No Weakening of the Walker

Below is the abstract of the manuscript I have been preparing. A draft is available via the contact form above if you are interested in helping out with feedback. Comments from the mysterious Dr Jones that prompted this manuscript are listed below.

Update: Now Submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research.

Recent Data Show No Weakening of the Walker
Circulation

David R.B. Stockwell and Anthony Cox

Abstract: Various authors have examined the strength of the equatorial Pacific overturning known as the Walker Circulation in both climate models and observations, attributing a generalized weakening to anthropogenic global warming. Here we review the analysis in Power and Smith [2007] using updated Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and NINO sea surface temperature indices. We find no significant long-term changes in the indices, although the SOI appears to have recovered from an anomalously low period from 1976 to 1998. The increasing sea surface temperature in the NINO4 region is not significant, nor representative of other NINO regions. The findings of a weakening Walker circulation appear to be premature, and the corresponding climate model projections cannot be substantiated at this time. The reports of weakening of horizontal atmospheric circulation in climate models should be regarded as an inconsistency and not as an indicator of anthropogenic climate change.

I want to acknowledge the contribution of Dr Jones, who’s comments appearing across a number of blogs including NM over a period of a few days played a part in prompting this manuscript. (I know who Dr Jones is, but will preserve his anonymity) Here are a selection of gems:

Dr Jones: You mix changes in variability and changes means. The slowing down of the Walker circulation is an observed fact and can happen regardless of whether you get more, less or the same number of El Nino/La Nina events. A shift towards a weakened Walker circulation is required by basic physics otherwise the tropical atmosphere will quickly rain itself out. The slow down leads to a shift towards a more negative mean SOI which has clearly been seen seen over the last century (http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0718/2007GL030…).

I have shown you just one paper – there are many more – in the peer reviewed literature which deal with this very issue.

Dr Jones: Under global warming evaporation increases (about) linearly in temperature but water holding capacity increases exponentially in temperature. This relationship forces a slow down in the Walker circulation which will lead to a tendency for more negative SOI values with warmer global temperatures. See Vol 441|4 May 2006|doi:10.1038/nature04744.

Climate has long ago moved from the blind application of statistics. Your 9% mixes up correlation with causation (though even so is correct in showing that global warming is not caused by ENSO).

Dr Jones: So if summer is hotter than winter that disproves global warming?

You really have no idea do you.

ANDREW REPLIES: Readers, what is scary about this troll-like response – so angrilly missing the point that AP made a blatantly false claim – is that it comes from one of the leading warming “experts” in the country. That should tell you plenty. His fury is directed not at the scaremonger, but the debunker.

I appreciate when experts do visit the blogs to provide their perspective, as it always seems to send things off in an interesting direction.

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “No Weakening of the Walker

    • It is really odd sometimes, that this is a very simple analysis (SOI is
      flat) but the explanation of implications involved almost 40 references, and
      gets into issues
      such as that there is disagreement over even whether absolute (specific)
      humidity
      is rising or falling in the upper troposphere.

      Because if the Walker is constant and temperature is rising then SH should
      be
      falling as some data show. But if SH is rising and temperature is rising as
      some
      other data show, then the Walker should be weakening.

  1. It is really odd sometimes, that this is a very simple analysis (SOI isflat) but the explanation of implications involved almost 40 references, andgets into issuessuch as that there is disagreement over even whether absolute (specific)humidityis rising or falling in the upper troposphere.Because if the Walker is constant and temperature is rising then SH shouldbefalling as some data show. But if SH is rising and temperature is rising assomeother data show, then the Walker should be weakening.

  2. David.

    The Walker circulation always seems to be a conundrum to me. It’s usually presented as an atmospheric overturning current, but the W to E direction defies the natural momentum vector of coriolis effect. Thus, I’m bound to believe that this can only be an ocean effect that ‘forces’ the atmospheric region above it.

    Surely, this atmospheric circulation is derived from medium to deep ocean heat content that finally affects the ocean surface temperature for that region?

    If this is so, UV solar insolation levels may well be the mediator of this phenomenon. What’s your opinion?

    Best regards, suricat.

      • davids99us.

        “coriolis effect is zero at the equator.”: To the contrary, Earth’s centrifuge is strongest at its greatest radius perpendicular to its axis of spin. IOW, the equator.

        Best regards, suricat.

      • The Coriolis Effect at the equator can only be felt if you drop down a well or maybe shoot up in a rocket, not if you move east or west.

      • Exactly my point AreaMan. At the equator the NH & SH Hadley Cells carry the atmosphere aloft where its momentum slows its revolutions per day compared to the planet. Thus, the greater the altitude, the greater the retrograde motion compared to Earth’s rotation (east to west atmospheric movement). However, at the other side of the Hadley Cells and away from the equator, a west to east energy can be seen to the extent that “Jets” are generated.

