The extended title of the post is “Sea Surface Temperatures of the Oceans Surrounding Australia and the Magnitude of ENSO Events, ” because the following illustrations of Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) of Australian waters present an interesting effect, the impact of the magnitude of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events on SST. While I’ve seen it before in other data sets, I haven’t yet singled it out for discussion.
(Note: To economize words, throughout the rest of the post, I’ll use “Australian waters” in place of “oceans surrounding Australia” or the “combined Southwest South Pacific and Southeast South Indian Ocean data set.”)
First, to determine the area to evaluate, I downloaded data for two geographical areas from the NOAA NOMADS system. They’re identified by the red and blue boxes in Figure 1. The coordinates used are 10-45S, 105-165E for the red area and 0-55S, 95-175E for the blue.
Figure 1
Figure 2 illustrates the SST anomalies from January 1854 to June 2008 for the two ocean areas surrounding Australia. Both data sets have been smoothed with a 37-month filter. Picking the start date in the trough at 1905 and the end date at a peak in 2000 (There must be an alarmist side to me.), both data sets show rises in SST that are on the order of 1.0 to 1.2 deg C. The two signals are similar, with the smaller area having the greater variations. For the remainder of this post, I’ll use the data from the smaller area, the red curve.
Figure 2
Figure 3 shows the raw long-term data for the SST anomalies of Australian waters. Also illustrated is data that’s been smoothed with a 12-month running-average filter. Typical of many other oceanic data sets, there is an overall decline in SSTs from the late 1800s to 1910 and a rebound in SSTs until 1940. Then, though there are underlying oscillations, SSTs rise almost continuously from 1940 to present. El Nino events appear to stand out.
Note: The step change (temperature drop) at 1945 has been identified as an error in a recent Thompson et al letter to “Nature” with the title “A Large Discontinuity in the Mid-Twentieth Century in Observed Global-Mean Surface Temperature”.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/abs/nature06982.html
Figure 3
But there’s something that seems to be missing from the data in later years. Refer to Figure 4, which illustrates short-term (January 1978 to June 2008) SST anomalies for Australian waters. The delayed responses to the 82/83, the 86/87/88, and the 97/98 El Nino events are again easy to find with the sudden rises in SST, but…
Where are the effects of the La Ninas?
The 97/98 El Nino is so much larger than the subsequent multiyear La Nina that it gives the impression that it supplied enough heat to create a step change in the SSTs of Australian waters and that the heat then dissipated over a ten year period. But that impression is only partly correct. The effects of the La Ninas are there, but they are overwhelmed by the magnitudes of those major El Ninos.
Figure 4
In Figure 5, I’ve added NINO3.4 SST anomaly data to the graph of short-term SST anomalies for Australian waters. A scaling factor of 0.3 has been applied to the NINO3.4 data. I’ve also noted the timing of the two major volcanic eruptions in case someone feels they’re relevant.
The time lags between an ENSO event and the response of SST for Australian waters appear to be on the order of a few months to a year. And with the scaling factor used (0.3), the magnitude of the NINO3.4 SSTs during the 82/83, the 86/87/88, and the 97/98 events appear to generate similarly sized reactions in the SSTs of Australian waters.
Then, starting at 1998, it would appear that the entire drop in NINO3.4 SST should result in a similarly sized response in SST, but the response of the Australian waters falls far short. The logic behind the “Would-Should” statement is wrong.
In simple terms, ENSO events supply heat to sea surfaces when the NINO3.4 SST anomalies are greater than zero and remove heat when they’re less than zero. So the reference point for the NINO3.4 data is zero when comparing it to other anomaly data. Looking at the data again and using zero as the reference for the multiyear La Nina episode after the 97/98 El Nino, the reaction by the SSTs of Australian waters is in the proper scale. There are minor differences in the cause and effect and in the time lags in prior ENSO events, but all in all, there are no surprises.
Figure 5
The effects of ENSO events on SST trends are obvious once we’re reminded of them. Keep in mind that it is not only the frequency of El Nino and La Nina events but also the magnitude of those events that must be considered during discussions of their impacts on global or local climate.
In “The Evolution of ENSO and Global Atmospheric Temperatures”, Trenberth et al identify the linear trend in global temperatures that result from ENSO events: “For 1950-98, ENSO linearly accounts for 0.06 deg C of global warming.” http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/jgr2001b/jgr2.html
The effects of ENSO events appear much greater on regional levels.
Closing Note: The additional problems with measuring and calculating global mean sea surface temperature are discussed at length in numerous posts at ClimateAudit and in the papers that are the subjects of or the references used for those posts. For further information, refer to the following ClimateAudit posts:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3114
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1272
SOURCE
Sea Surface Temperature Data is Smith and Reynolds Extended Reconstructed SST (ERSST.v2) available through the NOAA National Operational Model Archive & Distribution System (NOMADS).
http://nomads.ncdc.noaa.gov/#climatencdc
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I have just finished reading Bob’s latest long and extensively illustrated article. Sorry, but it is getting really very hard to figure out just what the point of all this is!
The geographical areas adopted by Bob are mysteriously arbitrary!
How could they possibly relate to the probability of prevailing winds and/or currents? What do they signify?
On the one hand Bob seems to be affirming that everything can be ascribed to El Ninos and La Ninas and that somehow the 1997-8 El Nino was a whopper but that nothing in the decade thereafter should be considered ‘abnormal’ or ‘significant’.
OK, but all that begs the big questions: How/why/when El Ninos anyway? How/why/when La Ninas anyway? More importantly, how/why/when a whopper El Nino in 1997-8?
What does it all mean -in the presence or absence of AGW as you wish – but the undeniable presence of massively rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere and even more significant anthropogenic nitrogen emissions to the oceans?
The only line I could find that had any real meaning was the one which said:
“Then, though there are underlying oscillations, SSTs rise almost continuously from 1940 to present.”
So hello, Marilyn, sounds like textbook IPCC to me! Not even a hint of poor Cai and Cowan (2006) either.
To a diehard ‘lukewarmer’ such as myself, who would prefer to GET DOWN and discern or debate the actual effects and magnitudes of human perturbations to this planet – this just appears to be becoming a happy circus performance with graphs.
