This post is an expansion on my earlier post Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies – East Pacific Versus The Rest Of The World. In that post, I broke the satellite-era Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomaly data for the global oceans into two subsets. The volcano-adjusted East Pacific SST anomaly data (90S-90N, 180-80W) shows no rise for the past 30 years and the SST anomalies for the Rest-Of-The-World (90S-90N, 80W-180) rose in two easily discernable steps. I used period average SST anomalies to highlight the steps.
This post is also similar in content to the post How Can Things So Obvious Be Overlooked By The Climate Science Community? But in this one, I provided a better way to divide the decade-plus periods that run from the end of the 1986/87/88 El Niño to the beginning of the 1997/98 El Niño and from end of the 1997/98 El Nino to the beginning of the 2009/10 El Niño. This allows for a more consistent way to illustrate the actual Rest-Of-The-World SST anomaly trends between those significant ENSO events.
THE ONE-WORD ANSWER TO THE TITLE QUESTION IS NO.
The satellite-era Sea Surface Temperature record indicates they rose only in response to significant El Niño events. In other words, the Sea Surface Temperature data contradicts the IPCC hypothesis that most of the rise is caused by an increase in Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases.
The fact that the satellite-era SST anomalies do not support AGW is very easy to illustrate with two graphs, Figure 1. They show the satellite-based sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies for two subsets of the global oceans, using Reynolds OI.v2 SST data that runs from November 1981 (the start of that dataset) to the current month of May 2011. The graph on the left illustrates the volcano-adjusted Sea Surface Temperature for the eastern Pacific from pole to pole (90S-90N, 180-80W). That area represents about 33% of the global ocean surface area. There are major variations from year to year caused by El Niño and La Niña events, but the linear trend is basically flat at +0.003 deg C per decade. In other words, there has been no rise in the volcano-adjusted Sea Surface Temperatures for that portion of the global oceans in almost 30 years. The graph on the right illustrates the volcano-adjusted SST anomalies for the rest of the world from pole to pole (90S-90N, 80E-180). The SST anomalies for this portion of the globe show two distinct upward steps with periods of relatively little (if any) rise between those steps. The upward steps are highlighted by the average SST anomalies for the periods between the upward shifts caused by El Niño-Southern Oscillation events. There is an upward step in 1987 that occurs in response to the 1986/87/88 El Niño, and there is an upward step in 1997, which is a response to the 1997/98 El Niño. Note how the Rest-Of-The-World SST data appears to be in the process of another upward step in response to the 2009/10 El Niño.
Figure 1
Figures 2 and 3 are full-sized versions of the volcano-adjusted East Pacific and Rest-Of-The-World SST anomaly graphs. These datasets were first discussed in my post Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies – East Pacific Versus The Rest Of The World, and they have appeared in my monthly SST anomaly updates since then. Two notes: The Sea Surface Temperature dataset used in this post is NOAA Optimum Interpolation, version 2 SST, also known as Reynolds OI.v2. And as noted during the discussion of Figure 1, both subsets have been adjusted for the effects of the explosive volcanic eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Mount Pinatubo in 1991. I performed a linear regression analysis on global SST anomalies to account for the impacts of the volcanic aerosols. This was discussed in the post linked above.
Figure 2
############################################
Figure 3
THE REST-OF-THE-WORLD SST ANOMALY TRENDS BETWEEN THE SIGNIFICANT EL NIÑO EVENTS
Above I described the Rest-Of-The-World SST data as having two distinct upward steps with periods of relatively little (if any) rise between those steps. Actually, the linear trend for the period between the El Niño events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 is -0.01 deg C per decade and for the period between the El Niño events of 1997/98 and 2009/10 it’s +0.001 deg C per decade. Refer to Figure 4. In other words, the volcano-adjusted Rest-Of-The-World Sea Surface Temperature anomalies rose in response the significant El Niño events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98, and then the sea surface temperatures did not rise over the decade (plus) periods that followed.
Figure 4
To establish the periods between the significant El Niño events, I used the NOAA Oceanic Nino Index(ONI) to determine the official months of the 1986/87/88, 1998/98, and 2009/10 El Niño events.. There is a 6-month lag between NINO3.4 SST anomalies and the response of the Rest-Of-The-World SST anomalies during the evolution phase of the 1997/98 El Niño. So I lagged the ONI data by six months and deleted all of the Rest-Of-The-World SST data that corresponded to the El Niño events of the 1986/87/88, 1998/98, and 2009/10 El Niño events. Then I performed the trend analyses on the data for the two periods that remained.
