Dana Nuccitelli Can’t Come to Terms with the Death of the AGW Hypothesis

Dana Nuccitelli published an article today in The Guardian Does the global warming “pause” mean what you think it means?…a play off a line by Inigo Montoya from “The Princess Bride”.  Dana has expressed his misunderstanding of one of the most commonly used metrics of global warming—the surface temperature record.  And he continues to display his unwillingness to accept that the hypothesis of human-induced global warming is dead.


Nuccitelli presents Box 3.1 Figure 1 from Chapter 3 of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (my Figure 1).

01 IPCC-AR5-WG1-Box-3_1-Fig-1_450

Figure 1

(See the approved Chapter 3 (Observations: Ocean) of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report.)

Nuccitelli writes:

The speed bump only applies to surface temperatures, which only represent about 2 percent of the overall warming of the global climate. Can you make out the tiny purple segment at the bottom of the above figure? That’s the only part of the climate for which the warming has ‘paused’.

Nuccitelli is correct that the halt in global warming applies to surface temperatures, but he’s incorrect that it applies only to it. The warming of the top 700 meters has also slowed to a crawl, and is nonexistent in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, but more on that later.

The global surface temperature record includes land surface air temperature (measured at 2 meters from the surface) and sea surface temperature measurements.  And as a reference, the GISS, NCDC and UKMO global surface temperature products show little (GISS) to no (UKMO & NCDC) warming since January 2001, based on the linear trends. (See Figure 2, which is from the post here.)

02 comparison-2001-start

Figure 2

Nuccitelli refers his readers to “tiny purple segment at the bottom of the above figure” (my Figure 1), which is identified by the IPCC as “Atmosphere” in the illustration—not the surface of the oceans.

In their discussion of “Atmosphere” for their Box 3.1, Figure 1, the IPCC explains that the atmospheric component is estimated from lower troposphere and lower stratosphere temperatures, based on satellite measurements.  The lower troposphere temperature measurements are from the layer that is approximately 3000 meters above sea level.

The IPCC has NOT presented the heat content for the surface of the oceans in their Box 3.1, Figure 1. The ocean surface warming is included in top 700 meters of ocean warming—not in the atmosphere.

# # #

Further to the IPCC’s Box 3.1, Figure 1, Dana Nuccitelli forgot to advise his readers that the data in the IPCC’s graph have been smoothed with a 5-year filter, and that the smoothing would hide the slowdown in warming of the oceans at depths of 0 to 700 meters and 700 to 2000 meters.  And he has elected not to tell his readers that the quarterly NODC ocean heat content data for the North Atlantic during the ARGO era continues to show very little warming for depths of 0-2000 meters and cooling at depths of 0-700 meters. (See Figure 3.)

03 N. Atl OHC

Figure 3

He’s overlooked the fact that the ocean heat content data for the North Pacific show cooling at both levels, with the 0-2000 meter data cooling at a lesser rate than the 0-700 meter data. (See Figure 4.)

04 N. Pac OHC

Figure 4

(Figures 3 and 4 are from the post here. And the data are available here from the NODC website.)

CO2 is supposed to be a well-mixed greenhouse gas. Obviously, increased CO2 emissions in recent years have had no impact on the ocean heat in the Northern Hemisphere.

# # #

Nuccitelli uses the tired and misleading “atomic bomb” metric:

As the IPCC figure indicates, over 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans, and it continues at a rapid pace, equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second.

The IPCC doesn’t mention Hiroshima atomic bombs anywhere in their Chapter 3; the words “Hiroshima”, “atom”, and “bomb” do not appear in Chapter 3 of the IPCC’s AR5; so don’t think the IPCC is responsible for this nonsensical claim.   One would have to assume Nuccitelli is referring to the 0.6 watts/meter^2 imbalance at the surface found in papers like Stephens et al (2013). See Figure 5.

05 Figure 1 from Stephens et al 2013

Figure 5

As I wrote in Climate Models Fail:

The total of the downward shortwave (solar) radiation and longwave (infrared) radiation is about 534 watts/meter^2, so the estimated imbalance of 0.6 watts/meter^2 is only about 0.1% of the total downward radiation at the surface.  Or, in other words, the total amount of downward radiation at the surface is about 890 times more than the difference.  Also note the uncertainty in the imbalance.  The estimated imbalance is 0.6 +/- 17 watts/meter^2. That is, the uncertainties are 28 times greater than the estimated value.  Bottom line: the surface imbalance may exist or it may not. 