Unless I’m seriously having a totally major blonde moment this evening (quite possible – I’m heading for the cab. sav. tout suite) I’m beginning to find all this play with the pretty residuals rather yawn-yawn.
Just what is the message here or is it now McLuhanesque – the Medium is the Massage/Message?
Sorry Bob – nothing personal – just putting the toe of my boot into the proverbial somnolent possum.
How accurate and how frequent were these sea temps taken since 1850?Currents change quickly and temps near the coast can drop by 5 deg C overnight.They would not be as wide ranging or frequent as the ARGO probes.
It appears that AGW at the moment has taken a holiday.We need to put panic on hold and do a lot more research.
Steve Short: The point of the post was to illustrate SSTs surrounding Australia. Simple as that. Two reasons: First, Australia is the home of Jennifer Marohasy, this website’s host. Second, as far as I know, they’ve never been illustrated before.
The coordinates used for the data sets are listed. The source of the data, also listed, is the NOAA NOMADS system, which requires user-defined global coordinates as input. I used 5 degree increments and selected the first area to assure Australia was encompassed. I plotted a second larger area to illustrate that the data is not area dependent to any large degree. Other than that, the areas were selected arbitrarily.
The data is solely sea surface temperature. The impacts of other variables you cite, currents and prevailing winds, are not accounted for and cannot be by the Smith and Reynolds ERSST.v2 data set.
The relative simplicity of the curve of the long-term data–a decrease in temperature from the late 19th to the early 20th centuries, followed by a relatively steady increase to present–is extremely unusual for such a small area of the globe. I expected to find some influence of:
The Southern Ocean:
http://i34.tinypic.com/1411sti.jpg
The Indian Ocean:
http://i35.tinypic.com/ajkx7k.jpg
The Western Equatorial Pacific (Pacific Warm Pool):
http://i34.tinypic.com/24c8r3r.jpg
But the data set showed a relatively flat curve that agrees more with the Western Mid-Latitude South Pacific:
http://i34.tinypic.com/29vbbyq.jpg
I accept that not all data sets will show wide swings in SST anomalies like:
The Mid-Latitude North Pacific
http://i36.tinypic.com/ax0j13.jpg
The Thermohaline Circulation Upwelling Areas:
http://i27.tinypic.com/29c27v5.jpg
The North Atlantic:
http://i27.tinypic.com/212s789.jpg
Some will show flat curves.
I’ll be back to comment about the apparent significance of the ENSO impact on this data set in a few hours.
Regards.
Bob Tisdale: And I’ll be back too – if and when I get Jennifer to publish the stuff I submit to her. Having a little trouble getting anywhere near ‘favoured nation’ status as yet – unlike your good self – despite submitting stuff that could rot your socks off. Might have to move offshore.
Western Australia hasn’t basically had a drop for August. ALl crops are now on a knife edge unless rain is received in 10 days-2 weeks. Look at crop output folks and even with technology we are falling behind year after year … and this year you’ve never seen so many acres devoted to grain crops.
Ah that’s right … agriculture is too much of an exact science to include it in the whole ‘debate’ here. The only consolation, food taxes are going to rise for everyone, including agriculturally unconcerned members of thinktanks … of course I’m just stirring Jen … but we are 2 weeks away from a catastrophe here in the WEST without rain. I mean the whole State too … even the garden patches are up the creek.
Don’t worry Aaron – Rudd and Wong will make it rain with their insignificant, unilateral CO2 reduction policies.
Re Steve Short’s comment
“OK, but all that begs the big questions: How/why/when El Ninos anyway? How/why/when La Ninas anyway? More importantly, how/why/when a whopper El Nino in 1997-8? “
I thought Bob’s presentation was specific to one particular subject and was well presented with excellent illustrations in addition I saw no propaganda, just the facts. Typical of the IPCC devotees, drag in all the red herrings you can lay you hands on and try to justify criticism by talking off subject. If the IPCC is so all knowing and all powerful why don’t they answer Short’s question this post was not directed at the El Ninos causes only their effects.
“What does it all mean -in the presence or absence of AGW as you wish – but the undeniable presence of massively rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere and even more significant anthropogenic nitrogen emissions to the oceans?”
Maybe I missed something but where in the entire article was there a reference to AGW? The only thing I see is that the ocean temperature has had its oscillations but has generally increased at a constant rate since 1900 but other literature show anthropogenic emissions have increased exponentially from 1900 to 2006 I see no correlation between a straight line and an exponential curve. But then despite the 1000 page litany of correlation put out by the IPCC and being claimed as solid scientific proof I still adhere to the scientific principal that correlation does not prove causation.
Footnote; Steve if your logic continues to flop around like a half dead codfish in the bottom of a boat why on earth should Jennifer post any of your stuff.
Steve Short: The long-term graph of the smoothed data showed a relatively flat increase in temperature. To me it meant there was very little influence of Thermohaline Circulation/Meridional Overturning Circulation. Then the long-term graph of the raw data showed step changes, especially after the 97/98 El Nino. As I noted in the opening paragraph of the post, I’d seen the phenomenon before but never had the chance to post about it.
Sea surface temperatures for the oceans surrounding Australia are raised (or lowered) in steps in response to the magnitude of the El Nino (or La Nina), and the changes are close to being proportional. Let’s look at it in a different way. If the magnitudes of El Nino events are greater than the magnitudes of an equal number of La Ninas, which they have been, sea surface temperatures for Australian waters should rise, and they did. And since the number of El Nino events has been greater than the number of La Nina events, the El Ninos add even more heat and raise SST that much more. It could be argued, though, that we’re seeing something that’s unique to the data, or that I’m reading more into it than is really there, since it’s not apparent in other data sets. But it is apparent in other data sets.
The annual variations in NINO3.4 SST anomaly are known to effect on global temperatures. I run across this same statement of cause and effect every day, “2008 is cooler than 2007 because of the La Nina,” or something to that effect. So let’s look at the data. The following graph is annual NINO3.4 SST anomaly compared to the annual changes in global temperature. The NINO3.4 data has been scaled by a factor of 0.093.
http://i30.tinypic.com/15rl7qo.jpg
To convert the annual changes in global temperature back to the time-series graph, I used a running total of the annual changes. I also applied the running total to the annual NINO3.4 data anomalies at the same time. They correlate very well over the term of the data, with a minor variance prior to 1910.
http://i30.tinypic.com/24lpnhd.jpg
It’s remarkable how that works. I posted about the short-term and long-term relationship between ENSO and global temperature here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/05/annual-and-long-term-impacts-of-el.html
Now, if there was only a documented correlation between changes in solar irradiance and ENSO…
Regards.