There will be those who will attempt to downplay the trend analyses shown in Figures 4 by stating that I’ve excluded the data after June 2009 to hide a rise in SST anomalies. In reality, I’ve excluded that recent data because the 2009/10 El Niño appears to be causing yet another upward step as shown in Figure 3.
CLOSING
Unless Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases only impacted Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies during the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño events, there is no evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming in the satellite-era Sea Surface Temperature data. The volcano-adjusted East Pacific Ocean Sea Surface Temperature anomalies have not risen in 30 years. For the Rest Of The World, the volcano-adjusted Sea Surface Temperature anomalies rose only during the El Niño events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98, but between the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño events and between the 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Niño events, there was no rise in the volcano-adjusted Rest-Of-The-World Sea Surface Temperatures.
I have presented and described ENSO and the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO in numerous posts over the past years. Links to many of them are listed under the heading of FURTHER INFORMATION.
ENSO is a process that periodically discharges heat from the oceans and redistributes warm waters from the tropical Pacific. ENSO also recharges the tropical Pacific Ocean Heat through a periodic increase in Downward Shortwave Radiation. In that respect, ENSO events are fueled by a periodic increase in natural radiative forcing (solar energy) over the tropical Pacific. When El Niño events dominate a multidecadal era, indicating the tropical Pacific is releasing and distributing more ocean heat than “normal”, global surface temperatures rise. The opposite holds true during epochs when La Niña events dominate.
SOURCES
SST anomaly data is available through the NOAA NOMADS website:
http://nomad1.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh
or:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite
The GISS Global Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Thickness data is available here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau_line.txt
FURTHER INFORMATION
My first detailed posts on the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO events are:
Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1
And:
Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 2
And:
Supplement To “Can El Nino Events Explain All Of The Warming Since 1976?”
And:
Supplement 2 To “Can El Nino Events Explain All Of The Warming Since 1976?”
And for those who like visual aids, refer to the two videos included in:
La Niña Is Not The Opposite Of El Niño – The Videos.
The impacts of these El Nino events on the North Atlantic are discussed in:
There Are Also El Nino-Induced Step Changes In The North Atlantic
And:
Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation Data
I’ve also written a rebuttal post to Tamino’s AMO Post. I hope to have a new post on the North Atlantic posted sometime soon.
The posts related to the effects of ENSO on Ocean Heat Content are here:
ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data
And:
North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables
Additional detailed technical discussions can be found here:
More Detail On The Multiyear Aftereffects Of ENSO – Part 1 – El Nino Events Warm The Oceans
And:
More Detail On The Multiyear Aftereffects Of ENSO – Part 2 – La Nina Events Recharge The Heat Released By El Nino Events AND…During Major Traditional ENSO Events, Warm Water Is Redistributed Via Ocean Currents.
And:
More Detail On The Multiyear Aftereffects Of ENSO – Part 3 – East Indian & West Pacific Oceans Can Warm In Response To Both El Nino & La Nina Events
Bob Tisdale - Climate Observations 
Pingback: Answer to AGW hypothesis…NO | pindanpost
Thank you for that. I always look forward to reading your posts, particularly as they are always nicely illustrated.
Slightly off topic. I have seen lots of analyses of Pacific and Atlanitic Ocean temperatures, but very little (that I can understand) on the Indian Ocean. Specifically, I have been trying to link decadal decrease in rainfall for southern Western Australia with Indian Ocean trends. Rainfall in WA is controlled by winter low pressure systems and fronts migrating east off the Indian Ocean. Do you have any observations and thoughts about this? Many thanks.
Hector Pascal: Have you investigated the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) and its influence on the monsoons?
Thank you Bob Tisdale.
Yes I have looked at the IOD, but (as above) I can’t get a grip on how it relates to ENSO. I see a leakage of La Nina warm water from the western Pacific into the Indian Ocean, but don’t have a sense of “linkage” for want of a better word. The southern WA decadal rainfall record appears to be all one way, so the problem I have is relating the Pacific/Atlantic decadal variations with IOD and precipitation.
I’m not having a go. I don’t believe its CO2. It’s more complicated than that.
Bob:
I probably just missed it, but could you point me to a discussion of how you did the volcano-adjusting?
Thanks for many interesting, provocative posts.
