>Absolutely. And They Do It In Three Easy Steps.
Update 2 (January 14, 2009) – The titles of the “Red Curve” in Figures 7 and 12 read “West Pacific-Atlantic-East Indian” but SHOULD HAVE READ “East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian”. They have been corrected.
h/t to Steve Hempell for his comment at “Watts Up With That”
UPDATE 1 (January 12, 2000/January 19, 2008): Anthony Watts of “Watts Up With That” was kind enough to post this thread on his website:
One of the commenters disagreed with part of my extremely brief description of an El Nino event in which I wrote, “…and a subsurface oceanic temperature boundary layer called the thermocline pushes the warm subsurface water to the surface.” My oversimplification may be misleading, and while it does not undermine the intent of this post, a better explanation is available in the following video from NASA Scientific Visualization Studio video titled “Visualizing El Nino”: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a000200/a000287/a000287.mpg
I have rewritten that sentence, and I updated the post on January 19, 2008. It reads, “During El Nino events, natural changes in atmospheric and oceanic conditions cause the warm water that was ‘contained’ by the Pacific Warm Pool to shift east along the equator. The warm subsurface water rises to the surface.”
NOTE: For those who are new to the subjects of El Nino events and sea surface temperatures, I’ve tried to make the following discussion as non-technical as possible without overlooking too many aspects critical to the discussion. It includes detailed descriptions of many of the processes that take place before, during, and after El Nino events. The period after an El Nino event is often neglected, but it holds the oceanic responses that are the most significant over multiyear periods.
Two things have always stood out for me in a graph of Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST). The first was the Dip and Rebound in the ERSST.v2 version of the Extended Reconstructed SST data from the 1800s to the 1940s. The link above discussed it in detail.
In Figure 1, I’ve boxed SST anomaly data for the period from 1854 to 1976 to indicate that, other than the dip and rebound and the temporary rise in the early 1940s caused by a multiyear El Nino, there really wasn’t a rise of any note in SST between the late 1800s and the period from the mid-1940s to mid-1970s. The ERSST.v2 data used in this post illustrates little to no change in SST anomalies from the one period (late 1800s) to the other (mid-1940s to mid-1970s).
Second: After 1976, Global SST anomalies appear to rise in three steps. It’s very visible if monthly SST anomaly data has been smoothed with a 37-month filter, Figure 2, or if annual data has been smoothed with a 3-year filter. Many people try to correlate those steps with variations in TSI, because they seem to coincide with solar cycles. They don’t, so those trying to make the correlation fail in their efforts.
Zooming in on the period from January 1976 to present, Figure 3, and changing the filtering from 37-months to 12-months do not eliminate the appearance of steps. Why did Global SST rise in steps after 1976?
Based on the title of this post, the rising step changes were caused by El Nino events, three in particular. The NINO3.4 SST anomalies from January 1976 to November 2008 are shown in Figure 4. Most people familiar with the recent El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) record could guess correctly that the 1997/98 El Nino event was one of the El Ninos that caused a step change. If the magnitude of El Ninos was the only factor, the second logical choice would be the 1982/83 El Nino, since it ranks a close second in terms of peak NINO3.4 SST anomaly. Yet that El Nino event did not create a rising step change in global SST anomalies, because another natural event had a greater impact on global climate.
A volcanic eruption. The El Chichon eruption of 1982 interrupted the normal heat distribution processes of the 1982/83 El Nino. Many persons understand and cite this on blogs. Few realize, though, that the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo also interrupted a significant series of El Nino events. The Mount Pinatubo eruption didn’t occur at the same time as a singular El Nino event with monstrously high SST anomalies, but the string of El Ninos it influenced was significant in its length. “Full-fledged” El Nino events occurred in 1991/92 and 1994/95, with a minor El Nino occurring during 1993. At minimum, two of the early-to-mid 1990s El Ninos had their heat distribution processes altered.
