Does The Climate-Science Industry Purposely Ignore A Simple Aspect of Strong El Niño Events That Causes Long-Term Global Warming?

[Sunsettommy]

Posted on January 20, 2019 by Bob Tisdale

Excerpt:

PREFACE

It was a little more than 10 years ago that I published my first blog posts on the obvious upward steps in the sea surface temperatures of a large portion of the global oceans…upward steps that are caused by El Niño events…upward steps that lead to sunlight-fueled, naturally occurring global warming.

There is a very simple explanation for those El Niño-caused upward shifts that also make themselves known in the sea surface temperature data for much larger portion of the global oceans than I first presented a decade ago…the upward steps that are blatantly obvious in the satellite-era (starts November 1981) of sea surface temperature data for the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans, as shown in Figure 1, which together cover about 52% of the surfaces of the global oceans.

LINK

===============

There is a nice discussion about the post HERE at WUWT.

Notice the pause or cooling trends in between the El-Nin phases CO2 effect isn't visible.

The current warm up is tied to the current El-Nino and possibly the Volcano H20 eruption effects once again no CO2 effect is visible.

El-Nino's are a sun driven phenomenon.

It is the Sun/Ocean dynamo that drives weather all over the world.

 

[Crick]

Posted on January 20, 2019 by Bob Tisdale

Excerpt:

PREFACE

It was a little more than 10 years ago that I published my first blog posts on the obvious upward steps in the sea surface temperatures of a large portion of the global oceans…upward steps that are caused by El Niño events…upward steps that lead to sunlight-fueled, naturally occurring global warming.

There is a very simple explanation for those El Niño-caused upward shifts that also make themselves known in the sea surface temperature data for much larger portion of the global oceans than I first presented a decade ago…the upward steps that are blatantly obvious in the satellite-era (starts November 1981) of sea surface temperature data for the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans, as shown in Figure 1, which together cover about 52% of the surfaces of the global oceans.

View attachment 853584

LINK

===============

There is a nice discussion about the post HERE at WUWT.

Notice the pause or cooling trends in between the El-Nin phases CO2 effect isn't visible.

The current warm up is tied to the current El-Nino and possibly the Volcano H20 eruption effects once again no CO2 effect is visible.

El-Nino's are a sun driven phenomenon.

It is the Sun/Ocean dynamo that drives weather all over the world.

Please explain (or ask Bob Tisdale to explain) why the oceans didn't cool between el Ninos?

 

[ding]

Please explain (or ask Bob Tisdale to explain) why the oceans didn't cool between el Ninos?

The thermal mass of oceans.

Now explain to me how the ocean temperature will increase by 5C in 77 years when it took millions of years for it to cool 5C?

 

[Crick]

Posted on January 20, 2019 by Bob Tisdale

Excerpt:

PREFACE

It was a little more than 10 years ago that I published my first blog posts on the obvious upward steps in the sea surface temperatures of a large portion of the global oceans…upward steps that are caused by El Niño events…upward steps that lead to sunlight-fueled, naturally occurring global warming.

There is a very simple explanation for those El Niño-caused upward shifts that also make themselves known in the sea surface temperature data for much larger portion of the global oceans than I first presented a decade ago…the upward steps that are blatantly obvious in the satellite-era (starts November 1981) of sea surface temperature data for the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans, as shown in Figure 1, which together cover about 52% of the surfaces of the global oceans.

View attachment 853584

LINK

===============

There is a nice discussion about the post HERE at WUWT.

Notice the pause or cooling trends in between the El-Nin phases CO2 effect isn't visible.

The current warm up is tied to the current El-Nino and possibly the Volcano H20 eruption effects once again no CO2 effect is visible.

El-Nino's are a sun driven phenomenon.

It is the Sun/Ocean dynamo that drives weather all over the world.

Please explain (or ask Bob Tisdale to explain) why the oceans didn't cool between el Ninos?

 

[ding]

Please explain (or ask Bob Tisdale to explain) why the oceans didn't cool between el Ninos?

Good, Lord.

Water has two unique characteristics: it is a very poor conductor of heat and it has a great capacity to hold energy. In other words, it takes a lot of energy to raise the temperature of water, but once the temperature is raised, the heat energy is dissipated very slowly

About Water Temperature

Background readings on water temperature and stratification - Global Lab

staff.concord.org

Which is also why your 5C in 77 years won't happen.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Please explain (or ask Bob Tisdale to explain) why the oceans didn't cool between el Ninos?