Cheers — Pete Tillman
Peter D. Tillman: Refer to the discussion and links under the heading of ACCOUNTING FOR THE IMPACTS OF VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS in the followingpost:
Regards
Hi Bob,
I assume you understand the idea of the superposition of waves. The process is very simple in taking a wave with a relatively small periodicity and superimposing it on top of a larger wave with a greater periodicity. A simpler idea is taking the typical wind induced waves and placing them on top of an increasing swell (or storm surge). What happens to those lower periodicity waves is that as they progress over this ever-increasing swell is that the next wave tends to be higher both at the peaks and valleys creating a similar step function that you are portraying here.
If you take this same wave superpositioning with the cyclical SST or atmospheric temperatures over some period of time and you create a swell (or increasing temperature regime) in which the cyclical “waves” of temperatures, you will see similar step function features.
You have laid out your reasoning that there is ENSO process cause to that pattern change and a resulting step function. But you failed to answer what is causing that ENSO process pattern change that results in that increasing” swell” of higher temperatures? My conjecture, and that of a majority of climate scientists, is that the “swell” of higher temperatures is GHG caused. I would like to know what are your “natural force” ideas of the causes of the increasing ENSO pattern? If you can provide some scientifically based answers to that question, then I will grant you that you may have a solid reason to believe what you state here. If not, then you have failed.
Hi Bob
“ENSO events are fueled by a periodic increase in natural radiative forcing (solar energy) over the tropical Pacific.” I imagine you discussed this in one of the previous posts you listed, but I’m not sure which one it is. Could you point me to it? Thanks.
Roger Andrews: I believe the following link provides one of the most detailed discussions:
Dennis Hlinka says: “You have laid out your reasoning that there is ENSO process cause to that pattern change and a resulting step function. But you failed to answer what is causing that ENSO process pattern change that results in that increasing” swell” of higher temperatures? My conjecture, and that of a majority of climate scientists, is that the “swell” of higher temperatures is GHG caused.”
Please provide lnks to the papers that confiirm your statement that the majority of scientists believe the increase in NINO3.4 SST anomalies in the 1980s and 1990s was caused by GHG. Last time I saw this discussed at RealClimate the Team said there was no link between GHG and ENSO. So without documentation to support your conjecture, I will regard your comment as unsupported.
Bob,
You have presented your ideas and graphs that present a supposition that ENSO alone, through some internally driven process that has changed somewhere and somehow through some presently undefined forces (which I am still trying to get you to provide for me to see), and is the very first and only step needed created a stepwise function of the observed SST. This is like saying: “the swells of temperatures are indeed increasing, I can show you the graphs of SST changes over some period of time and the step functions that appear to have resulted by showing noted increase in the trendlines above each other. But as to the physical reasons why those swells are increasing, I suggest they don’t matter and I will simply ignore them and not try to define them in in order to provide underlying support to my position.”
What you have done here is suggest that ENSO is the beginning and the end to all observed temperature cycles, and all I am saying that in order for you to conclude as strongly as you are here is that you also need to provide evidence that ENSO is indeed the absolute beginning and end of all such cycles and there are no other possible external forces or factors that could influence it’s behavior to the degree of what you are observing. In other words, what has changed in the ENSO process that wasn’t there 100 years ago? I can show that increasing GHGs over that time do interrelate with the observed temperature record over that period of time. What physical parameters do you have to support your position about the noted changes in ENSO and that they are all naturally occurring?
All I am asking is if you want to properly support your conclusion that GHGs have no effect whatsoever on atmospheric and ocean temperatures, and the observed step function of that data, then you need to present your fact as to the underlying changes in the forces that are actually influencing the ENSO cycles.
The increasing swell in my earlier discussion can be explained due to the increasing GHGs and the behavior, interactions, and relationships of both parameters can be easily shown through known physics. You argument here is that the air-sea interaction all stops and begins at ENSO. What is missing in your argument is that your increasing “swell”, in the form of observable changing ENSO patterns, is suggested without providing any evidence as to what are causing those changes and without support that they are fully self driven due to some unknown or undefined internally changing forces (again just give me a list of what they are) that are somehow different now than they were before those noted recent temperature changes. Without that type of proof or basis for your hypothesis, then your case is not fully proven.
Dennis: Where are the links to the studies that support your earlier comment? You can spend all of your time making comments here, but unless you address that one simple point, I have no need to waste my time responding to you. You’ve been coming to my blog long enough to know that I’ve documented, illustrated, discussed and animated the processes that cause the upward steps.