Figure 5 is a comparative graph of East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies, scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies, and inverted Sato Index of Stratospheric Mean Optical Thickness data (used as a reference of volcanic eruption timing and intensity). The data in Figure 5 have been smoothed with a 12-month running-average filter. The step changes in the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies are quite obvious. The graphs included in the following discussions are edited versions of Figure 5. In the latter graphs, I have simply limited the years in view to the periods being discussed. The three periods (January 1976 to December 1981, January 1981 to December 1995, and January 1996 to November 2008) are also shown in Figure 5. The periods were divided in this way because, working backwards in time, the first period discussed (1996 to 2008) has been covered in an earlier post and is, therefore, easiest to explain, the second period (1981 to 1995) includes the two volcanic eruptions, and the third period (1976 to 1981) is what was left over. Note that the NINO3.4 and Sato Index data are provided to illustrate timing and timing only; they have not been scaled to suggest magnitude of cause and effect. I did not want to get into a debate about scaling.
In Figure 6, I’ve blocked off the area of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans illustrated by the black curve in Figure 5 and in illustrations that follow. The coordinates are 60S to 65N, 80E to 180. It represents a significant portion of the world oceans, in the range of 25 to 30% of global sea surface from 60S to 65N.
Figure 7 is a comparative graph of the NINO3.4 SST anomalies, inverted Sato Index, and the SST anomalies for the oceans segments not included in the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomaly dataset above. These include the East Pacific, the Atlantic, and the West Indian Oceans contained by the coordinates 60S-65N, 180-80E. The East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean data (red curve) is overlaid onto the East Indian-West Pacific data (the black curve in Figure 5) during the discussions that follow to show the interactions between datasets.
A final preliminary note: The filtering is used to reduce the visual impact of the noise within the datasets. It also affects (smoothes) the abruptness of the change in the Sato Index data when the volcanoes erupted. It has a minor visual impact, but it is something to consider when viewing the graphs that include the volcanic eruptions (Part 2). The impacts of the smoothing are shown in Figure 8.
I illustrated the cause of the step change AFTER the 1997/98 El Nino in a video posted on the thread titled The Lingering Effects of the 1997/98 El Nino. The YouTube link is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uv4Xc4D0Dk
Take five minutes and watch the video. It will help to illustrate the phenomena taking place and the causes.
Note: In the graphs for the video, I used the Optimally Interpolated SST anomaly data (OI.v2). The monthly time-series data for it starts in November 1981, and since I wanted to cover the period starting in 1976 in this post, I had to switch datasets. The SST anomaly data used in the following discussion is from the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature, Version 2 (ERSST.v2), available from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). It runs from January 1854 to present.
THE STEP CHANGE FROM 1996 TO PRESENT – A RECAP AND EXPANSION OF DISCUSSION
The SST anomalies for the West Indian-East Pacific Oceans from January 1996 to November 2008 are shown in Figure 9, along with scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies and the final few years of the inverted Sato Index data. The Sato Index ends in 1999, but because there has not been an explosive volcanic eruption capable of lowering global temperatures significantly since 1991, its end in 1999 has no affect on the discussion.
Note: You may wish to click on the TinyPic link (While holding the “Control” key) to open Figure 9 in a separate window. That would eliminate the need to scroll back and forth. This discussion goes on for a full page of single-spaced text in MSWord form.
The Pacific Warm Pool, also known as the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, is an area in the western equatorial Pacific and eastern Indian Ocean where huge volumes of warm water collect due to a number of natural processes (normally attributed to ocean currents and trade winds). The Pacific Warm Pool is visible in SST data and in subsurface ocean temperature data; the warm pool reaches down to depths of 300 meters. Figure 10 illustrates its location. Over decadal periods of time, it expands and contracts in area and increases and decreases in volume. http://i42.tinypic.com/2hdqydy.jpg
During El Nino events, natural changes in atmospheric and oceanic conditions cause the warm water that was “contained” by the Pacific Warm Pool to shift east along the equator. The warm subsurface water rises to the surface. The high SST anomalies in the eastern equatorial Pacific are known as an El Nino. It is a natural process that occurs at irregular intervals and magnitudes. The eastern equatorial Pacific SST anomaly data is divided into areas for monitoring purposes. Refer to Figure 11. These areas are known as NINO1, 2, 3 and 4. Global temperature responses to El Nino events correlate best with the SST anomalies of an area that overlaps NINO3&4 areas. That area is called NINO3.4. That’s the data set used in the following discussions.
