of Sato et al (1993) below.

            I have found an approximate 3-year cycle in the ENSO, that leads to a ~9-month (1/4 cycle) lag in atmospheric CO2 changes AFTER temperature changes (MacRae 2008 and 2019).

            We do agree that climate is NOT significantly driven by increasing atmospheric CO2.

            Selected References:

            https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/

            Sato, M., J.E. Hansen, M.P. McCormick, and J.B. Pollack 1993: Stratospheric aerosol optical depth, 1850-1990. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 22987-22994.
            http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1993/1993_Sato_sa08000d.pdf
            [excerpt]
            In period 1 (1850-1882) we have only very crude estimates of, aerosol optical thickness based on the volume of e3ecta from ma3or known volcanoes, supported by qualitative reports of atmospheric optical phenomena.
            Period 2 (1883-1959) has measurements of solar extinction, but during the time of principal volcanic activity (1883-1915) the data are confined to middle-latitude northern hemisphere observatories.
            Period 3 (1960-1978) has more widespread measurements of solar and stellar extinction, lunar eclipses, and some in situ sampling of aerosol properties.
            Period 4 (1979-1990) adds precise widespread data from satellite measurements.

    • Edit – add one sentence:
      I call BS. Greenhouse warming probably has little or no impact on global temperatures. Climate is INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2. The short-term warming AND cooling mechanism is described in this paper. Longer term, it’s probably solar variation.

  15. If Trump wins in November, there will ne La Nina.
    However if Biden triumphs then we’ll get an el Nino.

  16. Further to Allan MacRae’s detailed analysis, I took a closer look at one specific example of the relationship between a major El Niño and growth in atmospheric CO2. The 2015-2016 El Niño has the advantage of not being followed immediately by a strong La Niña and hence can be considered in isolation of other ENSO variations. The plot linked below is shown exactly as it was presented by NOAA, but with two additions: the period covered by Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) values over +0.5 is shown schematically (not to scale), with the months above the “moderate” El Niño threshold of +1.0 also highlighted (more details at https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm); and, the approximate long term trends in CO2 growth before and after the El Niño. The black line is NOAA’s derivation of the monthly CO2 values after removal of the average seasonal cycle and hence reflects longer term growth trends.

    https://i.postimg.cc/hGPj4L8t/Monthly-CO2-at-MLO-2.jpg

    One advantage of this plot is that the changes in rate of growth are clearly visible without the need to take derivatives. It is evident that growth in atmospheric CO2 “kicks up” about 3 months after the ONI gets above 1.0 and is at roughly double the previous rate of 2 ppm/year for about 9 months before dropping back to around 2 ppm/year. The increase in atmospheric CO2 due to the El Niño is about 2 ppm (the offset between the trends before and after).

  17. Thank you Jim for this:

    https://i.postimg.cc/hGPj4L8t/Monthly-CO2-at-MLO-2.jpg

    “One advantage of this plot is that the changes in rate of growth are clearly visible without the need to take derivatives. It is evident that growth in atmospheric CO2 “kicks up” about 3 months after the ONI gets above 1.0 and is at roughly double the previous rate of 2 ppm/year for about 9 months before dropping back to around 2 ppm/year. The increase in atmospheric CO2 due to the El Niño is about 2 ppm (the offset between the trends before and after).”

    A question that has been bothering me for a while:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14

    This decades-long close relationship between dCO2/dt and global UAHLT temperature has been deviating lately. I have not taken the time to analyze it so I don’t understand why this is happening.

    In the past, major volcanoes El Chichon (1982) and Pinatubo (1991+) disrupted the relationship. That does not seem to be the situation recently, so what is the cause? Is the data faulty or is there something that is significant happening?

  18. A very long time ago I asked how they could model the earth’s climate when they couldn’t model a subset in the Pacific. Of course, no one could answer.

    Anyone who has done extensive modeling of a non-linear, coupled, chaotic system – like the markets – knows how ridiculous it is to curve-fit a computer model to the relatively poor climate data and expect that model to output anything but junk.

  19. I have determined the likely cause of interglacial events to be sustained increase in the outputs of the 100,000 large submarine volcanoes heating the oceans directly. In preparing this Paper the El NIno event became of interest. No one here is mentioning that there has been an observed connection between seismic activity and the El Nino events. It is possible for a large event to add enough local heat to the oceans to cause localised warming, such as the recent Mayotte event that added 20 Exajoules in 6 months to the Indian Ocean off Madagascar, in the form of an 800m high 5km^3 formation of 1200 deg magma, which almost certainly added its energy to that season’s East African cyclone activity and aggravated flooding.

    It is not a secret that the Galapagos are above an established long term hot spot, which generated them, fed from the volcanic activity of three interacting tectonic plates, much of which will be at significant depth and largely unknown.

