Response to Willis Eschenbach’s WUWT Post “How The El Nino Is Changing”

Does the start date of Willis Eschenbach’s comparison graph, his Figure 5 (my Figure 1 below), in his recent post at WattsUpWithThat titled “How The El Nino Is Changing”, impact the trends toward La Niña conditions? Answer: Yes. A 9-year earlier start date flattens the trends.

INTRODUCTION

Initial Note: The title of Willis’s recent post at WUWT caught my interest, because it was ENSO related. As you may recall, back when I was blogging regularly, for many years, I wrote many dozens of posts that were cross-posted at WUWT about the El Niño Southern Oscillation, and the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that drive El Niño and La Niña events, and the aftereffects of those events. In Willis’s post, I was hoping to find analyses and documentation of ENSO coupled ocean-atmosphere processes to show how those were changing. But what did I find? A comparison graph of ENSO indices with linear trends and a curious start date.

So, with that in mind, let’s take a look at that comparison graph, Willis’s Figure 5, which I’ve included as my Figure 1, below. His caption for that comparison graph reads,“Figure 5. LOWESS smooths of four El Nino indices, along with their straight-line trends. El Niño conditions are more positive, La Nina conditions are more negative.”

Figure 1

First: When I was blogging regularly, I had been examining, preparing, and posting graphs of ENSO indices for many years so the first thing that stood out to me was the start year, just before the 1980 hashmark. That caught the attention of at least one other person commenting on the post at WUWT, because most ENSO indices include many decades of data prior to 1980. See the comment by Richard M here and my comment here. Willis’s response to those comments about the start year was that he wanted to include the newest ENSO index, the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), and that its data began in 1979.

Second: Notice in Willis’s graph that color-coded index for the curve and trend for the Southern Oscillation Index data is incorrectly identified as the “Southern Ocean Index”. Also note a second typo. NOAA has a NINO3.4 Index, not a NINO34 Index.

Third: Willis has inverted the off-equatorial Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) data. Normally, Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) data is presented without being inverted so that El Niño spikes are downward and La Niña spikes are upward, which is the opposite of how they appear with the other indices. Of course, he inverted the SOI data so that he could include that off-equatorial ENSO index in his comparison graph.

Fourth: Following his Figure 5, Willis states in the text of his post:

“You can see the peaks representing the big El Ninos around 1997-98 and 2015-16. Recall that according to my thermoregulatory hypothesis, the Pacific should be trending towards a more La Nina condition which is more negative.
“And all four indices, in varying amounts, show this exact outcome—in response to the slow gradual warming since 1980, we have more La Nina conditions cooling the planet.”

I had never heard of Willis’s “thermoregulatory hypothesis” prior to reading his recent post (linked above). Therefore, it will be up to you readers to comment on whether the flattening of the trend lines when the data for the ENSO indices starts in 1970, as shown in the graphs below, has any impact on his “thermoregulatory hypothesis”. I also have a question for you readers about the above quoted paragraphs from Willis’s post. Why did he identify the strong 1997/98 and 2015/16 El Niños, but not the strong El Niño of 1982/83, or the strong one of 1987/88 (portion of the 1986/87/88 El Niño), or the strong 1991/92 El Niño? Those other three El Niño events all exceeded NOAA’s +1.5 deg C threshold for a strong El Niño.

Fifth, regarding the start year of Willis’s graph, I stated in a comment on that WUWT thread that the 1980 (1979) start year was curious, considering that it was a few years prior to the strong 1982/83 El Niño. Further on that thread, I suggested to Willis that he exclude the data for the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) and he start a set of reference graphs in 1970 to include the La Niña dominant early-to-mid 1970s in an effort to see what happened to the trends. I advised him that I would present them, if he chose not to. He chose not to, as far as I know, so I did. They follow.

So, let’s start the presentation.

A FEW NOTES ABOUT THE FOLLOWING GRAPHS

The following three pairs of time series graphs are provided to show the easily discernable flattening of the trend lines when the start date for the ENSO index graphs is changed from 1979 (used by Willis Eschenbach in his post at WUWT) to 1970. In the graphs starting in 1970, the strong 1972/73 El Niño and the three La Niña events (one moderate, two strong) in the early-to-mid 1970s really stand out in the graphs of the ONI and NINO3.4 data…not so much in the SOI data.

Why did I use 1970 as the start year? The early to mid 1970s are dominated by La Niña events, as are the most recent years. In other words, with the 1970 start year, the graph starts and ends in periods dominated by La Niña events, making it difficult for anyone to accuse me of cherry picking the start year.

I didn’t use any smoothing on the data in the graphs. That would reduce the magnitude of the ENSO variations and make the trends appear greater by comparison. Additionally, as I presented the data for each index individually, there was no need to standardize the data. As a result, the graphs are of data as provided by the suppliers, which are linked in the following discussions.

OCEANIC NINO INDEX (ONI) GRAPHS

Figures 2a and 2b present the unsmoothed monthly Oceanic Nino Index (ONI) data (data here), with 2a starting in January 1979 and 2b with the data starting in January 1970. With the 1979 start (Figure 2a), there is a noticeable trend from positive values to negative, but with the 1970 start (Figure 2b) the trend line flattens greatly.

Figure 2a

Figure 2b

NOAA NINO3.4 INDEX GRAPHS

Figures 3a and 3b present the unsmoothed monthly NOAA NINO3.4 Index data (data here), 3a with the data starting in January 1979 and 3b with the data starting in January 1970. With the 1979 start (Figure 3a), there is a very minor trend from positive values to negative, but with the 1970 start (Figure 3b) the trend changes sign to a very minor trend from negative to positive.

Figure 3a

Figure 3b

SOUTHERN OSCILLATION INDEX (SOI) GRAPHS

A reminder: The noisy, off-equatorial, sea-level-pressure-based Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) data shows El Niño events as downward spikes and La Niña events as upward ones…the opposite of the sea surface temperature-based ENSO indices. Figures 4a and 4b present the unsmoothed monthly Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) data (data here), 4a with the data starting in January 1979 and 4b with the data starting in January 1970. With the 1979 start (Figure 4a), there is a noticeable trend from negative (El Niño) values to positive (La Niña) ones, but with the 1970 start (Figure 4b) the trend flattens very noticeably.

Figure 4a

Figure 4b

A FINAL GRAPH: UNSMOOTHED MULTIVARIATE ENSO INDEX (MEI) DATA SHOWS SOMETHING VERY CURIOUS

Figure 5 presents the unsmoothed monthly Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) starting in January 1979 (data here). A couple of things stand out: Note how the strong El Niño of 2015/16 has a lesser peak value than strong 1982/83 and 1997/98 El Niños, while with the sea-surface-temperature-only-based ENSO indices (ONI and NINO3.4 Index) show the 2015/16 El Niño peaks at a higher value than the other two. Note also how the La Niña events toward the end of the MEI data have much greater negative values than the ONI and NINO3.4 data, while toward the beginning, the La Niñas have lesser negative values.

Figure 5

The MEI data appears very skewed toward a negative trend compared to the sea-surface-temperature-only-based ENSO indices; therefore, the next time some alarmist says that strong El Niños are growing stronger due to global warming show them a graph of the MEI data.

