tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post3493647439460436747..comments2023-07-29T05:11:23.558-04:00Comments on Climate Observations: Mid-October 2009 SST Anomaly UpdateBob Tisdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-48793843475003711292009-10-20T09:34:49.672-04:002009-10-20T09:34:49.672-04:00Thanks again, as always, Bob.
I always find your ...Thanks again, as always, Bob.<br /><br />I always find your posts and comment responses illuminating.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-55757105267513178062009-10-20T04:58:34.941-04:002009-10-20T04:58:34.941-04:00John: I've referred to Trenberth et al (2002),...John: I've referred to Trenberth et al (2002), “Evolution of El Nino-Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures” in older posts. J. Geophys. Res., 107 (D8), 4065, doi:10.1029/2000JD000298<br />Link:<br />http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf<br />In it they found that global temperatures changed 0.094 deg C for a 1 deg C variation in NINO3.4 SST anomalies.<br /><br />Let me clarify the other point. I had at one time believed that CO2 made a noticeable contribution, but my findings of the El Nino-induced step changes in OHC, TLT and SST anomaly data changed that. I continue to believe it is likely that CO2 has a small effect (over land only?), but I endeavor to explain ALL of the variation without it and by doing so illustrate the shortcomings of GCM-based projections that fail to model ENSO and other natural variables correctly.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-51560958123448604192009-10-19T21:41:07.944-04:002009-10-19T21:41:07.944-04:00Bob -
My question was more how much does the .91c...Bob -<br /><br />My question was more how much does the .91c level in Nino 3.4 contribute to the .26c overall SST global anomaly. I'm sure the portion could be arithmatically derived from the map, but I was hoping there was a simple traditional measure you might have been aware of (like .05 x Nino anomaly or some such number).<br /><br />It seems like pretty much every prominant scientist, even among skeptics (Spencer, Lindzen, etc) accepts some level of forcing from co2. The differences appear to be based on feedback (I believe Lindzen sees a .5c per doubling of co2 or so; Spencer from .5 to 1.5ish, maybe). <br /><br />Is your belief that the feedbacks related to co2 are zero? I.e. there is no contribution?<br /><br />Thanks, and I hope all is well.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-25635080039766094242009-10-19T20:14:31.450-04:002009-10-19T20:14:31.450-04:00John: With this comment, "I'm just curio...John: With this comment, "I'm just curious what component of the SST anomaly is due to the Nino anomaly (whether 3.4 alone or the entire Nino range of contemporaneous impact [cooling in West, warming in East])," are you looking for a comparison of NINO3.4 SST anomalies versus Pacific Warm Pool SST anomalies?<br /><br />Refer to this early post:<br />http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/10/pacific-warm-pool-vs-enso.html<br /><br />You asked, "If it matches up with your prior postings about natural variations moving OHC (as I saw in your recent comment to the last post), what about it are they latching on to?"<br /><br />I haven't a clue. The 0-2000m depth show an increasing trend from 2003 to 2008, but so does 0-700m. But the majority of that paper is a discussion of natural variables on OHC. I've considered writing a post titled "Did They Bother To Read It?"<br /><br />With respect to your comment on feedbacks, you're asking the wrong person. Sorry. But your question assumes there is a measurable contribution from CO2.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-35631646059851263432009-10-19T15:11:02.120-04:002009-10-19T15:11:02.120-04:00Another question, as I looked over the OHC posts a...Another question, as I looked over the OHC posts again.<br /><br />You noted before that the AGW crowd has been using the von Schenckman et al paper. <br /><br />If it matches up with your prior postings about natural variations moving OHC (as I saw in your recent comment to the last post), what about it are they latching on to?<br /><br />Is there really any argument other than some sort of negative feedback is "temporarily" cancelling out the radiative effect of the co2 contribution? I.e. a negative feedback (or forcing) is, for now, balancing out the positive feedbacks (and forcing) related to the increasing co2 levels, and at some point, the co2 contribution will reach a high enough level (or the negative feedback/forcing will reduce) that it will again contribute to OHC levels?Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-55267854000334074622009-10-19T12:20:50.361-04:002009-10-19T12:20:50.361-04:00Hi Bob -
I know you've provided your knowledg...Hi Bob -<br /><br />I know you've provided your knowledge of the relationship between Nino 3.4 changes and global temp changes (lag and magnitude), but do you know how the 3.4 measurements impact SST contemporaneously? <br /><br />I'm just curious what component of the SST anomaly is due to the Nino anomaly (whether 3.4 alone or the entire Nino range of contemporaneous impact [cooling in West, warming in East]).<br /><br />Just wondering if you had seen any studies on the topic.Johnnoreply@blogger.com