Note:  Radiative imbalance is the metric that alarmists like to portray in terms of atomic bombs.  What the alarmists fail to tell their readers is that sunlight and natural levels of infrared radiation at the surface are almost 890 times the number of atomic bombs they’re claiming, and that the uncertainties in radiative imbalance are 28 times the radiative imbalance.

# # #

Nuccitelli continues to mislead his readers in that article:

Over longer time frames, for example from 1990 to 2012, average global surface temperatures have warmed as fast as climate scientists and their models expected.

As I noted in the post Open Letter to the Honorable John Kerry U.S. Secretary of State, the modelers had to double the rate of the warming of global sea surface temperatures over the past 31+ years in order to get the modeled land surface air temperatures even close to the observed warming. (See Figure 6.)

06 Global SSTa since Nov 1981

Figure 6

So let’s look at the difference between modeled and observed global sea surface temperatures since 1990 to put it into the time period Dana Nuccitelli prefers, Figure 7. “Climate scientists and their models expected” the surface of the global oceans to have warmed at a rate that was almost 3 times faster than observed since 1990.

07 Global SSTa since Jan 1990

Figure 7

Three times as fast must mean “as fast as climate scientists and their models expected” in the new climate change doubletalk of global warming enthusiasts.

# # #

Nuccitelli and the global warming enthusiasts from the IPCC like to present global warming in terms that are meaningless to most people, in Joules with lots of zeroes after it. The units in the IPCC’s Box 3.1, Figure 1 (my Figure 1) are in Zettajoules or Joules*10^21. But as we’ve illustrated and discussed recently, the warming of the oceans takes on a whole new perspective when we present it in terms familiar to people: deg C. (See Figure 8, which is from the blog post here.)  Surface temperatures stopped warming, the warming of the top 700 meters of the oceans has slowed to a crawl, so if there is continued warming at depths of 700 to 2000 meters, it is so miniscule that it’s not coming back to haunt anyone at any time in the future.

08 fig-3-temp-anom-comparison-a

Figure 8

# # #

After a long discussion of multidecadal variations in surface temperatures, Nuccitelli’s final paragraph begins:

In terms of the threat from long-term global warming and climate change, it really doesn’t mean anything. It just means that at the moment, more global warming is being absorbed by the oceans, but the next time ocean cycles shift, we’ll experience accelerated surface warming just like we did in the 1990s.

But Nuccitelli misses the obvious.  We discussed this in the post Will their Failure to Properly Simulate Multidecadal Variations In Surface Temperatures Be the Downfall of the IPCC?:

Most people will also envision the multidecadal variations extending further into the future.   That is, they will imagine a projection of future Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures repeating the slight cooling from 1945 to the mid-1970s along with the later warming, followed by yet another slight cooling of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures, in a repeat of the past “cycle”.  That is, they will envision the surface temperature record repeating itself. And in their minds’ eyes, they see an ever growing divergence between the models and their projections, like the one shown in Figure [9].

09 multidecadal oscilations into the future

Figure 9

FURTHER READING

In my book Climate Models Fail, I have collected my past findings about climate model failings, and illustrated others, and I’ve presented highlights from the research papers critical of climate models—and I “translated” those research findings for persons without scientific or technical backgrounds.  And as noted earlier, there is also a discussion of the natural warming of the global oceans.   The free preview of Climate Models Fail is available here.  It includes the Introduction, Table of Contents and the Closing.  Climate Models Fail is available in pdf and Kindle formats.  Refer to my blog post New Book: “Climate Models Fail” for further information, the synopsis from the Kindle webpage and purchase/download links.

Ocean heat content data and satellite-era sea surface temperature data indicate the oceans warmed via natural ocean processes, not from manmade greenhouse gases.  This has been addressed in dozens of blog posts here and with cross posts at WattsUpWithThat for almost 5 years.   I further discussed this in minute detail in my book Who Turned on the Heat?  It is only available in .pdf form.  A preview is here. Who Turned on the Heat? is described further in, and is available for sale through, my blog post “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About El Niño and La Niña”.