CLOSING

In closing, here’s a very brief introduction to El Niño events from one of my recent short stories. It was also included in a 2019 post here at WUWT:

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.” … “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.

Further from that post:

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...

I hope you enjoyed this post. Have fun.

Regards,
Bob

Originally posted at Bob Tisdale — Climate Observations

4.9 38 votes
Article Rating
168 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen Wilde
December 14, 2022 10:09 pm

Useful to have Bob’s confirmation that there were more La Ninas relative to El Ninos during the 60s and 70s cooling spell and then again more recently.
That tends to support my suggestion that the balance between the two phenomena is solar related.

Stephen Wilde
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
December 14, 2022 10:20 pm

Wavier jet stream tracks involve more clouds so that less solar energy gets into the oceans and El Ninos weaken relative to La Ninas.
To get wavier jet stream tracks it is necessary to alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
To alter that gradient requires a change in the balance of the stratospheric ozone creation/destruction process above the equator as compared to above the poles.
It appears that solar variations involving changes in the mix of particles and wavelengths from the sun do have a differential effect on stratospheric ozone amounts above equator and poles.
The relevant finding back around 2004 was that contrary to expectations the quieter sun was associated with an increase in ozone above 45km over the poles whilst there was a decrease below 45km over the equator.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
December 20, 2022 7:05 pm

“Wavier jet stream tracks involve more clouds so that less solar energy gets into the oceans and El Ninos weaken relative to La Ninas.”

A wavier jet stream is negative NAO/AO which means slower trade winds and more El Nino. The mid 1970’s saw very strong solar wind states driving a positive NAO/AO regime, causing multi-year La Nina and a colder AMO, and colder SST’s outside the tropics increase low cloud cover.

solarwindtempandpressure.PNG
Stephen Wilde
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 15, 2022 1:22 am

You said in the text that the early to mid 70s were a time of more dominant La Ninas.

Stephen Wilde
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
December 15, 2022 1:23 am

The early to mid 70s were during the 60s and 70s cooling spell.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
December 15, 2022 3:12 am

the two processes are utterly arbitrary human inventions.
hence the use of an index as a “metric” as opposed to real units with physical dimensionality

Stephen Wilde
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 15, 2022 5:40 am

Consciousness is an utterly arbitrary human invention but we can appreciate it.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 15, 2022 7:06 am

Noting connections in weather patterns related to sea surface temperatures in a given area is hardly an arbitrary invention. People in California or Australia realize the reality of ENSO influence on weather.

See - owe to Rich
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 16, 2022 1:39 am

And even a senior meteorologist in Pakistan opined that La Nina had an influence on this year’s heavy monsoon season and attendant flooding.

bnice2000
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 15, 2022 5:17 pm

“are utterly arbitrary human inventions.”

As is AGW.. what is your pointless point ?

bnice2000
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 15, 2022 5:20 pm

“utterly arbitrary human inventions.”

Having worked as a mouthpiece for BEST..

… Mosh would know exactly what “utterly arbitrary human inventions.” were.

BEST is riddled with them.

Thomas
December 14, 2022 10:25 pm

It occurred to me that El Ninos are actually global, ocean/atmosphere cooling events. Hot water, that had been stored in the Pacific warm pool, sloshes back across the Pacific and is exposed to the atmosphere. The heat escapes the ocean and warms the atmosphere, which then radiates the excess heat to deep space. The overall ocean/atmosphere system contains less heat after an El Nino that it did before. The atmosphere (where we live) warms, but then quickly cools again. It seems like warming to use because the heat is passing through the atmosphere on its way to outer space, but the system is actually cooling.

John Tillman
Reply to  Thomas
December 14, 2022 11:01 pm

The ~11-year solar cycle controls trade wind strength, hence ENSO.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190328150946.htm

lgl
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 15, 2022 12:49 pm
Chad Jessup
Reply to  lgl
December 15, 2022 2:44 pm

A quote from that article: “The Equatorial Undercurrent (EUC) in the Pacific Ocean (Cromwell et al., 1954) flows eastward along the equator with a thickness of~200 m and a width of about 400 km. It is generally centered at 50 to 200 m depth and slopes upward to the east along the equatorial thermocline (Kessler et al., 1998), with a zonal mass transport of 30-40 Sv (1 Sv=1 ×10 6 m 3 s -1 ; Johnson et al., 2002;Izumo, 2005;Halpern et al., 2015). As the strongest subsurface current in the equatorial current system, the EUC transports warm, high-salinity, nutrientrich, and CO 2 -rich water eastward, maintaining the zonal balance of water mass and heat in the equatorial Pacific Ocean

lgl
Reply to  Chad Jessup
December 16, 2022 1:17 am

It’s at 16-19 deg C. Colder than the surface.

lgl
Reply to  Chad Jessup
December 16, 2022 5:54 am

Btw, that is not a quote from the article.

Janice Moore
Reply to  lgl
December 15, 2022 3:20 pm

lgl, (ahem). Your remark SUPPORTS Bob Tisdale. He said that the North Pacific Equatorial Undercurrent’s cooling effect was suppressed.

As also say these researchers:

Abstract

***
Westerly wind bursts (in December 1996 and March and June 1997) were found to play a decisive role in the onset of the 1997–98 El Niño. They contributed to the early warming in the eastern Pacific because the downwelling Kelvin waves that they excited diminished subsurface cooling there.

***

5. The 1997–98 El Niño

***

a. Interannual anomalies in the surface-layer heat budget

… in the eastern Pacific the second downwelling Kelvin wave add[ed] to the effect of the previous one on the SST evolution. Cooling by local vertical processes [was] quickly completely suppressed (Fig. 13d).

*** With the SST in the eastern Pacific beginning to rise above its normal values (Fig. 12a), the atmospheric fluxes also beg[an] to act as a negative feedback … .

Associated with these conditions (suppressed subsurface cooling in the east, strong positive zonal advection in the western and central Pacific), the warm anomalies amplif[ied] until June. The suppression of the subsurface cooling [was] the main cause of the temperature rise in the eastern Pacific. 

***

(Source: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/phoc/31/7/1520-0485_2001_031_1649_amsoom_2.0.co_2.xml )

Edited for clarity and style. jm

lgl
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 16, 2022 3:37 am

Where in that article is the support for
“warm subsurface waters from the West Pacific Warm Pool to be carried eastward along the Pacific Equatorial Undercurrent by warm Kelvin waves, where those warm subsurface waters rise to the surface and warm the surface in what is known as an El Nino.” ?

lgl
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 16, 2022 6:12 am

Wrong again. You are showing a moving anomaly, not water moving. It’s a vertical displacement of the thermocline. Like any wave, the motion is mostly local and vertical, not long distance horisontal. Just like a surface wave crossing the Pacific is not moving any water across the Pacific.

lgl
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 16, 2022 6:49 am

Hehe, I just linked to detailed analysis of the EUC. Read up.

lgl
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 16, 2022 7:00 am

So what. A Kelvin wave is still a wave. Not moving water from west to east. The displacement of the thermocline means less upwelling cold water. That, and less wind, is what’s ‘warming’ the surface, not warm water from the western pacific.

lgl
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 16, 2022 7:54 am

Maybe you should try making a wave in your bathtub and see how much water is moved from one end to the other.

lgl
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 16, 2022 10:51 am

Nice illustration of the effects of the super-greenhouse moving eastwards and reduced upwelling of cold water in the east.