SS: Sorry Steve, although we have found you capable of good work, none is in evidence in this thread.
PCA investigations of a ‘Global Temperature'(albeit not an infeasible ICA) comprised of solar forcing, ENSO, and all remaining influence granted as anthropogenic have repeatedly assigned no more than 10% causation as assignably due to CO2, from any source.
If you have a point to make, a few paragraphs ought to be sufficient.
Aaron Edmonds – this is what I can’t understand – according to the Met Perth has had above average rainfall to august. Most of the wheat belt towns are registering around 50mm short of the average 250mm approx. I suppose it depends on how far east you go. Southern Cross and Merredin both had above average rainfall during july.
janama,
That’s right. According to the bom site pretty much the whole wheat belt of WA has had between 1 and 4 inches of rain in the last month.[July]
Maybe their rainfall records are as good as their AGW or tide predictions.
Smaller red square around Australia (10-45S, 105-165E)
The following plots shows monthly chlorophyll a from late 1997 to December 2007 (black line) and monthly SSTs from mid 2002 to February 2008. Note how the ANNUAL AREA under the black line (average chorophyll therefore average cyanobacterial productivity) has risen markedly over the 5-year period 2003 – 2007 while over the same period there has been minimal change in maximum daytime summer SSTs or minimum daytime winter SSTs.
http://reason.gsfc.nasa.gov/OPS/cgi-bin/Giovanni/Giovanni_cgi.pl?west=105&north=-10&east=165&south=-45&type=3%23Time+Plot+%28point+or+area+averaging%29&Product_A=0%23%23%23SeaWiFS+Chlorophyll+a+concentration&Product_B=5%23%23%23Aqua+Sea+Surface+Temperature+%2811+micron+day%29&landocean=landocean&b_year=1997&b_month=September&e_year=2008&e_month=February&end_date=2008%2F02%2F29&data_limit=126&cbar=cpre&cmin=&cmax=&tpbar=tpdyn&tpmin=&tpmax=&tpint=&asc_res=1.0&global_cfg=.%2Fglobal.cfg.pl&data_sys=mpcomp&pid=ocean&action=Generate+Plot
Larger blue square around Australia (0-55S, 95-175E)
The following plots shows monthly chlorophyll a from late 1997 to December 2007 (black line) and monthly SSTs from mid 2002 to February 2008. Note how the ANNUAL AREA under the black line (average chorophyll a therefore average cyanobacterial productivity) has risen markedly over the 5-year period 2003 – 2007 while over the same period there has been a downward trend in maximum daytime summer SSTs and a slight downward trend in minimum daytime winter SSTs.
http://reason.gsfc.nasa.gov/OPS/cgi-bin/Giovanni/Giovanni_cgi.pl?west=95&north=0&east=175&south=-55&type=3%23Time+Plot+%28point+or+area+averaging%29&Product_A=0%23%23%23SeaWiFS+Chlorophyll+a+concentration&Product_B=5%23%23%23Aqua+Sea+Surface+Temperature+%2811+micron+day%29&landocean=landocean&b_year=1997&b_month=September&e_year=2008&e_month=February&end_date=2008%2F02%2F29&data_limit=126&cbar=cpre&cmin=&cmax=&tpbar=tpdyn&tpmin=&tpmax=&tpint=&asc_res=1.0&global_cfg=.%2Fglobal.cfg.pl&data_sys=mpcomp&pid=ocean&action=Generate+Plot
Now, admittedly I’m having a little mysterious trouble getting the good Jennifer to post my stuff or maybe simply understand just what I’m on about.
Strangely, a difficulty not experienced by various scientists now getting excited about the possible emergence of the fabled global CO2 fertilization effect which, it has often been claimed (including as recently as just last year) has never been observed:
Denman, K.L. et al. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis – Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Solomon, E. et al.) 499 – 587. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 2007)
So here we are in this very cool August 2008, after 18 months of declining global temperatures.
Regardless of what your personal flavour of Denial Toothpaste may be this week, there is still some little matters, which won’t go away, of a chicken and an egg…..
And so, in a spirit of loving forgiveness, I give you – the purple square (5N- 60S, 95-175E):
http://reason.gsfc.nasa.gov/OPS/cgi-bin/Giovanni/Giovanni_cgi.pl?west=95&north=5&east=175&south=-60&type=3%23Time+Plot+%28point+or+area+averaging%29&Product_A=0%23%23%23SeaWiFS+Chlorophyll+a+concentration&Product_B=5%23%23%23Aqua+Sea+Surface+Temperature+%2811+micron+day%29&landocean=landocean&b_year=1997&b_month=September&e_year=2008&e_month=February&end_date=2008%2F02%2F29&data_limit=126&cbar=cpre&cmin=&cmax=&tpbar=tpdyn&tpmin=&tpmax=&tpint=&asc_res=1.0&global_cfg=.%2Fglobal.cfg.pl&data_sys=mpcomp&pid=ocean&action=Generate+Plot
Bob; I’m glad you linked to McIntyre’s discussion of the ‘Bucket’ case; this has always intriqued me because the AGW crew have been furious with the 40’s dip in temp as it contradicts the effect of the linear increase in CO2 and its monotonic connotations for temp; to overcome the mid-century decline the global dimming hilarity was espoused; the Bucket case added a further dimension of hilarity to this because if the temps actually hadn’t dropped as per the Bucket case then global dimming was rubbish; such is the illogic of the orthodoxy.
You have stated that the PDO is a residual of the ENSO; but apart from the quest for causality does this matter? By this I mean, does it matter whether the 20thC was dominated by a pattern of ENSO which over that period produced a statistical effect, the PDO, which could be summarised as being 2 +ve’s and one -ve. Or are you saying that the PDO pattern, which has gone msm, being picked up in this week’s edition of New Scientist, is not a true representation of 20thC climate? In this respect I note the SST are not on all fours with the land temp, although FIG 2 shows some consistency with the traditional PDO climate shifts.