It did cool locally which is why the atmosphere warmed up rapidly and when El-Nino fade away the remaining warm surface water gets pushed back to the west as cooler water comes in its place there is a short rapid cooling then it flatlines till the next El-Nino comes along.

It is a SUN fueled phenomenon which Trenberth explained back in 2002 in a paper he published.

The El-Nino phases is creating the STEP warming shown in the chart and a sign of a cooling world which is why having many El-Nino's a bad sign for our future as Javier explained:

"They ignore it because it is not true. El Niño is a cooling mechanism for the planet. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum La Niña conditions predominated. The increase of El Niño activity in the planet has paralleled the cooling of the planet during the Neoglaciation. Just the opposite of what you would expect if it causes long-term warming."

LINK

 

[Crick]

It did cool locally which is why the atmosphere warmed up rapidly

Do you have data that shows local cooling?

Why would the entire globe warm up from the El Nino, which itself is a localized event and then only cool off locally?

and when El-Nino fade away the remaining warm surface water gets pushed back to the west as cooler water comes in its place there is a short rapid cooling then it flatlines till the next El-Nino comes along.

What pushes the water in different directions? Unless the rotation of the Earth were to reverse, Coriolis always pushes in the same direction.

It is a SUN fueled phenomenon which Trenberth explained back in 2002 in a paper he published.

What is a sun fueled phenomenon? ENSO? Well, the sun fuels everything, doesn't it.

The El-Nino phases is creating the STEP warming shown in the chart and a sign of a cooling world

A sign of the cooling world? What does that mean? You give us a graph of the oceans doing nothing but getting warmer and say its evidence of a cooling world?

which is why having many El-Nino's a bad sign for our future as Javier explained:

Javier? Don't know him. I think having a global thermometer that almost constantly rises is a bad sign for our future as well.

"They ignore it because it is not true.

Who ignores what?

El Niño is a cooling mechanism for the planet.

It is? Then why does it seem to do nothing in your data but raise the globe's temperature?

During the Holocene Climatic Optimum La Niña conditions predominated. The increase of El Niño activity in the planet has paralleled the cooling of the planet during the Neoglaciation. Just the opposite of what you would expect if it causes long-term warming."

View attachment 853966

We are warmer now than any point during the HCO. Why aren't we having La Ninas out the wazoo?

You talk as if the planet chooses which way ENSO will go. The Earth's temperature is not a harmonic oscillation. The Earth is not innately driven to some midpoint. Its temperatures moves towards whatever point its radiative conditions dictate and till those conditions change, the temperature will remain there.

 

[ding]

Do you have data that shows local cooling?

Why would the entire globe warm up from the El Nino, which itself is a localized event and then only cool off locally?

What pushes the water in different directions? Unless the rotation of the Earth were to reverse, Coriolis always pushes in the same direction.

What is a sun fueled phenomenon? ENSO? Well, the sun fuels everything, doesn't it.

A sign of the cooling world? What does that mean? You give us a graph of the oceans doing nothing but getting warmer and say its evidence of a cooling world?

Javier? Don't know him. I think having a global thermometer that almost constantly rises is a bad sign for our future as well.

Who ignores what?

It is? Then why does it seem to do nothing in your data but raise the globe's temperature?

We are warmer now than any point during the HCO. Why aren't we having La Ninas out the wazoo?

You talk as if the planet chooses which way ENSO will go. The Earth's temperature is not a harmonic oscillation. The Earth is not innately driven to some midpoint. Its temperatures moves towards whatever point its radiative conditions dictate and till those conditions change, the temperature will remain there.

Don't worry too much. This will all be reversed when the AMOC collapses.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Do you have data that shows local cooling?

Why would the entire globe warm up from the El Nino, which itself is a localized event and then only cool off locally?

What pushes the water in different directions? Unless the rotation of the Earth were to reverse, Coriolis always pushes in the same direction.

What is a sun fueled phenomenon? ENSO? Well, the sun fuels everything, doesn't it.

A sign of the cooling world? What does that mean? You give us a graph of the oceans doing nothing but getting warmer and say its evidence of a cooling world?

Javier? Don't know him. I think having a global thermometer that almost constantly rises is a bad sign for our future as well.

Who ignores what?

It is? Then why does it seem to do nothing in your data but raise the globe's temperature?