John Tillman
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 15, 2022 3:59 pm

During higher solar radiation, the trade winds weaken and Walker circulation shifts eastward. There’s also the effect of UV variation on air pressure.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
John Tillman
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 15, 2022 6:21 pm

Observational data support the solar cycle connection:

Correlation between solar activity and El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4930679?journalCode=apc#:~:text=ENSO%20occurs%20at%20irregular%20interval,periodical%20Sunspot%20number%20(R).

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
December 16, 2022 4:59 am

In El Niño, trade winds weaken first, thanks to the solar cycle:

https://www.issibern.ch/teams/interplanetarydisturb/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Asikainen_03_2014.pdf

Leo Smith
Reply to  John Tillman
December 15, 2022 1:39 am

People always see cycles in chaotic data. The mind likes patterns.

commieBob
Reply to  Leo Smith
December 15, 2022 4:02 am

Cycles are very common. Sometimes they’re nice, well behaved, periodic cycles. That makes them predictable.

Sometimes the cycles aren’t reliably periodic and are called quasiperiodic. As such they aren’t predictable without other techniques. For example, you can’t predict sunspots based on their period, but you can predict them using other techniques.

Sometimes people throw an FFT at chaotic data and imagine that they have found cycles. Of course, if you change the sampling window, their cycles disappear. 🙂

Tim Gorman
Reply to  commieBob
December 15, 2022 4:19 am

I’ve never really gotten into them but I think wavelet analysis will somewhat alleviate this be isolating the cycles in time. The problem with wavelets (as I understand it) is that relationship between amplitude and time is that if one goes up the other goes down. So you have to use a compromise in your window size.

Perhaps a wavelet analysis is more appropriate for a quasi-periodic cycle.

commieBob
Reply to  Tim Gorman
December 15, 2022 4:56 am

There’s a simple test. A cycle recurs. If I have five hundred years of data, I can’t say there is a four hundred year cycle just on the basis of an FFT. There has to be some other evidence that the cycle actually recurs.

Having said the above, the signal processing routines in your cell phone look like they violate that rule. The reason they work is that the signal’s characteristics are very well known.

Steve Case
Reply to  Leo Smith
December 15, 2022 4:12 am

Yes indeed, the rate of sea level rise looks cyclic over the last 200 years and so does the temperature record since 1850.

Regarding the topic of El Niña patterns, it’s curious that the IPCC models can’t predict the occurrence El Niña and La Niña phenomena, but they can predict temperature and rain fall 100 years out.

farmerbraun
Reply to  Leo Smith
December 15, 2022 8:10 pm

“The mind likes patterns.”
It’s worse than that ; the mind seeks to assign meaning where there is none. 🙂

John Tillman
Reply to  Leo Smith
December 16, 2022 5:06 am

That there is a solar cycle is a fact. The data aren’t chaotic. It’s simply an observation of sunspots and measurements of variation in the spectral mix of solar radiation and strength of magnetic field, hence UV light and cosmic rays hitting Earth.

Then correlate these cycles with ENSO. The explanation for the correlation also relies on observations and well understood atmospheric and oceanic physics.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
December 16, 2022 3:56 pm

The correlation of the solar cycle with ENSO is strong. From 2021:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210405075853.htm

No surprise, given the physics.

aaron
Reply to  Thomas
December 15, 2022 8:15 am

They cause cloud changes that makes them warming events. See Roy Spencer.

Nick Stokes
December 14, 2022 10:39 pm

To see how trend might depend on start date, I think it is useful to plot trend against all possible start dates. Here is a plot of ONI trends to present (Nov 2022), starting at the date marked on the x axis. So yes, the trend does drop from starting 1970 to starting 1979.

comment image
 

RickWill
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 14, 2022 11:13 pm

So yes, the trend does drop from starting 1970 to starting 1979.

Only if you look at measured data. The models produce relentlessly rising trends until all the water boils off.

Nino34_NCEP_CSIRO.png
Ireneusz Palmowski
December 15, 2022 1:22 am

Galactic radiation is the most sensitive indicator of solar wind strength. The graph shows that solar wind strength increased in July and August 2022, coinciding with an increase in easterly winds in the equatorial Pacific. In September and October, the solar wind weakened, so Index Nino 3.4 remained unchanged. 
Since November, the strength of the solar wind has been increasing and Index Nino 3.4 has been decreasing. 
comment image
Why is this happening?
The solar wind hits high latitudes and affects changes in the energy of the winter stratospheric polar vortex (wind speed in the polar vortex). This in turn generates stronger latitudinal winds along the equator.
Of course, the monsoon’s response to changes in the strength of the solar wind comes with a delay.
comment image
If anyone has another hypothesis as to why La Nina lasts so long, please present it.

Ireneusz Palmowski
December 15, 2022 1:39 am

In addition to the temperature of the Humboldt Current, La Niña is currently being influenced by the pattern of the northern polar vortex and the decrease in the temperature of the California Current.
comment image
comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 15, 2022 5:05 am

Well, however, the forecast of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere indicates that the warm lows from the Pacific will “escape” over the Chukchi Sea.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/12/20/0600Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-120.68,67.49,446

Peta of Newark
December 15, 2022 1:55 am

C;mon boys & girls, let’s face it – it a pretty wonky oscillator – you’d hardly let it determine what year or decade it is let alone entrust your life to it

Sooooo, does that mean that as an oscillator, it’s either on its last legs and about to fall over or does that mean it’s only just starting up?

The fact that we can only go back 50 years is not inspiring any great confidence either way…..
But humans and their doings have been around for a stack longer than that – did they not notice it, did it not bother them? What record have they left to suggest anything.
One might venture “no” – because of that short record.

Especially as there are much bigger (similarly shaky) oscillators up and
wonking – ones that are bigger in both time and space. e.g. Ice Ages

Humans certainly have left a record – multiple records in fact and we refer to those as ‘deserts.

So, how do the presence or absence of deserts affect those oscillators?

“How” is maybe an attempt to run before we walk can BUT, the presence of deserts in conjunction with non-desert places certainly would be things that would set off an oscillator.
Because those are the prerequisites for any and all systems that are want to oscillate i.e. You need two ‘contrary’ things or places that the oscialltor can lurch abck and forth.
If everywhere was desert, everywhere would be dry and hot and there’s be nowhere for that ‘heat’ to go to.
Similarly, if everywhere was green/verdant and wet, there’d be nowhere for the cold and damp to move to.
Thus, Constant Everywhere precludes oscillators

Now, hopefully you see where I’m going.