Regards
Bob,
You are the ENSO expert here, but I will present what I think I understand as some of the key the elements involved with ENSO and the frequency of El Ninos and La Ninas.
From what I know of ENSO, the El Nino forms during a lessening of the trade winds:
The lessening of the trade winds are an atmospheric phenomena that are a direct result of the changes of the atmospheric circulation patterns and not necessarily due a change happening in the ocean first. So if there is a study that can chow that there is a decrease in trade winds over the ocean, then there should be a causation of an increased frequency of El Ninos. Is this correct?
So if this study on trade winds for the past 60 years (1950-2009) :http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110206132902.htm
is correct, then there is a reportable decrease in trade winds over the tropics. Yes I do admit that this study only covers the tropical Atlantic – but if it is decreasing there why not over the tropical Pacific?
So if there is a noted decrease in trade winds over the tropics, it would be safe to conclude that there would be an increase in El Ninos and the increase in the number of your step function changes.
The question to you is, is it possible that the decrease in trade wind are more likely due to some atmospheric circulation pattern changes due to some external forcing – like an increase in GHGs? Or do I just take it for granted that in your world it all is simply caused by some nebulous ENSO processes that somehow increase the number of El Ninos and step functions through some undefined changes in it’s physical characteristics outside of any atmospheric changes that initiated the trade wind response?
Hello Bob,
Great post. I have a bit of difficulty with the final paragraph. I’m happy with the idea that SST can move in an apparent stepwise manner, I think most warmists would be happy with that as well. I’m also happy to go with the idea that some of those major steps coinside with ENSO but it seems difficult to fully accept that ENSO is the driving force behind this. It seems equally likely that we are seeing a redistribution of energy that isalready present in the oceans and ENSO is just acting as that redistribution mechanism. One problem I have is that OHC does not seem to follow this pattern, ENSO seems to effect more than just the ocean surface and OHC is maybe a better measure of the amount of energy sloshing around in the oceans.
As an aside do you have any idea how much extra(less) energy is entering the tropical pacific during a less cloudy La Nina (cloudier El Nino). BOM produce a graph of OLR and the differences look quite substantial but I have no way of understand the magnitude.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Bob I decided to stop being so lazy and look myself. I don’t have a direct answer to my question but a recent paper has an interesting take on ENSO and OLR
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI3030.1?journalCode=clim
(i have the PDF if you want it)
They seem to have summarized the work in this poster
Click to access ChiodiHarrisonAGUFall2008Poster.pdf
It seems like a fascinating way to present ENSO and seems to fit well with your stepwise approach
Dennis Hlinka: The study you referred to started when the fequency and magnitude of La Nina events greatly outweigh El Nino events, and that’s a period that would be associated with higher than normal trade winds.
A decrease in trades would result naturally during the changeover to an epoch when the frequency and magnitude of El Nino events outweighed La Nina events.
HR: Thanks for the link to the Chiodi & Harrison poster. Did you notice what’s missing? La Nina events are not illustrated in their OLR graphs and they’re not mentioned in the conclusions. OLR only picks up the El Nino phase. Ponder that.
Bob,
How does IOCADS fit into this if at all?
http://jisao.washington.edu/data/globalsstenso/
slimething: ICOADS is a database of historic & current Sea Surface Temperature readings from ships and buoys. Researchers at the NOAA and the Hadley Centre then make corrections to that data before including it in their SST datasets. (The corrections have actually reduced the long-term trend of the SST data.)
As far as I know, ICOADS excludes satellite data
BTW, how did you find the Global-SST ENSO Index data? NOAA lists that as an experimental index. It was created in the early 1990s but I’ve never seen it used in a paper.
Bob I had pondered the lack of any obvious signal in the OLR during La Nina but then the graphs only go to 2005-2006. I’d wondered about it so much that I decided to do some scientist bothering and email them if they’ve looked at this thru to 2010-2011 to see what the most recent El Nino and La Nina look like.
Bob – Thanks Again!
Ref Dennis Hlinka cmts – If ‘Dennis” is of, by, and for “Sullivan Environmental”, it would seem that he’s asking you to do his job for him at ‘no cost’ –hummmmmm, Dennis are you asking Bob to do your job for you? Seems the question he’s begging is right up his own ally. Would think that he’d have something in the professional journals too that he’d be referring us to.
http://www.sullivan-environmental.com/
Bob,
How about a predictor of future ocean temperatures? In the Atlantic, the two regions where the down-welling occurs are NE of Nova Scotia and both NE and NW of Iceland. I would consider that the warmth of these down-welling regions are the “canary in the mine”. As these regions become warmer or cooler, the overall ocean will follow…
The reason is the cooling from the pole [general Earth temperature] combined with the transfer Ocean heat from the Gulf Stream. Let me know what you think.
