It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
The first part of the ENSO mechanism is usually described as the piling up of war water in the western Pacific due to westerly equatiorial (trade) winds into a warm water pool to produce La Nina conditions.
The second mechanism is a weakening of these westerly atmospheric flows leading to a change in the thermocline profile to produce El Nino conditions.
It seems obvious to ask where this weakening comes from: at latitudes to the west of the warm water pool, to the east or both. Fortunately the laws of causality exclude the possibility that changes come from somewhere else.
Naively this seems to boil down to asking if easterlies are generated in the Indian Ocean pushing the Walker circulation eastward or whether some drop in central Pacific pressure pulls the Walker circulation eastwards?
Are significant amounts of water evaporated from the Pacific warm water pool and then dumped on Australia as is common in strong La Ninas? This would need to be distinguished from the contribution to Australian precipitation from evaporation in the Indian Ocean. This seems to me to be needed for any simple volumetric mass balance description of ENSO.
What is the effect of the Indian Ocean dipole on ENSO?
The influence of the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) on the interannual atmospheric pressure variability of the Indo-Pacific sector is investigated. Statistical correlation between the IOD index and the global sea level pressure anomalies demonstrates that loadings of opposite polarity occupy the western and the eastern parts of the Indian Ocean. The area of positive correlation coefficient in the eastern part even extends to the Australian region, and the IOD index has a peak correlation coefficient of about 0.4 with the Darwin pressure index, i.e. the western pole of the Southern Oscillation, when the former leads the latter by one month. The correlation analysis with seasonally stratified data further confirms the lead role of the IOD. The IOD-Darwin relation has undergone interdecadal changes; in the last 50 years the correlation is highest during the most recent decade of 1990–99, and weakest during 1980–89.
Saji et al. (1999) found that the coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon evolves with an east-west dipole in the SST anomaly, and named it the Indian Ocean Dipole. The Dipole Mode Index (DMI ) is thus defined as the SST anomaly difference between the eastern and the western tropical Indian Ocean (see insets in Fig. 3a for the regions used to compute the DMI ). The changes in the SST during the IOD events are found to be associated with the changes in the surface wind of the central equatorial Indian Ocean. In fact, winds reverse direction from westerlies to easterlies during the peak phase of the positive IOD events when SST is cool in the east and warm in the west. The effect of the wind is even more significant at the thermocline depths through the oceanic adjustment process (Rao et al. 2002); the ther ...
The correlation coeffient between the pressure index and the SST index time series is 0.65 (0.74 for June-November) when the latter leads the former by one month.
Fig.3 shows cross correlation coefficients above 2.5 with 99% CL for:
and coefficients below -0.25 with 99% CL for:
where
WP : western Pacific DMI : dipole mode index IOSPL : Indian ocean sea level pressure POSPL : Pacific ocean sea level pressure SOI : southern oscillation index ...
During positive IOD events sea level pressure anomalies in the Indonesia-Australia region are positive and those in the western Indian Ocean region are negative.
The Nino3 index has a broad 3-6 year spectral peak whereas the spectral peak of the IOD index is around 2 years.
Thus the inherent periodicity associated with the IOD events, which is different from that of the Pacific ENSO events, may provide covariability between the IOD and the pressure fluctuation at Darwin, i.e., one pole for the Southern Oscillation. The correlation analysis in the present study clearly supports this hypothesis; the IOD index shows a significant correlation with the sea level pressure anomaly at Darwin. The correlation analysis further shows the lead role of IOD in determining the evolution of such a correlation with the Darwin and central-west Pacific indices.
Though the IOD correlation with the pressure variations in the eastern Pacific is insignificant, the former has a significant correlation with the SOI, and the pressure difference index of the tropical Pacific. It can be explained by the fact that pressure variations in the western Pacific will set up anomalous winds that force the oceanic Kelvin waves initiating changes in the eastern Pacific. The above novel relationship, however, undergoes decadal modulation.
A significant reduction of the IOD impact on the Darwin pressure is observed for the recent decade; 1980 through 1989. Understanding the physical mechanism that determines such decadal modulations of the ocean-atmosphere coupled system in the Indo-Pacific sector is underway using sophisticated coupled ocean atmosphere models.
Comments
Wrt. evaporation, the wikipedia entry on the IOD has:
Wrt. evaporation, the wikipedia entry on the [IOD](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_Dipole) has: > when the IOD is in its negative phase, with cool Indian Ocean water west of Australia and warm Timor Sea water to the north, winds are generated that pick up moisture from the ocean and then sweep down towards southern Australia to deliver higher rainfall.Christopher Torrence and Peter J. Webster, Interdecadal changes in the ENSO-Monsoon system (1998), clim_12_103.2679_2690.pdf
So wavelet analysis of time series with a 2-7 year variance distinguish the periods 1875-1920 and 1960-1990 of high ENSO-monsoon variance from the period 1920-1960 of low variance.
Q. What are th peak and minimal ENSO-monsoon variances on a 12-20 year time scale? TBD.
The low 2-7 year variance period 1920-1960 shows a larger 1 year variance time series of the Nino3 index that is negatively correlated with interdecadal ENSO variance.
Q. Is it worth looking for a 120 degree change from NW to E in the movement of the Pacific warm pool? TBD
Lack of interdecadal analysis has inhibited decomposition of ENSO-monsoon interactions and changes in the global ocean atmosphere background state.
Data : Nino3 SST, SOI (anomalous SLP in the eastern Pacific) and all-India rainfall.
Q. As missing data is filled in using EOF what is the probability that subsequent analysis of what is supposed to be data just mirrors the parameter settings of that EOF interpolation? TBD.
Nino3 SST and SOI are clearly out of phase by 180 degrees. ...
Q. As missing data is filled in using EOF what is the probability that subsequent analysis of what is supposed to be data just mirrors the parameter settings of that EOF interpolation? TBD.
Nino3 SST and SOI are clearly out of phase by 180 degrees. ...
El Nino JJAS rainfall minima < -1 : 1877, 1899, 1918, 1952, 1965, 1972, 1982, 1986.
Q. In 1884, 1953, 1962 (very weak), 1969 (very weak) and 1994 there are posive rainfall anomalies in an El Nino year. What gives? Is there anything special about these El Nino years? TBD.