We actually do appear to have an oscillator on our hands and we there must have hot/dry places and also cold/wet places.
Whether that’s 2 matchboxes on your desk or an ocean vs a continent. Principle is the same (Stirling Engine anyone?)
Or Central Africa vs The Sahara or Europe vs the North Atlantic

So, if the oscillator we have is changing its behaviour, as the relentless quest for cycles, trivia and minutia leads us to believe – why is the oscillator changing?

iow: Is the hot/dry place changing or is the cool/wet place changing

For the oscillator here, the hot/dry is Australia and the cool/wet is the Pacific

Seriously and looking at the graphs and their timescales also the immensity of the Pacific, can anyone really picture The Pacific going anywhere in a hurry?

Conclusion?

RickWill
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 15, 2022 3:46 am

A definite driver of instability is a combination of two facts:

  1. Warm pools are always mid level convergence zones. They get net precipitation. That means they have lower surface salinity than adjacent net evaporation zones.
  2. Higher salinity water has lower latent heat of evaporation than lower salinity water. That means as water becomes more saline, it takes less solar input to get water into the atmosphere over the cooler zone so surface warms faster.

Combining these two means that warm pools have a limited persistence. They move about but usually following the sun north to south or south to north.

There is some evidence that salinity is the initiating switch for ENSO phases but I have not been able to verify that because the salinity data from the tropical buoys is too sparse.

This paper discusses some observations:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep06821/

Although ocean salinity in the tropical Pacific (particularly in the western Pacific warm pool) can vary in response to El Niño events, its effect on ENSO evolution and forecasts of ENSO has been less explored. Here we present evidence that, in addition to the passive response, salinity variability may also play an active role in ENSO evolution and thus important in forecasting El Niño events. 

michael hart
Reply to  RickWill
December 15, 2022 5:30 am

Interesting.

I recall reading that the climate models do not take account for the variation of latent heat of evaporation with temperature. Approx 5%, I think, within the earth’s temperature range. That seems like an awful lot to me.

I’ll bet dimes for Dollars that the models don’t take similar salinity-affected changes into account.

Last edited 1 month ago by michael hart
Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 15, 2022 4:12 am

“can anyone really picture The Pacific going anywhere in a hurry?”
Not as of 2020.
comment image
comment image
comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 15, 2022 10:39 pm

SOI has been steadily positive since 2021, and is now rising again.
comment image
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/

Last edited 1 month ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
DMacKenzie
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 15, 2022 6:54 am

….wonky oscillator….Pacific in the middle, Bering Strait on right ?….

20C97DBA-3FFD-4213-A010-6428304B5996.gif
Last edited 1 month ago by DMacKenzie
SteveG
December 15, 2022 3:03 am

La Nina – El Nino — ??

All I know is its bloody cold for Summer.. Could do with some real global warming….

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

December 14 – 2022.

Melbourne recorded its coldest summer day in 16 years and a temperature record was broken in Victoria as the southern states shiver through another freezing morning.

The maximum temperature of 15.8C in Melbourne was the lowest on record for summer since 2006, while the mercury dipped to -5.4C on Mt Hotham for the state’s coldest ever summer day.

Persistent southerly winds and a sweeping low pressure system meant four capital cities had minimum temperatures of below 10C, including Canberra, where residents had to contend with temperatures as low as 1C early on Thursday morning.

Frost featured throughout the ACT, as well as the Victorian high country and parts of Tasmania’s Central Plateau.

Last edited 1 month ago by SteveG
RickWill
Reply to  SteveG
December 15, 2022 3:47 am

Probably not ideal for grape growers.

michael hart
Reply to  SteveG
December 15, 2022 5:37 am

Can’t help you I’m afraid, SteveG. Right now in the UK we also have no global warming to spare.

December 15, 2022 3:10 am

see all those charts
comment image?ssl=1

plotting indexs verus time?

then fitting a linear line

they are all WRONG

there is zero rationale to assume the underlying data generating process is linear in time
a linear fit is nonsense!!!

you dont know what your doing

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 15, 2022 1:21 pm

there is zero rationale to assume the underlying data generating process is linear in time

a linear fit is nonsense!!! [sic]

It depends! If one is dealing with a periodic function, such as the seasonal variation in atmospheric concentration of CO2 or the seasonal variation in temperature at a particular weather station, in the absence of clear evidence of acceleration, a linear fit may be quite appropriate for the long-term behavior of the measured parameter. It allows interpolation and limited extrapolation. That is the whole point of alarmists trying to scare everyone with trends. It is a convenient summary statistic, even if not explanatory.

bnice2000
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 15, 2022 5:32 pm

“process is linear in time”

So you are saying that absolutely ZERO climate scientists know what they are doing.

AGW exists on idiotic, fabricated, linear trends. !

Bob Weber
December 15, 2022 5:07 am

“I had never heard of Willis’s “thermoregulatory hypothesis” prior to reading his recent post (linked above).”

This just goes to show that one-trick pony Bob Tisdale doesn’t pay attention here at WUWT and lives in his own little self-centered bubble.

His reactions to others’ ideas show that Bob Tisdale is not capable of being a team player.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 15, 2022 8:46 am

Since when does WUWT have a team?”

No man is a island.

BTW, I didn’t fail at anything in my comment Bob.

FYI, sometimes I am a fan of Willis, and sometimes I’m not 😉

If you didn’t know about Willis’ hypothesis until just recently you’re out of touch Bob.

My answer to your demands is I don’t know, why should he have included those?

It doesn’t matter that he started his plots when MEI v2 data began, what he said was adequate, “Because it requires modern data, it can only be calculated post-1979.”

What the downtrend in MEI v2 means is fewer clouds, consistent with observations, consistent with Willis’ hypothesis, due to tropical cooling below his threshold.

Willis did claim something I don’t agree with, which I have highlighted:

“So … if we accept my hypothesis that the El Nino/La Nina alteration is an emergent phenomenon that acts to cool the planet, an obvious question arises—if the earth is gradually warming, will the Pacific shift towards more El Nino conditions, more La Nina conditions, or remain unchanged?

Clearly, if my hypothesis is correct, it will shift towards more cooling La Nina conditions.” – Willis E.

Since 1980 the climate, ie 30y SST, has followed the 30y integrated MEI only upward, with SST warming during predominantly El Nino conditions, so if the earth continue to warm more, it will do so from more El Nino conditions as it did before, not La Nina.

comment image

If Willis’ understanding of the ENSO is partially rooted in Bob Tisdale’s articles and if Bob Tisdale has missed something important as to what triggers or sustains these changes, then both are misguided in some respects, making both one-trick ponies in a sense, both missing the real guiding force, both engaged in two-dimensional thinking.

This means you both can be right about what you are saying but wrong about why.

The problem arises that your current thinking on ENSO can only explain why any changes happened by using a passively-driven discharge/recharge model, but that thought system can’t readily explain the bigger changes from net El Nino to net La Nina or vice versa, ie, what causes the hairpin changes in the 30y iMEI-SST.

What is a consistent single explanation for both the short & long term ENSO changes?

Until you both understand the thing you don’t understand you are operating in a bubble.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 15, 2022 10:34 am

coolclimateinfo. Your comment leaves more questions than it answers.

Bob,

CCI is clearly a troll (probably, one of Willis’s many WUWT “fanboys” — I say “boys” because not one female I have EVER seen on WUWT, since 2013, remains a “fan” of that angry megalomaniac). You have answered his or her half-truths and mischaracterizations and inexcusable rudeness with grace and on-point facts and reasoning.