Steve Short; the latest edition of Australasian Science, vol 29, no 7, features an article by Peter Pollard who notes that a parasitic/symbiotic recycling relationship between river/creek/dam viruses and bacteria based on dissolved organic carbon is possibly the source of the missing link, or shortfall, in the amount of CO2 returned to the atmosphere by natural processes. Pollard suggests that every kilometre of river produces 1/2 tonne of hereto unsourced CO2 per day. How many kilometres of rivers are there?
To those so concerned about WA rainfall. The “to July” figures will show good rain – it was about average (which is way aove average for what we have been getting for the past decade). It’s just that we have had around 28mm since July ended. Which is bad, as we get 3 months of solid rain in the SW of WA, and August is currently not raining. Nor is there any sign of it in the near future (It may rain a bit on Monday but clear skies seem to be continuing) If it carries on there will be serious consequences.
Stev” “To a diehard ‘lukewarmer’ such as myself”
I really think that luke is big an ugly enough to take care of his own heating problems
Oooops Sorry that’s baaaaad
Cohenite: The PDO has its uses. It helps explain regional precipitation patterns, fishing productivity, etc., and people have latched onto the idea that if the PDO is positive, global temperatures tend to rise and vice versa. But the primary reason for the PDO sign (positive or negative) and for that rise and fall in global temperature is ENSO. More specifically, the numbers, signs, and magnitudes of ENSO events.
My complaint about the PDO is that it does not represent SST for the North Pacific, just the ENSO component. The PDO cannot be used to estimate the contributions that the THC/MOC-induced swings in North Pacific SST have on Northern Hemisphere and global temperatures, where a residual index similar to the AMO could. That’s why I’ve been illustrating and promoting the North Pacific Residual, which is calculated in the same simple way as the AMO.
##
Steve Short, two suggestions: The first, please find another way to display your data. It takes at least 60 seconds for the graphs to load. I’ve clicked on your NASA links in the past so that they’ll open in a separate window, and on some occasions, they hadn’t opened after 5 minutes. If graphs don’t display instantly, people assume the links are broken and go off to something else. Also, for your discussions, you’ll probably need to download the data and create comparative graphs between geographic areas and graphs of annual anomalies.
Second, for the average visitor here, your discussion has to be in terms they can grasp. Chlorophyll and cyanobacterial productivity mean nothing to most people. Your discussion needs to describe how your data complements or contradicts a hypothesis like AGW. It needs to be basic, at least in the beginning until the reader can comprehend what you’re discussing.
Regards.
Hey Cohenite. FYI, there is no mystery to where all the extra CO2 comes from – this has been mainstream science for decades.
There is plenty of aerobic decomposition (fermentation) on the continents, most of the released methane gets aerobically converted to CO2 and there is the ‘Dark Decay’ of the oceans. I could spell it all out in mind numbing detail if you insisted but it is just a distraction at this stage.
The main game is: what has been driving the global weather over (at the very, very least least) the last half of the decade 1998 – 2008? What does this mean for the next 5 years, the next decade etc?
Are we all fated to have this quasi-religious, post-modernist AGW catastrophism rammed down our throats and those of our kids and their kids for generations to come? I’d rather drain the Lagavulin, smoke a block of hash and cut my wrists right now.
Is it the Sun?
Is it the lack of sunspots/a surfeit of cosmic rays?
Is it just the ineffable foibles of Bob’s subtle ‘whims-of-the-Gods’ ENSO/PDO/NPR/volcanos etc inter-relationships?
Is there simply no sensitivity at all to CO2? Not likely said the old grey-whiskered Badger.
Is it the long-awaited, predicted and scientifically reasonable CO2 fertilization feedback effect on the oceans’ vast biomass of CO2-consuming cyanobacteria, albeit also driven by the (literally) ‘shit-loads’ of nitrogen compounds the human race is also pumping into the oceans – thereby shifting sea surface albedos, reducing evaporation rates and troposphere relative humidities (ringing any bells here, bros)?
As I’ve noted before, very unfortunate term that – ‘lukewarmer’ eh Jan? Not to worry mate – you’re not the naughtiest person around here by a long, long shot.
Bob
I take your points. Agreed. In a very deep irony (strictly non-Socratic of course 😉 that is precisely why I submitted these graphs to Jennifer last Saturday in an article.
Didn’t like it. Too obscure, too long, too many graphs milady said (although about as long and about as many graphs as you routinely get away with yourself yer honner). But milady in a rush, no time.
Undeterred, I rewrote the article to make the message clear as daylight, cut the graphs down to three and humbly submitted it to her again on Tuesday. Even supplied a few contrite explanatory notes ex libris.
A brief one line acknowledgement yesterday morning then silence.
So what is a poor wee chimbley sweep to do in the face of ‘she who must be obeyed’? Gave it my best shot yer honner.
A block of hash seems a bit self-indulgent; I prefer my intoxicants with labels depicting heather and heath, but each to his own.
Arjay (and others), the invitation still stands.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/20/climate-change-q-and-a-seminar-2-friday-22-aug-natural-vs-human-causes/
Who would have thought Socrates was so forward thinking?
So, if CO2 variability is biogenic in large part, then the spikes should be max in wee hours and min in late afternoon, no?
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/Products/CarbonDioxide/
I would say the theory has a few bugs to work out.
“So, if CO2 variability is biogenic in large part, then the spikes should be max in wee hours and min in late afternoon, no?”
Another naughty boy who doesn’t want to do his homework. When Mistress Marohasy is wielding the ruler – you’ve got no choice.
Or you could cheat and look on CCNet – Benny is a little more, shall we say, ‘forward thinking’.
Wikipedia:
Samizdat (Russian: самиздат) was the clandestine copying and distribution of government-suppressed literature or other media in Soviet-bloc countries. Copies were made a few at a time, and those who received a copy would be expected to make more copies. This was often done by handwriting or typing.
This grassroots practice to evade officially imposed censorship was fraught with danger as harsh punishments were meted out to people caught possessing or copying censored materials.
Vladimir Bukovsky defined it as follows: “I myself create it, edit it, censor it, publish it, distribute it, and [may] get imprisoned for it.”