## Christopher Torrence and Peter J. Webster, [Interdecadal changes in the ENSO-Monsoon system (1998)](), clim_12_103.2679_2690.pdf > The El Nino–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and Indian monsoon are shown to have undergone significant interdecadal changes in variance and coherency over the last 125 years. Wavelet analysis is applied to indexes of equatorial Pacific sea surface temperature (Nin SST), the Southern Oscillation index, and all-India rainfall. > Time series of 2–7-yr variance indicate intervals of high ENSO–monsoon variance (1875–1920 and 1960–90) and an interval of low variance (1920–60). The ENSO–monsoon variance also contains a modulation of ENSO–monsoon amplitudes on a 12–20-yr timescale. > The annual-cycle (1 yr) variance time series of Nin SST and Indian rainfall is negatively correlated with the interannual ENSO signal. The 1-yr variance is larger during 1935–60, suggesting a negative correlation between annual-cycle variance and ENSO variance on interdecadal timescales. > The method of wavelet coherency is applied to the ENSO and monsoon indexes. The Nin SST and Indian rainfall are found to be highly coherent, especially during intervals of high variance. The Nin SST and Indian rainfall are approximately 180Њ out of phase and show a gradual increase in phase difference versus Fourier period. All of the results are shown to be robust with respect to different datasets and analysis methods. So wavelet analysis of time series with a 2-7 year variance distinguish the periods 1875-1920 and 1960-1990 of high ENSO-monsoon variance from the period 1920-1960 of low variance. Q. What are th peak and minimal ENSO-monsoon variances on a 12-20 year time scale? TBD. The low 2-7 year variance period 1920-1960 shows a larger 1 year variance time series of the Nino3 index that is negatively correlated with interdecadal ENSO variance. > during March–May, the center of tropical convection migrates from the western Pacific warm pool to the northwest, announcing the arrival of both the Southeast Asian monsoon and the Indian summer monsoon (Meehl 1987). Every few years, an El Nino (or warm) event produces a warming of the sea surface temperature (SST) in the central and eastern Pacific, accompanied by diminished easterly trade winds and an eastward shift in tropical convection. The opposite La Nina (or cold) event, which sometimes follows a warm event, produces an anomalous westward shift in warm SSTs and convection, as well as enhanced easterly trades (Rasmusson and Carpenter 1982). Q. Is it worth looking for a 120 degree change from NW to E in the movement of the Pacific warm pool? TBD > The strength of the monsoon and the occurrence of warm or cold ENSO events depend on the location and magnitude of western Pacific SSTs and on tropical convection (Soman and Slingo 1997). A strong monsoon [heavy rains, low sea level pressure (SLP), strong easterlies] tends to inhibit warm events and favor cold events (Yasunari 1990). Conversely, a warm ENSO event (decreased convection and high SLP in the west Pacific, weak easterlies) tends to suppress the monsoon (Webster 1995). No cause or effect is implied (or indeed warranted) in either case. Lack of interdecadal analysis has inhibited decomposition of ENSO-monsoon interactions and changes in the global ocean atmosphere background state. Data : Nino3 SST, SOI (anomalous SLP in the eastern Pacific) and all-India rainfall. Q. As missing data is filled in using EOF what is the probability that subsequent analysis of what is supposed to be data just mirrors the parameter settings of that EOF interpolation? TBD. Nino3 SST and SOI are clearly out of phase by 180 degrees. ... Q. As missing data is filled in using EOF what is the probability that subsequent analysis of what is supposed to be data just mirrors the parameter settings of that EOF interpolation? TBD. Nino3 SST and SOI are clearly out of phase by 180 degrees. ... El Nino JJAS rainfall minima < -1 : 1877, 1899, 1918, 1952, 1965, 1972, 1982, 1986. Q. In 1884, 1953, 1962 (very weak), 1969 (very weak) and 1994 there are posive rainfall anomalies in an El Nino year. What gives? Is there anything special about these El Nino years? TBD.2010 lower MSL due to water pools ie. a transfer of water mass from ocean to land, northern N. Americ, northern S America, Siberia, S Africa and Australasia.
ie. Rain over Australia and S America (-evaporation which does what? TBD) => lower sea level => La Nina effects.
2009 peak El Nino 2010 peak La Nina
* [Australian and northern S American water pools](http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/OceanEvents/GRACE_2010-11_GMSL_ENSO_Oct2012) 2010 lower MSL due to water pools ie. a transfer of water mass from ocean to land, northern N. Americ, northern S America, Siberia, S Africa and Australasia. > Heavy rainfall in 2010 led to increased terrestrial water storage in these regions. The El Niño Southern Oscillation (Figure 3) is known to affect precipitation and evaporation over Australia and northern South America. In the El Niño phase it rains less, and in the La Niña phase it rains more. With the 2010-11 La Niña being one of the strongest over the past 60+ years, a large amount of water was transported from the ocean to the continents and led to the temporary drop in GMSL. ie. Rain over Australia and S America (-evaporation which does what? TBD) => lower sea level => La Nina effects. 2009 peak El Nino 2010 peak La NinaI am interested in this topic.
Dara
>Heavy rainfall in 2010 led to increased terrestrial water storage in these regions I am interested in this topic. DaraHi Dara,
What I'd really like to do is get proper meridional and depth as well as zonal parameters for the Pacific warm pool. Iirc full depth profile data files (nodc files I think) for pressure, temperature, salinity and current direction from TAO/Triton/Argo were about 30MB each, anyway I decided too big for me to dowload the daily numbers I wanted.
I think mean sea level satellite data would be needed to check the warm water volume (WWV) index.
If the warm water pools 'shoals' (I think that's like waves running onto or off beach, I don't know which) eastwards depressing the 20C thermocline the I'd like to see the numbers for deep water current direction in west, central and east Pacific.
In the Ekman layer over deep water model the frictional and geostrophically-induced 45 degree net ocean surface current direction to the right of the wind in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere.
This would imply that westerly winds diverge away from the equator but easterlies converge contrary to the ITCZ I mentioned.
But at depth currents can flow in the opposite direction to the surface current. I've dived through very sharp vertical thermoclines round the Similan islands in the IO (maybe ~4 degrees). Are deep water current direction reversals worth looking at?
How's your data archive?
Hi Dara, What I'd really like to do is get proper meridional and depth as well as zonal parameters for the Pacific warm pool. Iirc full depth profile data files (nodc files I think) for pressure, temperature, salinity and current direction from TAO/Triton/Argo were about 30MB each, anyway I decided too big for me to dowload the daily numbers I wanted. I think mean sea level satellite data would be needed to check the warm water volume (WWV) index. If the warm water pools 'shoals' (I think that's like waves running onto or off beach, I don't know which) eastwards depressing the 20C thermocline the I'd like to see the numbers for deep water current direction in west, central and east Pacific. In the [Ekman layer](http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/ShelfCoast/chapter03.html) over deep water model the frictional and geostrophically-induced 45 degree net ocean surface current direction to the right of the wind in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere. This would imply that westerly winds diverge away from the equator but easterlies converge contrary to the ITCZ I mentioned. But at depth currents can flow in the opposite direction to the surface current. I've dived through very sharp vertical thermoclines round the Similan islands in the IO (maybe ~4 degrees). Are deep water current direction reversals worth looking at? How's your data archive?Ok show me where they are I have got big servers for that purpose, welcome to share them with you.
Where is that, I am using GPM and TRMM
LARGE! but mostly from new GPM and TRMM satellites, the data is gigantic
Dara
>anyway I decided too big for me to dowload the daily numbers I wanted. Ok show me where they are I have got big servers for that purpose, welcome to share them with you. >I think mean sea level satellite data would be needed to check the warm water volume (WWV) index. Where is that, I am using GPM and TRMM >How’s your data archive? LARGE! but mostly from new GPM and TRMM satellites, the data is gigantic DaraJim - thanks for pointing this out. It makes sense that there should be interesting interactions between the Indian Ocean monsoon system and ENSO. This is captured in a rough way in the backbone of the climate network. The idea there is to find the locations on Earth whose weather has the strongest correlations with the most other locations on Earth: the "movers and shakers" of the climate world.
Below, see a picture of that "backbone" and how the whole thing is affected by El Niños. Not surprisingly, the backbone is a bunch of hot water near the equator. It would be cool to build up a much clearer picture of the whole "backbone". Susanne Still has a nice machine learning method that can in some sense objectively estimates how many states a model of a random process should have. Using ideas like this, developed quite a bit further, we could try to use machine learning to take data and build up a model of the Earth's climate as a network of interacting components. (Just a dream.)