        How can the equatorial west to east Walker Circulation be solely an atmospheric phenomenon? Have I omitted something?

        Best regards, suricat.

      • No David, but they’re not “forces” either! They’re “effects” of “mass inertia”!

        The weight of a mass has the property of “inertia” (potential, or kinetic). This inertia can provoke many effects that provide a force that may well be known by the “label” of “its effect”, but the “label” only applies to “the effect per se”. The “force”, in this instance, is due to “inertial mass” and perfectly fits both the “centrifugal” and “coriolis” effects that you mention.

        Hope this helps to better explain my viewpoint.

        Best regards, suricat.

      • Well they are forces in a rotational reference frame with a different
        description in a fixed reference frame. I don’t have too much patience for
        these types of discussion so you will have to excuse me if I don’t get too
        involved.

      • david99us: “Well they are forces in a rotational reference frame with a different
        description in a fixed reference frame. I don’t have too much patience for
        these types of discussion so you will have to excuse me if I don’t get too
        involved.”

        Your pardon is granted, but I had no intention of invoking a relativistic aspect to the ref frame of a geostatic observation.

        Pity really because it’s a beautiful curve – invoked by inertial conservation – that resembles an elliptical helix that’s broken at its origin and finality, but shaped in the z dimension by gravity against the curve of the planet.

        This is a part of the subject that was posted, but perhaps not a part of interest.

        Sorry for the digression. Would you have more interest in (poetic licence) “the breath of Earths oceans”?

        Best regards, suricat.

  3. David.The Walker circulation always seems to be a conundrum to me. It's usually presented as an atmospheric overturning current, but the W to E direction defies the natural momentum vector of coriolis effect. Thus, I'm bound to believe that this can only be an ocean effect that 'forces' the atmospheric region above it.Surely, this atmospheric circulation is derived from medium to deep ocean heat content that finally affects the ocean surface temperature for that region?If this is so, UV solar insolation levels may well be the mediator of this phenomenon. What's your opinion?Best regards, suricat.

  4. davids99us.”coriolis effect is zero at the equator.”: To the contrary, Earth's centrifuge is strongest at its greatest radius perpendicular to its axis of spin. IOW, the equator.Best regards, suricat.

  5. Global vs Atmospheric Warming, a difference of terminology or of physics?

    If the AGW idea is true, the heat energy in the earth must increase. ENSO changes only move heat from the ocean to the atmosphere, or the reverse, right?

    So ENSO (and PDO etc) can warm or cool the atmosphere but not the earth as a system.

    However, the resulting variations in SST might cause changes in atmospheric water vapor and/or clouds that change the blocking of IR out of the earth to space, changing the earth’s energy balance.

    So when people, such as Stockwell or McLean, write that ENSO (etc) change “Global” temps do they mean just the air temperature or a change in the earth’s energy balance?

    • ENSO (etc.) is an attractor to Earth’s chaotic climate due to – whatever reason – the mass : energy interactions between mass : mass, or mass : EMS (mass : electromagnetic spectrum).

      The radiative budget is at TOA (top of atmosphere) which avoids the chaos that the mass of Earth’s climate incurs and only has issue with ‘energy in : energy out’ (all EMS) to Earth’s climate, not the chaotic contortions within Earth’s climate that involves mass (matter).

      I concur. The demarcation of these phenomena should be better explained for their respective roles within any scenario.

      Best regards, suricat.

  6. Global vs Atmospheric Warming, a difference of terminology or of physics?If the AGW idea is true, the heat energy in the earth must increase. ENSO changes move heat from the ocean to the atmosphere, or thr reverse, right?So ENSO (and PDO etc) can warm or cool the atmosphere but not the earth as a system.Although variations in SST might cause changes in atmospheric water vapor and/or clouds that change the blocking of IR out of the earth to space, changing the earth's energy balance.So when people write that ENSO (etc) change “Global” temps do they mean just the air temperature or a change in the earth's energy balance?

  7. The Coriolis Effect at the equator can only be felt if you drop down a well or maybe shoot up in a rocket, not if you move east or west.

  8. Exactly my point AreaMan. At the equator the NH & SH Hadley Cells carry the atmosphere aloft where its momentum slows its revolutions per day compared to the planet. Thus, the greater the altitude, the greater the retrograde motion compared to Earth's rotation (east to west atmospheric movement). However, at the other side of the Hadley Cells and away from the equator, a west to east energy can be seen to the extent that “Jets” are generated.How can the equatorial west to east Walker Circulation be solely an atmospheric phenomenon? Have I omitted something?Best regards, suricat.