Dr. Lurtz
Pingback: June 2011 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Bob,
I like your graph: http://i43.tinypic.com/33agh3c.jpg
But that still does not answer my question.
You still haven’t defined what comes first. Is it the decrease in trade winds that is increasing the El Ninos, or an increase in El Ninos that is decreasing the trade winds?
The reported decrease in trade winds is a direct reflection of some apparent change in the atmospheric circulation patterns along with a flattening of the temperature/pressure gradients due to a global temperature increase. If the trade wind decrease is the direct result of a temperature/pressure change happening in the atmosphere first, then your argument and conclusion that ENSO is the main driver of the global temperature increase is false.
To believe your latest argument or position, then I would have to assume that just because there is an increase in the number of El Ninos, then there is a corresponding decrease in trade winds. But what event caused the trade winds to decrease in the first place, something in El Nino? That last scenario doesn’t make sense to me and you have yet to define what any of those possible changes in the ocean are that are somehow affecting the trade winds.
It all comes down to the fact that, again as I understand the inner working of ENSO and the frequency of El Ninos, is that the magnitude and strength of the trade wind is THE key parameter that guides the frequency changes of the ENSO cycles. If that is a fact, then a decrease in trade winds, as a result of something changing in the atmosphere first needs to be answered, or at least considered, before you can fully conclude that what you are observing is all due to natural variations. Where have you even addressed or disproven any possible changes, and their underlying causes, happening in the atmosphere first by your analysis?
Simply showing step functions of an increasing SST plot at the end of each major El Nino does not even come close to answering that important question of what is first changing the magnitude of the trade winds that ultimately changes your ENSO cycles. Therefore, as I stated before, your assumption that CO2 is not a factor here has not been proven by this elaborate step-function analysis.
P.S., Can you call off your attack dogs who apparently don’t want me to ever question you or your procedures? All I am doing is trying to get to the correct answers just like you are. I have that right just like anyone else here.
Dennis Hlinka says: “You still haven’t defined what comes first. Is it the decrease in trade winds that is increasing the El Ninos, or an increase in El Ninos that is decreasing the trade winds?”
Am I missing something here, Dennis? Are you intentionally misrepresenting what I’ve written? I haven’t written that a long-term change in trade wind strength is changing the frequency and magnitude of ENSO events or vice versa. I’ve stated that a decrease in trade wind strength preceeds an El Nino event. That allows the warm water in the PWP to slosh east. And I’ve also written that the trade winds and sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific are coupled. And that means trade winds will be stronger during epochs when the frequency and magnitudes of La Nina events is higher, and vice versa. They’re coupled, Dennis. Stronger trade winds cause an increased temperature gradient across the tropical Pacific and an increased temperature gradient across the tropical Pacific will cause stronger trade winds. Please stop twisting what I’ve written.
Dr. Lurtz: Have you plotted the data for the regions you’re discussing to see if the data verifies your hypothesis?
Regards
Bob,
You obviously keep missing the point I am making. So I will try again.
Let me refer you to your own graph here of accumulated NINO3.4 SST anomalies:http://i28.tinypic.com/259zr0w.jpg
My interpretation of that graph is that the accumulation (or gradual rise) in that graph essentially indicates that there has been a relatively higher frequency of El Ninos over La Ninas since 1900. If that is the case, then there must have been a corresponding decrease in trade winds over that 100+ year period that preceded that higher frequency of El Ninos. Based on your most recent response to me, you seem to agree with that. This apparent reduction of trade winds can only happen if the there is some actual change of pressure gradients and wind circulations in the atmosphere in that region first. What causes those changes to most likely occur first in the atmosphere and then sets up an El Nino response is where we appear to diverge. It all comes down to who has a better understanding of the atmosphere where these apparent changes are first occurring.
