The Pacific Ocean drives climate much more dramatically than the reverse

[Robert I Ellison]

Greetings from the flood zone. I am fine - thank you - but
traumatised by the deaths and angered and saddened by idiots who seek
to make a political point out of tragedy. Both sides of this argument
are full of shit - intellectual featherweights who are instant
internet experts on everything and are utterly convinced of their own
logical infallibility. Both sides angling to blame the deaths and
destruction on the other. I wish they would pull their f....... heads
in.

Rant over - I thought I would see if I could put a ruler under 20
years of work. Neither the floods or the current La Nina are notably
unusual over the longer term - it is part of a Pacific decadal pattern
that is likely to lead to decades more intense and frequent La Nina.

see - http://www.earthandocean.robertellison.com.au/index.html

As an Australian hydrologist, I was introduced to the concept of
drought dominated and flood dominated regimes (DDR and FDR) in the
late 1980’s. These are 20 to 40 year periods dominated by droughts
followed by a 20 to 40 year period dominated by floods. The original
result was replicated dozens of times across Australia in the
following decade. In 1997 the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was
described defining a link between sea surface temperatures and
fisheries biology. The periods of the PDO modes were exactly the same
as the periods of DDR and FDR. An apparent but astonishingly odd link
between North American fisheries and Australian rainfall. Over the
following decade it emerged that the PDO is part of a pattern of
decadal and longer changes in sea surface temperature in the Pacific
Basin with teleconnections to Asian, Australian, African and American
rainfall - and seemingly to the formation of cyclones in the
Atlantic.

In 2003 I made the mistake of looking closely at the Climatic Research
Unit surface temperature record - and saw that the inflection points
are at exactly the same periods as the transitions between DDR and FDR
and between PDO modes. Still looking for the causes of DDR and FDR I
read nearly everything that emerged on the PDO and the El Niño
Southern Oscillation (ENSO). However, without much of an idea
anywhere of causative mechanisms, there was not much more than an
intriguing similarity in the timing of changes.

More recent work has identified the Pacific Ocean climate system as
chaotic. As I eventually realised, chaos is not just a word but a
property of complex and dynamic systems in chaos theory. It explains
abruptness in the changes observed in ocean states and therefore in
global temperature and in the transitions of Australian rainfall
regimes. It changes the way in which climate risk is viewed. Where
before, climate evolved slowly with cycles of minor warming and
cooling in a system that is far from driven solely by greenhouse gas
forcing. After chaos theory, climate change is abrupt and predictable
only as a probability density function. There is objectively a small
risk of catastrophic climate change (warming or cooling) that could
happen within months as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions.

Currently, revisions to existing satellite records, new data sources
for radiative flux and ocean heat content, new theoretical work and
computer modeling and new compilations of surface cloud observations
are providing new ways of confirming a Pacific Ocean influence on
global climate. The picture that emerges is of the Pacific Ocean as
far and away the major driver of global climate. It does this
primarily by changing cloud formation dynamics. More cloud forms
above cold water - and the biggest change to sea surface temperature
on interannual, decadal and millennial scales occurs as a result of
upwelling of cold and nutrient rich (and also acidic) sub-surface
water in the eastern Pacific. These changes in cloud cover are seen
in surface observations of cloud over the Pacific, in satellite
measurements of reflected shortwave and outgoing long wave radiation
and in modeling studies. Most recent climate change has been as a
result of changing cloud cover.

And the cause of these changes? A small change in the initial
conditions of a complex and dynamic system that most probably involves
top down forcing by solar UV heating of ozone in the upper
atmosphere. As Judith Lean says - ‘ongoing studies are beginning to
decipher the empirical Sun-climate connections as a combination of
responses to direct solar heating of the surface and lower atmosphere,
and indirect heating via solar UV irradiance impacts on the ozone
layer and middle atmospheric, with subsequent communication to the
surface and climate. The associated physical pathways appear to
involve the modulation of existing dynamical and circulation
atmosphere-ocean couplings, including the ENSO and the Quasi-Biennial
Oscillation.'

