The Natural Warming Of The Global Oceans-Bob Tisdale
By Paul Homewood
Many of you will be familiar with the work of Bob Tisdale over the years, concerning the mechanism of ENSO (ie El Ninos and La Ninas) and its effects on climate.
His seminal series of videos, recorded in 2012 is still on YouTube, and is still highly relevant.
Above is Part 1, which is worth sticking with all the way through, but otherwise the first 8 minutes is definitely worth a watch. Nothing has effectively changed since 2012, and Bob’s conclusions are still relevant and valid.
As well as explaining what exactly drives El Ninos and La Ninas, he makes some significant points:
- Worldwide sea surface temperature trends since 1980 show no correlation with GHGs (see chart below)
- Instead they exhibit a series of step changes up, which follow the major El Nino events of 1982/83, 1987/88 and 1997/98
- Contrary to popular belief, global SSTs do not drop during La Nina episodes. This is because El Ninos transfer a vast amount of warm, subsurface water to the surface, where it remains during La Nina.
- Some of this warm water in the East Pacific finds its way into the West Pacific and Indian Oceans. But through a process called teleconnection, SSTs is the Atlantic, where there is no direct connection, also rise and exhibit the same step changes.
- Between major El Nino events, SSTs outside the East Pacific do not rise.
- In the East Pacific, there has been no trend increase in SST at all since 1980.
Bob’s central point is that if AGW is responsible for rising SSTs, why does this not occur between El Ninos?
Naturally, air temperatures rise in line with SSTs in the long run.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Using the full HadlSST 1.1 database (including NINO 3.4) which goes back to 1870 (and unlike NOAA’s) has never been adjusted), any monthly correlation of the three part ENSO SSTs, (El-Nino, NEUTRAL, La-Nina) with monthly Mauna Loa CO2 is not there. The warm air temperatures after the strong 1997 El-Nino showed up during the immediately following La-Nina phase in 1998, which makes sense. This will show up if one calculates the year-over-year increase in Mauna Loa CO2 instead of the monotonic trend.
Thanks for bringing Bob’s material to (maybe) a new bunch of readers! Many of his posts were also put up on WUWT.
I had a chuckle with seeing this post after just seeing this news:
” President-elect Joe Biden says “science will always be at the forefront of my administration,”
As far as I can tell, neither Joe nor his advisers understand what science is, nor what is known about the climate scam. They seem to be responsible for it, and don’t realize they are the enemy.
I suggest they each spend a few hours reading Bob Tisdale.
Yesterday I noticed that mwhite posted on that, with links to two ofTisdale’s excellent videos.
As Bob Tisdale has shown here and in his earlier post, global temperature increased only in years associated with El Ninos – which have nothing to do with CO2.
Dr. Murray Salby has shown further that, except for half a dozen such years, the earth has experienced no systematic change of temperature – for the last 70 years, i.e., over the entire era of increased human emissions.
Boris’ newly-found crusade for climate is a farce. And we will be expected to pay for it.
“But through a process called teleconnection, SSTs is the Atlantic, where there is no direct connection, also rise and exhibit the same step changes.” Teleconnection, eh? Do poltergeists play a role too?
Amidst all his careful description this stood out as a weakness.
In Point 4, “SSTs is the Atlantic” should be “SSTs in the Atlantic”.
If every major El nino lead to an increase in global SST without any decrease between these events then in the long run temperatures would never stop rising. Obviously this isn’t the case, current global temperatures aren’t massively higher than during the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age saw a drop in global temperatures. Therefore Bob’s theory may seem correct when looking at relatively short time periods, e.g. 50 years, but can’t hold true over much longer time periods, e.g. centuries or millennia.
The “without any decrease between these events then in the long run” is perhaps a strawman.
This was a pleasant surprise, Paul. Thanks for resurrecting those YouTube videos.
Regards,
Bob
BBC The Tele-Evangelist network of GreenReligion
15:30pm Radio4 What to Eat to Save the Planet? The Food Programme
Look at the tone of their tweet
Blurb “As scientific evidence grows showing an urgent need for us to reduce the environmental impact of food we eat,
Sheila Dillon looks for practical ways to make a change.
From increasing UK investment in plant protein, to producing meat differently; from embracing veganism to counting carbon.
“From increasing UK investment in plant protein, to producing meat differently; from embracing veganism to counting carbon” … from shutting up, to effing off.