All files and graphs (.jpg) (including Bob’s squares) now available on Steve’s Blogizdat:
https://www.yousendit.com/download/Q01FY05nMm1ENlJjR0E9PQ
The naughty rumour that there is a file therein called ‘One Day in the Life of Ivan Denialovich” is vigorously denied.
However, if one should suddenly disappear from this place……..
Steve; what’s with the paranoia? With your report; albedo increases with the spread of the blooms but evaporation concurrently decreases, and the lapse rate is enhanced, I presume you mean increased, because of the increase of low-level clouds caused by nucleation from emitted dimethylsulfide; so does that mean the low-level clouds accentuate the temp gradient above them by cooling below? And how can sea level albedo increase with cloud-cover increasing above them? The blooms are mitigating CO2 increase but reducing evaporation and therefore increasing drought over the MDB; does that mean luke is right? Please say no.
Cohenite
The net effects of cyanobacterial blooming are ALL in the direction of cooling, particularly of the lower atmosphere viz:
(1) Increased albedo of the sea surface wherever the bloom is dominated by coccolithophores – principally a species called Emiliana huxleyi.
(2) Increased albedo above the sea surface due to nucleation of low level cloud.
(3) Reduced evaporation due the formation of mono- and multilayers. This reduces relative humidity (RH).
(4) Reduced relative humidity due to the release of latent heat by nucleated low level cloud.
You probably know as well as I do that:
(1) orthodox AGW theory cannot explain why there has been no significant global increase in RH; and
(2) the GCMs perform particularly badly in the way they underestimate low level cloud over the oceans for a given SST. There was a big review on this just last year!
Now getting back to drought over the MDB. (Wenju) Cai and Cowan (2006), beloved of Luke suggested that the drying trend over the MDB (not gone over statistically by any ‘David Stockwells’ of course) was caused by increasingly lower SSTs over the last decade in the tropical waters to the north of Australia (which is a fact). But no one here had the nous to pick up on that little aspect and run with it! A little example of the intimidatory power of the ‘Luke Effect’?
Now it just so happens that:
(1) the waters around Indonesa and SE Asia have been and are receiving enormous quantities of nitrogen based nutrients (not much effcient sewage treatment up there, mate); and
(2) there is verifiable concurrent increasing cyanobacterial productivity in these waters AND the emergence of two strands (consortia) of bacteria which bloom twice a year (unlike the SH below 30 S) thereby increasing the proportion of the year in which the sea surface is affected.
It just so happens that the conventional AGW establishment science literature does have a few recent papers (last 5 years) on the (to them that is) known rise of global oceanic cyanobacterial primary productivity. But why do you think they are keeping so quiet about it? Their papers are littered with their own denialist ‘contortions’ such as ‘oh but it will increase the atmospheric level of N2O (which is a potent greenhouse gas etc). So far, not a shred of evidence that is occurring. I am happy to provide these mainstream AGW references if you wish.
Basically, they are shit-scared that this ‘CO2 fertilization’ effect (mentioned with scarcely concealed fear and loathing in the IPCC Group 1 2007 report – not that you sceptical lot would have noticed) is the ‘smoking gun’ of the last decade which has started delivering a flat lining in warming and more recently even cooling.
And mate – they are probably right – this could well be the ‘smoking gun’ responsible for what has been happening to the global climate over the last 5 – 10 years i.e. no significant warming and of late, even marked cooling.
It gets even better.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that this effect will do anything but get stronger from here on as the vast ‘crops’ of oceanic bacteria adapt to both warmer ocean waters and increased CO2 and nutrient levels and simply increasingly cool the global atmospheric climate simply by ‘growing faster’!
These blooms cover 1000s of km^2. You can look at them in satellite photographs – they are massive, they are stunningly beautiful, the effects on albedo are obvious.
http://spg.ucsd.edu/Satellite_Projects/Detection_of_phytoplankton_groups/Detection_of_phytoplankton_groups.htm
You know, for a little while there I even thought that Bob T himself (who is undoubtedly an interesting fellow) might even be sharp enough to appreciate that the coupling of increased atmospheric CO2 and increased seawater N nutrient levels to produce enhanced cyanobacterial productivity in near surface layers of the oceans would also produce the weather-moderating effects listed above(particularly in the areas where tropical storms are ‘brewed’). There is noting about these effects I detail above (and have been doing repeatedly for many months) that is incompatible with his study of ENSO, PDO etc – indeed I suspect they are linked.
This is no SIF (Single Issue Fantasy). I’ve been doing my homework on it for about two years.
If Jennifer could just stop her hectic political whirl of a life just a tiny bit to think more carefully about this she might even realise she is ‘cutting off her nose to spite her face’ here!
Ironically it is always us sceptics who accuse the AGW warmers of not really understanding the biospheric environment they profess to be constantly hugging. Hypocrisy!
Just because it involves that hated molecule CO2, the sceptical camp here goes into an all over blue funk when some slightly off the wall, sceptical scientist comes along and has the downright temerity to say ‘Well yes, Jim it IS THE CO2, but NOT AS WE KNOW IT’.
And don’t any single dolt poke his nose in here and say he never knew that cyanobacteria (algae) absorb CO2, fix it as organic carbon and emit O2. If you do I’ll track you down with my hunting knife, cut out and feed your eternally ungrateful lungs to my foxy.
Excellent. I think I’ll name-drop over at the solar post where luke is being obnoxious. As to your paper and graphs, your explanation above greatly assisted; I certainly recommend a formal post by you with a preface along these lines to assist me and my peers in the audience.
Spencer posted a Watts’ site within a year (paper forthcoming) that the seasonal variation and long term trend of Mauna Loa CO2 data in its 13C/12C fraction under an F-Test revealed the variation to be the very same.
To me, this implies the source, the CO2 flux or fluence or fluxion, of both, is one and the same and non-biogenic; in fact, must arise at the SO center of mass on which Bob has focussed.
The AIRS daily and nightly data points are predominately anticorrelated with a biogenic origin of CO2.
The seasonal curve of CO2 concentration reaches minimum in October, before NH detritus can decompose and SH utilisation can peak but when SO SST are at mininimum.
Simply bumping a biogenic sink from 700 to 800 or 1000 Gtons or more does nothing to mitigate the preceding.
The oceanic partial pressure of CO2 determines its atmospheric abundance, and the SO signal dominates.