Jim - thanks for pointing this out. It makes sense that there should be interesting interactions between the Indian Ocean monsoon system and ENSO. This is captured in a _rough_ way in the *backbone of the climate network*. The idea there is to find the locations on Earth whose weather has the strongest correlations with the most other locations on Earth: the "movers and shakers" of the climate world. Below, see a picture of that "backbone" and how the whole thing is affected by El Niños. Not surprisingly, the backbone is a bunch of hot water near the equator. It would be cool to build up a much clearer picture of the whole "backbone". Susanne Still has a nice machine learning method that can in some sense objectively estimates how many states a model of a random process should have. Using ideas like this, developed quite a bit further, we could try to use machine learning to take data and build up a model of the Earth's climate as a network of interacting components. (Just a dream.) <img src = "http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ecological/el_nino/tsonis_swanson_topology_and_predictability_of_el_nino_and_la_nina_climate_networks.jpg" alt = ""/> * A. Tsonis and K. L. Swanson, [Topology and predictability of El Niño and La Niña networks](https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aatsonis/www/publications/2008-06_Tsonis-AA_TopologyandPredictabilityofElNinoandLaNinaNetworks-2.pdf), _[Phys. Rev. Lett.](http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.228502)_ **100** (2008) 228502. > **Abstract.** We construct the networks of the surface temperature field for El Niño and for La Niña years and investigate their structure. We find that the El Niño network possesses significantly fewer links and lower clustering coefficient and characteristic path length than the La Niña network, which indicates that the former network is less communicative and less stable than the latter. We conjecture that because of this, predictability of temperature should decrease during El Niño years. Here we verify that indeed during El Niño years predictability is lower compared to La Niña yearsIf you are interested in sea-level impacts of ENSO, as a reminder there are lots of tidal gauge records available. These records are noisy but they show excellent correlation with ENSO measures.
Unless the data is filtered, you won't pick it up
This is a recent paper http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-2039-7/fulltext.html Miles, Elaine R., et al. "Seasonal prediction of global sea level anomalies using an ocean–atmosphere dynamical model." Climate Dynamics (2014): 1-15.
For Sydney tidal gauge, there is some influence of the Indian Ocean Dipole that I noticed but the ENSO appears stronger.
If you are interested in sea-level impacts of ENSO, as a reminder there are lots of tidal gauge records available. These records are noisy but they show excellent correlation with ENSO measures.  Unless the data is filtered, you won't pick it up This is a recent paper <http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-2039-7/fulltext.html> Miles, Elaine R., et al. "Seasonal prediction of global sea level anomalies using an ocean–atmosphere dynamical model." Climate Dynamics (2014): 1-15. > " EOF analysis showed that the first two modes of seasonal SLA in both the reanalysis (Figs. 5, 6) and observations (not shown) are dominated by ENSO and the IOD." For Sydney tidal gauge, there is some influence of the Indian Ocean Dipole that I noticed but the ENSO appears stronger.Paul where are the correlation computations you are noting, I do not see them. I read the paper and understand nothing, as a matter of computing.
Also this is their forecast system:
POAMA
It is just postmortem stats used to predict the future using the Null Hypothesis!
Paper is overloaded with huge reference list which I have no idea how a human mind could keep track.
Paul where are the **correlation** computations you are noting, I do not see them. I read the paper and understand nothing, as a matter of computing. Also this is their forecast system: [POAMA](http://cawcr.gov.au/staff/elim/pdf.dir/2011mwr.LimEtAl.pdf) It is just postmortem stats used to predict the future using the Null Hypothesis! Paper is overloaded with huge reference list which I have no idea how a human mind could keep track.Dara, I simply make the comment that the paper is reporting this attribution. I have done the correlations myself and straightforwardly get correlation coefficients that can reach 0.7 or higher as shown above in #9, which is nothing to sneeze at.
I realize that research papers can be frustrating because all the methods and computations are not immediately visible, but that is the way it has always been and so I am used to it by now. I place some trust that the researchers aren't leading us astray. (I can tell you "research" that I won't trust, if you are interested)
The next part is to figure out what part of the local sea-level height change is due to (1) sloshing of the volume (2) inverse barometric effect (3) thermal expansion of upwelling water and (4) changes in precipitation. The last one can have severe impacts for Australia, in particular, as the Australian great artesian basin is an excellent transient trap for excess precipitation which can then depress ocean levels temporarily
Dara, I simply make the comment that the paper is reporting this attribution. I have done the correlations myself and straightforwardly get correlation coefficients that can reach 0.7 or higher as shown above in #9, which is nothing to sneeze at. I realize that research papers can be frustrating because all the methods and computations are not immediately visible, but that is the way it has always been and so I am used to it by now. I place some trust that the researchers aren't leading us astray. (I can tell you "research" that I won't trust, if you are interested) The next part is to figure out what part of the local sea-level height change is due to (1) sloshing of the volume (2) inverse barometric effect (3) thermal expansion of upwelling water and (4) changes in precipitation. The last one can have severe impacts for Australia, in particular, as the Australian great artesian basin is an excellent transient trap for excess precipitation which can then depress ocean levels temporarily Jolly dinkum, that was my guess. The excess precipitation reaches a peak in La Nina years and and for large values the rebound (sloshing) has been associated with strong El Nino.
> the Australian great artesian basin is an excellent transient trap for excess precipitation which can then depress ocean levels temporarily. Jolly dinkum, that was my guess. The excess precipitation reaches a peak in La Nina years and and for large values the rebound (sloshing) has been associated with strong El Nino.This is not scientific research, the basis for scientific investigation is REPEAT-ability of the results, otherwise it is not a scientific procedure. The purpose of an axiomatic formal system and proof procedure is to repeat the inferences again and again.
Almost no one shares your optimism and trust in this field of science, the research is monetized to deliver biased results to aid some special interest group's interests, tenures and grants and prizes and consulting positions and media coverage are bestowed solely upon those who push the biases. Look at Canadian government firing their own climate scientists for doing honest research! Many research firms are terminating those who are not lined along the party lines.
The only scientist alive today we could trust is Prof. John Baez and why I am here, I consider all these papers and claims suspect.
I believe in human history that only one or very few stand up and finally cause a huge change, not the masses, and I believe John is doing that and I believe he will succeed.
Dara
>I realize that research papers can be frustrating because all the methods and computations are not immediately visible This is not scientific research, the basis for scientific investigation is REPEAT-ability of the results, otherwise it is not a scientific procedure. The purpose of an axiomatic formal system and proof procedure is to repeat the inferences again and again. > I place some trust that the researchers aren’t leading us astray. Almost no one shares your optimism and trust in this field of science, the research is monetized to deliver biased results to aid some special interest group's interests, tenures and grants and prizes and consulting positions and media coverage are bestowed solely upon those who push the biases. Look at Canadian government firing their own climate scientists for doing honest research! Many research firms are terminating those who are not lined along the **party lines**. The only scientist alive today we could trust is Prof. John Baez and why I am here, I consider all these papers and claims suspect. I believe in human history that only one or very few stand up and finally cause a huge change, not the masses, and I believe John is doing that and I believe he will succeed. DaraPaul I consider your work earlier quite important for setting a new trend for computing and climate research, you have provided a terrific model.