    I find it odd that such a powerful source of heat, that is constantly changed by the variable solid tides in the Earth’s crust, that are at a maximum at the equator, is simply ignored in these discussions, as insignificant and invariate. It isn’t.

    As my study of the cause of interglacial events showed, observations show such assumptions to be unsupportable assertions that are disproved by the available observational evidence. The amount and variability of magma warming of the oceans by submarine volcanoes is both significant and significantly variable, while, even if the land based volcanoes just blot out the sun for a year or so now and again, they are not major perturbations the natural oceanic control system cannot return to equilibrium, whereas the submarine volcanoes deliver massive amounts of heat energy unseen and directly to the deep oceans , many times the diverging submarine ridges output, or the internal heat of conduction.

    JUst sayin”

      • Atmospheric effects on global temperatures of the small number of surface volcanoes are not on the same scale as direct submarine heating of the oceans from the much larger submarine population of volcanoes by magma. BUT I should have said this is obviously a smaller and more localised effect in comoarison to the massive increase in such heating during the interglacial warmings. It may work in combination with the Pacific thermoclines hence the variability in the El NIno spacing in time. Nobody knows. If it does happen with submarine volcanic help there will probably be smaller scale solid gravitational tides exciting the tectonic junction, that create the seismic increases as shown by Vitterito, but I have no information on other than the three Milankovitch cycles. There is a possibility of harmonics to the natural frequencies of orbital forcings we already observe. FYI, other than the moon and Sun, the 11 year variation in the gravitational effect of Jupiter’s orbit on Earth is 1% of the moons gravitational force, from nearest to furthest, on my calculation. So “not a lot”.

        But this is not about the relatively small effects of the surface emissions of the relatively few surface volcanoes, its about the ten times more emissive one Million volcanoes under the oceans, c.100,000 over 1 km high, depositing all their energy into the ocean mass from an average emission rate of 28×10^6 km^3 pa EACH – currently. Scott White et al. More than doubling at Milankovitch peak seismic gravitational effects during interglacials – Kutterolf et al. All in my paper.

        And there is no natural feedback available to reverse SSTs changed by such direct heating from below, whereas there is with atmospheric effects that can respond to the change in the atmospheric transparency by reducing evaporation and cloud formation to increase the Solar insolation at the surface to reverse the heating and balance the system. However the planet’s ocean surface must warm or cool to respond to direct submarine volcanic heating, changing the equilibrium ocean SST to change evaporation and hence clouds and create a new equilibrium temperature, which characterises the ice age temperature profile from the combined gravitational effects of all three Milankovitch cycles, matching the volcanic heating by reducing solar heating by reducing SST. Simples! Not really 🙂

        But the dominant control of oceanic response always maintains Earth’s SST in the observed narrow equilibrium range at even the maximum instability of the interglacial perturbation.

        If you check the explanation and maths in the paper this is explained as clearly as I can make it, with the evidentiary papers. Maths is basic and clearly set out. Was it unclear? Exajoules are deposited from just one volcanic event. As I wrote, the effects of surface emissions from volcanoes are small AND easily corrected by the natural evaporative feedback effect from the oceans.

        In the case of eruption masking the sun evaporation AKA heat loss is reduced by SST reduction of the cooling surface and also reduced cloud formation allows more heat to reach surface to maintain equilibrium.

        Magma heats the high heat capacity oceans directly with 1,200 degree rock from beneath, so cannot be offset by the same mechanism.

        e.g. As the steady ocean rise during the very variable interglacial Dryas events shows, there was NO significant change in the rate of sea level rise when the land temperatures returned to near glacial after the over half way initial warming rise on land. WHY?

        PERHAPS BECAUSE there was a major super volcano event or more, from the SAME increase in sustained seismic activity that is driving the universally increased volcanicity at this time (we know this is fact at all MIlankovitch peaks BTW – Kutterolf et al).

        This would have reduced the solar heating of the land and ocean surface, as you point out, so the Sun/atmosphere combination was not warming the planets surface for some time and the oceans could not respond adequately for some time by evaporation . BUT the submarine volcanoes were still warming the rising oceans unabated, and in the end the ocean heat content is 1,000 times greater than the atmospheric heat content and controls the global climate, not the land, so the interglacial we now enjoy still happened, albeit 4 degrees colder than usual at the poles, as some of the m heat energy of the last previous 3 interglacials was lost in overcoming the Dryas events.

        Probably.

        The numbers and the physical effects work, but you have to check them and, in particular consider the lack of natural feedback to control any geothermal heat input from the interior versus the strong negative feedback control of evaporating oceans and cloud control available to neutralise change in either direction by modifying the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface.

Comments are closed.