New Paper finds Most of the Late-20th Century Warming was Naturally Induced

[tacoman25]

Yes it has happened to cool during the one -PDO we have good temperatures for. That could easily mostly or entirely be mere coincidence. It is not evidence of anything, especially the idea that a -PDO causes significant cooling globally. Especially considering there are fairly solid explanations for 20th century temperature already without including the PDO.

Read again: The -PDO warm anomalies in the North Pacific DO NOT offset the -ENSO cool anomalies in the equatorial regions. If they did, we would not consistently see tempertures drop with -PDO/-ENSO events - but we do.

Comprehend that I am referring to individual -ENSO/-PDO events. That is the basis for the causitive mechanism, and your attempt to throw doubt about it is false, because there is no evidence for your speculation about offsetting SSTAs resulting in a wash for global temps.

[skierinvermont]

Read again: The -PDO warm anomalies in the North Pacific DO NOT offset the -ENSO cool anomalies in the equatorial regions. If they did, we would not consistently see tempertures drop with -PDO/-ENSO events - but we do.

We see them drop with -ENSO events consistently. There is little to no evidence that they drop with -PDOs generally. It has happened once (1945-1975) and that is more likely caused by aerosols, TSI, volcanoes, and GHGs.

[tacoman25]

We see them drop with -ENSO events consistently. There is little to no evidence that they drop with -PDOs generally.

Those -ENSO events feature -PDO. And the effect on global temperatures has always been negative with every -ENSO/-PDO event. The two are directly tied together and if -PDO warm anomalies offset -ENSO anomalies, it would be apparent and global temperatures would not drop with every -ENSO event.

I'm not sure you're comprehending the fact that when I say -PDO, I am not only referring to multi-decadal occilations.

[skierinvermont]

Those -ENSO events feature -PDO. And the effect on global temperatures has always been negative with every -ENSO/-PDO event. The two are directly tied together and if -PDO warm anomalies offset -ENSO anomalies, it would be apparent and global temperatures would not drop with every -ENSO event.

I'm not sure you're comprehending the fact that when I say -PDO, I am not only referring to multi-decadal occilations.

The drop is just the switch from +ENSO to -ENSO. Any background warming from the general -PDO warm anomalies in the N Pac would be impossible to detect and drowned out by a large swing in ENSO. But according to your previous statements, with which I agree, it must exist.

The warm anomalies in -PDOs in the n. pac generally persist in both the -ENSO and +ENSO state, although it can reverse during significant +ENSO events. If over the course of a year you go from strong +PDO+ENSO to -PDO-ENSO, obviously the cooling from -ENSO would overwhelm the warming from -PDO. But over longer timescales where the swings in ENSO are not nearly so dramatic, this is not likely the case.

Remember, during the -PDO period ENSO only averaged -.2. And during the same period, N. Pac SSTAs were much warmer than normal because of the prevailing -PDO.

If you want to talk about a 1 year switch from a strong Nino +PDO to a significant Nina event -PDO, then obviously the cooling from ENSO would overwhelm any warming from the PDO directly. But I thought we were talking about longer periods like 1945-1975? And over those periods, the change in ENSO is not nearly as dramatic (it averaged a mere -.2C, while the PDO was largely negative as well).

[Snow_Miser]

I've already debunked your nonsense about solar forcing being 7X TSI forcing in other threads. Complete nonsense. We have had very low solar activity for the last 6+ years with no detectable effects on earth other other than the expected .1-2W/m2 response to the drop in TSI. The earth remains in a massive energy imbalance and the surface has continued to warm slowly consistent with GHG forcing + dampening from a drop in TSI. This is decisive proof against the various nonsensical solar hypotheses out there.

And correction to what I said earlier: GHGs did not overwhel aerosols alone 1910-1945.. the combination of TSI, GHGs, and low volcanic activity did, with perhaps some slight contribution from ocean cycles.

The other thing to remember about the -PDO is that although it causes more frequent Ninas and Ninas cause cooling, -PDOs also have a huge area of +SSTAs in the north Pacific. So although there are more Ninas, there may be a background warming overall due to the expanse of +SSTAs and the two effects may offset each other for a near zero sum effect.

On the one hand, ocean cycle obsessers insist that the expanse of +SSTAs in the Atlantic during a +AMO must cause global warming, but deny the fact that during -PDOs the expanse of +SSTAs is much larger than the expanse of -SSTAs in the north Pacific, and that this would also cause a background waming which is perhaps neutralized by the increased frequencies of Ninas in the tropical Pacific. The causative mechanism is on very shaky grounds and can give us no idea of magnitude. Whereas the causative mechanisms for GHGs, aerosols, TSI etc. are well established and can give us reasonable estimates of the magnitude of the effect.

On the other hand, the claim that the total forcing from solar activity variations is up to seven times higher than the TSI Forcing is based off of many peer reviewed papers.

The Total forcing observed during a Solar Cycle has been observed to be up to seven times as large than the forcing from Solar Irradiance variations alone (Shaviv 2008) And this has been confirmed by multiple analyses.

According to Marsden and Lingenfelter 2002, Kirkby and Laaksonen 2000 found that the Cosmic Ray/Low Cloud Forcing over a solar cycle was around 1.2 w/m^2. We can see how large this amplifying mechanism is compared to the solar irradiance variations during a Solar Cycle. It is agreed that over the course of a solar cycle, TSI generally fluctuates by around 1 w/m^2. These fluctuations are insolation changes, so to get the true forcing of these TSI variations over the solar cycle, we need to take the Earth's Geometry and albedo into account. When you do so, the TSI forcing is around 0.18 w/m^2. The 1.2 w/m^2 is approximately seven times the TSI forcing, and the total forcing is eight times than what you would expect with the TSI forcing alone, matching the Shaviv analysis perfectly.

Carslaw et al. 2002 finds that Low Clouds vary about 1-2% during the course of the solar cycle, which would have about as much of a forcing as the total anthropogenic forcing since 1750.

Reis and Serrano 2009 cite Svensmark and Friis-Christensen 1996, which claims that the cloud forcing during the solar cycle is approximately 0.8-1.7 w/m^2. Combined with TSI variations of around 0.1 w/m^2 during the solar cycle, this would make the total forcing during the solar cycle around 0.9-1.8 w/m^2.

There are significant impacts with solar activity on Global Climate Change, and solar activity likely had a significant role to play in the increase in temperatures.

Using the Earth's Energy Imbalance based off of Heat Content changes may be misleading, since there is a lag with the Ocean Heat Content gain and a forcing. The climate system does not rapidly equilibriate to a forcing, quite the opposite actually. Numerous papers have confirmed a lag with solar activity and temperature variations.

Raspopov et al. 2007

The influence of ∼200-year solar activity variations (de Vries cyclicity) on climatic parameters has been analyzed. Analysis of palaeoclimatic data from different regions of the Earth for the last millennium has shown that ∼200-year variations in solar activity give rise to a pronounced climatic response. Owing to a nonlinear character of the processes in the atmosphere–ocean system and the inertia of this system, the climatic response to the global influence of solar activity variations has been found to have a regional character. The regions where the climatic response to long-term solar activity variations is stable and the regions where the climatic response is unstable, both in time and space, have been revealed. It has also been found that a considerable lag of the climatic response and reversal of its sign with respect to the solar signal can occur. Comparison of the obtained results with the simulation predictions of the atmosphere–ocean system response to long-term solar irradiance variations (T > 40 years) has shown that there is a good agreement between experimental and simulation results.

El-Borie and Al-Thoyaib 2006

The connection between aa and

global temperature pointed that the corresponding

temperature has occurred in 1998, with lag ~ 8 yrs.

Around 1997, the aa reached the minimum value during

the considered period. After that, the aa increased slowly

to a moderate values (or reasonable) until 2003.

Accordingly, the future temperature can be predicted

from the present aa geomagnetic measures, by allowing

the lag time of ~ 6-7 yr.

There has been no warming since 2001 on pretty much every single dataset. The ENSO state during 2001 was about the same as it was now, so ENSO is not skewing the trends in any way. I believe that as the climate system starts to equilibriate to the solar forcing, the flatlining should turn into slight cooling over the next 30 years. This in combination with the -PDO and eventually the -AMO should allow for temperatures to cool off by 0.1-0.2 Degrees C by 2030-2040.

All of the datasets show ZERO warming since 2001:

The WTI:

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/wti/from:2001/last:2012/plot/wti/from:2001/last:2012/trend

GISS

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:2001/last:2012/plot/gistemp/from:2001/last:2012/trend

HadCruT3

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/last:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/last:2012/trend

HadCruT4

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/last:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/last:2012/trend

RSS:

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2001/last:2012/plot/rss/from:2001/last:2012/trend

UAH:

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/from:2001/last:2012/plot/uah/from:2001/last:2012/trend

Keep in mind that the UAH data does not account for the latest adjustments by removing spurious warming by Spencer and Christy, which would lower the 2001-present trend slightly.

HadSST2:

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst2gl/from:2001/last:2012/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001/last:2012/trend

I see that you are modifying your theory about the early-20th Century Warming. How much warming would you say would be due to the anthropogenic forcing in the early-20th Century if your theory is correct?

You also seem confused with regard to what the PDO actually is. A -PDO does not mean that there will be cooler water everywhere! Cooling of the Tropical Pacific will have a far greater impact on the Global Energy Budget than cooling in the mid latitude regions. In addion, the PDO is not a measurement of Sea Surface Temperatures, but rather the surrounding weather patterns. A change in the weather patterns from a change in the phase of the PDO can change the Cloud Cover by a magnitude of around 1-2%, and this can substantially impact climate change.

No one is claiming that the AMO drives a long term warming, but rather, the oceanic cycles accentuate and mask it over multidecadal timeframes.

[skierinvermont]

I've seen your spew before of semi-reviewed papers Snowlover, and I am unimpressed. I have already responded to this pseudo-scientific nonsense in other threads.

[Snow_Miser]

I was expecting a better response from you Skier on these three points:

1) Solar Activity variations have led to significant climate change over the 20th Century

2) The world has not warmed since 2001

3) Your mischaracterization of the PDO has led to a false assumption that aerosols drove the mid-20th Century cooling.

[skierinvermont]

I was expecting a better response from you Skier on these three points:

1) Solar Activity variations have led to significant climate change over the 20th Century

2) The world has not warmed since 2001

3) Your mischaracterization of the PDO has led to a false assumption that aerosols drove the mid-20th Century cooling.

As I said already, I'm not going to respond to point #1. I have already done so thoroughly in other threads already. What you have posted looks fancy and smart, but it is pseudo-scientific nonsense. I will say that all of the magical hypothesized solar mechanisms point to dramatic cooling since 2006, which has not occurred at all, and the earth remains in a large positive energy imbalance. This is a very straightforward empirical test of the hypotheses invented (none of which made much sense anyways) and it is a simple demonstration that they are false.

I will however respond to points 2+3, since they both contain obvious simple factual errors.

2) Despite the fact that ENSO is in the same state as it was in 2001, the ENSO trend since 2001 is strongly negative. ENSO at the start and end of the trend is not nearly as important as everything in between. Because of the record +ENSO conditions 2002-2005, the ENSO trend 2001-present is strongly negative as the graph below shows. Elsewhere on this forum I have shown temperature trends for ENSO neutral periods, and the temperature trend remains around +.1C/decade (averaged across all major sources). This is about what one would expect given the drop in TSI over the period. A reasonable period to look at is 2000-present (not 2001-present) although even 2000-present has a slight negative ENSO trend. 2001-present has a very strong negative ENSO trend as the graph below shows.

Using the more ENSO neutral period of 2000-present we get .08C/decade GISS, .06C/decade HadCRUT, +.15C/decade UAH and +.01C/decade RSS.

3) Your claim that the warm +SSTs in the n. pac would not have the same effect as the cold SSTs in the tropical pac has no basis in reality. The effect of SST anomalies in the mid-latitudes is somewhat less than in the low latitudes, but not by a lot. Moreover, the areal coverage of the warm SSTs is much greater. You are also contradicting yourself when you say warm SSTs in the mid-latitudes during a +AMO has a warming effect, but warm SSTs in the mid-latitude pacific during a -PDO do not.

[tacoman25]

The drop is just the switch from +ENSO to -ENSO. Any background warming from the general -PDO warm anomalies in the N Pac would be impossible to detect and drowned out by a large swing in ENSO. But according to your previous statements, with which I agree, it must exist.

The warm anomalies in -PDOs in the n. pac generally persist in both the -ENSO and +ENSO state, although it can reverse during significant +ENSO events. If over the course of a year you go from strong +PDO+ENSO to -PDO-ENSO, obviously the cooling from -ENSO would overwhelm the warming from -PDO. But over longer timescales where the swings in ENSO are not nearly so dramatic, this is not likely the case.

Remember, during the -PDO period ENSO only averaged -.2. And during the same period, N. Pac SSTAs were much warmer than normal because of the prevailing -PDO.

If you want to talk about a 1 year switch from a strong Nino +PDO to a significant Nina event -PDO, then obviously the cooling from ENSO would overwhelm any warming from the PDO directly. But I thought we were talking about longer periods like 1945-1975? And over those periods, the change in ENSO is not nearly as dramatic (it averaged a mere -.2C, while the PDO was largely negative as well).

1. There is ZERO proof that a -PDO state in the N. Pacific has any kind of warming effect on the atmosphere. While it does feature warming in the PDO region SSTs, a -PDO pattern also tends to feature cooler SSTAs in the GOA, along the west coast, and down the California current to the lower latitudes.

2. The longer, multi-decadal phases are simply the cumulative time frame of a series of ENSO events. The fact that when the ENSO/PDO turn more negative with any event, that leads to cooling in the atmosphere that year, shows that a -PDO/-ENSO pattern results in a cooler atmosphere, regardless of SSTAs in the PDO region warming.

3. Regardless of how you think a PDO pattern alone might impacts temperatures, you have at least acknowledged that it really comes down to ENSO. And during the longterm PDO phases, either +ENSO or -ENSO dominates. During a longterm -PDO phase, -ENSO dominates and therefore exerts a cooling effect on the earth over that period overall.

4. Claiming that the reason global temps flatlined over the 2000s and stopped warming anywhere close to the rate seen in the 1980s and 1990s was simply due to solar is contrary to what almost every climate scientist (Hansen included) said prior to the slowdown: the only thing that could slow down the warming for more than a few years would be a huge volcanic eruption. Solar forcing was considered too small to make that kind of difference.

As we transistioned from +PDO phase to -PDO phase in the 2000s, the warming rate seen for the previous few decades ended. It's not coincidence, it's the same factor that altered global temperature trends in the 1970s and the 1940s. And it's simply due to -ENSO events becoming dominant, just like before. The difference is that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than before.

[skierinvermont]

1. There is ZERO proof that a -PDO state in the N. Pacific has any kind of warming effect on the atmosphere. While it does feature warming in the PDO region SSTs, a -PDO pattern also tends to feature cooler SSTAs in the GOA, along the west coast, and down the California current to the lower latitudes.

2. The longer, multi-decadal phases are simply the cumulative time frame of a series of ENSO events. The fact that when the ENSO/PDO turn more negative with any event, that leads to cooling in the atmosphere that year, shows that a -PDO/-ENSO pattern results in a cooler atmosphere, regardless of SSTAs in the PDO region warming.

3. Regardless of how you think a PDO pattern alone might impacts temperatures, you have at least acknowledged that it really comes down to ENSO. And during the longterm PDO phases, either +ENSO or -ENSO dominates. During a longterm -PDO phase, -ENSO dominates and therefore exerts a cooling effect on the earth over that period overall.

4. Claiming that the reason global temps flatlined over the 2000s and stopped warming anywhere close to the rate seen in the 1980s and 1990s was simply due to solar is contrary to what almost every climate scientist (Hansen included) said prior to the slowdown: the only thing that could slow down the warming for more than a few years would be a huge volcanic eruption. Solar forcing was considered too small to make that kind of difference.

As we transistioned from +PDO phase to -PDO phase in the 2000s, the warming rate seen for the previous few decades ended. It's not coincidence, it's the same factor that altered global temperature trends in the 1970s and the 1940s. And it's simply due to -ENSO events becoming dominant, just like before. The difference is that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than before.

1. I am simply relying upon your own statements (and common sense) that warm SSTs cause warming. Yes the coast of Alaska and BC and the US coast are cold during a -PDO, but the vast majority of the N Pac is above average. You are directly contradicting statements you have made in the past above how areas of warm SSTs cause warming.

2. If you are looking at year to year changes from a +PDO+ENSO to -PDO-ENSO, then duh a large swing in ENSO will dominate any warming caused by the north pacific.

3. No I do not acknowledge that. Ninas are not as predominant as you are suggesting in -PDOs. The last -PDO period averaged only -.2C in the ENSO regions. Isolating that factor alone would indicate a mere .04C of cooling. The warming from the north pacific could be equally as large.

4. That is not what the majority of climate scientists said. The IPCC presented model simulations to the public, many of which featured decade long flat lines in temperature. The flat line since 2001 is caused by a combination of solar and cherry-picking a strong -ENSO period. The slight slow down (+.1C/decade) since 2000 is caused by solar and is only slightly less than the expected rate of +.15C/decade. Neither short-term trend is inconsistent with the results of climate models that were directly presented to the public in the IPCC report.

To your final statement (#5): most of the slowdown since 1998 is adequately explained by the decline in TSI. It remains unclear how much of a shift to -ENSO conditions has occurred. If it is anything like the last -PDO, the preponderance of Ninas will only be slight (-.2C) and have a small effect (-.04C globally) which is possibly countered by warming of the north pacific. Yes trends such as 2001-present show more a more pronounced stall, but such a dramatic decline in ENSO from 2001-present is not at all a characteristic of -PDO multidecadal variability, and entirely due to short-term year to year fluctuations. The change in ENSO conditions during a -PDO is much more subtle than what occurred 2001-present.

[tacoman25]

1. I am simply relying upon your own statements (and common sense) that warm SSTs cause warming. Yes the coast of Alaska and BC and the US coast are cold during a -PDO, but the vast majority of the N Pac is above average. You are directly contradicting statements you have made in the past above how areas of warm SSTs cause warming.

2. If you are looking at year to year changes from a +PDO+ENSO to -PDO-ENSO, then duh a large swing in ENSO will dominate any warming caused by the north pacific.

3. No I do not acknowledge that. Ninas are not as predominant as you are suggesting in -PDOs. The last -PDO period averaged only -.2C in the ENSO regions. Isolating that factor alone would indicate a mere .04C of cooling. The warming from the north pacific could be equally as large.

4. That is not what the majority of climate scientists said. The IPCC presented model simulations to the public, many of which featured decade long flat lines in temperature. The flat line since 2001 is caused by a combination of solar and cherry-picking a strong -ENSO period. The slight slow down (+.1C/decade) since 2000 is caused by solar and is only slightly less than the expected rate of +.15C/decade. Neither short-term trend is inconsistent with the results of climate models that were directly presented to the public in the IPCC report.

To your final statement (#5): most of the slowdown since 1998 is adequately explained by the decline in TSI. It remains unclear how much of a shift to -ENSO conditions has occurred. If it is anything like the last -PDO, the preponderance of Ninas will only be slight (-.2C) and have a small effect (-.04C globally) which is possibly countered by warming of the north pacific. Yes trends such as 2001-present show more a more pronounced stall, but such a dramatic decline in ENSO from 2001-present is not at all a characteristic of -PDO multidecadal variability, and entirely due to short-term year to year fluctuations. The change in ENSO conditions during a -PDO is much more subtle than what occurred 2001-present.

1. Show me proof that a -PDO leads to greater +SSTA globally than +PDO. My argument was that global SSTs, which follow oceanic cycles to a degree, exert a significant and consistent effect on global temps. Regardless, you have no evidence that a -PDO has any kind of underlying warming effect. Until you have any proof that -PDO leads to warming SSTA overall, you have no basis for making that claim. The evidence, which clearly show global temps following ENSO, does not support that assertion.

2. Yes, the point is that global temps are directly affected by what happens with ENSO.

3. Where do you get the -.04C number from -.2C ENSO average? There were 50% more -ENSO years than +ENSO years during the last -PDO phase. That is quite significant.

In response to the bolded portion, first of all you have to again recognize that periods of multi-decadal variability are composed by a cumulative series of ENSO/PDO events. There is nothing unprecedented about the last 10 years. When we switched PDO phases last time in the 1970s, we went from a 3 year strong Nina event to two straight Nino years, a bunch of neutralish years, and then a very strong Nino. So from a strong 3 years -ENSO event to 7 straight years without a Nina. Meanwhile, after the start of the last -PDO phase, we saw 5 out of 8 years from 1949-57 with Nina conditions, including two separate multi-year, strong -ENSO events.

[skierinvermont]

1. Show me proof that a -PDO leads to greater +SSTA globally than +PDO. My argument was that global SSTs, which follow oceanic cycles to a degree, exert a significant and consistent effect on global temps. Regardless, you have no evidence that a -PDO has any kind of underlying warming effect. Until you have any proof that -PDO leads to warming SSTA overall, you have no basis for making that claim. The evidence, which clearly show global temps following ENSO, does not support that assertion.

2. Yes, the point is that global temps are directly affected by what happens with ENSO.

3. Where do you get the -.04C number from -.2C ENSO average? There were 50% more -ENSO years than +ENSO years during the last -PDO phase. That is quite significant.

In response to the bolded portion, first of all you have to again recognize that periods of multi-decadal variability are composed by a cumulative series of ENSO/PDO events. There is nothing unprecedented about the last 10 years. When we switched PDO phases last time in the 1970s, we went from a 3 year strong Nina event to two straight Nino years, a bunch of neutralish years, and then a very strong Nino. So from a strong 3 years -ENSO event to 7 straight years without a Nina. Meanwhile, after the start of the last -PDO phase, we saw 5 out of 8 years from 1949-57 with Nina conditions, including two separate multi-year, strong -ENSO events.

1. SSTs are warmer in a -PDO by definition. I don't have to prove it. It is true by the definition of how the PDO is calculated. A Nino in a -PDO has warmer Pacific temperatures than a Nino in a +PDO. This is true based on the definition of ENSO and the PDO.

3. A 1C difference in ONI = a .1C difference in global temperature. A .4C difference in average ONI from -PDO (1945-1977) and +PDO = .04C difference in global temperature. The ONI averaged .4C lower in -PDO than +PDO.

Your final statement isn't a response to the portion you bolded. All I said was the reason that ENSO switched so negative from 2001-present is not the PDO. It's just chance. The PDO increases the frequency of Ninas, but not nearly by that much.

[csnavywx]

No need to bring up the AMO. I have yet to see a valid response to the serious problems I listed earlier. The AMO, by its calculation, allows aliasing of the global warming signal directly into its definition. I contend it has no value for global temperature trends from 1950 onwards.

The PDO lies nearly in the same boat because it suffers from serious aliasing effects as well. It is also just a response to several other factors (ENSO, red noise, Rossby waves), so one must be very cautious about trying to label it as a forcing. In fact, in that post I linked earlier, when you do a principal component analysis of both global SSTa and just the PDO region, the temporal distribution looks exactly the same. That's because the PDO region is simply (mostly) responding to external forcings, not driving the temperature fluctuations themselves!

At least the MEI (ENSO) itself has some causative backing (it doesn't violate Granger causality like the AMO does). So, with that said, we should really be talking about JUST ENSO and its short to medium-run trends if we're going to be talking about global temperatures.

The real question in my mind is not whether a non-uniform SST response to global warming affects all of these cycles, but how can it not?

[skierinvermont]

I don't think anybody would contend that either are 'forcings'. It is possible that they modulate the flow of energy between the oceans and the atmosphere, but I question how much.

Also the AMO is linearly detrended, so it's not perfect, but it is clear there is some multi-decadal variability in N. Atl ssts beyond the AGW signal.

And PDO is a component analysis so should not be too effected by agw in its calculation.

[tacoman25]

1. SSTs are warmer in a -PDO by definition. I don't have to prove it. It is true by the definition of how the PDO is calculated. A Nino in a -PDO has warmer Pacific temperatures than a Nino in a +PDO. This is true based on the definition of ENSO and the PDO.

3. A 1C difference in ONI = a .1C difference in global temperature. A .4C difference in average ONI from -PDO (1945-1977) and +PDO = .04C difference in global temperature. The ONI averaged .4C lower in -PDO than +PDO.

Your final statement isn't a response to the portion you bolded. All I said was the reason that ENSO switched so negative from 2001-present is not the PDO. It's just chance. The PDO increases the frequency of Ninas, but not nearly by that much.

1. SSTs are warmer in the PDO region with a -PDO. However, other areas of the Pacific are colder with -PDO, including of course usually ENSO regions. And the Indian Ocean tends to be cooler with -PDO than with +PDO as well. The bottom line is that your proposed idea of the -PDO warm anomalies in the north Pacific offsetting cold -ENSO anomalies has no factual basis. Global temperatures in -ENSO/-PDO individual events are always suppressed and the ENSO temperatures are the clearest factor.

3. I think that is too simplistic a comparison. A period that features 50% more -ENSO events than +ENSO events is going to effect a trendline over that period significantly. For every +ENSO event causing a .1C warming, you have 1.5 -ENSO events causing .1C cooling. So 1.5 steps down for every step up...that's going to pressure a trendline downwards (or in the case of underlying AGW, create a much flatter trend than otherwise).

My final statement was pointing out that big changes in ENSO and consequently global temp trends have been typical when the PDO phases flip. Just as has happened over the past decade. As you can see from below, when phases flip, it happens rapidly and the response from ENSO/temp trends is abrupt. It's too much of a coincidence that every time we have seen the PDO phase flip, global temps have seen an abrupt trend change as well - it's happened in the 2000s, 1970s, and 1940s.

[tacoman25]

I don't think anybody would contend that either are 'forcings'. It is possible that they modulate the flow of energy between the oceans and the atmosphere, but I question how much.

Also the AMO is linearly detrended, so it's not perfect, but it is clear there is some multi-decadal variability in N. Atl ssts beyond the AGW signal.

And PDO is a component analysis so should not be too effected by agw in its calculation.

It's obvious that they do. I don't understand why you would say this is "possible". It's like you view the ocean/atmosphere relationship and associated cycles as some sort of voodoo, which is just silly.

[skierinvermont]

It's obvious that they do. I don't understand why you would say this is "possible". It's like you view the ocean/atmosphere relationship and associated cycles as some sort of voodoo, which is just silly.

You are misreading the emphasis. I was not saying "merely possible" as opposed to "probable" or "definite." The emphasis was on "possible" as opposed to "impossible," which was the assertion of the previous poster. I do not question an influence, I merely question how much.

[skierinvermont]

1. SSTs are warmer in the PDO region with a -PDO. However, other areas of the Pacific are colder with -PDO, including of course usually ENSO regions. And the Indian Ocean tends to be cooler with -PDO than with +PDO as well. The bottom line is that your proposed idea of the -PDO warm anomalies in the north Pacific offsetting cold -ENSO anomalies has no factual basis. Global temperatures in -ENSO/-PDO individual events are always suppressed and the ENSO temperatures are the clearest factor.

3. I think that is too simplistic a comparison. A period that features 50% more -ENSO events than +ENSO events is going to effect a trendline over that period significantly. For every +ENSO event causing a .1C warming, you have 1.5 -ENSO events causing .1C cooling. So 1.5 steps down for every step up...that's going to pressure a trendline downwards (or in the case of underlying AGW, create a much flatter trend than otherwise).

My final statement was pointing out that big changes in ENSO and consequently global temp trends have been typical when the PDO phases flip. Just as has happened over the past decade. As you can see from below, when phases flip, it happens rapidly and the response from ENSO/temp trends is abrupt. It's too much of a coincidence that every time we have seen the PDO phase flip, global temps have seen an abrupt trend change as well - it's happened in the 2000s, 1970s, and 1940s.

1. I am not questioning that -ENSO-PDO events are colder than +ENSO-PDO or +ENSO+PDO. The question is whether or not -ENSO-PDO events are colder or warmer than -ENSO+PDO events.

3. It's possible the effect is somewhat cumulative, although the atmosphere has very little thermal inertia, so the cumulative effect could not be much larger than the initial effect. If, during -ENSO-PDO events the ocean starts absorbing energy at .9W/m2 instead of .7W/m2 that is basically a forcing of -.2W/m2 on the atmosphere. Since the atmosphere contains very little energy, it would cool almost immediately.

[Snow_Miser]

As I said already, I'm not going to respond to point #1. I have already done so thoroughly in other threads already. What you have posted looks fancy and smart, but it is pseudo-scientific nonsense. I will say that all of the magical hypothesized solar mechanisms point to dramatic cooling since 2006, which has not occurred at all, and the earth remains in a large positive energy imbalance. This is a very straightforward empirical test of the hypotheses invented (none of which made much sense anyways) and it is a simple demonstration that they are false.

I will however respond to points 2+3, since they both contain obvious simple factual errors.

2) Despite the fact that ENSO is in the same state as it was in 2001, the ENSO trend since 2001 is strongly negative. ENSO at the start and end of the trend is not nearly as important as everything in between. Because of the record +ENSO conditions 2002-2005, the ENSO trend 2001-present is strongly negative as the graph below shows. Elsewhere on this forum I have shown temperature trends for ENSO neutral periods, and the temperature trend remains around +.1C/decade (averaged across all major sources). This is about what one would expect given the drop in TSI over the period. A reasonable period to look at is 2000-present (not 2001-present) although even 2000-present has a slight negative ENSO trend. 2001-present has a very strong negative ENSO trend as the graph below shows.

Using the more ENSO neutral period of 2000-present we get .08C/decade GISS, .06C/decade HadCRUT, +.15C/decade UAH and +.01C/decade RSS.

3) Your claim that the warm +SSTs in the n. pac would not have the same effect as the cold SSTs in the tropical pac has no basis in reality. The effect of SST anomalies in the mid-latitudes is somewhat less than in the low latitudes, but not by a lot. Moreover, the areal coverage of the warm SSTs is much greater. You are also contradicting yourself when you say warm SSTs in the mid-latitudes during a +AMO has a warming effect, but warm SSTs in the mid-latitude pacific during a -PDO do not.

1. Your previous "responses" to point one have been underwhelming, as they have consisted of mere speculations that the data supporting such a hypothesis that the total solar forcing is seven times the TSI Forcing was manipulated without any statistical or scientific support.

Show me some scientific evidence that Point 1 is flawed instead of providing basless assumptions and speculations that have no place on a science board.

2. I was mainly responding to the starting and stopping points of ENSO, not the overall trend. Stopping at an El Nino year and beginning at a La Nina year will have a much greater waming rate than starting at a Nino and ending at a Nina. The overall trend being negative may be one of the factors for why a statistically insignificant cooling has taken shape since 2001 on nearly every single dataset.

Based off of this, how can you claim that the PDO, which significantly influences ENSO, has little impact on the climate?

3) If the changes in the Sea Surface Temperatures in the Tropical Pacific have an equal surface air temperature response as changes in the Sea Surface Temperature in the Mid Latitudes, then explain why the Global Temperature responds quite largely to changes in the ENSO state, whereas the Global temperature does not respond quite as much to mid latitude temperature changes?

The AMO may contribute to global warming through contributing to Arctic Amplification, which is an idea brought up multiple times in the scientific literature.

[skierinvermont]

1. Your previous "responses" to point one have been underwhelming, as they have consisted of mere speculations that the data supporting such a hypothesis that the total solar forcing is seven times the TSI Forcing was manipulated without any statistical or scientific support.

Show me some scientific evidence that Point 1 is flawed instead of providing basless assumptions and speculations that have no place on a science board.

Oooh mr. tough guy.

I provided charts of actual solar data and they do not match the ones used in the paper you are relying upon. It's pretty basic and it is not speculation. The data he uses does not match the actual data.

I am not the only one to notice this, Landscheidt, the solar expert who used to be a denier as well, pointed out the same thing on WUWT.

Unfortunately, we don't know what any other experts in the field think, because it never received proper peer-review and it has never been cited in a major journal.