Dara
Paul I consider your work earlier quite important for setting a new trend for computing and climate research, you have provided a terrific model. DaraJim, I never thought about the basin trap contributing as a sloshing oscillating mechanism but I guess there is a precedent:
The dipping bird !!!
Dara, whatever results I get are built on the work of others. There is a saying that we stand on the shoulders of giants. If it wasn't for the constraints that various findings put forth, I would be really shooting in the dark. These are the boundary conditions that guide research.
Jim, I never thought about the basin trap contributing as a sloshing oscillating mechanism but I guess there is a precedent: The dipping bird !!!  Dara, whatever results I get are built on the work of others. There is a saying that we stand on the shoulders of giants. If it wasn't for the constraints that various findings put forth, I would be really shooting in the dark. These are the boundary conditions that guide research.+WebHub, tee hee, saw it but I wish I could remember how it worked :).
+WebHub, tee hee, saw it but I wish I could remember how it worked :).The dippy bird is described where else but here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/dippy_bird.html
Lots of places derive the 2nd-order differential equation characterizing the bird's oscillation. There are two variants, one works via a heat pump and the other by a gravity feed.
Here is one derivation: http://web.nmsu.edu/~snsm/classes/chem433/tests/dipping_bird1.pdf
Why make things too complicated?
The dippy bird is described where else but here: <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/dippy_bird.html> Lots of places derive the 2nd-order differential equation characterizing the bird's oscillation. There are two variants, one works via a heat pump and the other by a gravity feed. Here is one derivation: <http://web.nmsu.edu/~snsm/classes/chem433/tests/dipping_bird1.pdf> Why make things too complicated?John wrote:
John this is within your reach today, if you want to do it
Dara
John wrote: > we could try to use machine learning to take data and build up a model of the Earth’s climate as a network of interacting components. (Just a dream.) John this is within your reach today, if you want to do it DaraDara,
I hope you realize how offsenive this is to make such sweeping statements about an entire scientific community. Somehow these allegations of biasing research to receive fame and fortune never seem to be leveled at any other branch of science.
I thought there wasn't any honest research in this field?
You post a lot of worshipful comments towards John here, but this is bizarre. John is not the only good scientist in the world.
Dara, > Almost no one shares your optimism and trust in this field of science, the research is monetized to deliver biased results to aid some special interest group’s interests, tenures and grants and prizes and consulting positions and media coverage are bestowed solely upon those who push the biases. I hope you realize how offsenive this is to make such sweeping statements about an entire scientific community. Somehow these allegations of biasing research to receive fame and fortune never seem to be leveled at any other branch of science. > Look at Canadian government firing their own climate scientists for doing honest research! I thought there wasn't any honest research in this field? > The only scientist alive today we could trust is Prof. John Baez and why I am here, You post a lot of worshipful comments towards John here, but this is bizarre. John is not the only good scientist in the world.Hello Nathan
No they are not!
My comment is quite valid for this particular field specially in USA and Canada. It is not offensive, why criticizing scientists are offensive but they could criticize anyone else at whim! There has be two way critics, not always from scientist to the rest of the world and the other way around is blocked. We demand transparency from governments but we are tabooed to ask that from scientists? Why? They need to be held accountable by the public.
We are no longer schoolboys. Those Canadian scientists are marred for life and I do not appreciate you mockingly mention their demise in such sarcastic remark.
My feelings towards John's research has always been as such, in private when I emailed him and in public, I am not going to change them to please you.
> John is not the only good scientist in the world.
He is amongst the rare few, most of them are gone, I mentioned their names in another post. You do not believe that, fine that is your judgement, my judgement for almost 20 years is that he is.
Let me explain to you so you understand: When most theoretical physicists running around getting huge grants for nonsensical research and kowtowing to military and many other organizations for money, John was the first and only scientist that started publishing his work without copyrights, and millions of students myself one, we loved what he did and he did us great favor and provided for us ability to learn new theories out of the reach of most of us in USA or abroad. I saw physics student washing dishes to pay for their tuition and could not afford fancy expensive books, but we could always go to John's site and download all what we needed for free.
We all feel indebted to him, I mentioned John's name to a Ukrainian physicist last month trying to get him to come here, and his face lit up immediately. My feelings towards him are shared by many. If you do not accept that, that is your loss.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, JOHN GAVE US HOPE TO CONTINUE AS INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS TO THINK FREE AND TO PUBLISH while his counterparts in academia drove most of us kids into depression and despair and many of us dropped out.
I could easily brand him as the founding father of OPEN SCIENCE i.e. science without copyrights! While everyone else ran after fame and fortune, he would answer every email and he would freely publish in as many areas in theoretical sciences as he could afford.
My feelings are my feelings, yours are yours, I have as much freedom to express myself here as you are, if John feels these are inappropriate comments he could remove me from the list, but you and I enjoy the same freedoms here.
Dara
Hello Nathan >I hope you realize how offsenive this is to make such sweeping statements about an entire scientific community. No they are not! My comment is quite valid for this particular field specially in USA and Canada. It is not offensive, why criticizing scientists are offensive but they could criticize anyone else at whim! There has be two way critics, not always from scientist to the rest of the world and the other way around is blocked. We demand transparency from governments but we are tabooed to ask that from scientists? Why? They need to be held accountable by the public. >I thought there wasn’t any honest research in this field? We are no longer schoolboys. Those Canadian scientists are marred for life and I do not appreciate you mockingly mention their demise in such sarcastic remark. My feelings towards John's research has always been as such, in private when I emailed him and in public, I am not going to change them to please you. > John is not the only good scientist in the world. He is amongst the rare few, most of them are gone, I mentioned their names in another post. You do not believe that, fine that is your judgement, my judgement for almost 20 years is that he is. Let me explain to you so you understand: When most theoretical physicists running around getting huge grants for nonsensical research and kowtowing to military and many other organizations for money, John was the first and only scientist that started publishing his work without copyrights, and millions of students myself one, we loved what he did and he did us great favor and provided for us ability to learn new theories out of the reach of most of us in USA or abroad. I saw physics student washing dishes to pay for their tuition and could not afford fancy expensive books, but we could always go to John's site and download all what we needed for free. We all feel indebted to him, I mentioned John's name to a Ukrainian physicist last month trying to get him to come here, and his face lit up immediately. My feelings towards him are shared by many. If you do not accept that, that is your loss. MOST IMPORTANTLY, JOHN GAVE US HOPE TO CONTINUE AS INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS TO THINK FREE AND TO PUBLISH while his counterparts in academia drove most of us kids into depression and despair and many of us dropped out. I could easily brand him as the founding father of OPEN SCIENCE i.e. science without copyrights! While everyone else ran after fame and fortune, he would answer every email and he would freely publish in as many areas in theoretical sciences as he could afford. My feelings are my feelings, yours are yours, I have as much freedom to express myself here as you are, if John feels these are inappropriate comments he could remove me from the list, but you and I enjoy the same freedoms here. DaraDara,
It is not for you to judge what is offensive to someone else.
In fact, it is not even remotely true of the motivations or incentive structures of scientists working in either of those countries, of which I am one, and know many others.
Your statements were not about transparency or accountability, but rather unsupported sweeping accusations of scientific bias and status-seeking.
