.
Anders is having a discussion about Ed and Tamsin’s nature article on the ‘pause’ in global warming.
There’s a cleverly worded commentary in Nature Climate Change by Ed Hawkins, Tamsin Edwards, and Doug McNeall called Pause for thought.
The article starts with
The recent slowdown (or ‘pause’) in global surface temperature rise is a hot topic for climate scientists and the wider public. We discuss how climate scientists have tried to communicate the pause and suggest that ‘many-to-many’ communication offers a key opportunity to directly engage with the public.
The article is a combination of an attempt to discuss the slowdown in surface warming (which they seem comfortable calling a pause) and the role scientists could play in communicating such things to the public. In general, the article is quite good and includes an interesting figure that illustrates how climate models do indeed predict such slowdowns, but don’t all predict them as the same time. Hence, ensemble averages tend to remove such variability.
Illustration…
View original post 520 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Given the tone of his posts, the crowd he’s hosting and the moderation policy he’s agreeing with, Anders has obviously no idea what an open and honest discussion is.
Heh, “pause” deniers!
Love it!
They’re getting desperate, aren’t they?
Well, my comment made it through moderation, though no-one has replied yet:
tallbloke says:
February 27, 2014 at 12:46 am
“Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity have been confirmed by experiments and observations. Discuss.”
There’s some interesting recent papers in the literature around the precession of Saturn’s perihelion, and GR’s failure to nail it. Keep discussing.
But steering Anders gently back to the topic, don’t forget to discuss Nature.com’s suggestion to use the word ‘plateau’ rather than ‘pause’ too. It’s an interesting proposition. Plateau’s exist at the tops of some mountains, and also on uplands below peaks. So it appears to cover more bases than ‘pause’, because ‘pause’ presumes resumption, and that’s not guaranteed.
tallbloke says:
February 27, 2014 at 7:45 am
Jason B quoting Rahmstorf:
“Given the relatively short 16-year time period considered [from 1990], it will be difficult to establish the reasons for this relatively rapid warming, although there are only a few likely possibilities. The first candidate reason is intrinsic variability within the climate system. A second candidate is climate forcings other than CO2: Although the concentration of other greenhouse gases has risen more slowly than assumed in the IPCC scenarios, an aerosol cooling smaller than expected is a possible cause of the extra warming. A third candidate is an underestimation of the climate sensitivity to CO2 (i.e., model error).”
A couple of things Rahmstorf didn’t consider which more recent papers have put on the table:
1) Internal variability on multidecadal timescales. Most notably the oceanic quasi-periodic oscillations of the AMO and PDO.
2) The coincidence of late C20th surface warming with above average solar activity, and the post 2003 lack of surface warming with a big drop in solar activity.
In the same new Nature.com collection that the article presently under discussion here appears, there’s another by Lisa Goddard which goes some way to addressing point 1)
“Natural variability seems to be capable of accounting for changes in ocean heat uptake of the magnitude experienced. Many recent studies point to the role of PDO in this recent hiatus. What is particularly compelling is that this period has also been one of negative PDO. Further suggestive evidence is that the last period with decade-scale trends in global mean temperature as weak as that experienced since the turn of the century occurred through the 1950s and early 1960s, which was another period dominated by very negative PDO conditions. This shows that hiatus periods are unusual but not unprecedented.
Interestingly, no one really talks about the other side of this situation: global warming acceleration. The mid-1970s through to the mid-1990s was a period of positive PDO and saw an acceleration in warming.
It actually saw a reversal from cooling to warming, and the other big ocean oscillation (AMO) stayed in positive mode until the early 2000’s. My own position has always been that before you can assess the effect of the increased airborne co2 fraction, you need to subtract the natural variation from the surface record. Ice cores such as GISP2, stalagmite studies, ice rafted debris studies and a plethora of other paleo evidence show that ~60 year oscillations in climate indices have always been with us, even during previous glacial periods. The instrumental record shows two such ~60 year oscillations, the positive phase of the one from ~1910-1940 being of a similar duration and magnitude to the one from 1975-2005. Once we subtract these from the record, we are left with a much more uniform underlying trend which is considerbly smaller than that projected by the climate models, and appears to have started long before airborne co2 levels started rising significantly.