CLOSING

The hypothesis of human-induced global warming is dead. Global warming enthusiasts like Dana Nuccitelli and the IPCC just haven’t come to terms with their losses.  They should be burying it with dignity, and moving on to greener pastures, but they’re not.  They’ve chosen to parade around a failure of science like a pull toy.

Advertisements

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 CAGW Proponent Arguments. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Dana Nuccitelli Can’t Come to Terms with the Death of the AGW Hypothesis

  1. Dan Pangburn says:

    There is only one significant driver of the average global temperature trend since 1610. It is disclosed at http://conenssti.blogspot.com/

    After about 1895, accurate temperature measurements were made world wide and revealed the natural oscillations above and below the sunspot-number-time-integral-trajectory. The oscillations are caused by the net effect of ocean cycles (which are dominated by the PDO). The resulting graph and physics-based equation that accurately (R2=0.9) calculates the measured anomaly trend are shown at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html

  2. Bob Tisdale says:

    Thanks for the link to the post, Dan. Interesting results from integrating sunspot numbers.

    You wrote above, “The oscillations are caused by the net effect of ocean cycles (which are dominated by the PDO). ”

    Actually, since the PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO, ENSO dominates.

    Regards

  3. bottom line: Dana Nuccitelli is not honest, not even to himself

  4. nzrobin says:

    Great post Bob. Chock full of real data. Wonder if Dana comes to take a look? I also wonder what he’s thinking about his decadal global temperature bet with Pierre. Here’s a graph that I did to see how that was progressing. http://www.kiwithinker.com/2013/05/the_decadal_global_climate_bet/

  5. Bob Tisdale says:

    nzrobin, he responded over at SkepticalScience:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-global-warming-pause-mean-what-you-think.html#99013

    Dana wrote, “As usual Tisdsale is still focusing on surface temperatures and ignoring ocean temperatures.”

    Hmm. Dana overlooked Figures 3, 4 and 8.

    Dana wrote, “He does have a valid point that 0-700m ocean warming has slowed a bit, but only because 700-2000m ocean warming has accelerated.”

    And as I showed in my Figure 8, ocean heat content at depths of 700-2000 meters is a useless metric. If the oceans below 700 meters are continuing to warm (big if), the rise in temperature is so small it’s meaningless.

    Dana wrote, “He’s guilty of the same type of cherry picking I discussed above, just regarding surface ocean temps in addition to surface air temps.”

    There was no cherry picking on my part in my presentations of satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature data versus models. The Reynolds OI.v2 dataset starts in November 1981 and so does my graph in Figure 6. The start year of 1990 in my Figure 7 was chosen by Nuccitelli, not me.

  6. Pingback: Untruths, Falsehoods, Fabrications, Misrepresentations — Part 2 | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  7. Rob Nicholls says:

    I’m interested in figures 3,4 and 8.
    Figure 8 suggests that globally the temperature of the ocean has increased between 2005 and 2013, in both the 0-700m and the 700-2000m depths. The temperature increase in the oceans looks tiny on this graph because it is very small compared to the increase in surface temperature, but I understand that the increase in global ocean heat content is very large between 2005 and 2013.

    I wonder what the purpose of figures 3 and 4 is. These figures show the changes in heat content for 2 specific ocean regions: the North Pacific and North Atlantic, both of which cooled between 2005 and 2013 according to the graphs. The scaling in figures 3 and 4 is very different from the scaling in figure 8. I wonder why you chose to represent 2 ocean regions which have cooled since 2005 in figures 3 and 4. Wouldn’t it be more relevant to show the global ocean heat content in a figure similar to figures 3 and 4 (as the article is about global warming rather than about specific regions)? Perhaps I am missing something? (Apologies if this is the case – I’m not very familiar with the ARGO data).

  8. Bob Tisdale says:

    Rob Nicholls says: “Figure 8 suggests that globally the temperature of the ocean has increased between 2005 and 2013, in both the 0-700m and the 700-2000m depths. The temperature increase in the oceans looks tiny on this graph because it is very small compared to the increase in surface temperature, but I understand that the increase in global ocean heat content is very large between 2005 and 2013.”