  9. ENSO (etc.) is an attractor to Earth's chaotic climate due to – whatever reason – the mass : energy interactions between mass : mass, or mass : EMS (mass : electromagnetic spectrum).The radiative budget is at TOA (top of atmosphere) which avoids the chaos that the mass of Earth's climate incurs and only has issue with 'energy in : energy out' (all EMS) to Earth's climate, not the chaotic contortions within Earth's climate that involves mass (matter).I concur. The demarcation of these phenomena should be better explained for their respective roles within any scenario.Best regards, suricat.

  10. No David, but they're not “forces” either! They're “effects” of “mass inertia”!The weight of a mass has the property of “inertia” (potential, or kinetic). This inertia can provoke many effects that provide a force that may well be known by the “label” of “its effect”, but the “label” only applies to “the effect per se”. The “force”, in this instance, is due to “inertial mass” and perfectly fits both the “centrifugal” and “coriolis” effects that you mention.Hope this helps to better explain my viewpoint.Best regards, suricat.

  11. Well they are forces in a rotational reference frame with a differentdescription in a fixed reference frame. I don't have too much patience forthese types of discussion so you will have to excuse me if I don't get tooinvolved.

  12. ENSO asymmetry and therefore contribution to trend, maybe radiative based;

    http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~sun/doc/Sun_Yu_JCL_2009.pdf

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/11/ocean-heat-content-and-earth%e2%80%99s-radiation-imbalance/#more-9865

    Although White and Cayon have a different take;

    http://meteora.ucsd.edu/papers/auad/Global_Warm_ENSO.pdf

    But Lindzen’s latest paper perhaps tips the scales in favour of the radiative cause for ENSO asymmetry;

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

    • cohenite: “ENSO asymmetry and therefore contribution to trend, maybe radiative based;”.

      I concur, but it’s expected that all action to Earth’s climate is “radiative based” at TOA!

      I think that the real question is “what does Earth’s mass do with the “radiative based energy” within this Earth’s (mass based) climate”.

      I hope you’ll tell me that my post was pointless.

      Best regards, suricat.

      • I’ve been interesting for a while now in an idea I’ve had-I’m calling it “latitudinal propagation of El Nino warming” which is similar to Bob Tisdale’s theory about ENSO persistence. He has argued in the past that, for instance, PDO is mainly driven by ENSO. ENSO correlates best with SST right along the equator, but PDO is positively correlated with SST just off the equator. The ENSO effects seem “smear” to restore the normal equator to pole temperature gradient that is disrupted by the ENSO events.

        Just a thought.

      • “Just a thought”.

        I think that this is quite a pertinent “thought”.

        From your post, I don’t think that English is your first (mother/father) language. Please excuse me if my observation is incorrect.

        For the subject of “latitudinal propagation of El Niño warming” I would suggest a ‘google’ on “MEP” (maximum equilibrium production). This is likely to produce any work that has already been done in this category. If nothing else, it’ll point to key areas that you can understand as being unobserved for your thesis under consideration.

        PDO as subordinate to ENSO. To my understanding this comes up with a truth in the logic box, but its explanation should be in another post, or perhaps site (our host currently seems belligerent to controversial theory). Currently, I believe, climate science only recognises expansion/contraction of the atmosphere and WV production producing a gravity pump ( like in a fish tank filter system, as WV is lighter than air) as mediators for Climate Cell evolution. The turbine effect of planetary rotation doesn’t even seem to receive ‘lip service’.

        IMHO, without these ‘tools’ to describe your theory it’s probably better that you discuss this elsewhere. “Climate Audit” seems relatively benign, but each site has its limitation.

        Hope this helps.

        Best regards, raydart.

      • Actually English is my first language. I just don’t put enough effort into articulating things sometimes. :blush:

        Thanks for the suggestions.

  13. david99us: “Well they are forces in a rotational reference frame with a differentdescription in a fixed reference frame. I don't have too much patience forthese types of discussion so you will have to excuse me if I don't get tooinvolved.”Your pardon is granted, but I had no intention of invoking a relativistic aspect to the ref frame of a geostatic observation.Pity really because it's a beautiful curve – invoked by inertial conservation – that resembles an elliptical helix that's broken at its origin and finality, but shaped in the z dimension by gravity against the curve of the planet.This is a part of the subject that was posted, but perhaps not a part of interest.Sorry for the digression. Would you have more interest in (poetic licence) “the breath of Earths oceans”?Best regards, suricat.

  14. cohenite: “ENSO asymmetry and therefore contribution to trend, maybe radiative based;”.I concur, but it's expected that all action to Earth's climate is “radiative based” at TOA!I think that the real question is “what does Earth's mass do with the “radiative based energy” within this Earth's (mass based) climate”.I hope you'll tell me that my post was pointless.Best regards, suricat.

    • “Raydart/suricat”: Hum! Yes, this was a ‘dur-brain moment’ (moment absent of logic) when I first posted here, but I can’t be bothered to alter the auto-identity so I’ll drop the nickname and keep my truer moniker for this site.

      Has M’s theory gone this far! In that case, I’m glad I gave it a kick when it seemed dead on CA. Great write-up and I can’t wait till I get to the end, but don’t spoil the ending for me (because I don’t get much time to read the stuff that I like).

      Best regards, raydart.

  15. I've been interesting for a while now in an idea I've had-I'm calling it “latitudinal propagation of El Nino warming” which is similar to Bob Tisdale's theory about ENSO persistence. He has argued in the past that, for instance, PDO is mainly driven by ENSO. ENSO correlates best with SST right along the equator, but PDO is positively correlated with SST just off the equator. The ENSO effects seem “smear” to restore the normal equator to pole temperature gradient that is disrupted by the ENSO events.Just a thought.

  16. “Raydart/suricat”: Hum! Yes, this was a 'dur-brain moment' (moment absent of logic) when I first posted here, but I can't be bothered to alter the auto-identity so I'll drop the nickname and keep my truer moniker for this site.Has M's theory gone this far! In that case, I'm glad I gave it a kick when it seemed dead on CA. Great write-up and I can't wait till I get to the end, but don't spoil the ending for me (because I don't get much time to read the stuff that I like).Best regards, raydart.

  17. “Just a thought”.I think that this is quite a pertinent “thought”.From your post, I don't think that English is your first (mother/father) language. Please excuse me if my observation is incorrect.For the subject of “latitudinal propagation of El Niño warming” I would suggest a 'google' on “MEP” (maximum equilibrium production). This is likely to produce any work that has already been done in this category. If nothing else, it'll point to key areas that you can understand as being unobserved for your thesis under consideration.PDO as subordinate to ENSO. To my understanding this comes up with a truth in the logic box, but its explanation should be in another post, or perhaps site (our host currently seems belligerent to controversial theory). Currently, I believe, climate science only recognises expansion/contraction of the atmosphere and WV production producing a gravity pump ( like in a fish tank filter system, as WV is lighter than air) as mediators for Climate Cell evolution. The turbine effect of planetary rotation doesn't even seem to receive 'lip service'.IMHO, without these 'tools' to describe your theory it's probably better that you discuss this elsewhere. “Climate Audit” seems relatively benign, but each site has its limitation.Hope this helps.Best regards, raydart.

    • Perhaps it’s because I’m a mature engineer with an access restriction (caring for mum (97 YOA) and she can’t be left alone for long), but I have a problem reading papers that are behind a ‘money wall’.

      However, although I’ve not actually read the paper, this paper is bespoke in many parts of the climate community and I’ve a third party understanding of it. Having not read it, I have my reservations and I’ll list these. Feedback would be greatly appreciated.

      The enhanced insolation due to reduced cloud cover mediated by solar maxima seems to be in opposition (truly opposite) to the ‘cosmic ray theory’. Though, this is not necessarily true for any ocean response that can influence the atmosphere.

      I don’t understand how ozone becomes a factor for EUV insolation (enhanced UV insolation). ‘UV A’ always penetrates Earth’s atmosphere to surface. ‘UV B’ always penetrates as well when it’s insolation level is increasing, as any ozone generated from EUV has a time lag before its generation of ozone to block it (also, part of its window is open anyhow). Thus, ‘UV B’ averages as EUV eventually decreases. The only exception to this is when EUV encounters an atmospheric aerosol ‘particulate’ that initiates a ‘global dimming’ scenario for ocean response! Such as atmospheric soot.

      If you want, I’ll post again on the possible scenarios that I believe may occur. However, I’ve not read the ‘full’ paper!

      Best regards, raydart.

      • “The enhanced insolation due to reduced cloud cover mediated by solar maxima seems to be in opposition (truly opposite) to the ‘cosmic ray theory’.”

        Huh? During a solar max, more cosmic rays are deflected by the sun’s magnetic field. So the theory would indeed mean decreased cloudiness and in fact more solar radiation reaches the surface.

      • Does this mean I get the Pulitzer prize for obscure posts? :blush:

        OK, I’ll expand on this. G. A. Meehl, et al and cosmic ray theory both claim the same effect for opposing scenarios (opposing scenarios at solar Max). This means that at best, the effect is shared.

        However, a recognised atmospheric effect of soot and black carbon predisposes the atmosphere to lower its relative humidity (RH) by introducing warmer atmospheric temperatures. This, in turn, increases the hygroscopic property of the affected atmosphere, thus, this atmosphere needs a greater specific humidity (SH) for precipitation to occur. Solar Max exacerbates this atmospheric conditioning.

        On the ocean side, the elevated level of UV insolation during solar Max mediates greater warming to ocean depth (path to extinction of UV into ‘pure’ water is about 700m). This can both increase the background temperature for near surface temperatures and alter conventional flows at greater depth (pulling colder water towards the surface by convection for ‘mixing’) dependant upon the susceptibility of the ocean region. Ocean regions affected by the former scenario are able to evaporate more water (WV) into the atmosphere, but ocean regions affected by the latter scenario are unable to supply this extra WV due to ocean surface cooling by deeper ocean ‘mixing’.

        So it would seem that there is already an empirical model that would explain, at least, most of this effect (if only observations could ‘step up to the plate’).

        Best regards, raydart.

      • “G. A. Meehl, et al and cosmic ray theory both claim the same effect for opposing scenarios (opposing scenarios at solar Max). This means that at best, the effect is shared.”

        Huh? I’m unclear what you could mean. Does not Meehl et al say that cloud cover tends to be reduced-so SW recieved greater-at solar max, explaining the warming that occurs? That’s exactly what you’d expect if, rather than cloud cover variations being a feedback on UV induced temperature changes as Meehl et al assert, they are in fact changing in response cosmic rays. Are you under the impression that the cosmic ray hypothesis says the opposite? Because they are clearly reduced during maxima, thus if they seed cloud cover…reduced clouds. The same thing that Meehl et al. propose but not feedback.

      • Correct! Please think this one out. The politic dictates that one or the other hypothesis rules. They both claim a forced response to cloud reduction, whereas an empirical equivalent explanation already exists.

        Best regards, raydart.

  18. Perhaps it's because I'm a mature engineer with an access restriction (caring for mum (97 YOA) and she can't be left alone for long), but I have a problem reading papers that are behind a 'money wall'.However, although I've not actually read the paper, this paper is bespoke in many parts of the climate community and I've a third party understanding of it. Having not read it, I have my reservations and I'll list these. Feedback would be greatly appreciated.The enhanced insolation due to reduced cloud cover mediated by solar maxima seems to be in opposition (truly opposite) to the 'cosmic ray theory'. Though, this is not necessarily true for any ocean response that can influence the atmosphere.I don't understand how ozone becomes a factor for EUV insolation (enhanced UV insolation). 'UV A' always penetrates Earth's atmosphere to surface. 'UV B' always penetrates as well when it's insolation level is increasing, as any ozone generated from EUV has a time lag before its generation of ozone to block it (also, part of its window is open anyhow). Thus, 'UV B' averages as EUV eventually decreases. The only exception to this is when EUV encounters an atmospheric aerosol 'particulate' that initiates a 'global dimming' scenario for ocean response! Such as atmospheric soot.If you want, I'll post again on the possible scenarios that I believe may occur. However, I've not read the 'full' paper!Best regards, raydart.

  19. “The enhanced insolation due to reduced cloud cover mediated by solar maxima seems to be in opposition (truly opposite) to the 'cosmic ray theory'.”Huh? During a solar max, more cosmic rays are deflected by the sun's magnetic field. So the theory would indeed mean decreased cloudiness and in fact more solar radiation reaches the surface.

  20. PDO have been fairly regular since 1850 when solar activity went up a notch; if ENSO is radiative initiated then the key period is from ~ 1976 onwards when the Great Pacific Climate Shift ushered in the +ve PDO of the latter 20thC which lasted until 1998 or there-abouts; AGW says there cannot be a solar imput into this warm spell because the sun was declining; I suppose it depends on whom you believe, Scafetta or Schmidt;

    http://climatesci.org/2009/08/03/nicola-scafetta-comments-on-solar-trends-and-global-warming-by-benestad-and-schmidt/

    • The PMOD versus ACRIM debate is actually quite scandalous. Or it should be, anyway. The thing is, Frolich and Lean’s belief about the behavior of the various sensors is in conflict with the people who actually know what they are talking about. From:
      http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/NS_grl-supplement.pdf

      The letter from Doug Hoyt is enlightening:

      “Dear Dr. Scafetta:

      Concerning the supposed increase in Nimbus7 sensitivity at the end of September 1989 and other matters as proposed by Frohlich’s PMOD TSI composite:

      1. There is no known physical change in the electrically calibrated Nimbus7 radiometer or its electronics that could have caused it to become more sensitive. At least neither Lee Kyle nor I could never imagine how such a thing could happen and no one else has ever come up with a physical theory for the instrument that could cause it to become more sensitive.

      2. The Nimbus7 radiometer was calibrated electrically every 12 days. The calibrations before and after the September shutdown gave no indication of any change in the sensitivity of the radiometer. Thus, when Bob Lee of the ERBS team originally claimed there was a change in Nimbus7 sensitivity, we examined the issue and concluded there was no internal evidence in the Nimbus7 records to warrant the correction that he was proposing. Since the result was a null one, no publication was thought necessary.

      3. Thus, Frohlich’s PMOD TSI composite is not consistent with the internal data or physics of the Nimbus7 cavity radiometer.

      4. The correction of the Nimbus7 TSI values for 1979-1980 proposed by Frohlich is also puzzling. The raw data was run through the same algorithm for these early years and the subsequent years and there is no justification for Frohlich’s adjustment in my opinion.

      Sincerely,
      Douglas Hoyt”

    • Sorry cohenite, but ‘the science’ isn’t about who is believable (this encroaches upon democratic representation and the direction of future policy). It’s about the accurate representation of nature.

      Can you expand on the reasons for your beliefs?

      Best regards, raydart.

    • I think we need to clear up some terminology here. By ‘radiative’ I have
      seen it mean a forcing global temperature by El Ninos, but I think you are
      saying the increased frequency of El Ninos is a response to increases in
      solar forcing. Perhaps there are other meanings, or perhaps there is no
      need to be this specific when talking about ENSO/blobal temperature
      influence.

      I think its not a good idea to give a term like ‘radiative’ a special
      meaning as it get really confusing. This is just a general comment not to
      anyone in particular. I’ve been the semantic cop lately – where is Nick
      these days?

      • With all due respect David, the word processor application you use really ‘sucks’ on this site. Are you familiar with the old Lotus Word Pro app? I know this has been superseded by the latest IBM contribution, but the old (and cheap) Lotus software is really good for blogging (with the exception of live links).

        Best regards, raydart.

    • I think that davids99us is correct to call for clarification. Following the first diurnal cycle, energy released by ocean becomes a radiative issue as latent energy between WV and cloud with their associated atmospheric forcings, but the initial energy release is ocean to atmosphere gas (WV) transmission and is part of the evapotranspiration phase of the hydrocycle. Thus, investigation of the drivers of the hydrocycle should indicate causes for ENSO. A good place to start looks to be the disparity of land and ocean area between the NH and SH regions.

      Without doubt, levels of OHC will display variant hysteresis parameters as the OHC must alter sea surface temps (as would land precipitation without runoff affect land WV production).

      Best regards, raydart.

      • Yeah, I am happy for discussion, and clarifications, but being about “the power of numeracy” I am uncomfortable with loose discussion of hypotheses about complex process that noone really understands, as I don’t see any power or potential influence in those. Perhaps chat sites are more appropriate for such hypothesis generation.

        This is not, like, a blog rule. But I would personally only get engaged in discussions at the level that they can be directed to at least a hope of a conclusion. Being heavily into writing papers now I am really focussed on taking one step at a time, in whatever direction doesn’t matter, but only one step, and not generating a whole lot of ‘interesting’ thoughts that will never be resolved.

      • As a member of the engineering fraternity I don’t generate hypotheses, only comment on their feasibility. It’s impossible to accurately model an effect such as ENSO without modelling the whole system, then observe the ENSO effect within that system. Unfortunately, mass inertia plays such a large role within the system’s dynamic that the converging Hadley Cells through to the Hadley/Ferrel jets need to be modelled in some 3D way.

        Engineers have a term for the ENSO effect, we apply it to a centrifugal turbine system and call it “hunting”. However, as you refuse to engage with the effect of inertia I’ve tried to comment only on surface effect.

        I don’t think I can be of more help here under such a restricted caveat, so I’ll be off. If you need to contact me a post in the CA forum (where I use my nickname of suricat) should gain my attention.

        Best regards for the future, raydart.

  21. PDO have been fairly regular since 1850 when solar activity went up a notch; if ENSO is radiative initiated then the key period is from ~ 1976 onwards when the Great Pacific Climate Shift ushered in the +ve PDO of the latter 20thC which lasted until 1998 or there-abouts; AGW says there cannot be a solar imput into this warm spell because the sun was declining; I suppose it depends on whom you believe, Scafetta or Schmidt;http://climatesci.org/2009/08/03/nicola-scafett

  22. The PMOD versus ACRIM debate is actually quite scandalous. Or it should be, anyway. The thing is, Frolich and Lean's belief about the behavior of the various sensors is in conflict with the people who actually know what they are talking about. From:http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/NS_grl-su…The letter from Doug Hoyt is enlightening:”Dear Dr. Scafetta:Concerning the supposed increase in Nimbus7 sensitivity at the end of September 1989 and other matters as proposed by Frohlich’s PMOD TSI composite:1. There is no known physical change in the electrically calibrated Nimbus7 radiometer or its electronics that could have caused it to become more sensitive. At least neither Lee Kyle nor I could never imagine how such a thing could happen and no one else has ever come up with a physical theory for the instrument that could cause it to become more sensitive.2. The Nimbus7 radiometer was calibrated electrically every 12 days. The calibrations before and after the September shutdown gave no indication of any change in the sensitivity of the radiometer. Thus, when Bob Lee of the ERBS team originally claimed there was a change in Nimbus7 sensitivity, we examined the issue and concluded there was no internal evidence in the Nimbus7 records to warrant the correction that he was proposing. Since the result was a null one, no publication was thought necessary.3. Thus, Frohlich’s PMOD TSI composite is not consistent with the internal data or physics of the Nimbus7 cavity radiometer.4. The correction of the Nimbus7 TSI values for 1979-1980 proposed by Frohlich is also puzzling. The raw data was run through the same algorithm for these early years and the subsequent years and there is no justification for Frohlich’s adjustment in my opinion.Sincerely,Douglas Hoyt”

  23. Does this mean I get the Pulitzer prize for obscure posts? :blush:OK, I'll expand on this. G. A. Meehl, et al and cosmic ray theory both claim the same effect for opposing scenarios (opposing scenarios at solar Max). This means that at best, the effect is shared.However, a recognised atmospheric effect of soot and black carbon predisposes the atmosphere to lower its relative humidity (RH) by introducing warmer atmospheric temperatures. This, in turn, increases the hygroscopic property of the affected atmosphere, thus, this atmosphere needs a greater specific humidity (SH) for precipitation to occur. Solar Max exacerbates this atmospheric conditioning.On the ocean side, the elevated level of UV insolation during solar Max mediates greater warming to ocean depth (path to extinction of UV into 'pure' water is about 700m). This can both increase the background temperature for near surface temperatures and alter conventional flows at greater depth (pulling colder water towards the surface by convection for 'mixing') dependant upon the susceptibility of the ocean region. Ocean regions affected by the former scenario are able to evaporate more water (WV) into the atmosphere, but ocean regions affected by the latter scenario are unable to supply this extra WV due to ocean surface cooling by deeper ocean 'mixing'.So it would seem that there is already an empirical model that would explain, at least, most of this effect (if only observations could 'step up to the plate').Best regards, raydart.

  24. “G. A. Meehl, et al and cosmic ray theory both claim the same effect for opposing scenarios (opposing scenarios at solar Max). This means that at best, the effect is shared.”Huh? I'm unclear what you could mean. Does not Meehl et al say that cloud cover tends to be reduced-so SW recieved greater-at solar max, explaining the warming that occurs? That's exactly what you'd expect if, rather than cloud cover variations being a feedback on UV induced temperature changes as Meehl et al assert, they are in fact changing in response cosmic rays. Are you under the impression that the cosmic ray hypothesis says the opposite? Because they are clearly reduced during maxima, thus if they seed cloud cover…reduced clouds. The same thing that Meehl et al. propose but not feedback.

  25. Sorry cohenite, but 'the science' isn't about who is believable (this encroaches upon democratic representation and the direction of future policy). It's about the accurate representation of nature.Can you expand on the reasons for your beliefs?Best regards, raydart.

  26. I think we need to clear up some terminology here. By 'radiative' I haveseen it mean a forcing global temperature by El Ninos, but I think you aresaying the increased frequency of El Ninos is a response to increases insolar forcing. Perhaps there are other meanings, or perhaps there is noneed to be this specific when talking about ENSO/blobal temperatureinfluence.I think its not a good idea to give a term like 'radiative' a specialmeaning as it get really confusing. This is just a general comment not toanyone in particular. I've been the semantic cop lately – where is Nickthese days?

  27. Correct! Please think this one out. The politic dictates that one or the other hypothesis rules. They both claim a forced response to cloud reduction, whereas an empirical equivalent explanation already exists.Best regards, raydart.

  28. With all due respect David, the word processor application you use really 'sucks' on this site. Are you familiar with the old Lotus Word Pro app? I know this has been superseded by the latest IBM contribution, but the old (and cheap) Lotus software is really good for blogging (with the exception of live links).Best regards, raydart.

    • “Presumably you mean about AGW”: No, I wouldn’t pose such a pointless question. It was truth of science, or consensus with policy (to whichever group). However, any response would probably be pointless anyhow as you already seem to have side stepped the issue. No matter.

      I’d already read your last item on Jen’s site when it was first posted. Refreshing read in our current desert of literature!

      Best regards, raydart.

  29. “Presumably you mean about AGW”: No, I wouldn't pose such a pointless question. It was truth of science, or consensus with policy (to whichever group). However, any response would probably be pointless anyhow as you already seem to have side stepped the issue. No matter.I'd already read your last item on Jen's site when it was first posted. Refreshing read in our current desert of literature!Best regards, raydart.

  30. I think that davids99us is correct to call for clarification. Following the first diurnal cycle, energy released by ocean becomes a radiative issue as latent energy between WV and cloud with their associated atmospheric forcings, but the initial energy release is ocean to atmosphere gas (WV) transmission and is part of the evapotranspiration phase of the hydrocycle. Thus, investigation of the drivers of the hydrocycle should indicate causes for ENSO. A good place to start looks to be the disparity of land and ocean area between the NH and SH regions.Without doubt, levels of OHC will display variant hysteresis parameters as the OHC must alter sea surface temps (as would land precipitation without runoff affect land WV production).Best regards, raydart.

  31. Yeah, I am happy for discussion, and clarifications, but being about “the power of numeracy” I am uncomfortable with loose discussion of hypotheses about complex process that noone really understands, as I don't see any power or potential influence in those. Perhaps chat sites are more appropriate for such hypothesis generation. This is not, like, a blog rule. But I would personally only get engaged in discussions at the level that they can be directed to at least a hope of a conclusion. Being heavily into writing papers now I am really focussed on taking one step at a time, in whatever direction doesn't matter, but only one step, and not generating a whole lot of 'interesting' thoughts that will never be resolved.

  32. “2-box pickup”; I liked Lucia’s summation;

    “The phenomenological explanation for the rather large increase in temperature for the ocean box, is this: In Arthur’s box model, the ocean box absorbs 50 times as much of the forcing as the atmosphere box. Meanwhile, the heat capacity of Arthur’s ocean is only 10 times as large as the atmosphere, so one might expect the ocean to warm up more readily than the atmosphere.”
    Very droll; of course the 2-box idea is automatically deficient because the oceans are continually being recycled through the mantle so a 3rd box would be required for that process by which the oceans lose and gain energy.

  33. “2-box pickup”; I liked Lucia's summation;”The phenomenological explanation for the rather large increase in temperature for the ocean box, is this: In Arthur’s box model, the ocean box absorbs 50 times as much of the forcing as the atmosphere box. Meanwhile, the heat capacity of Arthur’s ocean is only 10 times as large as the atmosphere, so one might expect the ocean to warm up more readily than the atmosphere.” Very droll; of course the 2-box idea is automatically deficient because the oceans are continually being recycled through the mantle so a 3rd box would be required for that process by which the oceans lose and gain energy.

  34. As a member of the engineering fraternity I don't generate hypotheses, only comment on their feasibility. It's impossible to accurately model an effect such as ENSO without modelling the whole system, then observe the ENSO effect within that system. Unfortunately, mass inertia plays such a large role within the system's dynamic that the converging Hadley Cells through to the Hadley/Ferrel jets need to be modelled in some 3D way.Engineers have a term for the ENSO effect, we apply it to a centrifugal turbine system and call it “hunting”. However, as you refuse to engage with the effect of inertia I've tried to comment only on surface effect.I don't think I can be of more help here under such a restricted caveat, so I'll be off. If you need to contact me a post in the CA forum (where I use my nickname of suricat) should gain my attention.Best regards for the future, raydart.

  35. I just skimmed it. Seems like a decent approach. Appreciate the literature review at the beginning. Could be a little better written (some tense issues, the reference to Santer and Quinille (why the “can be” phraseology…just cite the original source for the equation).

    • Thanks. Jeez I wish I was a brilliant writer. I think its my ED (thats
      executive dysfunction not erectile dysfunction).

  36. I just skimmed it. Seems like a decent approach. Appreciate the literature review at the beginning. Could be a little better written (some tense issues, the reference to Santer and Quinille (why the “can be” phraseology…just cite the original source for the equation).

  37. Thanks. Jeez I wish I was a brilliant writer. I think its my ED (thatsexecutive dysfunction not erectile dysfunction).

  38. I just skimmed it. Seems like a decent approach. Appreciate the literature review at the beginning. Could be a little better written (some tense issues, the reference to Santer and Quinille (why the “can be” phraseology…just cite the original source for the equation).

  39. Thanks. Jeez I wish I was a brilliant writer. I think its my ED (thatsexecutive dysfunction not erectile dysfunction).

  40. Pingback: witryna firmowa

  41. Pingback: wypozyczalnia lawet

  42. Pingback: wypozyczalnia samochodów dostawczych

  43. Pingback: strona www

  44. Pingback: kliknij

  45. Pingback: lesbijki

  46. Pingback: witryna

  47. Pingback: tutaj

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