Temperature Variation Due to ENSO

Posted: July 28, 2016 by oldbrew in Analysis, climate, ENSO

Useful comparison of ENSO and (supposed) CO2 influences on climate by kenskingdom. ENSO correlations look significant, whereas CO2 – nothing to report really.
H/T Climate Depot


In this post I use the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) supplied by NOAA at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/index.html and lower tropospheric temperature data supplied by UAH to show how much of temperature variation over the past 20 years is due to ENSO and how little is due to CO2.  I will keep words brief and let graphics do the talking.

Firstly, here is the MEI data from 1950:

Fig. 1:  Monthly MEI from 1950

mei monthly

As an aside, this is how it compares with SOI data.  The SOI is inverted and both are scaled for comparison.

Fig. 2:  MEI compared with SOI inverted

mei vs soi

Now compare scaled MEI with Global UAH:

Fig. 3: MEI (scaled) and UAH

mei monthly w uah

Notice tropospheric temperatures appear to lag the MEI by some 5 months:

Fig. 4: MEI advanced 5 months and UAH

mei monthly advd 5m w uah graph

Notice both datasets are noisy, and there is a clear discrepancy in the early 1990s.  12 month running…

View original post 634 more words

  1. erl happ says:

    The second-largest volcanic eruption of this century, and by far the largest eruption to affect a densely populated area, occurred at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines on June 15, 1991.

  2. A C Osborn says:

    Fig 4. MEI has a real problem with UAH for ~1983 and ~1992/93.
    Any ideas?

  3. erl happ says:

    El Chichón became famous for its 1982 eruption. In little under a week, the presumed dormant volcano produced three plinian eruptions (March 29, April 3, and April 4th).[2] The eruptions generated a substantial amount of sulfur dioxide and particulates into the atmosphere. The total volume of the eruption was much smaller than the famous eruption of Pinatubo in 1991; however El Chichón’s impacts were equally significant on global climate.

  4. oldbrew says:

    LOD Revisited for CSALT
    Posted on July 24, 2016

    ‘One of the most questioned aspects of the CSALT model of global temperature is the LOD to Temperature factor. This creates a multi-decadal variation in temperature useful for optimizing a multiple-linear regression AGW model dependent on CO2 and other factors.

    Lunisolar tides impact variations in Length-of-Day (LOD). So does ENSO and QBO. There is a recursive aspect to these relationships as well, since both LOD and ENSO have the same Chandler wobble match in apparent forcing periodicity. This is what I believe generates a 6-year signal that gets identified routinely in the LOD time-series, such as the latest finding in ref [1] below.’ [bold added – see link for more details]

    The 6-year period is also the ‘lunar wobble’:

    Sidorenkov: ‘It is well known that the lunar nodes precess westward around the ecliptic, completing a revolution in 18.6 years. Lunar perigee moves eastward, completing a revolution in 8.85 years. Because of these opposite motions, a node meets a perigee in exactly 6 years.’ [in fact 300 per 1799 years, says de Rop]

    Click to access Sidorenkov.pdf

    [Re CSALT see: http://contextearth.com/2015/01/30/csalt-re-analysis/ ]
    The author at ‘ContextEarth’ leans towards AGW/CO2 type ideas but provides some discussion points IMO.

  5. kenskingdom says:

    Thanks for reblogging! I hope your readers will read the entire post– since 1996 74% of 12 month UAH variation associated with MEI 5 months earlier.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Re de Rop [see previous comment]:
    In 1799 anomalistic years, the difference between the number of anomalistic months and of draconic months is exactly 300.

  7. gymnosperm says:

    SOI is a Southern Hemisphere atmospheric pressure index. MEI is a cake baked from the three (mostly) equatorial nino SST indices and whatever leavening.

    We all know the simple explanation for this, yet the ITCZ is usually south of the nino zones near Christmas…

  8. Ray Tomes says:

    You might be interested in this analysis and article that I wrote in 2011. The same 5/6 month lag appears.

  9. Paul Vaughan says:

    “The author at ‘ContextEarth’ leans towards AGW/CO2 type ideas but provides some discussion points IMO.”

    One of a handful of the most excessively rude people with whom I’ve ever had online exchange (primary reason why I began my stern, vigilant, permanent boycott of Climate Etc.) and I have no desire to ever have direct communication again …but exploration is good and I monitor from a distance.

    That’s the past now. As for now…

    Pukite has been baiting for reaction from Lindzen (on QBO). I would be curious to hear Lindzen’s response and I do hope someone encourages Lindzen to provide serious commentary (on QBO specifically). For those of you who aren’t into exploring firsthand or don’t do numbers or whatever, perhaps there’s a helpful role you could play: approaching Lindzen about Pukite’s QBO baiting and succinctly making a solid case for responding carefully and seriously.

  10. tallbloke says:

    Ray: I reblogged that post here a few years ago. The lag certainly seems to indicate that ENSO is precursor of global tropospheric temperature. Several lines of investigation from several researchers like Ian Wilson, Paul Vaughan and R.J. Salvador are all converging on ENSO being a major driver of global temperature, and Lunar motion/Solar activity being the major driver of ENSO.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Paul V: I blocked Pukite from my twitter some time ago. He knows we’re ahead of him on the underlying causes of ENSO and QBO timing and doesn’t like it.

  12. oldbrew says:

    Sidorenkov’s paper says:

    In my books (Sidorenkov, 2002, 2009) it was shown that the Earth, the ocean, and the atmosphere
    exhibit consistent oscillations, influencing each other, i.e., joint oscillations initiated by tides occur in the Earth-ocean-atmosphere system. Visual manifestations of these oscillations include the wobble of the Earth’s poles, El Nino and La Nina in the ocean, and the Southern Oscillation and the quasi-biennial oscillation in the atmosphere.

    He goes into the numbers in some detail, all in just three pages.

  13. Paul Vaughan says:

    I see Pukite’s contribution as raising awareness of Piers Corbyn‘s Nov. 29, 2009 derivation:

    tropical year length = 365.242189 days
    draconic lunar month length = 27.212221 days

    harmonic of tropical year nearest draconic lunar month:
    (365.242189) / 13 = 28.095553 days

    consequent slip (and aggregate physical aliasing) cycle:

    (28.095553)*(27.212221) / (28.095553 – 27.212221) = 865.5210016 days
    (865.5210016) / 365.242189 = 2.369718033 tropical years

    Remember that annual circulatory structure includes major discrete topological switching. It isn’t even remotely sensible to ignore associated physical aliasing. Fatally, the climate mainstream forfeits the foundation upon which they could base credibility by ignoring something so blatantly simple.

    It’s telling that at first Pukite resisted natural variations so fiercely and then later jumped on board with such passion and zeal. Putting aside the militant psychological noise and CO2 devotion, he knows nature is real.

    Lindzen should at least comment on Corbyn’s 2009 derivation. I’ll be honest: I’m growing suspicious about the lack of such commentary from Lindzen. OK, I’ll be even more honest: I’m growing very suspicious…

    And let me add this to cover another base in case it’s relevant:

    If some government somewhere considers this classified information: Lol, that’s just stupid because it’s so simple and wishful administrators cannot make it not so.

    Mainstream mishandling of QBO is self-knock-out punch.

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    Point of Clarification:

    I’m not suggesting ENSO’s a climate driver — on the contrary I’m saying it bounces climate in a way that confuses mainstream interpretation. We have much to discuss moving forward. For today let me just say that if predictions come with no spatial pattern maps well then hmm let me just say I’m “not convinced”. We’ll have fun sorting out misunderstandings. We have a good bunch here!

  15. erl happ says:

    Paul Vaughan,
    If you can’t explain the atmospheric dynamics that order the winds i.e. the ‘annular modes phenomenon’ the link to the evolution of surface temperature is missing. All change is linked to the evolution of the ozone content of the atmosphere in the upper half of the atmospheric column. In mid to high latitudes surface pressure is determined by the ozone content of the atmospheric column. That was established back in 1924 when Dobson used a spectrophotometer to measure total column ozone.

    Think about this: the temperature of the surface of the ocean in the tropics is simply a function of the rate of addition of cold water to the surface stream. Look not at anomalies but the raw data here: http://www.eldersweather.com.au/climimage.jsp?i=sstg

    The degree of stirring of the tropical oceans (addition of a cold water stream) is a function of the movement of the air that is in turn a function of contrasts in surface pressure. Surface pressure registers a planetary minimum (resoundingly and constantly so) on the margins of Antarctica and it is here that surface pressure varies the most. The longer the time scale the more it varies. As surface pressure falls at 60-70° south latitude it rises in the mid latitudes and speeds the flow of the atmosphere in a west to east direction driving the Southern Ocean up against the South American continent giving rise to a stream of cold water heading northwards that surges across the Pacific. The same situation applies in the Indian and the Atlantic. The water moves east to west against the direction of movement of the atmosphere.

    The atmosphere rotates west to east in the same direction as the rotation of the planet but faster and in winter the speed of rotation accelerates. The fastest rotation is at the poles where the largest differences in atmospheric density manifest in the horizontal domain and increasingly so from about the 400hPa pressure level upwards. The highest velocity winds (300 to 400 km / hr) are found at the top of the atmosphere at 10 hPa. Convection lifts ozone to the top of the atmosphere. Convection at the equator is limited to the troposphere.

    The fluctuation in all atmospheric variables is much greater in winter than in summer.

    Last week a Russian Orthodox priest completed a circumnavigation of the Earth in a balloon taking off and landing in Western Australia in just 11 days. Inside the polar vortex a rotation is achieved in 2.5 days. You would not attempt this feat at the equator where the air at 10km in elevation is colder than it is in the mid latitudes and moves sluggishly.

    ENSO is not a climate driver. It is a response to the climate driver that is to be found over Antarctica as some enterprising Chinese have discovered: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjg2.1010/abstract

  16. oldbrew says:

    One to be aware of perhaps…

    Study claim: ‘The higher the water vapor content in the stratosphere, the higher the increase in surface temperatures.’

    Study finds: Middle atmosphere temperature in sync with the ocean PDO

  17. Paul Vaughan says:

    “ENSO is not a climate driver.”

    We agree.

  18. Paul Vaughan says:

    Bill Illis is normally the most sensible commentator at wuwt but beware an important exception: whenever he’s interacting with W.E. (like on a current thread over there). Geometry is thrown out the window. It makes no sense to talk as if there’s spatial uniformity. I’ve noticed that when people start writing about “W/m2” their sense of geometry and circulation seems completely shut off. It makes no sense. Is it some kind of trickery? It makes me mighty suspicious…

    I have tons upon tons of stuff to illustrate about MEI sometime. Not sure when there will be time.

  19. oldbrew says:

    How the Climate Alarmists Attempt to Mislead the Public and Dupe the Gullible: An Actual Example
    Alan Carlin – July 28, 2016

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    Fished these links out of CE’s weekly science review — a good sign that others are slowly waking up with more respect for geometry & spatial dimensions:

    “[…] climate models often seem to contradict observations of those eruptions. In a new study, McGraw et al. work to explain this apparent discrepancy.

    After the eruptions of El Chichón in 1982 and Mount Pinatubo in 1991, the belt of westerly winds surrounding Antarctica expanded toward the equator.”

    “Working with the GISP2 ice cores from Greenland over the last several years, Peter L. Ward has found that not all volcanic eruptions are created equal, and some may, in fact, cause global warming. Subaerial, non-explosive, basaltic volcanism, such as is common in Iceland, produces significant quantities of HCl and HBr, which can deplete the ozone layer, thereby letting more solar UV-B radiation through to warm Earth’s surface, particularly to the oceans, where it is absorbed. Explosive volcanism, on the other hand, like Pinatubo and El Chichon, introduces long-lasting aerosols into the stratosphere, which has the opposite effect, that is, global cooling. Ward found that these two effects prevail throughout the Phanerozoic record, thus affording explanations for several hitherto poorly understood phenomena.”

    “My experience following volcanic clouds of selected VEI 3 or higher eruptions penetrating the lower stratosphere shows a connection with regional rainfall variability.”


    “This paper is a contribution to the special collection on ENSO Diversity. The special collection aims at improving understanding of the origin, evolution, and impacts of ENSO events that differ in amplitude and spatial patterns […]”


    I’m starting to develop a sense of why some regions vary with MEIx volatility rather than MEIx mean. (further commentary + illustrations (including spatial pattern maps) as/when time/resources permit)