We are warmer now than any point during the HCO. Why aren't we having La Ninas out the wazoo?

You talk as if the planet chooses which way ENSO will go. The Earth's temperature is not a harmonic oscillation. The Earth is not innately driven to some midpoint. Its temperatures moves towards whatever point its radiative conditions dictate and till those conditions change, the temperature will remain there.

Your reply indicate that you have no idea what an El-Nino/La Nina phases consist of thus you are going to be a waste of my time.

You apparently have no counterpoint to this well-known phenomenon.

Cheers.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Don't worry too much. This will all be reversed when the AMOC collapses.

Yeah they will go bananas when that happens which has already reached its peak thus about to drop into a long slide which will allow the Arctic Ice pack to grow larger to the point that Polar Bear population will go into a decline once again.

 

[ding]

Yeah they will go bananas when that happens which has already reached its peak thus about to drop into a long slide which will allow the Arctic Ice pack to grow larger to the point that Polar Bear population will go into a decline once again.

They will know it when they see it. The descent will be surprisingly fast. Within 10 years of of AMOC collapse there won't be any denying the significance of the consequences. Making their dire prediction of life on a warming planet pale in comparison. And then they will have a new crisis to write about and model. And that's when they will start discussing the paleoclimate data in earnest. Until then they need to secure their paychecks.

 

[Crick]

Posted on January 20, 2019 by Bob Tisdale

Excerpt:

PREFACE

It was a little more than 10 years ago that I published my first blog posts on the obvious upward steps in the sea surface temperatures of a large portion of the global oceans…upward steps that are caused by El Niño events…upward steps that lead to sunlight-fueled, naturally occurring global warming.

There is a very simple explanation for those El Niño-caused upward shifts that also make themselves known in the sea surface temperature data for much larger portion of the global oceans than I first presented a decade ago…the upward steps that are blatantly obvious in the satellite-era (starts November 1981) of sea surface temperature data for the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans, as shown in Figure 1, which together cover about 52% of the surfaces of the global oceans.

View attachment 853584

LINK

===============

There is a nice discussion about the post HERE at WUWT.

Notice the pause or cooling trends in between the El-Nin phases CO2 effect isn't visible.

The current warm up is tied to the current El-Nino and possibly the Volcano H20 eruption effects once again no CO2 effect is visible.

El-Nino's are a sun driven phenomenon.

It is the Sun/Ocean dynamo that drives weather all over the world.

Does this fellow reject the greenhouse effect?

 

[ding]

Does this fellow reject the greenhouse effect?

Only the feedback portion. Which is 2/3rd of their unrealistic 5C in 77 years. Which quite frankly shows how incredibly dumb they are.

 

[Crick]

Does this fellow reject the greenhouse effect?

Why does he reject the feedback portion?

 

[ding]

Why does he reject the feedback portion?

It's an artifact of computer modeling and nothing else. There is no climate sensitivity to CO2 other than the radiative forcing of CO2. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is low.

 

[Crick]

It's an artifact of computer modeling and nothing else. There is no climate sensitivity to CO2 other than the radiative forcing of CO2. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is low.

Does increasing the Earth's global temperature not increase the amount of water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere? Is water vapor not a potent greenhouse gas?

 

[ding]

Does increasing the Earth's global temperature not increase the amount of water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere? Is water vapor not a potent greenhouse gas?

And clouds too. It's not necessarily a net positive. It could be a net negative. Which would make more sense since the planet cooled for millions of years with 600 ppm.

 

[Crick]

And clouds too. It's not necessarily a net positive. It could be a net negative. Which would make more sense since the planet cooled for millions of years with 600 ppm.

Clouds have both a positive and negative feedback. But water vapor dramatically increases greenhouse warming. Period.

 

[ding]

Clouds have both a positive and negative feedback. But water vapor dramatically increases greenhouse warming. Period.

Yep. And their models multiple the radiative forcing of CO2 by a factor of 2 to 3 times. So dumb.

 

[Crick]

Yep. And their models multiple the radiative forcing of CO2 by a factor of 2 to 3 times. So dumb.

Did you ever read TS.3 in Physical Science Basis? That is where they spend many pages explaining precisely what they think is going on wrt climate sensitivity. If you HAVEN'T read that, you haven't got a fucking leg to stand on trying to tell us they don't know what they're talking about because you don't even know what they're saying and why.