I am trying to understand how you can, on the one hand, speak of honest Canadian climate scientists, and then on the other hand, disarpage the entire community to which they belong. I think if you reflected on this, you would realize that the scientists and the politics are not the same.
As for John, he was an early mentor to me as well, and you of course are welcome to your feelings, but he is neither the first nor the only researcher to publish or suppport open science.
Dara, > No they are not! It is not for you to judge what is offensive to someone else. > My comment is quite valid for this particular field specially in USA and Canada. In fact, it is not even remotely true of the motivations or incentive structures of scientists working in either of those countries, of which I am one, and know many others. > We demand transparency from governments but we are tabooed to ask that from scientists? Why? They need to be held accountable by the public. Your statements were not about transparency or accountability, but rather unsupported sweeping accusations of scientific bias and status-seeking. > Those Canadian scientists are marred for life and I do not appreciate you mockingly mention their demise in such a sarcastic remark. I am trying to understand how you can, on the one hand, speak of honest Canadian climate scientists, and then on the other hand, disarpage the entire community to which they belong. I think if you reflected on this, you would realize that the scientists and the politics are not the same. As for John, he was an early mentor to me as well, and you of course are welcome to your feelings, but he is neither the first nor the only researcher to publish or suppport open science.Has anyone made the comparison from Dipping Bird dynamics to loooong-term climate oscillations?
A couple of Irish math students provided a solution for the dipping bird here http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~smurray/Dipping-Bird-Report.pdf
Very concise
Has anyone made the comparison from Dipping Bird dynamics to loooong-term climate oscillations?  from <http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=41> A couple of Irish math students provided a solution for the dipping bird here <http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~smurray/Dipping-Bird-Report.pdf>  Very conciseheh heh heh
I have some Vostok work let me dig it up
Vostok
Ok I found it, it has several trends
>A couple of Irish math students provided a solution for the dipping bird heh heh heh I have some Vostok work let me dig it up [Vostok](http://files.lossofgenerality.com/co2_songs2.pdf) Ok I found it, it has several trendsVostok's {0,0,0,0} index decomposition shows that main Trend is upwards towards a Max!
This is IMHO, an indication not an inference, that the CO2's increasing generation is not a man-made effect it is a planetary periodic effect, by no means this statement should be taken as a scientific conclusion, just an indication looking at the computational architecture of Vostok data.
Dara
Vostok's {0,0,0,0} index decomposition shows that main Trend is upwards towards a Max! This is IMHO, an indication not an inference, that the CO2's increasing generation is not a man-made effect it is a planetary periodic effect, by no means this statement should be taken as a scientific conclusion, just an indication looking at the computational architecture of Vostok data. DaraWho was fired and why? This seems to be some widely known story I haven't heard of. ???
> >Look at Canadian government firing their own climate scientists for doing honest research! > > >I thought there wasn’t any honest research in this field? Who was fired and why? This seems to be some widely known story I haven't heard of. ???Hello Nad
Harper's War on Science
All kinds of terminations on national scale:
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/opinion-mass-firing-of-canada2019s-ocean-scientists
Hello Nad [Harper's War on Science](http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/harpers-war-science) All kinds of terminations on national scale: [http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/opinion-mass-firing-of-canada2019s-ocean-scientists](http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/opinion-mass-firing-of-canada2019s-ocean-scientists)aha. sounds like yummy canadian poison poisson...
Thanks for the link. I reposted it in a german blog in a comment about the CETA trade negotiations.
The thing is that especially the french presidents seem to love fish, so actually they should know what's awaiting them:
>Hello Nad > > <a href="http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/harpers-war-science">Harper’s War on Science</a> aha. sounds like yummy canadian poison poisson... Thanks for the link. I <a href="https://netzpolitik.org/2014/europaeisch-kanadisches-freihandelsabkommen-wir-veroeffentlichen-saemtliche-geheime-ceta-dokumente/#comment-1642999">reposted</a> it in a german blog in a comment about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement">CETA</a> trade negotiations. The thing is that <a href="http://www.slate.fr/story/67099/cuisine-elysee-presidents-sarkozy-hollande">especially the french presidents</a> seem to love fish, so actually they should know what's awaiting them: >Nicolas Sarkozy est pressé, il refuse de perdre son temps entre les plats. Il se veut en forme, a des goûts simples et éclectiques: poissons, poulet émincé, veau en escalope, ..... .... >Vaussion doit mettre en relief la légèreté des recettes, proposer des poissons de petite pêche, sans négliger les justes saveurs des produits,......Dara wrote:
Do you therefore distrust any findings of climate researchers on the relationships between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and planetary warming levels?
This has been studied long before John ever entered the terrain of the environmental sciences. As a relative newcomer to the area, wouldn't it make sense that he is learning from other experts in the field, rather than the other way around?
Dara wrote: > The only scientist alive today we could trust is Prof. John Baez and why I am here, I consider all these papers and claims suspect. Do you therefore distrust any findings of climate researchers on the relationships between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and planetary warming levels? This has been studied long before John ever entered the terrain of the environmental sciences. As a relative newcomer to the area, wouldn't it make sense that he is learning from other experts in the field, rather than the other way around?Hello David:
I actually do not know, unless I see some serious code running on actual data to study in details and find the correlations through actual review-able code in great details. I posted the Vostok CO2 bubble data and it could contradict such findings it could also contradict fossil fuel being the source of the warming!
This is called Consensual Science, if enough number of people state a statement it becomes a defacto scientific fact, I posted a major misunderstanding amongst the top scholars on eye absorption of sun light and you can see that under the same title. The reason I posted that to warn that we are all falling into that trap.
As far as John, this is how I feel about who he is what he wrote and what has accomplished and his generous spirit, and needs no clarification on my side but 1000s of others are indeed seeing him under the same light.
If you and others feel otherwise, as Nad said you have your opinions and critics and I have mine, I do not see the point in arguing. And it is not that as if I selected one guy and bashed him and insulted him!
I said nice things about John, people could turn around and add something better to it, or stay silent.
Dara
Hello David: >Do you therefore distrust any findings of climate researchers on the relationships between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and planetary warming levels? I actually do not know, unless I see some serious code running on actual data to study in details and find the correlations through actual review-able code in great details. I posted the Vostok CO2 bubble data and it could contradict such findings it could also contradict fossil fuel being the source of the warming! This is called Consensual Science, if enough number of people state a statement it becomes a defacto scientific fact, I posted a major misunderstanding amongst the top scholars on eye absorption of sun light and you can see that under the same title. The reason I posted that to warn that we are all falling into that trap. As far as John, this is how I feel about who he is what he wrote and what has accomplished and his generous spirit, and needs no clarification on my side but 1000s of others are indeed seeing him under the same light. If you and others feel otherwise, as Nad said you have your opinions and critics and I have mine, I do not see the point in arguing. And it is not that as if I selected one guy and bashed him and insulted him! I said nice things about John, people could turn around and add something better to it, or stay silent. DaraBut you weren't just speaking for yourself, you said the only person that we could trust is John. Moreover, you have the right to say what you think, and I have the right to say that I disagree.
But you weren't just speaking for yourself, you said the only person that _we_ could trust is John. Moreover, you have the right to say what you think, and I have the right to say that I disagree.I think the statement is quite clear, it is customary to say such things in plural does not make it an order nor a mandate, it is a form of emphasis. As I said these are not notes to a litigation to conduct forensic grammar analysis, there is no judge or jury.