    The increase (if it truly exists) in global ocean heat content between 2005 and 2013 is only large if we look at it in terms of Joules. If we look at it in deg C, then it’s miniscule. The intent of Figure 8 was to put the warming in perspective.

    Rob Nicholls says: “I wonder what the purpose of figures 3 and 4 is.”

    The intent was to show that the Northern Hemisphere oceans are not warming during the ARGO era at either depth. That means the warming is confined to the Southern Hemisphere, but global warming, especially of ocean heat, is supposed to be global. If the Northern Hemisphere oceans are not being warmed by manmade greenhouse gases, then there is no reason to assume the warming in the Southern Hemisphere is being caused by manmade greenhouse gases.

  9. Rob Nicholls says:

    Thanks v much for your prompt response. What you say is interesting. 8 years isn’t a particularly long timescale, but if greenhouse gases released by human activity are not the cause of the observed increase in global ocean heat content (0-2000m) between 2005 and the first quarter of 2013, then what do you think is the likely cause?

    Also, the pentadal data at the NODC website suggests that globally overall, the oceans have been warming over the last 40 years. I’m aware that the data prior to ARGO is much more limited than since ARGO started, and I’ve seen a previous critique of yours of the OHC data, including the pentadal data (https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/is-ocean-heat-content-data-all-its-stacked-up-to-be/ ). Do you think the, globally, the oceans have warmed in the last 40 years, and if so, what is the likely cause of this warming?

  10. Bob Tisdale says:

    Rob Nicholls says: “8 years isn’t a particularly long timescale, but if greenhouse gases released by human activity are not the cause of the observed increase in global ocean heat content (0-2000m) between 2005 and the first quarter of 2013, then what do you think is the likely cause?”

    8 years is as long as the ARGO data is presented by the NODC. The warming was caused by the distribution of sunlight-created warm water by ENSO:

    Rob Nicholls says: “Do you think the, globally, the oceans have warmed in the last 40 years, and if so, what is the likely cause of this warming?”

    See “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” (42mb pdf):
    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-manmade-global-warming-challenge.pdf

    Regards

  11. Rob Nicholls says:

    Thanks v much for your response and for the link to “the man-made global warming challenge”, which I found really fascinating, particularly the graphs showing the influence of El-Nino and La-Nina events.

    The suggestion that a combination of sunlight (excessively heating the relevant part of the ocean) and ENSO have been the predominant causes of ocean warming in recent decades is not something I’ve explored before. Please can you point me to peer-reviewed literature to support this? (I didn’t think ENSO would be capable of causing overall warming, I thought ENSO will just re-distribute heat that’s already in the climate system).

    Also, I note that you’ve mentioned adjustments to the NODC’s ocean heat content data from 1955 onwards (including removal of a large ‘hump’ in the data from 1970 to 1985). I think the main adjustments were from Levitus et al 2009 (?), possibly updated in Levitus et al 2012 (?) I’ve not been able to find a peer-reviewed, published criticism of these papers, or the adjustments used in them or the adjusted time-series – please can you point me in the right direction?

    Many thanks again.

  12. Bob Tisdale says:

    Rob Nicholls says: “The suggestion that a combination of sunlight (excessively heating the relevant part of the ocean) and ENSO have been the predominant causes of ocean warming in recent decades is not something I’ve explored before. Please can you point me to peer-reviewed literature to support this?”

    “The suggestion that a combination of sunlight (excessively heating the relevant part of the ocean) …” is indicated by a number of papers. First, is Trenberth et al (2002):
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf

    They write:
    “The negative feedback between SST and surface fluxes can be interpreted as showing the importance of the discharge of heat during El Niño events and of the recharge of heat during La Niña events. Relatively clear skies in the central and eastern tropical Pacific allow solar radiation to enter the ocean, apparently offsetting the below normal SSTs, but the heat is carried away by Ekman drift, ocean currents, and adjustments through ocean Rossby and Kelvin waves, and the heat is stored in the western Pacific tropics. This is not simply a rearrangement of the ocean heat, but also a restoration of heat in the ocean.”