Best laugh: AS IF not reading Willis’s posts makes one “out of touch.”

CCI’s whole game, here, is to put you on the defense by NOT answering questions

and

to make this about YOU, not about your arguments (because the data reveals that Willis has clearly lost the argument, so, all that is left is personal attacks to “defend” that troubled man).

The interesting question is why? Why would anyone take the time to defend Willis using such gutter-style debate? Unless they pity Willis’s inability and embarrassing, blind, hubris, and feel sorry for him… .

With high admiration for your excellent data analysis and for not dignifying most of CCI’s knavery with a response,

Janice

Last edited 1 month ago by Janice Moore
Rich Davis
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 17, 2022 6:53 am

Janice why do you use these ad hominem attacks against other skeptics? Don’t you see that it dissipates our already pitifully weak response to the dominant culture?

The common ground that matters to our survival is “There is no climate emergency”.

BurlHenry
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 15, 2022 2:19 pm

Bob Tisdale:

“My understandings of ENSO are supported by data”.

No, Bob, you have NO understanding as to what causes a cool La Nina or a warm El Nino, and without that understanding you have used your data to dream up an ENSO scenario. that misleads everyone. There are no oscillations or cycles, just random occurrences.

As I had informed you in the previous post by Willis, ALL La Nnas and El Ninos are the result of changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, or either Volcanic or Industrial origin. If their levels increase, average anomalous global temperatures decrease, often causing a La Nina, and if their levels decrease, average anomalous temperatures increase, usually causing an El Nino that warms up the Pacific ENSO regions..

This can be observed in an analysis of enlarged WoodForTrees.org interactive plots of .average anomalous land/ocean Global temperatures, using the less “adjusted” Hadcrut4 or 5 data sets.

Each temperature increase can be correlated with decreased levels of SO2 in the atmosphere (4 causes identified) and each temperature decrease correlates with more SO2 (2 causes identified) . .

Your response was to say “SO2 never enters into the picture”

In actuality, SO2 IS the picture.(and CO2 has no observable effect)

BurlHenry
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 16, 2022 9:00 am

Bob Tisdale:

My understanding of the subject is based upon a set of FACTS, which you were either apparently unaware of, or deliberately choose to ignore..

In either event, your faulty explanations as to the cause of the onset of El Ninos has seriously affected our understanding of Climate Change

It’s all about SO2 aerosols!

BurlHenry
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 18, 2022 8:50 pm

Bob Tisdale:

I have data to prove that what I am saying is correct. That does not make me a troll.

BurlHenry
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 18, 2022 9:26 pm

Bob Tisdale:

You say that I make bizarre claims about SO2 aerosols, then lie and say I do not support them with data.

The data is contained in my papers on Google Scholar, or on Research Gate. Read them if you need data.

For example, the paper “The Definitive cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures”, an analysis of the Central England Instrumental Temperatures Data set (1659-present) finds that every temperature decrease was caused by a volcanic eruption somewhere around the world.

Thus,volcanic SO2 aerosols circulate around the globe, affecting temperatures everywhere.They affect the tropical Pacific no matter where the eruption took place

Those coupled ocean-air processes do not drive ENSO events, they occur because the climate has warmed up because of fewer SO2 aerosol emissions.

And ENSO events do NOT cause global warming. The whole world .is simultaneously being warmed up by the reduced SO2 aerosol emissions. .

Rich Davis
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 15, 2022 6:19 pm

You’re really making an ass of yourself Bob. It’s a sad look.

A normal person could disagree with Willis without making it so personal.

This is the sort of vitriol that should be reserved for the likes of Michael Mann.

farmerbraun
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 15, 2022 8:20 pm

LOL!!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 15, 2022 10:19 pm

Bob Tisdale responded to Willis’s errors using DATA and impeccable analysis.

Your accusations of Tisdale’s “making it so personal” and “vitriol” are completely unsupported by ANY evidence.

Merely stating the fact that he no longer reads Willis’s articles is not to be “so personal” nor is it (or ANYTHING Tisdale wrote) “vitriol.”

You have embarrassed yourself here, Davis.

Your strong emotions led you into making false statements.

Those who read your remarks are now wondering why you felt so strongly…..

Rich Davis
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 16, 2022 3:29 am

I really don’t understand why apparently a significant group of you have lost the plot here.

It wasn’t strong emotion on my part. I don’t disagree with Bob that Willis jumped the shark with the starting date, which I think he convinced himself could be justified by it being the beginning of one of his datasets. When we have devoted a lot of time to something we get attached to our conclusions and impatient to find supporting evidence.

What I am talking about is the incessant snark tone coming from Bob, directed at Willis. It’s incongruous. There was no obvious instigation. Apparently it is an old animosity. That is also a bad look, implying a mean-spirited person who holds a grudge endlessly.

For the three other people who still think that the Christmas season has any relevance, a blessed Christmas to all.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 16, 2022 4:16 am

There’s that bad look again Bob.

I was of course talking about your entire sad performance on this post and also to your earlier unhinged comments on Willis’ original post.

I have no idea what your beef is with Willis. I know that he can be just as pig-headed and unreasonable at times as you’re behaving.

For me, if a person is skeptical of the Climastrology religion that is an existential threat to Western Civilization, I would like to see them as an ally, even if I have other disagreements with them.

You do a disservice to climate realism by pursuing a personal vendetta.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 16, 2022 1:32 pm

No Bob, far from being to-the-point, in both cases you avoided addressing the substance. That’s too bad.

You’re clearly airing a personal beef with Willis for reasons you don’t illuminate and refuse to even acknowledge what you’re doing, much less consider the suggestion that it’s counterproductive.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 17, 2022 6:17 am

Bob,
I wanted to be sure that I remembered the events correctly so as not to be unfair to you, so I went back to the original Willis posting and reviewed the comments again this morning.

I think that any other fair-minded observer would also come to the conclusion that I did. You attacked and goaded Willis and then you continued to escalate as Willis lost patience with you.

At the time you were admonished by Pat Franks and Allan Macrae specifically for your harsh uncalled-for tone, and that is what I referred to as vitriol.

Then I saw you revisiting the debacle, not with any retrospective regret about rancor, but by denigrating Willis’ thermoregulatory hypothesis, claiming to have never heard of it, and throwing it into scare quotes and creating a syllabus of Willis’ errors.

To what end, Bob?

I for one would suggest that you swallow your pride and apologize to Willis in private and put the unnecessary unpleasantness behind you.

Moriarty
Reply to  Bob Weber
December 15, 2022 8:43 am

Science is about “teams.”

Editor
Reply to  Moriarty
December 15, 2022 10:02 am

Mariarity ==> Wel, yes, all “The Science” comes from Teams — the CliSci Consensus Team, the Goverment’s-Covid-The-Science Team, the We-Are-The-Polar-Bear-Experts Team……

Janice Moore
Reply to  Moriarty
December 15, 2022 10:39 am

LOL. Not being a “team player” has absolutely nothing to do with this argument (Bob’s data analysis versus Willis’s).

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Moriarty
December 15, 2022 1:26 pm

What team was Einstein on?