Sure, for every member of the discussion group. But it is equally true that agreements or disagreements on discussions do not produce resources or code to further the cause and operations here.
>you said the only person that we could trust is John I think the statement is quite clear, it is customary to say such things in plural does not make it an order nor a mandate, it is a form of emphasis. As I said these are not notes to a litigation to conduct forensic grammar analysis, there is no judge or jury. >Moreover, you have the right to say what you think, and I have the right to say that I disagree. Sure, for every member of the discussion group. But it is equally true that agreements or disagreements on discussions do **not** produce resources or code to further the cause and operations here.This was mentioned on a chat discussion, but should probably go here because it has wider visibility and is in Jim's original IOD topic. This is referring to finding linkage or synchronization between IOD and ENSO (specifically the SOI dipole).
In the first chart below, it shows SOI=s as a function of IOD=i and in the second it is IOD as a function of SOI. The base correlation coefficient is 0.462 with no delays (i.e. zero lag).
With delays the IOD as a predictor of SOI works marginally better than SOI as a predictor of IOD, but it will need some interpretation to see what this means. These are both dipoles so no doubt that they share the same global forcing factors. The question is whether these lags are real or are just phase relationships that occur from occupying different positions on a standing wave. Remember that a standing wave is really a collective phenomenon, and where the peaks and valleys are is really dependent on where the measurements are taken.
The delays shown are in months, so that IOD either lags SOI by 1 month with a sign reversal, or as a stronger condition, SOI lags IOD by 17 months with a sign reversal.
I am having problems with running an implicit comparison between the two with Eureqa, i.e. setting the goal as 0 = f(soi,iod).
This was mentioned on a chat discussion, but should probably go here because it has wider visibility and is in Jim's original IOD topic. This is referring to finding linkage or synchronization between IOD and ENSO (specifically the SOI dipole). In the first chart below, it shows SOI=s as a function of IOD=i and in the second it is IOD as a function of SOI. The base correlation coefficient is 0.462 with no delays (i.e. zero lag).  With delays the IOD as a predictor of SOI works marginally better than SOI as a predictor of IOD, but it will need some interpretation to see what this means. These are both dipoles so no doubt that they share the same global forcing factors. The question is whether these lags are real or are just phase relationships that occur from occupying different positions on a standing wave. Remember that a standing wave is really a collective phenomenon, and where the peaks and valleys are is really dependent on where the measurements are taken.  The delays shown are in months, so that IOD either lags SOI by 1 month with a sign reversal, or as a stronger condition, SOI lags IOD by 17 months with a sign reversal. I am having problems with running an implicit comparison between the two with Eureqa, i.e. setting the goal as 0 = f(soi,iod).The idea of synchronization occurring between dipoles has likely been considered before, but like the dipping bird analogy in #22, there is a great physical analogy to what may be happening to create the close alignment. See the curious phenomenon of the automatically synchronizing metronomes.
http://www.wimp.com/synchronizingmetronomes/
Any guesses as to what causes this and to how the behavior might be manifested as correlated dipoles?
The idea of synchronization occurring between dipoles has likely been considered before, but like the dipping bird analogy [in #22](http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/1529/the-indian-ocean-dipole-iod-and-enso/?Focus=13472#Comment_13472), there is a great physical analogy to what may be happening to create the close alignment. See the curious phenomenon of the automatically synchronizing metronomes. <http://www.wimp.com/synchronizingmetronomes/>  Any guesses as to what causes this and to how the behavior might be manifested as correlated dipoles?Aha, you catch me just going out of the door for a second day. Don't you just need 2 pendulums to demonstrate synchronisation? I think I've referenced at least one paper on synchronisation in climate and there a plenty on phase locking somewhere about here. I'll try and dig it or them out tomorrow.
Thanks for doing stuff I can't.
Aha, you catch me just going out of the door for a second day. Don't you just need 2 pendulums to demonstrate synchronisation? I think I've referenced at least one paper on synchronisation in climate and there a plenty on phase locking somewhere about here. I'll try and dig it or them out tomorrow. Thanks for doing stuff I can't.Right, Jim. I have seen the two pendulum video before, but this one is more impressive :)
Right, Jim. I have seen the two pendulum video before, but this one is more impressive :)haha great haven't seen this yet. But since this is a nonlinear dynamics lab, I wanted to make sure that there is no forcing automatism behind the synchronization. Unfortunately even in this video the table is not shown in full, so it is not clear wether the strings, which hold the table pull or not.
Moreover goggle translate sounds too cryptic for getting information out of the text next to the videos:
+++++ result of google tranlate:
where interestingly the first two sentences seem to be the same (at least thats what I found by quickly parsing) but the translate is different. Is there a google translate synchronizer? :)
>See the curious phenomenon of the automatically synchronizing metronomes. haha great haven't seen this yet. But since this is a nonlinear dynamics lab, I wanted to make sure that there is no forcing automatism behind the synchronization. Unfortunately even in this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd21LkTvQGY&list=UUJIyXclKY8FQQwaKBaawl_A&index=5">video</a> the table is not shown in full, so it is not clear wether the strings, which hold the table pull or not. Moreover goggle translate sounds too cryptic for getting information out of the text next to the videos: >複数のメトロノームを動く台の上に乗せてメトロノームを動かすと，やがて全てのメトロノームが同期して同じタイミングで音を刻むことが知られています >複数のメトロノームを動く台の上に乗せてメトロノームを動かすと，やがて全てのメトロノームが同期して同じタイミングで音を刻むことが知られています． >池口研究室では，メトロノームを乗せる台を左右から吊るすことで台が動くような実験装置を作成し，同期実験を行いました．本動画では32個のメトロノームが同じタイミングで音を刻みます． +++++ result of google tranlate: >When you put on top of the table to move multiple metronome move the metronome, and eventually all of the metronome is known to engrave the sound in sync with the same timing >When you move the metronome is placed on a table that moves multiple metronome, we eventually all of the metronome is known to engrave the sound at the same timing and synchronization. >In Ikeguchi laboratory, to create an experimental device, such as die move by hanging a stand to put the metronome from the left and right, and gave a synchronization experiment. 32 metronome ticks sound at the same time in this video. where interestingly the first two sentences seem to be the same (at least thats what I found by quickly parsing) but the translate is different. Is there a google translate synchronizer? :)I am sorry there is again some invalid XML in my last comment. By the way thanks to the anonymous Mathforge Admin (was this David Tanzer?) for fixing this comment.
I am sorry there is again some invalid XML in my last comment. By the way thanks to the anonymous Mathforge Admin (was this David Tanzer?) for fixing <a href="http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/1529/the-indian-ocean-dipole-iod-and-enso/?Focus=13482#Comment_13482">this comment.</a>At #11 Paul wrote:
I wanted to get a volume for the mass of water landing on Australia duing a peak La Nina. I'd had a go a getting Australian precipitation data from the Australian Met. Office but I could only find data on an individual station basis which seems to be behind a UI and I didn't have the fu to guess how to ftp them.