    In other words, ENSO acts as a chaotic, sunlight-fueled, recharge (La Niña)-discharge (El Niño) oscillator. And there are a number of other papers and data that support this. Simply perform a “word find” of sunlight in the following post:
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/open-letter-to-the-royal-meteorological-society-regarding-dr-trenberths-article-has-global-warming-stalled/

    There are no peer-reviewed papers that state that “ENSO have been the predominant causes of ocean warming in recent decades”. However, Compo and Sardeshmukh (2010) “Removing ENSO-Related Variations from the Climate Record” seems to be a step in the right direction.
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2008b.pdf

    They write:
    “An important question in assessing twentieth-century climate is to what extent have ENSO-related variations contributed to the observed trends. Isolating such contributions is challenging for several reasons, including ambiguities arising from how ENSO is defined. In particular, defining ENSO in terms of a single index and ENSO-related variations in terms of regressions on that index, as done in many previous studies, can lead to wrong conclusions. This paper argues that ENSO is best viewed not as a number but as an evolving dynamical process for this purpose.”

    And as I noted in a number of posts, while Compo and Sardeshmukh made a step in the right direction, they missed a very important aspect of ENSO. They overlooked the significance of the huge volume of warm water that is left over from certain El Niño events, and they failed to account for its contribution to the rise in global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies since about 1975/76.

    Further to peer-reviewed papers that state that “ENSO have been the predominant causes of ocean warming in recent decades”, you’re more than welcome to write one. But I suspect that if you’re a researcher (1) you would have difficulty finding funding for such a paper, and (2) you’d have a lot of difficulty getting past peer review, and (3) it might negatively impact your future funding. I suspect it would have to be written in a way that the author(s) are only suggesting that the long-term effects of ENSO as process require further examination.

    Regards

  13. Bob Tisdale says:

    Rob Nicholls says: “I’ve not been able to find a peer-reviewed, published criticism of these papers, or the adjustments used in them or the adjusted time-series – please can you point me in the right direction?”

    I’ll give you something even better. Refer to the Lozier et al (2008) paper “The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic”.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5864/800.abstract?rss=1
    Also see the press ScienceDaily article “North Atlantic Warming Tied To Natural Variability” here:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103144416.htm

    They wrote:
    “‘We suggest that the large-scale, decadal changes…associated with the NAO [North Atlantic Oscillation] are primarily responsible for the ocean heat content changes in the North Atlantic over the past 50 years,’ the authors concluded.”

    The kicker: Lozier et al (2008) used the older version of the NODC/Levitus (2005) data–i.e. the dataset with the hump.

    And if memory serves, North Atlantic OHC warmed at a rate that was about 2.5 times faster than the rest of the global oceans.

    Regards

  14. Rob Nicholls says:

    Thanks very much for the links to papers. They give a sense of the dynamic nature of El Nino events. Trenberth et al (2002) suggested that 0.06 degrees (out of 0.43 degrees C) of the surface warming between 1950 to 1998 was explained by ENSO (I’m not sure if this is ocean surface or global surface as a whole). I don’t have a picture of a full range of more recent estimates. I’ve seen it suggested that Lean and Rind (2008) came to the conclusion that 0.015 degrees C (about 12%) of the global surface warming between 1955 and 2005 was due to ENSO, and that between 1979 and 2005 ENSO actually had a cooling effect (of around 0.007 degrees C). I’ve previously looked at Foster & Rahmstorff ( 2011), which attempted to adjust global temperature records since 1979 for ENSO, total solar irradiance and atmospheric optical density, and found a clear (and close to linear) upward trend in global surface (/lower tropospheric) temperature after the adjustment.

    I note the point in Compo and Sardeshmukh (2010) that a regression analysis doesn’t capture the whole picture. From figure 1 in Compo and Sardeshmukh, it looks as if the surface temperature trend over the last century is less pronounced once ENSO is adjusted for, but the upward trend over the last 50 years still looks quite large after adjustment for ENSO (admittedly my eyeballs are not a very precise instrument for measuring trends.)

  15. Rob Nicholls says:

    Thanks for the link to the Lozier et al (2008) paper. I wonder how much their conclusions would be altered based on the more recent versions of the data (without the 1970 to 1985 ‘hump’).
    Many thanks again.

  16. Bob Tisdale says:

    Rob Nicholls: Don’t forget the caveat in Trenberth et al (2002). They write:
    “Although it is possible to use regression to eliminate the linear portion of the global mean temperature signal associated with ENSO, the processes that contribute regionally to the global mean differ considerably, and the linear approach likely leaves an ENSO residual.”