John Tillman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 16, 2022 5:13 am

The Maxwell is right and Newton wrong team. The Lorentz transformations team.

Initially a small team but now big.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
Robert Watt
December 15, 2022 7:41 am

I read an article that said the Southern Hemisphere (SH) stratosphere has cooled by about 0.2 Celcius this year as a result of the vast quantity of water vapour thrown skywards by the Hunga Tonga submarine eruption in January 2022. Could this be the reason people in Australia are having a cold summer?

https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/cold-anomaly-stratosphere-polar-vortex-volcanic-cooling-winter-influence-fa/

Last edited 1 month ago by Robert Watt
Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Robert Watt
December 15, 2022 8:26 am

No, the thickening of the stratosphere increases the temperature of the stratosphere and cools the surface. The decrease in temperature in the upper stratosphere is caused by a decrease in ozone production due to a decrease in UV radiation.
comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
December 15, 2022 11:11 am

An increase in stratospheric opacity results in an increase in stratospheric temperature and a decrease in surface temperature.

Renee
December 15, 2022 8:44 am

Bob,
Can you comment on how these indexes are calculated. They do seem somewhat complicated.

The ONI is calculated from the average sea surface temperature in the Niño 3.4 region for each month, using in-ocean measurements from several sources, including autonomous floats, moored buoys, and ship cruises. The observations are blended into a single monthly average and then averaged with values from the previous and following months. This running three-month average is compared to a 30-year average. The observed difference from the average temperature in that region—whether warmer or cooler—is the ONI value for that 3-month “season.” The ONI is more straight forward than sea level pressures for the SOI.

Sea level pressure (SLP) readings at the stations are each standardized to adjust for seasonal differences. The difference between these two standardized SLPs is then itself standardized. Standardization re-scales a set of numbers in two steps. In the first step, the average of the numbers is computed, and that average is then subtracted from each number. Then, in the second step, the numbers are further re-scaled so that their range typically ends up only between about -2.5 and 2.5. If their range is much larger than this, then the numbers are compressed; if originally smaller, they are stretched. This second step of re-scaling is done by first computing the standard deviation of the numbers. The numbers coming out of the first step above are divided by this standard deviation, and this is what causes the numbers to end up varying only between about -2.5 and 2.5.

ugaap
Reply to  Renee
December 15, 2022 3:33 pm

I had been following Bob Tisdale’s various updates on ENSO for many years. I learnt how to prepare a Boiler Plate template for ENSO, which I have been using to report the same on my website at http://www.gujaratweather.com/wordpress/ .
My last post about the current Double Dip La Nina event was updated on 5th October 2022. The link is http://www.gujaratweather.com/wordpress/?page_id=26987 .
El Nino or La Nina criteria and other details are explained therein.

Double-Dip-La-Nina-2022-1024x757.jpg
Renee
Reply to  ugaap
December 15, 2022 5:19 pm

Thanks for the info. I forgot to add the NOAA reference for my original comment above, http://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/why-are-there-so-many-enso-indexes-instead-just-one. Check out the footnotes.

Last edited 1 month ago by Renee
Russell Cook
December 15, 2022 9:18 am

To the assortment of CAGW believers out there: See how this works on this side of the fence? Debate ensues on key issues. If the person with the original graph, however, is Dr Michael Mann, every effort possible is made to deep-six any debate completely out of sight in the eyes of the public, and to employ all means of character assassination against critics of the graph to persuade the public not to even glance at the science points made by critics.

Editor
December 15, 2022 9:53 am

Tisdale ==> All of these graph trends are greatly affected by the last two years which are dominated by La Niña conditions. So, as with all time series graphs, start and end dates have determine the trend.

We are in a period similar to the early 2010s.

As with all things CliSci, we are mostly in a state of “We don’t really know” when trying to guess the significance of the trends or the values of those various indexes, except in very vague sense.

Thanks for this post — someone must correct us (the less-consensus-believing) or we will mislead both ourselves and the public.

Last edited 1 month ago by Kip Hansen
Editor
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 16, 2022 7:13 am

Tisdale ==> Thanks — adjusting the start and end points so that they take in a proper whole cycle flattens the trend to “perfectly flat” in the real world.

Trends are a dangerous tool in the hands of advocacy — one can make them say almost anything.

Keep up the good work, sir.

Ireneusz Palmowski
December 15, 2022 3:12 pm

Solar activity is increasing and index Nino 3.4 is falling.
comment image
comment image

CO2isLife
December 15, 2022 4:25 pm

The key question is, “why drives these oscillations.” Incoming solar radiation does, not LWIR back radiation. I’ve been posting on this and other boards that is you explain the warming of the oceans, you explain climate change. I made the claim that fewer clouds over the oceans result in their warming. Data exists to prove that. I am not a climate scientist, I just have common sense. Well, today this is being published. An actual climate scientist found what someone with an ounce of common sense would have known years ago. When an amateur like me can accurately describe what cause of the climate change and real climate scientist completely ignore the real explanation, Climate Science isn’t a science. When amateurs can do a better job than the experts, they aren’t experts, they are activists.

Earth’s radiation budget at the top of atmosphere (TOA) is predominantly controlled by internal changes in cloud cover. A declining albedo – linked to declining cloud cover – corresponds to an increase in the shortwave radiation absorbed by the Earth and thus a positive climate forcing.(Link)

BurlHenry
Reply to  CO2isLife
December 15, 2022 5:19 pm

CO2isLife:

Now, explain WHY there are fewer clouds over the ocean

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  CO2isLife
December 15, 2022 10:20 pm

The Earth’s atmosphere absorbs up to half of the sun’s radiation, including infrared radiation, because the dense layer of the atmosphere that is the troposphere is not transparent to solar radiation.