At #11 Paul wrote: > The next part is to figure out what part of the local sea-level height change is due to (1) sloshing of the volume (2) inverse barometric effect (3) thermal expansion of upwelling water and (4) changes in precipitation. The last one can have severe impacts for Australia, in particular, as the Australian great artesian basin is an excellent transient trap for excess precipitation which can then depress ocean levels temporarily I wanted to get a volume for the mass of water landing on Australia duing a peak La Nina. I'd had a go a getting Australian precipitation data from the Australian Met. Office but I could only find data on an individual station basis which seems to be behind a UI and I didn't have the fu to guess how to ftp them.In #32 the IOD-SOI lag of 17 months seems worth investigating. The Torrence paper gives a 4.6 month lag between the DMI and sea level pressure (SLP) in the western Pacific. Naively, if it takes 3 months in an El Nino for the warm water volume to cross the Pacific from west to east then I might expect IOD changes to preceed an El Nino by 7 months.
Can the IOD account for some of the unexplained residual variance in the Pukite QBO-TSO-CW (QTC) sloshing model between QTC and the SOI?
I found the Tsonis El Nino image posted at #8 has an interesting locations for high-degree supernodes; in particular, the supernode in off the eastern coast of Indo-China is located where I think the Kurosho current flows. I'm still trying to build up a picture of the meridional extents of the warm water volume which seemed to be much further south off the eastern Australian coast.
PS. I've got the thermocline data but I've currently got a work problem: my Lenovo notebook Centos-6.5 setup has borked so the screen will only display on battery so I have to install a proper operating system ie. NixOS and rebuild my development environment.
In #32 the IOD-SOI lag of 17 months seems worth investigating. The Torrence paper gives a 4.6 month lag between the DMI and sea level pressure (SLP) in the western Pacific. Naively, if it takes 3 months in an El Nino for the warm water volume to cross the Pacific from west to east then I might expect IOD changes to preceed an El Nino by 7 months. Can the IOD account for some of the unexplained residual variance in the Pukite QBO-TSO-CW (QTC) sloshing model between QTC and the SOI? I found the Tsonis El Nino image posted at #8 has an interesting locations for high-degree supernodes; in particular, the supernode in off the eastern coast of Indo-China is located where I think the Kurosho current flows. I'm still trying to build up a picture of the meridional extents of the warm water volume which seemed to be much further south off the eastern Australian coast. PS. I've got the thermocline data but I've currently got a work problem: my Lenovo notebook Centos-6.5 setup has borked so the screen will only display on battery so I have to install a proper operating system ie. NixOS and rebuild my development environment.Jim, Looking at it, I don't think the IOD will help to compensate the ENSO model too much. Certain characteristics, such as the strong peak at 1941, do not make a strong contribution. Many of the peaks do show up, but it is the odd ones here or there which reduce the correlation. IOD is also a noisier data set from appearances, so that doesn't help either.
I will post later, but the correlation coefficient is a bit above 0.4 for the model to IOD. It doesn't look bad as far as it goes.
It is definitely worth pursuing because it does address John's discussion topics of how linkages get propagated. paul
Jim, Looking at it, I don't think the IOD will help to compensate the ENSO model too much. Certain characteristics, such as the strong peak at 1941, do not make a strong contribution. Many of the peaks do show up, but it is the odd ones here or there which reduce the correlation. IOD is also a noisier data set from appearances, so that doesn't help either. I will post later, but the correlation coefficient is a bit above 0.4 for the model to IOD. It doesn't look bad as far as it goes. It is definitely worth pursuing because it does address John's discussion topics of how linkages get propagated. paulMany thanks for the analysis. I'll see if I can see this. What is it you think is worthwhile investigating next?
> I don’t think the IOD will help to compensate the ENSO model too much. Certain characteristics, such as the strong peak at 1941, do not make a strong contribution. Many of the peaks do show up, but it is the odd ones here or there which reduce the correlation. IOD is also a noisier data set from appearances, so that doesn’t help either. Many thanks for the analysis. I'll see if I can see this. What is it you think is worthwhile investigating next?I think the significant issues are with the occasional historical event that impacts the ENSO measure but has little to do with the underlying oscillations. As I pursued the detailed fitting, these events became more and more evident.
The ones that I can name are the following, going back in time:
The basic issue is still trying to remove all the extraneous noise so we can see the fundamental signal of interest.
> "What is it you think is worthwhile investigating next?" I think the significant issues are with the occasional historical event that impacts the ENSO measure but has little to do with the underlying oscillations. As I pursued the detailed fitting, these events became more and more evident. The ones that I can name are the following, going back in time: 1. The Pinatubo volcanic eruption of 1991 2. The El Chichon eruption of 1982 3. The Agung eruption of 1963/1964 4. The Pacific climate shift of 1976/1977 5. A hot period during WWII from 1941 to 1945 that is coincidental with limited data or miscalibration as the military took over measurements 6. A cool period during WWI from 1917 to 1918 that may have similar problems 7. The Ksudach eruption of 1907 , *"Major eruptions in the Kamchatka have a disproportional effect on global climate, due to the low troposphere elevation at these latitudes, and the ease of dispersal of ash, aerosol, and gas."* This one shows up in my CSALT model of global temperatures even though it is not as large a volcano, VEI=5, as the VEI=6 volcanoes above. The basic issue is still trying to remove all the extraneous noise so we can see the fundamental signal of interest.What happens if you remove the periods of these singular, episodes from your QBO-TSI-CW fitting or is that what you're about to do?
What happens if you remove the periods of these singular, episodes from your QBO-TSI-CW fitting or is that what you're about to do?Jim, I was satisfied with the results of my model and so finished writing the paper. However, I then happened across the ENSO BEST time series which is like the SOI but less noisy and so evaluated that WRT the model. That's when the volcanic events started to show up more obviously.
I am thinking about adding in these events as transient cooling disturbances, but of course this adds more degrees of freedom to the model.
For the CSALT model, these are the kinds of residuals one sees if the volcanic events are not included:
After including these events the residual is reduced.
But the CSALT model also includes the SOI as a compensating factor, so these volcanic disturbances are potentially doubly counted if they have an impact on ENSO as well. That's what makes it very intriguing in the bigger picture of impacts.
> "What happens if you remove the periods of these singular, episodes from your QBO-TSI-CW fitting or is that what you’re about to do?" Jim, I was satisfied with the results of my model and so finished writing the paper. However, I then happened across the ENSO BEST time series which is like the SOI but less noisy and so evaluated that WRT the model. That's when the volcanic events started to show up more obviously. I am thinking about adding in these events as transient cooling disturbances, but of course this adds more degrees of freedom to the model. For the CSALT model, these are the kinds of residuals one sees if the volcanic events are not included:  After including these events the residual is reduced.  But the CSALT model also includes the SOI as a compensating factor, so these volcanic disturbances are potentially doubly counted if they have an impact on ENSO as well. That's what makes it very intriguing in the bigger picture of impacts.Are there some reasons as to why BEST is a more appropriate index for prediction purposes than the MEI which presumably an improvement on SOI?
Are there some reasons as to why BEST is a more appropriate index for prediction purposes than the MEI which presumably an improvement on SOI?The MEI is actually pretty bad for this kind of analysis according to a climate skeptic site. That is where I got the idea for looking at BEST, believe it or not !