Back to the discussion of Figure 9: The purple curve in Figure 9 shows the SST anomalies for the NINO3.4 area [5S-5N, 170W-120W] in the eastern Pacific. The data has been reduced in scale by a factor of 0.2 so that it doesn’t overwhelm the graph. During the 1997/98 El Nino event, NINO3.4 SST anomalies rose to their highest levels during the 20th century. Its impact is visible in the long-term and short-term Global SST anomaly data shown in Figures 2 and 3. It affected global and regional temperature and precipitation patterns in the short term afterwards.
That’s usually about the end of a discussion of the 1997/98 El Nino. The video showed, however, that other processes continue long after an El Nino event. Much of the heat that rises to the surface during the El Nino is then transported west by the equatorial ocean currents, recharging the Pacific Warm Pool for the next El Nino and heating the surface of the East Indian-West Pacific Oceans. It’s important to keep in mind that before the El Nino most of the warm water was below the surface, contained by the Pacific Warm Pool. Since it’s below the surface to depths of 300 meters, it is not a part of the calculation of global SST, or global temperature, for that matter. Then, after the El Nino, much of it is on the surface and included in the SST data. The resulting rise in the SST anomalies of the East Indian-West Pacific Oceans (the black curve in Figure 9) lags the change in NINO3.4 SST anomaly by a few months. As shown, East Indian-West Pacific Ocean SST anomalies reached their peak in 1998, but by that time, NINO3.4 SST anomalies had already dropped back to “normal” levels. Then the NINO3.4 SST anomalies dropped further, into the subsequent La Nina (Negative) levels, but the East Indian-West Pacific Ocean SST anomalies only dropped a portion of the amount they had risen, about one-half of it. And before the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies can slowly decrease fully to the levels they were at before the 1997/98 El Nino, NINO3.4 SST anomalies increase in 2000 and cause the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies to rise again. That’s the step change.
In summary, a large volume of warm water that was once below the surface of the Pacific Warm Pool was raised to the surface by the El Nino and distributed across the surface of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans, causing SST anomalies to rise in that region. East Indian-West Pacific Ocean SST anomalies began to drop but had not had enough time to return to “normal” before the start of the next El Nino event, which swept them upwards again.
They are slowly returning to the levels they were at before the 1997/98 El Nino, but because they were “pushed” higher again and again by the El Nino events of 2002/03, 2004/05, and 2006/07, the return has taken more than a decade.
In Figure 12, I’ve added the SST anomalies for the East Pacific, Atlantic, and West Indian Oceans to the comparative graph. (It’s another graph you may want to open in a separate window.) The East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies mimic the rise and fall of the NINO3.4 SST anomalies during the 1997/98 El Nino—to a point. Note how, during the La Nina that followed it, the NINO3.4 SST anomalies have dropped well below the levels they had been at before the start of the 1997/98 El Nino (highlighted with the blue line and arrows), yet the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies don’t follow the NINO3.4 SST anomalies below the level they had been at before the 1997/98 El Nino to any great extent; that’s another (but smaller) cause of the step change in Global SST anomalies after the 1997/98 El Nino. Then the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies follow the rise in NINO3.4 SST anomalies from 2000 to late 2002, the peak of the next El Nino. And, from 2003 to present, the SST anomalies for both of the major portions of the global oceans (red and black curves) “normalized” to levels near to one another, modulating back and forth as each area, at different time lags, responds to variations in NINO3.4 SST anomalies. These include the additional El Nino events of 2004/05 and 2006/07, and finally a substantial La Nina in 2007/08. Because of that La Nina, the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies (red curve) have dropped down close to the levels they had been at prior to the 1997/98 El Nino, but it has taken more than 10 years.
In Figure 13, the Global SST anomaly curve from January 1976 to November 2008 (same graph as Figure 3) has been annotated to indicate the causes of the step change. As illustrated and discussed in the preceding, the temperature rise resulted from the significant step response of the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies to the 1997/98 El Nino event–that was compounded by a similar response (but of lesser magnitude) to the 2002/03 El Nino—that was then “maintained” by the El Nino events of 2004/05 and 2006/07.
CLOSING TO PART 1
That’s enough for one post. In the second part, I cover the two earlier periods. I’ve also added another phenomenon that confirms the step changes caused by the El Nino events are drivers of global temperature anomalies. The second half of this post is here:
Smith and Reynolds Extended Reconstructed SST Sea Surface Temperature Data (ERSST.v2) and the Optimally Interpolated Sea Surface Temperature Data (OI.v2) are available through the NOAA National Operational Model Archive & Distribution System (NOMADS).
The Sato Index Data is available from GISS at:
>Excellent explanation, well done.Can you further explain impacton 2007 arctic seaice dip.Because all the warmth eventuallyshowed up here.
>Anonymous: I believe I’ve covered how El Nino events transport tropical heat to the poles in other posts. It should at least be mentioned in:Polar Amplification and Polar Warminghttp://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/07/polar-amplification-and-arctic-warming.htmland in:ENSO and Volcanic Aerosols Explain Most of the Arctic Volatilityhttp://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/enso-and-volcanic-aerosols-explain-most.html and in:The 2007 Spike in Arctic Ocean SSThttp://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/2007-spike-in-arctic-ocean-sst.html
>the response (at least timing and not scale)of 'East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies' to the el-nino anomolies seems to be very high from 1981 through 2008 except for a decreasing response from 2000 to about 2004. then suddenly high response again. any reason for this?
>Anonymous: You asked, "the response (at least timing and not scale)of 'East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies' to the el-nino anomolies seems to be very high from 1981 through 2008 except for a decreasing response from 2000 to about 2004. then suddenly high response again. any reason for this?"The 2002/03 El Nino had a very limited effect on the 'East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies' and global SST anomalies. I've never seen it discussed in any papers. Global TLT anomalies also responded very little to the 2002/03 El Nino. http://i43.tinypic.com/wt99qr.png
Pingback: How Can Things So Obvious Be Overlooked By The Climate Science Community? | Bob Tisdale
Pingback: March 2011 SST Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: April 2011 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: April 2011 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: May 2011 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: May 2011 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Watts Up With That?
“In Figure 1, I’ve boxed SST anomaly data for the period from 1854 to 1976 to indicate that, other than the dip and rebound and the temporary rise in the early 1940s caused by a multiyear El Nino, there really wasn’t a rise of any note in SST between the late 1800s and the period from the mid-1940s to mid-1970s. The ERSST.v2 data used in this post illustrates little to no change in SST anomalies from the one period (late 1800s) to the other (mid-1940s to mid-1970s).”
In reference to your comments near the top of this article, I make an observation about the apparent magnitude of the overall drops and climbs in the chart:
Had the dips in SST continued past the early 1900s or the rises past 1940s, would you not now be saying that there were continued steps in either direction, had they been continued?
In other words, if it weren’t for the turn-around in either direction, you probably would have interpreted those trends as also including step like changes (either decreases or increases)?
I don’t use this to disagree with your theory, only that if we had the data to look at bigger periods of time, maybe 1,000 years, we might see a continuation of the cycles, to varying degrees.
So maybe those trends, before they apparently abruptly changed, should also be interpreted as having had steps? Maybe there are more similiarities…
Rob: Unfortunately, as we go back in time, the source data becomes increasingly sparse. The infilled data covers more of the oceans and all of the corrections to those grids with data really hamper any attempts to find the steps during the warming priod during the early 20th Century. Luckily they’re apparent during the satellite era .
Pingback: June 2011 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | 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
Pingback: October 2011 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: Revised Post – On Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: Tisdale on Foster and Rahmstorf – take 2 | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Tisdale on Foster and Rahmstorf – take 2 | TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg
Pingback: Tisdale on Foster and Rahmstorf – take 2 | My Blog
Pingback: ebook: If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop Their Deceptive Ads? | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop Their Deceptive Ads? | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop Their Deceptive Ads? | TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg
i’ve just read you post a WUWT and just want to make one minor comment.
You have talked about the two periods of rising temperatures in the last 100 years or so and the other two periods which you describa as “flat periods”.
It’s the latter point that I want to discuss with you.
These periods are not reallt flat.
I chartered the NCDC global land and ocean data some years ago and determined that there was a 60 odd year zig zag going through it, with fluctiations of only plus and minus 0.5 degrees each way from the 30 odd year half cycle linear trend line going through them. Unfortunately, NCDC subsequently “improved” their data and the trends are not now so distinct and I have given up my research on that issue, in disgust.