Cheers
Robert

[Per Edman]

Robert, 

And how and when do you believe the sun has changed?

Data or GTFO. 

Thanks for the demonstration. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.

Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.

To post to this group, send email to global...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange

--
 / Per

[Robert I Ellison]

One potential cause of Pacific Ocean variability is shown by Lockwood
et al (2010). ‘During the descent into the recent exceptionally low
solar minimum, observations have revealed a larger change in solar UV
emissions than seen at the same phase of previous solar cycles. This
is particularly true at wavelengths responsible for stratospheric
ozone production and heating. This implies that ‘top-down’ solar
modulation could be a larger factor in long-term tropospheric change
than previously believed, many climate models allowing only for the
‘bottom-up’ effect of the less-variable visible and infrared solar
emissions. We present evidence for long-term drift in solar UV
irradiance, which is not found in its commonly used proxies.’

Judith Lean (2008) commented that ‘ongoing studies are beginning to

decipher the empirical Sun-climate connections as a combination of
responses to direct solar heating of the surface and lower atmosphere,
and indirect heating via solar UV irradiance impacts on the ozone
layer and middle atmospheric, with subsequent communication to the
surface and climate. The associated physical pathways appear to
involve the modulation of existing dynamical and circulation
atmosphere-ocean couplings, including the ENSO and the Quasi-Biennial

Oscillation. Comparisons of the empirical results with model
simulations suggest that models are deficient in accounting for these
pathways.’

I wish people would read stuff instead of just making ill informed
assumptions - is there an acronym for shut up and you might learn
something?

On Jan 17, 5:05 am, Per Edman <per.piotrr.ed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert,
>
> And how and when do you believe the sun has changed?
>
> Data or GTFO.
>
> Thanks for the demonstration.
>
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Robert I Ellison <
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> rob...@robertellison.com.au> wrote:
> > Greetings from the flood zone.  I am fine - thank you - but
> > traumatised by the deaths and angered and saddened by idiots who seek
> > to make a political point out of tragedy.  Both sides of this argument
> > are full of shit - intellectual featherweights who are instant
> > internet experts on everything and are utterly convinced of their own
> > logical infallibility.  Both sides angling to blame the deaths and
> > destruction on the other.  I wish they would pull their f....... heads
> > in.
>
> > Rant over - I thought I would see if I could put a ruler under 20
> > years of work.  Neither the floods or the current La Nina are notably
> > unusual over the longer term - it is part of a Pacific decadal pattern
> > that is likely to lead to decades more intense and frequent La Nina.
>

> > see -http://www.earthandocean.robertellison.com.au/index.html

[Robert I Ellison]

The Sun doesn't change much in the visible or infrared spectrum - it
does seem to change considerably more in the UV. How does that
influence climate? I suggest you look at the Lockwood et al (2010)
reference. Regardless - I have linked to a number of impeccable
sources. Admittedly - I have linked to Roy Spencer for CERES and
recent tropospheric temperature - neither of which is at all
questionable.

The energy dynamics I have been looking at in an article in
development. It is energy out that varies most. For instance - the
planet has warmed in the past decade as seen in data from NASA's
Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instrument on the
Terra satellite - but this was most noticeably in the shortwave. I am
far from being a skeptic - I in fact think that both sides are full of
shit. Both sides need to step up to a higher level. So instead of
mindless throwaway insults - constructive responses would be much more
welcome.

A new 1st order differential global climate change equation that
provides objective resolution of that vexed question – has the planet
warmed or cooled in the past decade?

Planetary warming or cooling in any period occurs because there is a
difference, an energy imbalance, between incoming and outgoing
energy. The energy imbalance causes changes in the amount of energy
stored, mostly as heat in the atmosphere and oceans, in Earth’s
climate system. If more energy enters the atmosphere from the Sun
than is reradiated back out into space – the planet warms.
Conversely, if less energy enters the atmosphere than leaves – the
planet cools. Thus Earth’s energy budget can be completely defined in
three terms. Energy in is equal to energy out plus the change in
energy stored as planetary heat.

This can be expressed as:

EIN/S = EOUT/S + d(GES)/dt.

By the law of conservation of energy - the average unit energy in at
the top of atmosphere (TOA) in a period is equal to the average unit
energy out plus the rate of change in global energy storage (GES).
The most commonly used unit of energy is Joules. Energy in and energy
out is most commonly reported in Watts (or Watts/m2) – and is more
properly understood to be a radiative flux or a flow of energy. A
flux of one Watt for one second is one Joule – which is known as unit
energy. Most of the stored energy is stored as heat in the oceans
which is measured in Joules (or Joules/ m2).

The equation is in a 1st order differential form – but I can give an
analogy that might make more sense to the non mathematical. The
equation has an equivalent in the equation of water storage. In that
case – the flow in is equal to the flow out plus the change in the
volume of water stored in any period. Because there is a differential
(the change in the volume of water stored) it can be expressed in a
differential form that is simply a mathematical procedure that allows
useful calculations to be made – such as the rate at which the volume
of water stored is increasing or decreasing.

Energy in as visible (shortwave) and infrared (longwave) radiation
varies marginally over the 11 year Schwabe solar cycle, perhaps a
little more over the longer term due to solar variation and, due to
orbital changes, over an Ice Age. On a decadal timescale – energy in
(at TOA) is more or less constant.

Most change in the global energy balance occurs in energy out. Energy
out is measured by satellite in the visible and infrared spectrum.
The absolute value of radiative fluxes are not known with any
precision but the relative change is known with far greater accuracy
and it is just these changes that we are interested in. This data is
commonly reported as radiative flux anomalies with a nominal zero
point.

Neglecting small changes in energy in - the sign of the rate of change
(negative or positive values of d(GES)/dt – cooling or warming
respectively) in global energy storage can be determined from the
trend in energy out.

For example, increasing greenhouse gases in a period absorb more
outgoing longwave radiation and energy out decreases thus creating an
energy imbalance which results in an increase in energy stored (mostly
as heat) in the climate system. Reflected shortwave radiative flux is
influenced by land clearing, ice, volcanos, dust and, importantly for
short term changes, changes in cloud cover. Again, these changes
cause an energy imbalance that result in changes to the heat content
of the atmosphere and oceans.

It may be easier to see how this works by applying it to radiative
flux data. Graphed data from NASA’s Clouds and Earths Radiant Energy
System (CERES) instrument on the Terra satellite are shown below in
Figures 1, 2 and 3. The graphs are sourced with thanks from the
website of Dr. Roy Spencer.

The trend is to quite substantially less reflected shortwave radiative
flux over the period 2000 to 2008. The trend was to less energy
leaving the climate system and this must result in more energy being
stored in the atmosphere and oceans. Thus the planet warmed in the
period as a result of less cloud reflecting less of the Suns’ energy
back into space.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Terra-CERES-ES4-Ed2-global-SW.gif

Figure 1: CERES Reflected Shortwave Anomaly (Source: Dr Roy
Spencer)

The infrared radiative flux fluctuated in ways that were influenced by
the El Niño Southern Oscillation (as broadly indicated) but without
notably increasing or decreasing in the period. So there was no
warming or cooling as a result of longwave out changes in the
period.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Terra-CERES-ES4-Ed2-global-LW.gif

Figure 2: CERES Longwave Anomaly (Source: Dr Roy Spencer)

The trend of net radiative flux (shortwave plus longwave) is, by
convention, shown as energy gained or lost by the planet. A trend
upward is energy gained and, conversely, a trend down shows energy
lost. So the upward trend in net radiative flux anomalies in Figure 3
shows that less energy was leaving the Earth’s climate system at the
end of the record than at the beginning.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Terra-CERES-ES4-Ed2-global-SWLW.gif

Figure 3: CERES Net (SW + LW) Anomaly (Source: Dr Roy Spencer)

The net trend in radiative flux anomalies is to an increasing
planetary energy gain thus the planet has warmed over the last decade
- although not notably as a result of greenhouse gases. Net (oceans
and atmosphere) energy storage must increase by an equal (relatively)
and opposite amount to the decrease in energy out – remembering that
energy in from the Sun is relatively constant. As the heat is not
found in the atmosphere, it must be found in the oceans.

ARGO is a program involving 3000 odd probes measuring temperature and
salinity in the oceans since 2003. Most analyses of ARGO results
integrate the data to 700m and show no change to slight cooling. The
remaining analysis integrates the data to 2000m and shows warming of
the oceans in the period. The results of this analysis are shown
below in Figure 4.



Figure 4: Ocean Heat Content (after von Schuckmann et al 2009)

Given that the planet did warm in the period - although not notably as
a result of greenhouse gases - the global climate change equation
provides an objective confirmation of at least the trend in the von
Schuckmann result. Inter alia, this suggests that a radical rethink
of heat distribution mechanisms in the oceans is required.


Reference

von Schuckmann, K., F. Gaillard, and P.-Y. Le Traon (2009), Global
hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008, J. Geophys. Res.,
114, C09007, doi:10.1029/2008JC005237

On Jan 17, 5:05 am, Per Edman <per.piotrr.ed...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Robert,
>
> And how and when do you believe the sun has changed?
>
> Data or GTFO.
>
> Thanks for the demonstration.
>
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Robert I Ellison <
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> rob...@robertellison.com.au> wrote:
> > Greetings from the flood zone.  I am fine - thank you - but
> > traumatised by the deaths and angered and saddened by idiots who seek
> > to make a political point out of tragedy.  Both sides of this argument
> > are full of shit - intellectual featherweights who are instant
> > internet experts on everything and are utterly convinced of their own
> > logical infallibility.  Both sides angling to blame the deaths and
> > destruction on the other.  I wish they would pull their f....... heads
> > in.
>
> > Rant over - I thought I would see if I could put a ruler under 20
> > years of work.  Neither the floods or the current La Nina are notably
> > unusual over the longer term - it is part of a Pacific decadal pattern
> > that is likely to lead to decades more intense and frequent La Nina.
>

> > see -http://www.earthandocean.robertellison.com.au/index.html

[Per Edman]

You already quoted Lean. 

I'll bite. How does this quasi-biennialexplanation solve the conundrum that no other known change has had any effect at all on climate? 

You realize of course that it would be quite difficult to actually prove past fluctuations in something that leaves no trace on terrestrial proxies, which makes it sort of suspect to use such hypothetical fluctuations as a basis for discarding data from existing proxies. 

[Robert I Ellison]

Check the website - http://www.earthandocean.robertellison.com.au/index.html

This is the fallacy of shifting ground. First of all the sun doesn't
change. When I show that latest thinking is that UV changes and this
translates into a surface influence through the quasi biennial
oscillation to ENSO - that's the theory anyway. Then the ground
shifts to a straw man argument about hypothetical flucuations leaving
no trace.

Regardless of the underlying mechanisms - ENSO of course leaves behind
evidence nearly all over the planet going back 11,000 years in one
proxy record. Physical evidence - not theory or computing - is the
main science game. That's in the title of the review article on the
website. I haven't discarded anything - just said look here is some
peer reviewed science and generally available information that
suggests that upwelling in the eastern Pacific causes long term
changes in SST and therefore cloud. The evidence in surface
observations and modeling support this. The satellite data show that
cloud cover change is the dominant cause of climate change in the
satellite era.

You imply that no other influence but greenhouse gases causes climate
change - but that is just a silly comment. Read for instance the
section on internal climate variability in the recent Royal Society.

You should be more specific and reference literature - otherwise you
waste everyones time.

Robert

[Per Edman]

The hypothetical fluctuation leaving no trace would be the UV changes of the "current thinking". It's a hypothesis (check) and it has left no trace on known proxies (check) hence my wording. I wasn't asking for evidence of El Niño nor do I really believe you thought that I did, while we're on the topic of running goal posts.  

I am asking for evidence for your current all-explanatory hypothesis of hitherto undetected "top-down" UV irradiation that has been invisible in the proxy record causing another undetected quasi-biennial oscillation that not only is responsible for the current warming, but also cause all direct and feedback effects of an increased atmospheric content of CO2, null somehow. 

> "You imply that no other influence but greenhouse gases causes climate change - but that is just a silly comment."

I've neither implied or actually held such an opinion. Nothing but a silly comment, then. 

 / Per

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.

Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.

To post to this group, send email to global...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange

--
 / Per

[Robert I Ellison]

Huh?

It is quite clear that what I said was "One potential cause of Pacific
Ocean variability is shown by Lockwood et al (2010)..." Lockwood
looks at this mechanism in the northern hemisphere - but the South
Pole is similarly influenced of course. Judith Lean discussed it more
broadly bringing in some of the potential pathways. Things that have
been discussed widely in the literature for some time. It is not my
theory but comes out the Proceedings of the Royal Society and from
Judith Lean. Far from being 'previously undetected' - a simple google
search would reveal dozens if not hundreds of studies on the UV/ozone
warming/troposphere connection.

But it is clear that I am discussing the variability of Pacific Ocean
climate states - and looking for origins and influences. The review
of the physical evidence was far broader than these two brief
quotes.

you "I'll bite. How does this quasi-biennialexplanation solve the

conundrum that
no other known change has had any effect at all on climate?

me "You imply that no other influence but greenhouse gases causes

climate
> change - but that is just a silly comment."

you "I've neither implied or actually held such an opinion. Nothing

but a silly
comment, then"

If I have misunderstood the implication of "no other known change" -
Apologies. But I feel rather that you are being dishonest and
disingenuous and I have no time and no respect for any of it.

On Jan 19, 10:14 am, Per Edman <per.piotrr.ed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The hypothetical fluctuation leaving no trace would be the UV changes of the
> "current thinking". It's a hypothesis (check) and it has left no trace on
> known proxies (check) hence my wording. I wasn't asking for evidence of El

> Niño nor do Ir really believe you thought that I did, while we're on the

[Per Edman]

The same. 

[Pangolin]

It appears you did some quote mining but if you can link me to a
journal reference or specific statement by the authors of the papers
you cite refuting GHG driven Climate Change you're pulling your
hypothesis out of thin air.

It's just another random-b.s., science sounding explanation of
observed changes that excuses coal and oil burning. They're as cheap
as after-dinner mints.

No cites, no data, another out-of-field science statement with no
backing. Do you do surgery too?

Pangolin

On Jan 15, 5:10 pm, Robert I Ellison <rob...@robertellison.com.au>
wrote:

> Greetings from the flood zone.  I am fine - thank you - but
> traumatised by the deaths and angered and saddened by idiots who seek
> to make a political point out of tragedy.  Both sides of this argument
> are full of shit - intellectual featherweights who are instant
> internet experts on everything and are utterly convinced of their own
> logical infallibility.  Both sides angling to blame the deaths and
> destruction on the other.  I wish they would pull their f....... heads
> in.
>
> Rant over - I thought I would see if I could put a ruler under 20
> years of work.  Neither the floods or the current La Nina are notably
> unusual over the longer term - it is part of a Pacific decadal pattern
> that is likely to lead to decades more intense and frequent La Nina.
>

> see -http://www.earthandocean.robertellison.com.au/index.html