This was just a while ago http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/evidence-that-strong-el-nino-events-are-triggered-by-the-moon/comment-page-1/#comment-92865
I look at skeptic sites because they are very determined to prove AGW wrong. Unfortunately they don't have science on their side and inadvertently end up scoring #OwnGoals
> "Are there some reasons as to why BEST is a more appropriate index for prediction purposes than the MEI which presumably an improvement on SOI?" The MEI is actually pretty bad for this kind of analysis according to a climate skeptic site. That is where I got the idea for looking at BEST, believe it or not ! This was just a while ago <http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/evidence-that-strong-el-nino-events-are-triggered-by-the-moon/comment-page-1/#comment-92865> >Ian Wilson says: >November 17, 2014 at 12:35 pm >jdmcl, >The start of an El Nino event is determined from the Bivariate EnSo Time Series (BEST) index. This index effectively combines the atmospheric component of the ENSO (i.e. the SOI index) with the oceanic component (i.e Nino 3.4 SST anomaly index). If you are not happy with that you be taking it up with the people that created this index: >Smith, C.A. and P. Sardeshmukh – The Effect of ENSO on the Intraseasonal Variance of Surface Temperature in Winter., International J. of Climatology, 2000, 20 1543-1557. Ref: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/cathy.smith/best/ >In my own experience the MEI index is not very good at identifying the strength of El Nino events. The SOI and Nino 3.4 are a direct measure of the existing conditions in the Pacific basin where as the MEI index is really a proxy that was designed to measure those conditions when direct observations were unavailable. >Nowhere in my analysis have I assumed that the winds on their own cause El Nino’s. In fact , I have used the BEST index to delineate an El Nino event for the very reason that these events are part of a coupled oceanic and atmospheric phenomenon known as the ENSO. I look at skeptic sites because they are very determined to prove AGW wrong. Unfortunately they don't have science on their side and inadvertently end up scoring #OwnGoalsI was kind of evasive in answering Jim's question:
I will end up trying this, and the way that I propose to do it is worth sharing beforehand. My idea is to fit the model as before but when calculating the correlation coefficient, set the model and data values to zero at intervals from 0 to 3 years after a massive volcanic eruption. By setting it to zero, there is no contribution to the correlation within those intervals. Then after a fit is achieved, take a look at the residual within those intervals and it should always show an obvious cooling spike according to the current thinking WRT stratospheric aerosol reflection.
There are about 7 significant eruptions to include and that would remove about 7*3=21 years from a 135 year span of observations, which isn't that aggressive. The removal of that noise more than makes up for the reduction in available fitting data, and so a better (as in "truer" to pure ENSO dynamics) model will likely result.
I was kind of evasive in answering Jim's question: > "What happens if you remove the periods of these singular, episodes from your QBO-TSI-CW fitting or is that what you’re about to do?" I will end up trying this, and the way that I propose to do it is worth sharing beforehand. My idea is to fit the model as before but when calculating the correlation coefficient, set the model and data values to zero at intervals from 0 to 3 years after a massive volcanic eruption. By setting it to zero, there is no contribution to the correlation within those intervals. Then after a fit is achieved, take a look at the residual within those intervals and it should always show an obvious cooling spike according to the current thinking WRT stratospheric aerosol reflection. There are about 7 significant eruptions to include and that would remove about 7*3=21 years from a 135 year span of observations, which isn't that aggressive. The removal of that noise more than makes up for the reduction in available fitting data, and so a better (as in "truer" to pure ENSO dynamics) model will likely result.It shouldn't have been a surprise to find that the tallbloke blog has a load of astrologers and they're keen on Venus-Moon alignments (whatever an alignment is) and the QBO-TSI-CW model to try and bypass AGW evidence.
Do you think this technique where you:
is appropriate for dealing with possible regime changes eg. 1935; 1880-1920,1920-1960,1960-2000; 1975 etc.?
It shouldn't have been a surprise to find that the tallbloke blog has a load of astrologers and they're keen on Venus-Moon alignments (whatever an alignment is) and the QBO-TSI-CW model to try and bypass AGW evidence. Do you think this technique where you: > set the model and data values to zero at intervals from 0 to 3 years after a massive volcanic eruption. set the model and data values to zero at intervals from 0 to 3 years after a volcanic event is appropriate for dealing with possible regime changes eg. 1935; 1880-1920,1920-1960,1960-2000; 1975 etc.?Jim, If one wants to deal strictly with data instead of a reanalysis product, then stay away from MEI.
http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/multivariate-enso-index
If we are really trying to get to the bottom of mechanisms for ENSO, why would we use a dataset that has gone through so many contortions as this?
So there are two issues with MEI -- (1) the PC deconstruction and (2) reanalysis to get at values that were never even measured, i.e. surface wind from years ago.
Jim, If one wants to deal strictly with data instead of a reanalysis product, then stay away from MEI. <http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/multivariate-enso-index> >"The Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) on the six main observed variables over the tropical Pacific. These six variables are: sea-level pressure (P), zonal (U) and meridional (V) components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature (S), surface air temperature (A), and total cloudiness fraction of the sky (C). The MEI is computed separately for each of twelve sliding bi-monthly seasons (Dec/Jan, Jan/Feb,..., Nov/Dec). After spatially filtering the individual fields into clusters (Wolter, 1987) , the MEI is calculated as the first unrotated Principal Component (PC) of all six observed fields combined. This is accomplished by normalizing the total variance of each field first, and then performing the extraction of the first PC on the co-variance matrix of the combined fields (Wolter and Timlin, 1993). In order to keep the MEI comparable, all seasonal values are standardized with respect to each season and to the 1950-93 reference period." If we are really trying to get to the bottom of mechanisms for ENSO, why would we use a dataset that has gone through so many contortions as this? So there are two issues with MEI -- (1) the PC deconstruction and (2) reanalysis to get at values that were never even measured, i.e. surface wind from years ago.Agreed! Now I'll have to check the DMI spec :)
Agreed! Now I'll have to check the DMI spec :)Possible, look at the residual in #44 . Corresponding to the year after the Pacific climate shift of 1976/1977, there is a significant transient cooling. These again are the features that are not captured by the strong periodic forcings of QBO etc, and so may benefit from masking out.
I wrote earlier :
this is what it looks like using the model for SOI on IOD. I adjusted the initial conditions so they would align as much as possible, and I tweaked the characteristic frequency slightly, from 4.25 years to 4.2 years.
The IOD isn't as striking a dipole as SOI as it has somewhat weak and non-emphatic excursions. It's possible that if I adjust the phases of the forcing functions such as QBO, the fit could improve substantially. This could provide a better way to look at the phase relationship between the SOI and IOD dipoles.
> "is appropriate for dealing with possible regime changes eg. 1935; 1880-1920,1920-1960,1960-2000; 1975 etc.?" Possible, look at the residual in #44 . Corresponding to the year after the Pacific climate shift of 1976/1977, there is a significant transient cooling. These again are the features that are not captured by the strong periodic forcings of QBO etc, and so may benefit from masking out. I wrote earlier : >"I will post later, but the correlation coefficient is a bit above 0.4 for the model to IOD. It doesn’t look bad as far as it goes." this is what it looks like using the model for SOI on IOD. I adjusted the initial conditions so they would align as much as possible, and I tweaked the characteristic frequency slightly, from 4.25 years to 4.2 years.  The IOD isn't as striking a dipole as SOI as it has somewhat weak and non-emphatic excursions. It's possible that if I adjust the phases of the forcing functions such as QBO, the fit could improve substantially. This could provide a better way to look at the phase relationship between the SOI and IOD dipoles.