Gary Gulrud:
“Simply bumping a biogenic sink from 700 to 800 or 1000 Gtons or more does nothing to mitigate the preceding”
Unfortunately for Gary, this has essentially nothing per se to do with CO2 sinks (or sources – Gary’s previous hot headed misconception).
Furthermore, I couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss whether the CO2 is natural or anthropogenic (and as a many times published isotope geochemist too 😉
But it’s nice to know I’m not the only arrogant bastard around here (;-)!
Thanks for trotting out the Jeff Glassman line. Just so happens I broadly agree with Jeff.
Just a pity that, as a physicist, Jeff has absolutely no empathy with the biology though (and consequently is utterly ignorant of the enormous body of biogeochemical oceanographic literature in that regard). There is a downside to being a one-discipline wonder, Gary.
As carefully noted, it is the indirect biophysical effects (listed above) of the trends towards widespread, increased oceanic cyanobacterial growth which affect oceanic climate/weather. I carefully listed those effects.
Back on track, the marked trends towards widespread, increased oceanic cyanobacterial growth in the last decade have of course not gone unobserved.
For example, Gregg et al. (2005) Recent trends in global ocean chlorophyll. Geophys. Res. Lett. Vol. 32, 1-5, found that over the period 1998 – 2003 the trend in global ocean chlorophyll a was +4.13% using a maximum 560,247 data points per year. This trend was significant at the P<0.05 level.
Gregg et al. (2005) also found that over the same period, the trend in total coastal zones chlorophyll a was +10.35% using a maximum of 51,979 data points per year. This trend was also significant at the P<0.05 level.
Over the same period, a very weak trend of only +0.90% in open ocean chlorophyll a was found using a maximum of 530,579 data points per year but this trend is not considered statistically significant.
There are good reasons to conclude that the above trends for 1998 – 2003 published by Gregg et al (2005) are conservative (underestimates) as it is well known that measurements using the SeaWiFS algorithm underestimate total cyanobacterial populations, especially for coastal waters.
Reilly et al. 1998. Ocean color chlorophyll algorithms for SeaWiFS. J. Geophys. Res. Vol. 103, 24,937-24,953.
While the subject of AIRS has been raised – a bit of AIRS stuff from my archives for Gary:
Consensus is that, overall, data sets show interesting regional and inter annual variation:
http://www.nasa-news.org/resources/may08_workshop/Fetzer_AGU_NEWS_05_2008.pdf
But really getting into it, could you (or Bob) explain to me why the vis#1 signal (a function of aerosol loading and surface pressure) has always tended (known since 04/05) to lead the SST by approximately 30 days when the latter is in phase with ENSO? This was one of my ‘kick off’ observations couple of years back.
http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:fU1zZmfUYmAJ:www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/Science/ResearcherResources/MeetingArchives/TeamMeeting20040330/2004_03_30/Aumann.climate.applications.1.ppt+AIRS+day+night&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9
(NB: better to download the Power Point presentation – not the html)
Noting that the coupled carbon climate models used in IPCC AR4 do NOT include any effects of nutrient limitation OR air pollution (!) here are some recent mainstream AGW references on the dreaded CO2 fertilization effect I’ve been rabbiting on about.
Canadell et al (2007) Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity and efficiency of natural sinks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol 104, 18866-18870
Thornton et al. (2007) Carbon-nitrogen cycle couplingon land model response to CO2 fertilization and climate variability. Global Biogeochem. Cycles. Vol 21, doi: 10.1029/2006GB002868
Reay et al. (1008) Global nitrogen deposition and carbon sinks. Nature Geoscience Vol 1, 430-437
Duce et al. (2008) Impacts of anthropogenic nitrogen on the open ocean. Science Vol 320, 893-897
Hmmm – it’s been quite an eventful week!
First off, with a bit of help from Luke (thanks, Mate) I discover the (it’s not going over with the IPA apparatchiki) ‘Very Naughty Jenni Effect’.
Then I discover the trendy (I’m so totally clear and your so utterly obscure) ‘Bob T Effect’.
Then Patric B. steps in and make me slop my coffee badly into my keyboard with his rib-tickling ‘Village Square Effect’.
And now, on this bitterly cold Saturday morning, I now find myself sitting in a cupboard talking animatedly to myself (aka ranting).
Light bulb! Hey, I think I just (re-)discovered the ‘Graeme Bird Effect’.
Ah, life is so deep, so rich, so rewarding, blah, blah, mumble, mumble, ……
I think this ‘dispute’ between Bob, with Gary and others lending support, and Steve is at the heart of this AGW gerfuffle; Bob utilises ENSO and its proxies/manifestations (good old PDO) to explain SST and global temp;
http://i30.tinypic.com/15rl7qo.jpg
I should have used that graph in the post about base periods, but never mind; in Bob’ scenario CO2 levels are a function of ENSO driven SST levels and AGW is just a synaptic spasm in Hansen’s fevered brow.
Steve is an admitted lukewarmer (as Jan says a better description is required) and adamant anti-AGW catastrophist who believes the Miscolczian-like -ve feedback of blooms in their various configurations not only mitigate CO2 effect but have causal correlation with ENSO.
Is that a fair summary boys? BTW, isn’t that AIRS article from NASA an indictment of the concept of uniform CO2 mixing?
Cohenite: What dispute do I have with Steve Short? My beliefs about AGW have never entered this thread. My guest post was about the SSTs of the oceans surrounding Australia. That’s all. I also replied to Steve’s initial comment. If anyone is reading more into that post and my comments, that’s their error.
There is absolutely no dispute whatsever Cohenite.
I read everything Bob’s writes with very great interest and (I hope) generally ‘get’ what he is saying.
As I noted, there are no fundamental differences between what I am on about and the effects Bob is teasing out and they may well be subtly linked – especially over recent decades.
The major problem for me is that satellite-based scanning of the globe at various wavelength etc., which is yielding an enormous amount of extra detailed information of great value (everyone agree?), and which provides in large part the basis for my arguments (although I also have a large library on in situ calibrations), is only a relatively recent development, historically.
In fact, I owe Bob an apology for ‘busting into’ his thread with some radically different ‘angles’.
Hopefully now that he knows the circumstances which led to it (i.e. simple refusal to post up scientifically significant and highly relevant non-political material even after it had been submitted, amended and submitted again, all in good faith), he will forgive me?