What I am trying to get my hands around, since you have studied the ENSO processes in much more detail than I have had an opportunity to, is to have a better understanding of your perspective as to what you feel are these “natural causes or factors” that are more responsible for that long-term decrease in trade winds since you obviously are so convinced that is the case over any potential anthropogenic forces. I assume that the study of the atmosphere and it’s behavior is not within your particular area of expertise (at least I have to suppose that is true since you never present or discuss your particular background or area of expertise here or anywhere else), but unless you can provide some scientific evidence that backs up your position through the eyes as some sort of ocean cycle analyst (that is all I can guess at this point), what points can you or cannot offer to the argument that can counter or dispute what the dedicated atmospheric scientists/experts can in this particular case of GHG increase and it’s atmospheric influences.
So all I am asking for here is for you to help me understand what data information sources you have compiled and used to help you identify all the natural atmospheric patterns and cycles there are that give you full confidence in supporting your position on such an issue that just happens to appear to be outside your particular background or area of expertise. I look forward to the day when you may enlighten all of us with that bit of information on your background.
Dennis Hlinka says: “You obviously keep missing the point I am making. So I will try again.”
I don’t keep missing your point. You don’t understand the topic you’re attempting to present, so all you’ve managed to express are your misunderstandings.
You continued “My interpretation of that graph is that the accumulation (or gradual rise) in that graph essentially indicates that there has been a relatively higher frequency of El Ninos over La Ninas since 1900.”
When that running total rises, the frequency and magnitude of El Nino events exceed the frequency and magnitude of La Nina events. When the running total decreases from the 1940s to the mid-1970s, La Nina events dominated. So there were two bookend periods when the frequency and magnitude of El Niño events exceeded La Niña events and between them was a period when the frequency and magnitude of La Niña events exceeded El Niño events. The two bookend periods when El Niño events dominated were similar in magnitude, and that’s confirmed because there’s no trend in NINO3.4 SST anomalies.
You continued, “If that is the case, then there must have been a corresponding decrease in trade winds over that 100+ year period that preceded that higher frequency of El Ninos.”
Wrong. The trade wind strength is inversely related to NINO3.4 SST anomalies. If there’s no trend in the NINO3.4 SST anomalies over the 100+ year period, why would there be a trend in trade wind strength?
Dennis Hlinka: Just thought of something. I believe the linked post may also help answer some of your concerns, especially the discussions on the North Atlantic.
Regards
Dennis Hlinka: You began the final paragraph of your July 13, 2011 at 10:57 pm comment (which has now been deleted) with “In regards to that statement, here is my final question to you is: How does that particular analysis prove it? Using your short-term cherry picked time periods and applying some useless step function analysis that can be easily shown to be the result from a shorter periodicity wave of temperature changes superimposed on top of a longer period “swell” of increasing global temperatures is a rather lame high-schoolish attempt that can only be considered of highly questionable scientific value at best.”
The Reynolds OI.v2 SST dataset begins in November 1981. The term of the graphs in this post is not cherry picked. I did not perform a “useless step function analysis”; the upward steps exist in the data. And your need to categorize my post as a “rather lame high-schoolish attempt that can only be considered of highly questionable scientific value at best” has now gotten you banned from commenting at this blog.
You are no longer welcome here.
Good-bye
PS: In my July 12, 2011 at 9:42 pm reply to you above, I linked a post that included a discussion of North Atlantic SST. Included in it was a link to Wang (2005), “ENSO, Atlantic Climate Variability, And The Walker And Hadley Circulation.” Wang (2005) link:
Click to access Wang_Hadley_Camera.pdf
It provides the answer to your questions about what drives the trade wind strength and sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic.
Pingback: Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, July 14th 2011 « The Daily Bayonet
Pingback: ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: Supplement To “ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature” | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: July 2011 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: August 2011 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: September 2011 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
If the temperature of the Eastern Pacific has been basically flat but that of the rest of the world oceans’ has been rising in a series of steps does that not mean that the heat content of the global ocean has increased?
Pingback: October 2011 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: November 2011 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: November 2011 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: December 2011 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: January 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: February 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: February 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: March 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update – A New Look | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: March 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update – A New Look | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: March 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update – A New Look | TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg
Pingback: April 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: May 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: June 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: July 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: August 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: Tisdale’s August 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: September 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: October 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: SkepticalScience Misrepresents Their Animation “The Escalator” | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: ‘Skeptical Science’ Misrepresents Their Animation “The Escalator” | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: November 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: December 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: January 2013 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: February 2013 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: March 2013 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: April 2013 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: May 2013 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: May 2013 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: June 2013 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: July 2013 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: August 2013 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: September 2013 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: October 2013 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: November 2013 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: December 2013 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: January 2013 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: February 2013 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: March 2013 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: March 2014 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: April 2014 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations