itfitzme
VIP Member
- Jan 29, 2012
- 5,186
- 393
ENSO runs on a pseudo-cycle. This is only a backcast. No one has yet figured out how to do long range ENSO forecasts. And I see NO reduction in the significance of CO2 in the atmosphere. AGW is simply overlain on a complex system of significant natural variability. The long term trend is still upward at an accelerating pace.
I think its the PDO that they're talking about....
1915-1940= warm phase
1940-1975= cold phase
1975-2000= warm phase
2000-2030=cold phase
What happens is during a
Warm phase the heat is near the atmosphere
but during the cold phase it is pushed deeper(700+ meters) into the ocean...AWAY from the atmosphere.
Remember...This movement of heat doesn't add or subject from the system. Either does a enso cycle.
By 2030-2070 we will likely see the global temp catch up with where it was suppose to be. A big shock.
Research led by Gerald Meehl has similarly focused on the importance of the Pacific Ocean in short-term global surface temperature changes. His climate model predicts that there will be decades when surface temperature changes are relatively flat because more heat is transferred to the deep oceans, precisely as we have observed over the past decade. Meehl discussed the Kosaka & Xie study with Carbon Brief,
"This paper basically confirms, with a novel methodology, what we originally documented in our Nature Climate Change paper in 2011 and followed up with in our Journal of Climate paper ... We went beyond [the new paper] to show that when the tropical Pacific was cool for a decade ... more heat is mixed into the deeper ocean, something the new paper doesn't address."
This period is acting like 1940-1975....
Don't think it's been established what role PDO has on "pushing heat deeper".. But yes -- your observation about what remains when you remove it is largely correct. Except that if PDO didn't exist -- the heat would REMAIN IN PLAY as part of the surface exchange with the atmos.. If indeed it is "pumping heat deeper" during any part of its' phase, it would need to RETRIEVE the same heat stored to produce its' warm phase to be (as you described) energy neutral.
If on the other hand, it stores during a cold phase and RE-WARMS from incident radiation during a warm phase (does not retrieve stored heat) --- then it is a NEGATIVE feedback on surface warming calculations. Essentially another heat sink in the analysis of surface temps that REMOVES heat energy from the interchange.
I think it HIGHLY unlikely that this "heat pump" works in both directions.. I could believe that it might assist in moving heat deeper, but RETRIEVING IT back to the surface sounds like an awfully sketchy proposition since "stored heat" (of the BTK study) is in EXTREMELY frigid water..
Question is --- why wasn't this effect removed PREVIOUSLY ?? It certainly wasn't apparent as an additive effect in any projected models that I saw..
What REMAINS of the global temp rise chart could still be combinations of other CYCLICAL effects. You can get a linear ramp from a simple SUM of multiple "sine waves". Only need 2 or 3 to build a ramp-like signal. Wouldn't expect mere climate scientists to look for sine waves when they see a ramp tho.. But that's the math behind breaking down simple looking signals and functions..
What do ya get for instance when you add BOTH AMO and PDO together over the past 80 or 100 years? Add that to the 22 yr solar cycle... If they are all drifting in time with respect to each other --- PERIODICALLY --- they can combine to create VERY linear looking signals.
The idea that we're looking for a SINGLE LINEAR FORCING --- isn't the only thesis in the game..
This is why MULTI-DISCIPLINARY scientific inquiry is so important. Because alternate views and ideas and suggestions should ALWAYS be encouraged.. No ONE discipline does good science in isolation..
Any signal can be decomposed into a series sum of any cyclical function. A series of sinc functions also works. In order for the additive signal to not be periodic, it has to be an infinite series. So? The climate isn't. AMO, PDO and solar cycle is three, not an infinite series.
So do it,. add both AMO, PDO and the solar cycle and show us what you get. Surely you can use Excel. You can think it's "HIGHLY unlikely" all you want. You can speculate and suppose all you like. It doesn't mean anything, all the supposin'. It could be fairies and unicorns, Santa and his elves, it could be lots of things. But it isn't. Your lack of knowledge doesn't mean a lack of knowledge on anyone elses part. Yeah, "MULTI-DISCIPLINARY scientific inquiry is so important". Let us know when you have some as undiciplines "might be", "could be", "I don't know" don't mean nuthin.
If were all about speculation, a cycle doesn't need to retrieve anything. It, may just as well, store then not store. It may store alot then store a little then store alot again. It could do alot of things.