December 15, 2022 9:54 pm

As an occasional thinker, not a measurer, about this important topic, there are still some topics that need clarification before it is wise to pontificate on curve fitting or linear regressions over some time or another.
The first uncertainty is whether these measured events are an oscillation, in the sense that having observed some peaks and troughs, we can reasonably anticipate that there will be more. Next uncertainty, if there is an oscillation, is it regular and predictable, or not, both with the limited time of measurements to data and for thousand-year periods. If it is an oscillation, is it simple (in need of only a few variables to construct it) or compound, where many factors contribute, even factors we have not yet thought of. Nature can be wickedly complex.
Next, when a factor is rising to a peak, what precisely is the driver that causes a reversal to what might be a reversion to the mean? And the converse, when it is falling into a trough, what prevents it from forever falling and sends it back towards the norm? Is the norm linear over time, or not?
If the norm is not linear over time, have we considered adequate causative mechanisms? For a simple example, is there a crustal hot sopt under the west pacific warm pool, whose fluctuations over times of monthly to multi-yearly cycles are involved in starting and stopping the ENSO?
When you study governor systems, starting with simp[le ones like those balls on springs atop steam engines that feed back a control to the throttle, one of the critical design ideas is to have what is called by some a “set point”. If you want your steam enging to rotate a shaft at 500 revs per minute, the have to have a device that tells the machine when it is at the set point of 500 rpm. This is usually an adjustment that causes a feedback force like from a spring to restore the throttle setting to a previous position. The set point. What is the set point in the ENSO system if this analogy applies? If the analogy does not apply, what stops ENSO from going out of control?
On a different tack, there are many known objections to using the mathematical option that might be called the easy Excel trend, the linear least squares fit. I use it myself to help the eye absorb data, but it is invalid if you are viewing a small time period in a larger time period oscillation like a sine wave. If the sine has a wavelength of 1,000 years, you fool yourself with 100 years of data.
Finally, as I have ranted many times before, the data mean a great deal more if their numbers carry an estimate of their uncertainty. I mean the full uncertainty, with a dab of addition for factors that might influence the pattern but have not been adequately measured. Avoid an uncertainty calculation that treats each part of the ENSO variation as part of the same population, allowing stats methods like making uncertainty smaller by dividing by square roots of variances. That type of difference was recently argued in articles by Kip Hansen and earlier by myself with Tom Berger. If we apply envelopes for broad uncertainties to the graphs supporting this article by Bob Tisdale, we might find that much of the wobble is merely noise within a broad envelope. I do not know if it is, because there are no uncertainty estimates quoted – or if they are, they are not easily apparent.
We have to be careful with sceptical arguments. There is no place for cartoon-level pictures said to explain complex problems, but I am not accusing the authors or commenters here of descending that low. I am merely trying to show that the main Feynman Principles are required for good science, with note taken of wisdoms like the easiest person to fool is yourself. So, here I end my foolish little story.
Geoff S

See - owe to Rich
December 16, 2022 2:33 am

One thing I have not seen in either the posting or the comments is any assessment of the statistical significance of any of the linear trends. Admittedly, a p-value requires assumptions, typically of independence and identical distribution, which may not be exactly true, but it is still a useful indicator of how serious an effect appears to be happening over the given time period. My eyeball suspicion is that a lot of the trend lines shown are not significantly non-zero.

Bob, or Willis, do you ever produce p-values of linear trends?

Rich.

ferdberple
December 16, 2022 4:28 am

A trend that depends on the choice of end points is not a trend.

There is to the eye a possible 60 year quasi cycle in the temperature data, which could generate false trends using less than cycle length analysis.

ferdberple
December 16, 2022 4:40 am

What about the role played by deep ocean currents? Maybe the cold water upwelling is the cause not the effect. Both on temperature and sea height.

Sailing a small boat through an area of upwelling can be a real eye opener, seeing the ocean boiling out overtop of itself, like water flooding over solid land.

Ireneusz Palmowski
December 17, 2022 1:39 am

“We are not the first scientists to study how solar variability may drive changes to the Earth system,” Leamon said. “But we are the first to apply the 22-year solar clock. The result — five consecutive terminators lining up with a switch in the El Nino oscillation — is not likely to be a coincidence.”
In fact, the researchers did a number of statistical analyses to determine the likelihood that the correlation was just a fluke. They found there was only a 1 in 5,000 chance or less (depending on the statistical test) that all five terminator events included in the study would randomly coincide with the flip in ocean temperatures. Now that a sixth terminator event — and the corresponding start of a new solar cycle in 2020 — has also coincided with an La Nina event, the chance of a random occurrence is even more remote, the authors said.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210405075853.htm

Ireneusz Palmowski
December 17, 2022 1:56 am

John Tillman thank you for the information.

“Comparing more than five decades of solar evolution and activity proxies. From top to bottom: (a) the total (black) and hemispheric sunspot numbers (north—red, and blue—south); (b) the latitude-time variation of sunspot locations; (c) the Oulu cosmic-ray flux; (d) the Penticton F10.7 cm radio flux; (e) a data-motivated schematic depiction of the Sun’s 22 years magnetic activity cycle; and (f) the variability of the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) over the same epoch. The black dashed lines mark the cycle terminators.
comment image
“Based on the mSEA of the past 60 years, an enduring warm pool in the central and western Pacific at solar minimum (ONI has been consistently positive since early 2018, even though it never got so warm to become a fully fledged strong El Niño event) was not unexpected, and we expect a rapid transition into La Niña conditions later in 2020 following the sunspot cycle 24 terminator. Given the warm waters, we project a particularly active Atlantic hurricane season in 2021, and maybe even 2020, depending on exactly when the terminator and ENSO transition occurs this year.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EA001223

Last edited 1 month ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
John Tillman
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
December 17, 2022 10:41 am

You’re most welcome.

To me it’s obvious that air pressure changes caused by La Niña and El Niño conditions alone don’t bring forth the alternate state. Los Niños aren’t always followed by Las Niñas, not even always Super Los Niños, although 1997-98 SEN was. SEN 2015-16 wasn’t.

I don’t know if there’s an agreed upon standard for La Nada vs. weak La Niña or El Niño, but I go with ONI -1 to +1. A change in equatorial WestPac SST of 0.5 degree C seems slight to me.

I’d need to see data supporting the SO2 hypothesis, but the solar cycle correlation is strong and the physical explanation convincing to me.

Thanks for your detailed comments.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
December 17, 2022 10:59 am

Meant EastPac.

I’d welcome a post presenting your views on ENSO causation, with or without reference to Bob and Willis’ posts.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
BurlHenry
Reply to  John Tillman
December 17, 2022 12:18 pm

John Tillman:

See my earlier post to Bob Tisdale on Dec 15, 2:1`9 pm

John Tillman
Reply to  BurlHenry
December 17, 2022 12:26 pm

Saw it, Burl. Thanks. It’s why I mentioned SO2, though I’m of the sun school. Can’t rule out at least some SO2 influence. We’re having triple diip Las Niñas after a huge SoPac eruption.

Post hoc fallacy coincidence?

¿Quién sabe?

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
BurlHenry
Reply to  John Tillman
December 17, 2022 6:50 pm

John Tillman:

The sun, of course, is the main driver of our climate. However, the amount of sunshine that reaches the Earth’s surface is dependent upon the amount of SO2 aerosols that are in the atmosphere, so SO2 is the actual Control Knob of our climate. The sun is a constant, SO2 is the regulator.

When it is reduced, El Ninos form. As I had mentioned recently, 70% of the El Ninos since 1850 were man-made..

The triple dip of Las Ninas has nothing to do with the Tonga eruption. They started before the eruption, and are caused by increased levels of Industrial SO2 aerosols from primarily China and India. See attachment.

Although the underwater Tonga was a VEI5, its injection of SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere was the same as if it were a VEI4

And, NO

fluid column Feb 19, 2022.png
John Tillman
Reply to  BurlHenry
December 17, 2022 7:00 pm

Yes, its aerosols were reduced by its eruption being partially submarine.

Despite man-made SO2, IMO, ENSO is still largely under solar control. The sun is a mildly variable star in its TSI, but spectrally it is far more variable.

UV, while even at its strongest, is a minor part of TSI, is still qualitatively different from less energetic bands. It makes and breaks ozone, for starters.

BurlHenry
Reply to  John Tillman
December 18, 2022 11:55 am

John Tillman:

What you are overlooking is the simple fact that there is 100% correlation between the random occurrence of an El Nino and a decrease in atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels at the same time..