    The upward shifts in the sea surface temperatures of the South Atlantic, Indian, West Pacific oceans are caused by “residuals”, in the form of left over warm water from the strong El Nino events.

    Now consider when Trenberth et al 2002 was written.

    Regards

  17. Bob Tisdale says:

    Rob Nicholls: Speaking of peer-reviewed papers, let me ask you for some links:

    Please provide links to the climate model-based, peer-reviewed papers that explain how and why sea surface temperature and ocean heat content data have warmed (or not warmed) in the following ways:

    1. How and why the sea surface temperatures of the East Pacific (90S-90N, 180-80W) haven’t warmed in 31 years:

    2. How and why the seas surface temperatures of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans with the coordinate of 90S-90N, 80W-180, only warmed during the strong El Niño events of 1986/87/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10 and did not cool proportionally during the training La Niñas—and without those El Niño events, the sea surface temperatures there would show no warming.

    Moving now to ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific where the fuel for El Niño events is generated:
    3. How and why the warming of the ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific is dependent on the 1973-76 and 1995/96 La Niña events, and without those La Niñas the ocean heat content for tropical Pacific would cool:

    Still in the subject of ocean heat content:
    4. How and why the warming of the ocean heat content of the North Pacific (north of the tropics) is dependent on a 2-year climate shift (1989-90), and without that climate shift, the ocean heat content for the North Pacific would cool.

  18. Rob Nicholls says:

    Thanks for these questions – I wish I knew the answers! I find the complexities of ENSO difficult to get my head around, so I’ve got a lot of learning to do.

  19. Rob Nicholls says:

    I’ve thought some more about the graphs linked to in your comments, particularly ‘figure-51’ which seems to suggest that tropical pacific ocean heat content (OHC) increase since 1955 is due to 2 strong La-Ninas.

    I’m not sure if removing two large sharp upward deviations in ocean heat content (corresponding to 2 strong La-Ninas) in figure-51 really tells us much about the underlying trend in global temperature. There are several sharp downward deviations in the data, and removing some of these downward deviations, instead of the upward deviations, would result in a graph which appeared to have a large upward trend. This wouldn’t mean much. I don’t know how we can be sure that removing the 2 sharp upward deviations that you have removed is any more meaningful.

    Figure-51 shows that there is a lot of short-term variation in the OHC. However, I don’t think figure-51 disproves the suggestion that forcing from greenhouse gas emissions (which would manifest as a slow, underlying, upward, close to linear, trend) is the underlying cause of the increase in OHC in the tropical pacific.

    I think that a small upward linear trend in OHC (corresponding to a forcing by greenhouse gas emissions) could be added to or subtracted from the data in figure 51 without fundamentally changing the features that you have described (i.e. the sharp upticks in OHC corresponding to the 2 large La-Ninas, and the gradual decrease in OHC after those large La-Ninas). If this is true then there could be a hidden upward linear component in the data in figure 51, which is difficult to see because of the large short-term variation caused by ENSO among other things.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong about any or all of this – admittedly I am not knowledgeable of the intricacies of the science.

    Thanks for drawing attention to the downward trend in tropical pacific ocean heat content between the 2 large La-Ninas (1973-76 and 1995-6) in figure 51. I don’t know why these downward trends are there – do have a suggestion? (Is it due to residual heat which built up in this area of the ocean during the La Nina event slowly dissipating?)

    You’ve clearly done a huge amount of work on the effects of ENSO and the temperature trends within and at the surface of the oceans. Please publish something on this if you’ve got evidence that will meet the standards of peer-review. If you’ve got robust evidence that ENSO has caused a lot of the warming in recent decades then it ought to be published.

    Best wishes, and thanks again for your thought-provoking responses to my comments and for taking the time to discuss these issues.

  20. Bob Tisdale says:

    Rob Nicholls, the leading edges of the four large downward deviations are the 1972/73, the 1982/83, the 1997/98 and the 2009/10 El Nino events. The trailing La Ninas replenish the warm water, and in the case of the 1973-76 La Nina, it added some. Just like the sharp increase in response to the 1995/96 La Nina.

    Regards

  21. Bob Tisdale says:

    Rob Nicholls, thanks for coming and asking questions.

    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