My point however is that your two UP preiods are the sum of the long term linear trend since 1880, as defined by the data (contaminated as it is by UHI) PLUS the 30 odd year ZIG half of the zigzag. The “flat” periods are the net sum of the same long term linear trend LESS the DOWN half of the zigzag. That zigzag is a mere fluctiation, caused probably by the various cycles in the oceans (AMO is a good match here, if I remember correctly). The long term trend is about 0.7 degrees per century, all of which is due to UHI, augmanted by procedures by the gatekeepers to “improve” the actual data they receive from climate stations – improvement on actual observations —- ha ha ha!
So I suggest that you have a look at all that.
I would appreciate it if you send me an email response if the above is any use to you.
I do not usually follow your blog and am flat out at the moment with another aspect of the puzzle that makes up the climate.
Incidentally, I am locked out from commenting at WUWT and suspect it is because I am a supporter of the N&Z theory that long term temperature is controlled by only two variables, sonar irradiance and atmospheric pressure at the surface.
I have done a great deal of due diligance on this theory and in my opinion it stacks up, both againd theoretical physics and data from the planets.
As you probably know, Anthony (usually so level headed) is all steamed up against the theory as is Willis E. (his criticisms by the way were very superficial and humuorous, if you actually look into the issue in detail). Anyway, I am banned – they won’t even answer my pleas for an explanation.
Would it be possible you you to intercede on my behalf?
I would at least like an explanation, even if I can’t expect a reprieve any time soon.
I’m not a troll – once for a short time I was a true believer, then a sceptic, now an outright denier – all based on my developing understanding of the climate.
Anthony allows true believers to comment and even posts their papers in full without comment on occasion.
But he won’t have a bar of the most important theory to emerge for many decades.
And quite personally, i like to comment on WUWT and feel bereft at being locked out.
Can you help?
Bob – please excuse my bad typing and spelling.
My brain works faster than my fingers.
My fingers are not completely under control any more.
My personal dictionary and spelling checker have gone to the dogs long ago.
Despite all that, I hope you can understand what I tried to write.
AusieDan says: “The long term trend is about 0.7 degrees per century, all of which is due to UHI, augmanted by procedures by the gatekeepers to “improve” the actual data they receive from climate stations – improvement on actual observations —- ha ha ha!”
70% of the globe is covered by ocean. There’s no UHI is sea surface temperature.
You wrote, “Incidentally, I am locked out from commenting at WUWT and suspect it is because I am a supporter of the N&Z theory that long term temperature is controlled by only two variables, sonar [sic] irradiance and atmospheric pressure at the surface.”
Since I haven’t read, and most likely will not read, the N&Z theory, I can’t comment on it.
Pingback: Is The Strong Temperature Rise Since 1980 Due To The Sun?
Pingback: Comments about Donald Rapp’s Review of “Who Turned on the Heat?” | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: Untruths, Falsehoods, Fabrications, Misrepresentations | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: I’m Retiring from Full-Time Climate Change Blogging | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: El Niño Residuals Cause the C-Shaped Warming Pattern in the Pacific | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: El Niño Residuals Cause the C-Shaped Warming Pattern in the Pacific | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 6 – What’s All The Hubbub About?… | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 6 – What’s All The Hubbub About?… | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: ClimateProgress’s Joe Romm Is Promoting a Skeptical View of Global Warming: El Niño-Caused Steps | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: ClimateProgress’s Joe Romm Is Promoting a Skeptical View of Global Warming: El Niño-Caused Steps | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Does The Climate-Science Industry Purposely Ignore A Simple Aspect of Strong El Niño Events That Causes Long-Term Global Warming? | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Does The Climate-Science Industry Purposely Ignore A Simple Aspect of Strong El Niño Events That Causes Long-Term Global Warming? | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: Does The Climate-Science Industry Purposely Ignore A Simple Aspect of Strong El Niño Events That Causes Long-Term Global Warming? |
Pingback: Does The Climate-Science Industry Purposely Ignore A Simple Aspect of Strong El Niño Events That Causes Long-Term Global Warming? | US Issues