[Snow_Miser]

Oooh mr. tough guy.

I provided charts of actual solar data and they do not match the ones used in the paper you are relying upon. It's pretty basic and it is not speculation. The data he uses does not match the actual data.

I am not the only one to notice this, Landscheidt, the solar expert who used to be a denier as well, pointed out the same thing on WUWT.

Unfortunately, we don't know what any other experts in the field think, because it never received proper peer-review and it has never been cited in a major journal.

Not sure how stating a fact that your posts were inadequate scientifically and statistically makes me a "tough guy." I used multiple papers and not just the Shaviv 2008 paper to quantify the true solar forcing to be seven times larger than the small TSI forcing. Why is it that totally different authors with totally different analyses come to the same exact conclusion? Your claim that Shaviv did not use correct solar data is baseless and is based off of nothing other than conjectures.

Theodore Landscheit has been dead since 2004 and the Shaviv paper came out in 2008. It isn't very likely that Landscheit made such a comment.

[skierinvermont]

Not sure how stating a fact that your posts were inadequate scientifically and statistically makes me a "tough guy." I used multiple papers and not just the Shaviv 2008 paper to quantify the true solar forcing to be seven times larger than the small TSI forcing. Why is it that totally different authors with totally different analyses come to the same exact conclusion? Your claim that Shaviv did not use correct solar data is baseless and is based off of nothing other than conjectures.

Theodore Landscheit has been dead since 2004 and the Shaviv paper came out in 2008. It isn't very likely that Landscheit made such a comment.

I meant Leif svallgaard .. the one who used to post on WUWT a lot until he realized you're a bunch of nutjobs.

The thrust of Shavivs paper is that there is an 11-yr periodicity in SLR, SST and OHC data. Well the first problem we have is that SLR and OHC data is not precise enough for us to detect an 11-yr periodicity even if one existed.

But nevertheless Shaviv claims to find one. The following is a graph of SLR.

Please point to the 11-yr periodicity:

[WeatherRusty]

What is ENSO?

The Sun warms the equatorial surface waters. Surface winds push the water along in the prevailing wind direction. The stronger the wind the more drag on the surface water.

Weak east to west wind allows the surface water to warm in place with less mixing in of colder water. We experience +ENSO. The atmosphere is warmed and we have El Nino.

Strong east to west wind allows the surface water to be turned over with upwelling cooler waters to the east being propelled westward near the surface. We experience -ENSO. The atmosphere is warmed less and we have La Nina.

Warm water radiates more strongly to the atmosphere and the vacuum of space. Cool water radiates more weakly to the vacuum of space.

All else being equal, the down welling radiation from the Sun and Earth's atmosphere remains the same.

During El Nino there will be less of a TOA energy imbalance. During La Nina more of a TOA energy imbalance. Over time, this averages out to zero so there is no net radiative forcing produced by these ocean cycles. Ocean cycles are not a forcing.

[tacoman25]

What is ENSO?

The Sun warms the equatorial surface waters. Surface winds push the water along in the prevailing wind direction. The stronger the wind the more drag on the surface water.

Weak east to west wind allows the surface water to warm in place with less mixing in of colder water. We experience +ENSO. The atmosphere is warmed and we have El Nino.

Strong east to west wind allows the surface water to be turned over with upwelling cooler waters to the east being propelled westward near the surface. We experience -ENSO. The atmosphere is warmed less and we have La Nina.

Warm water radiates more strongly to the atmosphere and the vacuum of space. Cool water radiates more weakly to the vacuum of space.

All else being equal, the down welling radiation from the Sun and Earth's atmosphere remains the same.

During El Nino there will be less of a TOA energy imbalance. During La Nina more of a TOA energy imbalance. Over time, this averages out to zero so there is no net radiative forcing produced by these ocean cycles. Ocean cycles are not a forcing.

Right. Which is why I have referred to them as "modulations". Oceanic cycles regulate the transfer of heat to the atmosphere.

[Snow_Miser]

I meant Leif svallgaard .. the one who used to post on WUWT a lot until he realized you're a bunch of nutjobs.

The thrust of Shavivs paper is that there is an 11-yr periodicity in SLR, SST and OHC data. Well the first problem we have is that SLR and OHC data is not precise enough for us to detect an 11-yr periodicity even if one existed.

But nevertheless Shaviv claims to find one. The following is a graph of SLR.

Please point to the 11-yr periodicity:

That's because you are comparing two totally different things. Read the Shaviv paper again.

[skierinvermont]

That's because you are comparing two totally different things. Read the Shaviv paper again.

Shaviv says there is an 11-yr periodicity in SLR, OHC, and SST data. All you have to do is look at the data to see there is not.