I think Lisa Goddard’s observation needs careful consideration and discussion.
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 27, 2014 at 8:01 am
Anders: You’ll note I didn’t develop any discussion of the solar forcing. We can do that another time. Briefly, you need to integrate the solar data as a cumulative departing from the long term average in order to compare it to a high heat capacity energy accumulator such as the global ocean which underlies sea surface temperature. Then you get something like this simple model I constructed, which uses AMO, SOI, SSN and lnCO2 to reproduce monthly HADSST3 to R^2=0.9
:
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 27, 2014 at 8:41 am
BBD: “Citations needed.”
Here you go
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 27, 2014 at 9:02 am
BBD: “So why did OHC continue to increase when TSI *fell* from the mid-1980s?”
The PMOD model says TSI fell from the mid 80’s. The PI’s of the original instruments disagree.
But leaving that controversy aside, the sunspot number has been shown to be a good proxy for TSI and we have sunspot records all the way back to Galileo’s time. The long term average monthly sunspot number over the period of record is around 40SSN. Between 1960 and 2003 it was nearly double that. The minima were brief, the up and down ramps of the cycles were short, and the period near maximum extended. So although a brief eyeballing of the series makes it appear solar activity was falling from 1960, as has been pointed out by several people above, eyeballing can be deceptive.
Where is the energy coming from?
From the Sun. The important issue is understanding how that energy is integrated and retained/dissipated by the Earth’s oceans. When the Sun became more than averagely active in 1934, the oceans started warming. They carried on warming right through until around 2004, because the sun continued to be more than averagely active until then, despite the small drop in the peak sunspot number of the successive cycles after 1960.
See the yellow curve on my simple model I linked above for the integrated SSN data as a proxy for OHC.
TB: the door has closed 😉
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 27, 2014 at 9:16 am
Anders says:
tallbloke,
You seem to think that I might actually engage in a serious discussion with you. Why would I possibly do that? Apologies if my previous response gave the impression that I would.
If you’re running a science blog, scientific discussion proceeds through an open process of criticism, rebuttal, reformulation, and even, occasionally, collaboration.
If you’re not running a science blog, then ostracising those who present scientific arguments you disagree with is of course an option.
Anders’ is not a science blog. It is a mutual help society for people with weak psychological frames. They actively support each other by including uncanny praises with peculiar timings.
Ostracism is their defense mechanism. It is actually the one and only blog I have unsubscribed from. I would be worried meeting any one of those people in real life, especially if there is two of more of them in the same room as me, as I’d expect physical violence against me or anybody they feel attacked from.
Ps told you so!!
What’s Anders full name? I’d like to take a look at his publication record.
It’s amazing how they know someone else’s science is wrong without even looking at it.
Maybe they need to change the name of the blog to
“And Then There’s Psychics”
Whoah! The comments have finally been approved.
Well done Anders!
Read full post but stopped in comments.
An interesting bit of theology reading with the obligatory condemnation of the sinful non believers – although hope springs eternal from some minds we can be converted and are not all lost. The Catholic church denied any wrong doing for years but did a fine job on the condemnation stakes whilst denying everything. Any powerful group will close ranks to protect itself including lectures on *our* failures (attack best form of defence etc). Obviously in all these cases – mp’s expenses scandal too – it is about communication failure and we cannot, must not say that it was our fault (or the infallible models) and we should just continue as normal as if nothing happened (as if we acknowledged the ‘pause’ all along). The faithful must avoid temptation.
Dreadful, dreadful, dreadful.
‘Pause’ oh how lucky we’re allowed to communicate what was until only recently condemned/denied and which Slingo has ignored wholesale (what pause we’re warming and committed to warming). Sorry communication failure from every Met orifice these statements/papers come from. You cannot talk about ‘communication’ when the entire organisation is geared not to delivering forecasts/hindcasts/a**casts but massaging and controlling the message. The pause is not a ‘whodunnit’ it’s ‘why did you deny its existence in the first place?’ and why ffs can not one mention of Sol be made or has the smear campaign painted them into a corner showing the Iillogic of two decades plus of output (at tax payer expense)…oh and don’t mind if we have a crafty beg for another £100m.
Careful mentioning Sol TB, someone might have your eyes out 😉
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 27, 2014 at 12:16 pm
BBD: If OHC 0 – 2000m were shown instead, the missing energy discrepancy would be even more evident, especially over the last decade. It is that simple to demonstrate that it’s not the sun.
If something in climate science looks simple, it’s because you missed some of what’s happening. In this case you missed what I explained earlier. Simplistic comparisons of the instantaneous solar output and OHC don’t work because the ocean doesn’t respond to to energy input instantaneously. This is because it’s several kilometers deep and has a high heat capacity.
That’s why you have to integrate the data.
The simplest analogy I can offer is this:
You put a very large pan of water on the gas ring set at a moderate output and wait until the temperature in the pan reaches equilibrium. This will take quite a while so be patient. Once it’s losing as much heat to its surroundings as is being input from the gas ring, whack the gas up to full. Does the pan of water instantly rise in temperature to the equilibrium temperature it will reach if the gas is left at max? Of course not. It starts warming at a rate commensurate with it’s mass and heat capacity.
So once it’s been warming for a while, start slowly turning down the gas, analogous to the reduction in the peak amplitudes of the solar cycles from 1960-2003. Keep an eye on the thermometer in the water. It’s still rising even though you’re turning down the gas. Quel surprise!
That happens because the water didn’t immediately rise in temp when you turned the gas to max, and is still going to end up at a higher temperature than it was at equilibrium even when the gas has been turned down to a lower (but still higher than the level at equilibrium) level.
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 27, 2014 at 2:06 pm
Anders says: …any argument that simply ignores the influence of increased radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases and then suggests that we’ve somehow been storing extra solar energy in the oceans now, while having never done so in the past, would simply be wrong.
1) Look again at my simple model, where you will find lnCO2 factored in. Admittedly it’s at a lower value than you guys have been using, but it’s there.
2) I have nowhere argued that solar energy has not been stored in the oceans in the past.
In fact, even if you include the inertia of the oceans, one can easily show that if we were simply responding to increases in solar forcing we should have equilibrated very quickly compared to the 150 years that we’ve been warming.
Well if the pause/hiatus/plateau is to be explained by trade winds driving warmer surface waters deep into the ocean, then the quick equilibration argument is out of date isn’t it? Especially so given the 2012 GRL paper which finds ~60yr oscillations in sea level in all basins except the north Pacific. If it was purely internal variability in where the heat was stored, the steric component would remain constant, given the linear change in the density of seawater down to freezing point. Clearly it does not.
OK, Any suggestions where we start with this?
andthentheresphysics says:
February 27, 2014 at 2:15 pm
tallbloke,
I’m falling into the trap.
I have nowhere argued that solar energy has not been stored in the oceans in the past.
I wasn’t referring to you. There is no real evidence to suggest that what we’ve undergone globally in the last 150 years has happened in the last 10000. Why now?
Well if the pause/hiatus/plateau is to be explained by trade winds driving warmer surface waters deep into the ocean, then the quick equilibration argument is out of date isn’t it?
Not really. For starters the pause is only a decade old or so. Fundamentally though, the problem you have is that the solar insolation today is only very slightly higher than it was in 1750. That means that in the absence of greenhouse gases, the equilibrium surface temperature today should be very close to what it was in 1750. It’s clearly not. It’s almost a degree higher. If there’s been no influence from greenhouse gases then the surface temperature today should be higher than the equilibrium value. If so, the planet should be losing more energy than it’s receiving from the Sun. How, if this is the case, can we be losing energy and gaining energy at the same time.
So, how can we be sequestering energy in the oceans if the temperature today is about 1 degree higher than it was 150 years ago, if the solar insolation is almost the same and there’s been no influence from anthropogenic greenhouse gases?
Now, I’ve ended up in a scientific discussion with someone I have no real desire to discuss science with. I’m not going to do much more as I really doubt we’re going to converge in any way at all. I don’t really see why we should both waste our times.
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 27, 2014 at 4:39 pm
Anders says: “the solar insolation today is only very slightly higher than it was in 1750.”
We have no idea what surface temperatures were on Earth prior to 1850 but you think a model can determine solar output in 1750 to within fractions of a watt per square metre at the top of Earth’s atmosphere?
Let me assure you it can’t.
“There is no real evidence to suggest that what we’ve undergone globally in the last 150 years has happened in the last 10000. Why now?”
Solanki et al 2004 published by Nature.com
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
“We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.”
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 27, 2014 at 4:58 pm
The solanki reference shows just the opposite, the Sun was the strongest it has been in perhaps 10,000 years in the latter C20th. This addressed your previous point of ‘why now’.
And I didn’t say “we have no idea”. I said our ideas don’t pin down solar variation to fractions of a W/m^2 and this is true. There are several TSI reconstructions, and they all disagree to quite wide margins of several W/m^2. So most of climate change might be accounted for by the |Sun, or very little of it. Other lines of evidence suggest it is a large factor however.
It’s obvious you don’t want the discussion, so I’ll leave the solar issue there. Lets get back onto less controversial ground with what Lisa Goddard has said in Nature.com’s series of articles the present thread’s headline post is drawn from.
@Tallbloke; I think you need to modify your water pan on the stove explanation of TSI. Once the pan is simmering nicely, Its’ TSI will be 210F or 100C if you crank the heating up to a boil, the TSI will still be nearly the same. The excess energy will be emitted as water vapor or in the case of the sun as solar wind. The energy emitted has changed, The radiation thermal signature remains the same. As the local energy content changes the radiative losses are changed inversely. The sun emits energy as super heated matter as well as through TSI radiation .
In HTAC the losses are as important as the energy gains. TSI watts of radiation per square meter is only part of the equation. Look outside of the envelope for conditions of loss changes.
Sunspots decrease the radiation a bit but matter emission goes up. The Goldilocks zone is caused as much by the local, energy matter density as it is by radiation from the sun. pg
Tallbloke, if you are going to play in the unphysical world of “And then there is physics”, you may also have some fun at the rather bizzare world of …
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com.au/
Not sure which way you may go with this one …
TB: re. your comments on thentheresphysics blog about solar forcing. As soon as you prod Anders with logic, requiring him to engage in either acknowledgement of facts (requiring contorted rebuttals on his part) or outright unsubstantiated denial, he collapses into childish ‘well I don’t want to talk to you anymore and why would I engage in serious discussion with you anyway?’ etc. etc. Very odd (anonymous) person. I just can’t understand why he has such a following on his blog, though I guess if one accepts omnologos’ interpretation of Anders’ blog as “a mutual help society for people with weak psychological frames”, it adds up!
I find reading through a lot of the comments on there quite a depressing, even nauseating experience and would not recommend it to anyone of an enquiring mind and a healthy, functioning psyche. I look forward to the suggestion re. communication of climate science by Tamsin, Doug and Ed being implemented. I may be biased of course, but I find ‘amateur’ sceptics as a whole to be a far more intelligent, logically concise and knowledgeable bunch of people than their AGW blogger counterparts. Slogging it out with such people is unproductive and ultimately pointless. The AGW science ‘oracle’ needs to engage directly with sceptics and the general public, not through the sclerotic lens of such people as Anders and his fawning flock of faithful followers.
Jaime: It’s occasionally instructive to engage them. I think Anders is convertible too. 😉
PG: I like your thinking. Way too subtle for Anders though.
Convertible?
Yes, from believer into scientist.
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 28, 2014 at 2:20 pm
Anders: Thanks for giving the SBF09 paper a mention. Calibrating proxy data to TSI is fraught with difficulty, and I wouldn’t place much faith in it, because of the geomagnetic influence, but the periodicities found in the data are of great interest in my own research. About 70% of the variation in their 10Be data can be accounted for with just two periods of 208yr (the De Vries cycle) and 983yr (a beat period of the major planetary orbital interaction periods).
We haven’t yet run the data with some new equations we’ve developed to see what shorter periods emerge but we may have news on this within the next few days. Using our techniques we successfully predicted the slump in solar activity and the cessation of warming back in 2008. The value of scientific work rests largely on the usefulness of predictions. So far, we are doing better than the models based on trace gas levels. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the IPCC maintains that solar variation doesn’t affect climate change to any great degree. Mama nature didn’t get the memo.
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 28, 2014 at 8:18 pm
Anders: the effect will probably be so small as to be negligible
Venus has slowed by 6.5 minutes in 16 years.
Saturn’s rotation rate (measured by radio emission) is thought to have shifted between 627-648 minutes over 30 years.
Any idea how many Hiroshimas worth of energy are involved? (Hint: Lots)
I’ll leave it there and continue my research. Thanks for the civil chat.
tallbloke says:
February 28, 2014 at 7:29 pm
Anders: “TB, Where’s the physics in that? You meant tidal torques, but I don’t see you working any out.”
Ah, not tides, no. What we’re discussing is the effects of orbital resonance. This effect is capable of transferring truly awesome amounts of energy between planets (and probably between planets and the Sun too).
e.g. from the wiki page on the subject:
A past resonance between Jupiter and Saturn may have played a dramatic role in early Solar System history. A 2004 computer model by Alessandro Morbidelli of the Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur in Nice suggested that the formation of a 1:2 resonance between Jupiter and Saturn (due to interactions with planetesimals that caused them to migrate inward and outward, respectively) created a gravitational push that propelled both Uranus and Neptune into higher orbits, and in some scenarios caused them to switch places, which would have doubled Neptune’s distance from the Sun.
What we’ve discovered by looking at orbital timings and planetary spin rates is that there’s not only an energetic coupling between planets and their neighbours in terms of their orbits, but between spin rates and neighbour orbital periods too. Since gravity is a straight line force, these can only be accounted for in terms of interaction between the interplanetary magnetic field and planetary magnetospheres and metallic cores. This opens up a whole new field for resonance to transfer energy through.
Hence my second paper finds a strong correlation between the dynamics of the gas giant orbits relative to the solar equatorial plane and Earth’s Length of Day variations. Those LoD variations were found by the American FAO to correlate to the AMO and PDO oceanic oscillations, and fish stock variations. Hence my earlier comment about cold upwelling water which brings with it the nutrients which feed the base of the foodchain, the plankton.
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 28, 2014 at 8:45 pm
John Russell: Doesn’t TB realise that for a pathologist to come up with an unusual and complex alternative theory to explain the injuries to a suicide victim, he or she also has to explain why the crushed skull wasn’t caused by the subject hitting the ground after his 80 foot fall?
Take it to your shrink, I’m not interested in your psychotic fantasies.
As I said earlier, before we can correctly attribute the magnitude of human influence on planetary energy balance, we have to correctly identify and subtract the various natural variations.
Using constantly re-adjusted aerosol forcings as spackle and caulk to bodge up inadequate theory and incorrectly assessed magnitudes doesn’t cut it.
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 28, 2014 at 11:26 pm
BBD: The leaving bit should show up at TOA. Where is this documented?
The annual TOA variation due to orbital eccentricity is in the region of 90W/m^2. The error of the instrumentation is estimated to be +/-4W/M^2. The ocean absorbs and retains heat, which is why sea level fluctuates on the decadal timescale. (Also on the 60yr timescale, which blows the ‘missing heat hiding in the deep’ theory out of the water since the density of seawater is pretty much linear down to freezing point).
Jsam: Pal review is its own reward.
The article this post is about forms part of a ‘special edition’ according to Tamsin Edwards, same as our PRP collection of papers.
It is not peer reviewed at all, by pals or otherwise.
In fact, we did have outside reviewers in addition to the other authors providing peer reviews. The two reviews of my main paper ran to 24 pages of criticism prompting much revision and improvement. The one from my pal Dr Hans Jelbring began:
“This is really going to piss you off, but…”
I’m exceptionally grateful to him for the time and effort he put into criticising my work and suggesting ways to improve it.
Phil Jones: “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer review is!”
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 28, 2014 at 11:54 pm
Tom Curtis: I continue to be puzzled as to why people direct us to evidence that X cause Y, where the evidence shows an alignment of fluctuations in X and Y which are clearly out of phase for large portions of the period examined.
Quite right Tom. How dare nature be so unruly? Models give much tidier output.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1978/mean:37/detrend:0.6/plot/pmod/mean:12/offset:-1366.3/scale:0.2
Tallbloke,
That site is not about physics, it is about indoctrination and arrogant reactionary indoctrination at that.
One can see intellect and critical thinking skills leaching away post by dogmatic arrogant post.
Hunter: Some commenters there are way too far gone I agree. But I have high hopes for Anders 🙂
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 1, 2014 at 8:54 am
pbjamm: Even if TB’s epicycles did provide and influence on Earth’s energy balance (unlikely due to the inverse square law) it does not explain where the solar energy trapped by GHGs go to! It just writes off this energy
Not at all. Firstly the inverse square law doesn’t come into it so much because I’m not proposing a tidal theory but one concerning synchronising spin-orbital resonances. See earlier links to papers and wiki. Secondly, my simple model for SST does include lnCO2 as a proxy for the influence of increased water vapour and co2 near the surface. The IPCC claims that more than 50% of the warming since 1950 is due to additional GHG’s. My model puts it at around 38%. Take a look for yourself:
Thirdly, our model for the evolution of solar activity from 1000AD matches the 14Carbon isotope record well, and is now up to R^2=0.9 for the historical direct observation record from 1749.
Finally, I’ll be happy to go into the reasoning behind having a lower value for lnCO2 than IPCC another time Anders posts on radiative theory, but I’ve got enough on at the moment.
Ian ForresterIs he trying to show that global surface temperature closely follows solar insolation?
No.
Steve Bloom: Velikovsky
Yeah, whatever. I’ve been contacted by one of the worlds leading experts on solar wind – magnetospheric interaction Professor Giovanni Gregori, and we’ll be working together to flesh out my ideas on a possible mechanism for the apparent spin-orbit coupling I’ve observed which isn’t accounted for by standard perturbation theory.
Tom Curtis: “two series that are out of phase over a significant period of time are not made causally related by only showing that interval when they may be in phase. I will thank you for the graph, however, for it shows how much you rely on using different averaging windows for the two series to get your result:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1978/mean:12/detrend:0.6/plot/pmod/mean:12/offset:-1366.3/scale:0.2. Personally, I am inclined to call that sort of graphic manipulation fraud.”
I detrended the datasets for the same reason Nir Shaviv did in his peer reviewed JGR paper; i.e. to look at the solar effect on individual decadal periods. No deception is intended.
I’ve looked back as far as sst’s are reliable (1950 according to oceanologist Judith Curry) and the solar cycles and decadal oceanic oscillations never go completely out of phase. For sure big El-nino’s and other sub-decadal events such as volcanic forcing knock things sideways occasionally, but I don’t think the relationship is in any doubt myself.
The different averaging windows are there for a reason. the 37month smoothing of the SST is at the 1:3 subharmonic of the solar cycle length, which approximates the ~3.7yr average ENSO cycle. Anyway, if you change the solar data to the same averaging period it makes no difference to the result. So your imputation of fraud is as misplaced as it is distastefully offensive.
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 1, 2014 at 9:32 am
Anders: Thanks for the calc. I think you need to bear in mind that over the annual cycle, the TOA insolation varies by ~90W/m^2, and yet we don’t see very large differences in N vs S SST variance. This is telling us that the ocean is pretty efficient at shifting energy around both vertically and between hemispheres/latitudes. So the oceanic response to the solar cycle visible at the surface in SST is only part of the solar-terrestrial story.
We also need to consider the buildup of subsurface energy in places like the Pacific Warm Pool. This energy store gets released in major El Nino events on a roughly decadal basis (e.g. 2010, 1998, 1988). The interesting point to note here is that the biggest El Nino events occur shortly after solar minimum, when the ocean gets the opportunity to release excess energy built up during the solar cycle. After a big el Nino, there is of course a damped oscillation producing a big la Nina. These tend to occur near the peak of the solar cycle, simply because the hysteresis of the oceanic rebound more or less matches the rise-time of the solar cycle.
The effect of all that on the smoothed datasets we use to reveal the relationship between the solar cycle and SST is to depress the SST at the solar cycle peak and elevate the SST at the solar cycle minimum. This is what masks the true extent of the energy relationship. If we accounted for the additional energy built up in subsurface gyres such as the PWP, we’d find that the solar cycle has a considerably bigger effect on energy balnce than a superficial examination of SST reveals.
This fuller accounting for energy would have a marked effect on your TCR calc.
@tallbloke, please to read you used: the 37month smoothing of the SST 😎
Chaeremon: Why are you pleased? Is there another connection I haven’t considered?
@tallbloke: I’ve mentioned the 37months interval occasionally, and I’m just pleased it appears to be used.
In my model the lunar line-of-apse and line-of-nodes are in phase lockstep at 37 moons intervals (including, for the naked eye observer, at syzygy).
Chaeremon: Wow! How did I miss that? Thank you!
Chaeremon: Since the line of apse and line of nodes counter-rotate after 8.8504 and 18.6 years respectively, could you explain what you mean by ‘in phase lock step? Thanks. I note with interest that the average ENSO period around 3.7 years is almost exactly 1/5 of the nodal cycle.
@tallbloke: I observe the nodes & perigee & apogee (I have only the horizon as backdrop and no radar, sorry). Every 37.0~ moons (solar time-keeping) the apse and one of the nodes *] meet again on the ~same day in the year. This is after 3.0~ equinoctial years, 40.0~ moons (the latter in stellar time-keeping, same position° in ecliptic).
It is indeed as you describe: line-of-nodes and line-of-apse run against each other; my observation is: when do both lines meet again at same seasonal position (season/tilt, ecliptic°, inclination°).
Since the main perceptible orbital elements fall together in sync, I baptized this cycle ‘phase lockstep’, with emphasis on phase and step. OT: Saros cycle (needs both lines, or else runs out of steam) is multiple of 3 years + a few days.
*] this of of course so at position of inclination 0° (node) in the orbit, but visualization in a diagram shows 0 at zero, so I visualize it at +/- max inclination.
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 1, 2014 at 3:32 pm
Hi Pekka, thanks for dropping by.
The solar ‘constant’ has recently been retrospectively changed by around 4W/m^2. It’ll be interesting to find out whether this is due to previously faulty instrument design as has been claimed, or whether we’re about to find out the hard way that Judith Lean had it right before she was ‘leaned on’ to flatten the centennial solar variation in her TSI reconstructions. No new TSI data has been publicly available since the end of july last year. However, this is about to change.
Interesting times ahead!
Chaeremon: Thanks, that makes sense to me. But this three year period is somewhat different to the average ENSO period of 3.7 years, which is 45.7 lunations or 44 months = 1/3 solar cycle length, apologies for my faulty memory.
@tallbloke, you wrote: ENSO period of 3.7 years. The ‘trick’ appears to me to find the numerator which went into the division; 3.7 years and 45.7 lunations are just averaged, mathematical figures (no offense), which is why I search for perceptible objects and pattern.
Chaeremon:
Easy,
3 x ENSO = Schwabe Solar Cycle
5 x ENSO = LNC
6 x ENSO = Hale Solar Cycle
8 x ENSO = Saturn Orbital
12x ENSO = Inner solar system commensurability
18x ENSO = AMO
@tallbloke: 3 x ENSO ==> J-S go from opposition to conjunction (or vice versa; heliocentric) but the J-S relation appears to not hold for long at 3 x ENSO 😦 so, I’m looking ‘higher up’ and elsewhere: 8 x ENSO ==> also J-S go from opposition to conjunction.
Other than, 3:8 is fibonacci, I cannot say much about ENSO factor at the moment.
And for 5 x ENSO I had no luck. You already showed x 5 with the line-of-nodes.
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 1, 2014 at 6:09 pm
BBD: You have to realise there’s a controversy going on in solar science as well as terrestrial climate science. Leif is a paid up (and well paid) member of the Flat Sun Society along with Klaus Frohlich and his PMOD model team. On the variable star side we have for e.g. the PI of the ACRIM TSI measurement team Richard Willson, and also Judith Lean in her less leaned on moments. No pressure there then.
Settled science… not.