All I can say in my defense is that:
(1) In response to Bob’s comments, I did make on this thread essentially the same amended material freely available for download elsewhere, with numerous accompanying graphs AND ALSO Benny Peiser (quickly) published a similar article submitted by me in toto on CCNet. I won’t elaborate on the content of the flood of email responses I’ve received as a result other than to say I’m learning even more from in the NH at a rate of knots! Somehow, outside of these poor old Antipodes, it seems people in the NH are, once again, a little more ‘on the ball’. Sad, but true.
(2) In my view, there are very likely strong mechanistic links between the outcomes of Bob’s analyses (briefly noting that most of his historic data is based on shipboard measurements) and the biophysical effects I am referring-to – especially from the later 20th century to now.
I’d be very grateful if you could address or comment on, the specific technical question I put above Bob, if you wouldn’t mind. Thanks.
Regards
Steve
It’s tough being a layman amidst the boffins.
Bob, I did put inverted commas around the word ‘dispute’; let me refine it further; you seemed to be saying that CO2 variation is a product of ENSO and its effects on, amongst all climate indices, SST. Steve seemed to be saying that CO2 levels, from whatever source, stimulate bloom growth, which in turn impacts on ENSO. Incidentally Bob, what are your views on AGW? I think it stinks, in a Lomborg sort of way, so I guess I tend to interpret what I read through that prism.
Maybe I was just looking too hard for a chicken and egg situation here and some logical symmetry. To obtain some absolution for verballing everyone, I’ll just go out the back and write out Hurst 100 times.
Steve’s only point in all this is another source of cooling? Where’s the thorzine?
Thank you, cohenite, for the alert. You’re righteous.
Steve Short: In your August 23, 11:57 AM, you ask me to address a technical question. Please restate your question or identify the comment by date and time that contains the question. Thanks. I’d hate to spend time answering what I think is your question, only to later discover that it’s not the question you wanted answered.
Cohenite, a short reply to your question about my views on AGW: IMO, the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases was originally overestimated by early simple atmospheric GCMs that failed to properly consider natural variables, and, since that time, the role of greenhouse gases have been overstated. Additionally, IMO, natural variables can be used to account for most if not all of the temperature variations (increases and decreases) that are presently attributed to anthropogenic sources by the IPCC.
Environmentalism not science drives climatology. Unfortunately, that is not likely to change.
Thanks Bob
My question is:
Could you please comment on why you think the vis#1 signal – which over the sea primarily responds to low level clouds, please refer for a description to e.g.:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1196050
might lead SST by approximately 30 days when the latter is claimed to be in phase with ENSO?
http://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/Science/ResearcherResources/MeetingArchives/TeamMeeting20040330/2004_03_30/Aumann.climate.applications.1.ppt.
Steve Short: I don’t have access to the linked paper, just the abstract. I’ll presume in the following that the SST you’re refering to in your question is a local or regional one.
My question back to you is, Does the cloud change precede the local SST change or does it precede the change in NINO3.4 SST?
You include as part of your question that the local SST is “claimed to be in phase with ENSO.” If you’re refering to my post here, I did put a time frame on the response of local SSTs to ENSO events, “The time lags between an ENSO event and the response of SST for Australian waters appear to be on the order of a few months to a year.” I would think that Australian atmospheric responses to ENSO events would be faster than local oceanic responses.
Hi Bob
The cloud change precedes the local SST change.
Here is the link to the Power Point presentation again. I do not know why it didn’t work before. The way this blog handles urls is often a bit dodgy.
Note that the paper it deals only with the tropical oceans for the period October 2003 – February 2004.
http://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/Science/ResearcherResources/MeetingArchives/TeamMeeting20040330/2004_03_30/Aumann.climate.applications.1.ppt
I have also posted some graphs for you here:
https://rcpt.yousendit.com/599986147/2495ce602449d8c8c0a4196e7587ce00
So long as scattering effects are primary, as applies in the lower atmosphere, the value of the Optical Thickness (Extinction Coefficient) is a function of the size of cloud droplets (or aerosol particles).
Note from the downloadable graphs that Optical Thickness often rises while SSTs are still falling.
Graph#4 shows very clearly that the leading edges of rises in Optical Thickness as measured at 865 and 869 nm tightly match most closely, or only very slightly lag behind, the rise in Chlorophyll a.
While correlation does not necessarily equal causation, I believe these graphs might be sufficient to convince you that the leading edges of rises in Optical Thickness (= Extinction Coefficient) over the tropical oceans correlate most closely with the leading edges of rises in Chlorophyll a.
Hence it is likely that some agent associated with early cyanobacterial blooming is the principle cause of cloud nucleation, whereas cloud maturation leads to lower SSTs and so on.
So the answer to the chicken and egg question of what comes first? Cyanobacterial blooming or lower SSTs and mature clouds is probably – cyanobacterial blooming.
By definition this means that the effects of cyanobacteria as a key driver of oceanic climate simply cannot be ignored.
The consensus seems to be that the PDO really is just the mid-latitude ‘debris’ left by the previous two or three El Ninos or La Ninas.
If entering the ‘climate drivers equation’ is now the increasing activity of tropical (or extra-tropical) ocean cyanobacterial productivity (driven by the CO2 fertilization effect including the effect of the anthropogenic nitrogen discharges to coastal oceans), then what can we say about the strength of future El Ninos and La Ninas and the predictability of the PDO?
Just in case someone was tempted to accuse me of ‘hanging my hat’ on (sea surface) measurements of Chlorophyll a alone.
Diffuse Attenuation Coefficient at 490 nm measures absorption of blue light (490 nm) in the top 50 m or so of seawater (largely) by suspended biomass.
https://download.yousendit.com/SmpzZHl0dENKV00wTVE9PQ
Very good Steve; so,contrary to what Gary says, Gaia is a million sq klms of bacteria; gavin will be chuffed; the little mothers (a term from Greg Bear’s novel, VITALS) moderate both temp and ENSO; CO2 is just a food. But historically CO2 follows temp; so the cycle is a boom and bust one; the little mothers eat the CO2 and produce their cooling; the CO2 runs out and the dieback commences till the cooling mechanisms are reduced sufficiently so that heating resumes and CO2 increases follow, fueling another expansion; or does some other factor produce heating with the lm’s then producing the cooling? Either way, CO2 is just food, albeit of the ‘god’. How metaphysical.
Cohenite
Yes, getting metaphysical, isn’t all ‘life’ (including our own) a boom and bust situation?
However, getting back to a more sober state of mind I don’t want to go overboard with this.
Bob – I spent a lot of time over the weekend doing the same plots as I have been making and putting up for download using your NINO3.4 or NINO 3, or NINO 4 and even NINO1&2 zones.
It just doesn’t work and I want to be totally out front about that!
When one narrows down the zone under consideration from a wider tropical latitude band e.g. 30 S to 30 N or 15 S to 15 N to specific NINO/PDO-related bands like 5 S – 5 N (NINO 3.4. 3 and 4) or 0 – 10 S (NINO 1&2) it just all falls over. The rising leading edges of the Chlorophyll a and/or seawater Diffuse Attenuation at 490 nm plots simply no longer lead or correlate with rising atmospheric Aerosol Optical Thickness at 865 or 869 nm.
So the implication is that while, over the oceans in a broader sense my thesis may still be correct as a generalization, whatever happens in the NINO zones is driven by something completely different e.g. massive upwelling, currents etc.
Got to go away and think about this some more (obviously)! Logic dictates that what I will do sometime soon is check my plots EXCLUDING the NINO zones.
Ah, so the Great Pacific Climate Change lives to fight another day.
Steve Short: The apparent effects fall over if you vary the latitude bands from 15N&S or 30N&S to 5N&S or vice versa, because you’re no longer looking at the same data. A good example of this would be to examine what happens to the NINO area signals if you were to widen those latitudes. Wider areas are impacted by different currents, different THC/MOC upwelling areas, etc. And greater areas tend to dampen variations, though there are exceptions.
Segmenting the data longitudinally per hemisphere illustrates that there are differences in that aspect, too.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/07/preliminary-post-mid-latitude-south.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/07/preliminary-post-mid-latitude-north.html
Hi Bob
The effects I am talking about are the plots of the SeaWiFS and Aqua satellite sensing for:
Sea surface Chlorophyll a
Diffuse Attenuation at 490 nm (to depth approx 50 m)
Atmospheric Aerosol Optical Thickness at 865 or 869 nm
which I have posted (serially) for download. Over entire latitude bands e.g. 15 S – 15 N, 0 – 30 N, 30 N – 60 N. 0 – 15 S, 0 – 30 S, 30 S – 60 S there are indeed very distinct effects (inter-relationships) which I have been attempting to describe and discuss transparently.
SST (day time or night time 11 micron) plots overlaid on the above do partially correlate with late stage peaks in Aerosol Optical Thickness (AOT) at 865 or 869 nm (Extinction Coeffcient) because wavelengths respond to cloud droplet size (or aerosol paricle size).
But as you may know, I am talking about the rising leading edges of AOT plots which relate to early stage cloud formation (i.e. nucleation – presumably via DMS, isoprenes etc emitting by cyanobacterial blooming).
I have this morning acknowledged these effects I have been talking about above and previously are not apparent within the NINO zones but these are of course very narrow latitude and moderately narrow longitude bands
I have looked at your SST plots but cannot relate them to what I am on about.
Please explain your point(s) a little more clearly. Thanks.
Steve Short: Hopefully, this will be clearer. Different areas of the oceans, even those adjacent to one another, have different natural forces acting on them that vary on different time scales: daily, monthly, seasonally, annually, and decadally.
Further detail: Thermohaline circulation or meridional overturning circulation (THC/MOC) act on different parts of the oceans, at different times of the year, at different amplitudes and frequencies. Different ocean areas can include different ocean currents. Ocean currents sometimes mix and sometimes stratify the signals from different parts of the oceans, but since they, too, can change with season, with wind direction and velocity, and with changes in THC/MOC, they also create variations in SST. To complicate things further, variations in SST also impact the other variables. Wind velocity and direction will vary with SST, THC/MOC can vary with temperature, etc. Then add atmospheric pressure to the mix…
To try to simplify things again: With respect to SSTs of adjacent ocean areas having significant differences, the Eastern Mid-Latitude South Pacific is a good example. In the following graph, I took that part of the South Pacific (20-45S, 70-140W) and divided it into smaller sections by 10 deg longitude bands and plotted the SST time series for each. 70-80W would include the waters off the South American coast, which is a THC/MOC upwelling area. 130-140W is farther west, out toward the middle of the South Pacific.
http://i35.tinypic.com/oril2g.jpg
Note how the majority of the curves that are distant from the South American Coast (90-140W) all follow the same basic trends. Some have greater variations; some have smaller. If you were to plot a single data set that included only those areas, the resulting curve would be the average. This would dampen the outlying signals.
When you get close to the South American Coast (80-90W & 70-80W) the curves vary drastically from the others. This is a result of the THC/MOC upwelling taking place near South America. If you were to now add those areas to the single data set, they would increase the variability of the curve.
I hope that helps.
Yes, I understand all that – but at the end of the day you are, are you not, invariably producing relatively simplistic plots of SST residuals (albeit in various regions) against relatively long time scales.
Getting into THC and MOC etc – one might ask where are the real world physical parameters which reflect and hence give solidity to those phenomena, plotted on the same SST residual versus time plots so we can truly see how it all works?
Isn’t this all just speculative about cycles, imaginary or real, gross mechanisms etc if you only continually plot essentially one parameter against time?
I don’t deny the possible reality of what you are on about but it does seem like ‘building castles in the sand’ to me.
On the other hand I am co-plotting, down to sub-annual timescales up to 3 or even perhaps 4 well defined physical parameters relating to both the sea surface (e.g. SST, chlorophyll a, surface leaving radiance), the immediate subsurface (e.g. diffuse attenuation of 490 nm light to approx 50 m depth) and atmospheric aerosol size e.g. AOT at 865 and 890 nm – all measured with modern, state of the art surface telemetry and remote sensing methods and simply looking for mechanistic links between these parameters on sub-annual timescales.
I am not gainsaying the possible validity of either of our approaches – but it is clear we are talking radically different languages here. Best to leave it that way, I think, at least for the time being.