This would be IMPOSSIBLE if the occurrence of an ENSO were in any way under solar control.

Q.E.D.

John Tillman
Reply to  BurlHenry
December 18, 2022 1:02 pm

Los Niños can occur after big eruptions as well, as in 2020.

The proximate cause of Las Niñas is strengthening of the trade winds, keeping warm water farther west, allowing cold water to upwell off tropical South America.

The ultimate cause is chiefly the solar cycle.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
BurlHenry
Reply to  John Tillman
December 18, 2022 2:05 pm

John Tillman:

The current La Nina began in July of 2020, well before the Tonga VEI5 eruption of Jan 16, 2022.

And, NO, the proximate cause of a La Nina is always increased levels of volcanic SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.

As mentioned in my previous response, it is impossible for the solar cycle to be responsible for El Ninos, (or La Ninas, since both.correlate with changing SO2 aerosol levels in the atmosphere).

Why are you so insistent that the solar cycle is chiefly responsible? I have the data which proves otherwise.

.
.

John Tillman
Reply to  BurlHenry
December 18, 2022 5:44 pm

Please cite these data. The data I see not only don’t support your hypothesis but show it false. The January 2020 VEI 4 eruption in the Philippines was followed by strong El Niño conditions.

The data confirm the solar hypothesis.

BurlHenry
Reply to  John Tillman
December 18, 2022 8:24 pm

John Tillman:

I told you earlier that it is impossible for E Ninos and La Ninas to be caused by solar variations. They occur at random intervals, often years apart. I find that El Ninos are always associated with decreased levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, which causes warming.

You need to show that the sun’s intensity has suddenly increased at those precise intervals for there to be a solar effect. Or has decreased precisely when a La Nina occurs.

The data that I cite comes from “El Nina and La Nina years and intensities”, from the Climate Prediction Center. Found most easily by Googling the title Scroll all the way down...

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
December 17, 2022 11:07 pm

Sunspot Area Butterfly Diagram.
comment image
As the Sun’s magnetic activity (solar wind force) increases after the previous magnetic activity cycle ends, La Nina develops.

Last edited 1 month ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
BurlHenry
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
December 18, 2022 12:07 pm

Ireneusz Palomwski

Forget the sun!.

The ONLY time that a La Nina develops is when there are increased SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, primarily from a random VEI4, or larger, volcanic eruption.

John Tillman
Reply to  BurlHenry
December 18, 2022 12:30 pm

SO2 has increased from coal plants, at least since China’s economy took off after 1979, then India’s. Granted, the West cleaned its air during the same period.

Las Niñas happen with or without VEI4 eruptions. ENSO correlates with the solar cycle.

Strong El Niño 2020 followed a VEI 4 eruption in the Philippines.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
BurlHenry
Reply to  John Tillman
December 18, 2022 2:38 pm

John Tillman:

“La Ninas happen with or without VEI4 volcanic eruptions”

They are primarily due to VEI4 volcanic eruptions, but a few were caused by increased Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions.

“Strong El Nino 2020 followed a VEI4 eruption in the Philippines”

There was no El Nino in 2020, only a moderate La Nina that followed the 2019 eruptions of Sinabung, Raikoke, and Ulawun

John Tillman
Reply to  BurlHenry
December 18, 2022 5:50 pm

La Niña developed in August 2020. Earlier that year El Niño conditions prevailed.

Please see UAH satellite observations, in which 2020 was nearly as warm as Super El Niño 2016-15.

BurlHenry
Reply to  John Tillman
December 18, 2022 8:40 pm

John Tillman:

SO2 aerosols are reflective, and cool the atmosphere underneath.

I am beginning to suspect that the UAH sensors sense the reflection as warmth, giving rise to the assertion that volcanic eruptions cause warming.

BurlHenry
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 18, 2022 3:25 pm

Bob Tisdale.

Thanks for making the PDF available, but, regretfully, your explanations of the causes of ENSO formations are completely wrong.

Rather than being random events, they are all caused by varying levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, with 100% correlation.

Examination of my papers on Google Scholar. or Research Gate, will show that I am correct. You are welcome to find fault with any of them. Critical examinations of accepted, or proposed ideas, is how science progresses.

BurlHenry
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 19, 2022 8:24 am

Bob Tisdale:

You are pathetic!

The reason that I directed you to the LIA paper was to show that the SO2 aerosols from volcanic eruptions circulate around the globe, affecting temperatures everywhere (which, for your information, includes the ENSO region).

With respect to your graph, the two matches PROVE what I have been saying. Please show it to everyone that you can.

The other El Ninos were caused by decreased SO2 aerosol emissions for reasons (3 identified) other than the eruption of a volcano, which are discussed in my paper “A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”
.

BurlHenry
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 20, 2022 12:17 pm

Bob Tisdale,

The thrust of my paper was to show that every time atmospheric SO2 aerosols decrease, average anomalous global temperatures increase.

The majority of the observed increases were caused by decreased SO2 aerosol emissions from idled smelters, foundries, factories, etc. during American business recessions.

Between 1850 and 2007, there were 35 recessions/depressions, and 33 of them resulted in increased global temperatures. Of the 33 increases, 7 of them clearly resulted in the formation of an El Nino The others failed to form an El Nino because they occurred .during a La Nina, or during an El Nino.

At least 7 other El Ninos occurred when there were volcanic droughts (.i.e,more than 3-11 years between eruptions, when there were few or no SO2 aerosols circulating in the atmosphere)

So, there were at least 14 examples of El Nino formation due to decreased atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels, totally excluding those due to volcanic activity, to avoid argument

This completely refutes your hypothetical explanation of El Nino formation, although one contrary example should have sufficed.

Q.E.D.

John Tillman
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 19, 2022 6:09 pm

Two of ten is not 100% in arithmetic as practiced on Planet Earth!

BurlHenry
Reply to  John Tillman
December 20, 2022 2:47 pm

John Tillman:

On Dec. 18, 5:22, you had asked me to cite a data source, which I did.

Did you follow up on this? I would like to understand what is going on.

John Tillman
Reply to  BurlHenry
December 20, 2022 6:12 pm

I did. Thanks.

The data don’t support your claim.

BurlHenry
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 21, 2022 7:39 am

Bob Tisdale:

Bob, You are REALLY pathetic.

Using solid data, I proved that decreased SO2 aerosol emissions resulted in increased temperatures, many of them resulting in an El Nino.

You dismiss it all as baseless claims,apparently because you lack the intelligence to be able to understand them..

A real pity

.

BurlHenry
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 21, 2022 6:26 am

Bob Tisdale.

Don’t smile. He was confused. We were talking about conflicting data, not my claim

BurlHenry
Reply to  John Tillman
December 21, 2022 6:23 am

John Tillman:

Are you saying that the data from the Climate Prediction Center is incorrect?

Its El Nina and La Nina episodes match every plot of average anomalous global temperatures that I have ever seen.

(Recall that you said there was a strong El Nino in 2020 after the Philippine eruption. The Climate Prediction center shows the LAST El Nino was between Aug 2018 and July 2019)

We were talking about conflicting data, not my claim. Again, I would like to know what is going on.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights