Supplement To “ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature”

In ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature, I eventually divided Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomaly data into two subsets: the East Pacific and the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific. Both datasets extended from pole to pole. The East Pacific SST anomalies have not risen during the satellite era (that is, since 1982), while the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies show upward steps in response to the significant El Niño events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98–and another possible upward step in response to the 2009/10 El Niño. And I illustrated that between those significant El Niño events, the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies had flat linear trends; that is, the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies did not rise between those significant El Niño events. I then explained and illustrated how the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-induced rises in the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans were responsible for much of the variability and upward shifts in the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific, and that the SST anomalies of the East Indian-West Pacific actually dropped between the significant El Niño events. I also showed and discussed how the additional mode of natural variability known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) accounted for the additional upward trend in the North Atlantic.

But the discussions of the North Atlantic and the East Indian-West Pacific datasets left out much of the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific SST data. Refer to Figure 1. There are some who are skeptical of my posts because my posts contradict their assumptions about the rise in global sea surface temperatures being caused by anthropogenic global warming. And they may feel I was hiding something by not illustrating the SST anomalies for all portions of the global oceans, so…

Figure 1

In this post, I’ve divided the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific dataset into two subsets that capture all of the SST data in this portion of the global oceans. Refer to Figure 2. The “North Atlantic Plus” data includes the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and the Arctic Ocean north of the North Atlantic, using the coordinates of 0-90N, 80W-40E. The South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific data captures the rest of that portion of the global oceans, from pole to pole. Since I’m using a coordinate-based system (NOAA’s NOMADS website) as the source of data, I divided the area into two additional subsets and presented the weighted average, with the coordinates of 0-90N, 40E-180 representing 27.9% and the coordinates of 90S-0, 80W-180 representing 72.1 %. And to determine the weighting, I used the land mask data that’s part of the NCEP/DOE Reanalysis-2 flux data available through the KNMI Climate Explorer.

Figure 2

A Note About Volcano Adjustments: All datasets in this post have been adjusted for the impacts of the volcanic eruptions of El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo. The method I used was discussed in the post Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies – East Pacific Versus The Rest Of The World, under the heading of Accounting For The Impacts Of Volcanic Eruptions.

THE “NORTH ATLANTIC PLUS” DATA

Figure 3 compares volcano-adjusted North Atlantic (0-70N, 80W-0) SST anomalies to those of the volcano-adjusted “North Atlantic Plus” (0-90N, 80W-40E) subset. They have the same year-to-year variations (correlation coefficient of 0.98) and basically the same linear trend at about 0.222 Deg C/decade.

Figure 3

As illustrated in Figure 4, the linear trends of the volcano-adjusted “North Atlantic Plus” data between the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño events and between the 1997/98 and the 2009/10 El Niño events are both positive. There’s no surprise there since the “North Atlantic Plus” data is also governed by the additional mode of variability called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

Figure 4

A Note About The Selection Of The Periods Between The ENSO Events: The period between the 1986/87/88 El Niño and the 1997/98 El Niño starts 6-months after the end of the “official” El Niño months of the 1986/87/88 El Niño as presented in the NOAA ONI index and ends 6-months after the “official” start of the 1997/98 El Niño. The same method was applied to determine the period between the 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Niño events. The 6-month lag is based on the response of Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific SST data to the 1997/98 El Niño event. Though there are different response lags for the subsets used in this post, I continue to use the 6-month lag for all to maintain consistency between the graphs of the subsets. The method was discussed in more detail in the post Does The Sea Surface Temperature Record Support The Hypothesis Of Anthropogenic Global Warming?, after its Figure 4.

THE SOUTH ATLANTIC-INDIAN-WEST PACIFIC DATA

Figure 5 includes the volcano-adjusted East Indian-West Pacific SST anomaly dataset that I’ve discussed in numerous posts over the past few years and compares it to the volcano-adjusted South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific data that’s one of the subsets being discussed in this post. The ENSO-induced variations in the East Indian-West Pacific data dominate the year-to-year and long-term trend of the South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific data. The correlation coefficient for the two datasets is 0.88, and the East Indian-West Pacific data has a significantly higher linear trend.

Figure 5

As mentioned earlier, the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies do not rise between the significant El Niño events, but the SST anomalies of the “North Atlantic Plus” dataset do increase between them. This would mean that the South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies must drop between the significant El Niño events. And, as shown in Figure 6, they do.

Figure 6

CLOSING

As discussed in numerous recent posts, there is no rise in the Sea Surface Temperature of the East Pacific Ocean, about 33% of the global ocean surface area, since 1982. As shown in this post, between the significant El Niño events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 and between the significant El Niño events of 1997/98 and 2009/10, Sea Surface Temperatures rise for the “North Atlantic Plus” data (about 13.5% of the global ocean surface area), but that is a function of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. And the most obvious contradiction to the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is the fact that the South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies, which represents about 53.5 % of the global ocean surface area, actually drop between those significant El Niño events.

There is little to no evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gases played any role in the rise in Sea Surface Temperature during the satellite era. Researchers might discover this if they were to treat ENSO as a process instead of an index.

SOURCE

The Reynolds OI.v2 SST anomaly data used in this post is available through the NOAA NOMADS website:

http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&varlist=on&new_window=on&lite=&ptype=ts&dir=

The Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Thickness data used for the volcano adjustments is available through the GISS website:

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

Specifically:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau_line.txt

About these ads

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in El Nino-La Nina Processes, Natural Warming. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Supplement To “ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature”

  1. Pingback: ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  2. HR says:

    Thanks Bob,

    Sorry I’m going to be a little bit more picky. What exactly are you trying to illustrate by using the East Pacific data set? (apologies if you’ve explained this in earlier posts). There must be some relevance to it other than the lack of long term warming. If it is to represent ENSO? Surely the Western Pacific Warm Pool would be a better region given that this is the source of the energy for the ENSO engine. I had a little play with the WPWP SST data on Climate Explorer and it shows some similar patterns to the east pacific i.e. major excursions during the large ENSO events leading to step-like jumps followed by flat periods in-between.

    It’s a small issue but something that’s bugging me ATM.

  3. Bob Tisdale says:

    HR says: “What exactly are you trying to illustrate by using the East Pacific data set? (apologies if you’ve explained this in earlier posts). There must be some relevance to it other than the lack of long term warming.”

    That’s it. The East Pacific has not warmed for the last thirty years based on the linear trends. It simply mimics ENSO. The warm water sloshes in, and the warm water sloshes back out.

  4. HR says:

    Ok but if you want to look at this as a process then it seems logical to focus on what is the engine for the process the WPWP (I may be misunderstnding this) rather than something that mimics ENSO. Anyway this isn’t necessarily a criticism of you as all ENSO study seems to have it’s eye on the East Pacific, it just looks like something that isn’t quite right if the process is how you describe it (or how I understand your description).

    There is some wishful thinking here as well. I’m not convinced the next step is upward.

    If you take the WPWP to be roughly what is shown here

    http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2007/oct/UDanimation.gif

    Then Reynolds SST looks like this for that region

    http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/isstoi_v2_120-220E_20–20N_na.png

    You can see your flat periods in between the excursion caused by the major ENSO events but the present SST look fairly low at the present time. Putting the vlocano-adjusted WPWP SST along side a (scaled) NINO3.4 index shows just how low it is.

    http://i56.tinypic.com/5npues.png

    It could still recharge and climb the hill all the way back like it did in 2000-2001 but it looks like a long way to go. Maybe we have to wait for the SH spring/summer to see where this goes. As I said wishful thinking that the engine (boiler) for ENSO is cooling!!!

  5. Bob Tisdale says:

    HR: You’ve extended the longitudes of the Pacific Warm Pool (aka the West Pacific Warm Pool and the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool) in your graphs too far east. You’re including 120E to 140W. They include more than half of the longitudes of the NINO3.4 region, which are 170W to 120W. In Figures 4 and 5 of the first portion of this post…
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/enso-indices-do-not-represent-the-process-of-enso-or-its-impact-on-global-temperature/
    …I illustrated, using the coordinates of 20S-20N, 120E-180, how the OHC anomalies of the Western Tropical Pacific (the Pacific Warm Pool) vary inversely with NINO3.4 SST anomalies. Keep in mind that an El Niño event is also fueled by the warm water from below the surface of the PWP, so it’s better to use OHC for your source of fuel for the ENSO process in your comparisons.

  6. HR says:

    Wouldn’t 220E be 40W?

    I had trouble delineating the WPWP because many papers on the subject gave different co-ordinates. Some papers noted that it also extends and shrinks with ENSO and even went further west than even I did. Mine was a bit of a compromise. Also I’ve read that the changes in SST are proportional to the changes in OHC (I could hunt down the ref.) so SST seems like a fine substitute and maybe more reliable data set going back to the 1980′s

  7. Bob Tisdale says:

    HR says: “Wouldn’t 220E be 40W?”

    Nope. With 220E, you’re going east from 180 deg longitude, so you’d subtract the 40 from 180 and make it 140W.

    You continued, “Also I’ve read that the changes in SST are proportional to the changes in OHC (I could hunt down the ref.) so SST seems like a fine substitute and maybe more reliable data set going back to the 1980′s.”

    On an ocean basin maybe, but not at the PWP during ENSO events. And if you can find a reference that says otherwise, I’d be interested in seeing it, since the data contradicts it.

    Regards

  8. Pingback: A Memo To Hansen and Sato | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  9. Pingback: Another GISS miss, Tisdale calls out Hansen and Sato on failed predictions | Watts Up With That?

  10. Pingback: Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies Along The Track Of Hurricane Irene | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  11. Pingback: Tisdale on debunking AGW intensification claims about Irene | Watts Up With That?

  12. Pingback: John Nielsen-Gammon Comments Regarding Climate Models And The Process Of El Niño-Southern Oscillation | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  13. Pingback: The Texas ENSO Bassmaster Classic | Watts Up With That?

  14. Pingback: Part 2 – Do Observations and Climate Models Confirm Or Contradict The Hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming? | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  15. Pingback: Tisdale on Climate Models Confirming Or Contradicting AGW | Watts Up With That?

  16. Pingback: IPCC Models Versus Sea Surface Temperature Observations During The Recent Warming Period | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  17. Pingback: Tisdale on IPCC Models Versus Sea Surface Temperature Observations During The Recent Warming Period | Watts Up With That?

  18. Pingback: ON THE IPCC’s UNDUE CONFIDENCE IN COUPLED OCEAN-ATMOSPHERE CLIMATE MODELS – A SUMMARY OF RECENT POSTS | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  19. Pingback: On The IPCC’s Undue Confidence In Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Climate Models – A Summary Of Recent Posts | Watts Up With That?

  20. Pingback: On The IPCC’s Undue Confidence In Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Climate Models – A Summary Of Recent Posts | TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg

  21. Pingback: On Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 – Global temperature evolution 1979–2010 | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  22. Pingback: Tisdale takes on Tamino’s Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 | Watts Up With That?

  23. Pingback: Tisdale takes on Tamino’s Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 | My Blog

  24. Pingback: Revised Post – On Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  25. Pingback: Tisdale on Foster and Rahmstorf – take 2 | Watts Up With That?

  26. Pingback: The Warming of the Global Oceans – Are Manmade Greenhouse Gases Important or Impotent? | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  27. Pingback: Tisdale: The Warming of the Global Oceans – Are Manmade Greenhouse Gases Important or Impotent? | Watts Up With That?

  28. Pingback: Best post about ENSO ever. « The Real World

  29. I really love your website.. Great colors & theme.
    Did you make this site yourself? Please reply back as I’m planning to create my own personal blog and would love to learn where you got this from or exactly what the theme is called. Thanks!

  30. Bob Tisdale says:

    physio Burleigh: The theme is “Twenty Ten” by WordPress:
    http://theme.wordpress.com/themes/twentyten/

    Regards

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s