In reality you show and “fit” nothing because you won’t use data. You speculate, nothing more.

Also, the multidecadal low frequency component of ENSO has been known for decades and it has NOT been known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
http://i43.tinypic.com/33agh3c.jpg

You wrote, “…the term PDO is in general use in the way I mean.”

And it’s confusing when used that way, especially when you do not qualify it. Many papers refer to the basin-wide phenomenon as Pacific Decadal Variability (PDV) so not to confuse it with the PDO.

You wrote, “However the increased ocean surface area available for heating is only there because the clouds moved more poleward simultaneously reducing global albedo.”

The “simultaneously reducing global albedo” is another assumption on your part.

You replied, “And I’m considering ALL the global oceans so the mid latitude jets are included in my proposition with perhaps more effect than just the ITCZ.”

Show me the data, Stephen. You speculate without relying on data.

You replied, “The rising albedo trend dates back to the late 90′s when the jets started moving back equatorward again though I first noticed in 2000.”

Again, show the data, Stephen. That fact that you noticed something proves nothing.

You wrote, “I don’t think we need to postulate any significant change in the size of the cloud bands when they shift latitudinally beyond normal seasonal variability.”

If you want your hypotheses to be taken seriously, you need to document all, Stephen.

You replied, “Likewise the precise change in DSR is not yet available.”

The NCEP/DOE Reanalysis-2 Surface Downward Shortwave Radiation Flux (dswrfsfc) dataset is reasonable in my view, Stephen. I’ve used it in a number of posts. I think you’d be surprised with what they present for the variations in global surface DSR over the past three decades. It’s available through the KNMI Climate Explorer as a linked External dataset.

You wrote, “The area where we do disagree is that I think you see the Trade Winds change first, then the cloud changes, then ocean surface temperatures and you don’t yet accept any seperate causation for the initial Trade Wind changes.”

Wrong. I do accept that there is a separate cause for the changes in the trade winds, Stephen. When did I ever write that there wasn’t? I just don’t waste time trying to speculate about what caused the trade winds to shift.

Also, the order in which you present is a bit skewed, Stephen. The warm water in the Pacific Warm Pool shifts to the east along the equatorial Pacific in response to the lessening and reversal of the trade winds. The eastward shift in convection and cloud cover are responses to the change in location of the warm water. Also, when you can illustrate (with data) the initiator of the change in the trade winds for each ENSO event, I might find your speculations credible. The initiators can and do vary per ENSO event, FYI.

You wrote, “If just one of those phenomena goes substantially (not just slightly) out of line then my propositions may be falsified but unless that happens I’m on a roll.”

Since you provide no documentation and write in generalities, your speculations can’t be falsified. You know that. I know that. And when data proves you wrong, you have been known to shift your presentation to different timescales.

You wrote in an earlier comment, “Simple observation is all that is required to notice that but the full significance has never been appreciated.”

Maybe the effects of the shift of the ITCZ have been studied and have been found to have no significance in the ways you assume. Have you checked? I know the Atlantic ITCZ shifts in response to ENSO events have been studied, Stephen, and those impacts have been documented. I don’t recall whether they confirm or disprove your speculations, though.

Hmm. Did you notice that you haven’t used “angle of incidence” in your past three comments?

We see more cosmic rays AND a cooling troposphere AND increasing ozone AND more negative oscillations AND equatorward shifting jets AND a warming stratosphere AND increasing albedo when the sun is quiet.

We see less cosmic rays AND a warming troposphere AND decreasing ozone AND more positive oscillations AND poleward shifting jets AND a cooling stratosphere AND decreasing albedo when the sun is active.

Just too many ‘coincidences’ in that all those observed changes from one regime to the other began during the late 90s and are currently intensifying.

If just one of those phenomena goes substantially (not just slightly) out of line then my propositions may be falsified but unless that happens I’m on a roll.

The oceanic oscillations nonetheless operate independently in the background and can either resist or supplement the effects from above as regards the jetstream and ITCZ positioning.

So to simply say that more cosmic rays causes the negative oscillations is a bit of a stretch but it is one possibility provided it can be shown that it is the cosmic ray effect that influences the temperature of the stratosphere.

Personally I think it more likely to be an effect of the solar wind with the matter of cosmic rays just a side effect.

Svensmark’s ideas rely on cosmic rays causing cloudiness changes in the troposphere but that doesn’t fit the bill because we need something that affects the intensity of the polar oscillations in order to push the jets and the ITCZ around thereby affecting global albedo.

Remember this ?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/

The rising albedo trend dates back to the late 90′s when the jets started moving back equatorward again though I first noticed in 2000.

As all those clouds move towards the equator their reflectivity increases, albedo rises, less solar shortwave enters the oceans

Of course it is. However the increased ocean surface area available for heating is only there because the clouds moved more poleward simultaneously reducing global albedo. And I’m considering ALL the global oceans so the mid latitude jets are included in my proposition with perhaps more effect than just the ITCZ.

I don’t think we need to postulate any significant change in the size of the cloud bands when they shift latitudinally beyond normal seasonal variability. Nor do we need to establish precise degrees of latitude, indeed we cannot as yet. Likewise the precise change in DSR is not yet available.

However we do have some surprising numbers in relation to albedo changes and those changes correlate with those latitudinal shifts.

Remember this ?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/

The rising albedo trend dates back to the late 90′s when the jets started moving back equatorward again though I first noticed in 2000.

As all those clouds move towards the equator their reflectivity increases, albedo rises, less solar shortwave enters the oceans

The area where we do disagree is that I think you see the Trade Winds change first, then the cloud changes, then ocean surface temperatures and you don’t yet accept any seperate causation for the initial Trade Wind changes.

I take a step further and attribute those Trade Wind changes to shifts in the global air circulation systems both in intensity and latitudinal positioning.

By doing that I am able to fit the Enso phenomenon into a much longer term global scenario covering the apparent 30/60 year cyclical changes generally referred to as the PDO (I know you disagree with that nomenclature because the PDO is in your words a statistical artifact derived from Enso data but for good or ill the term PDO is in general use in the way I mean) and the changes from Mediaeval Warm Period through the LIA to date.

I did not write or imply that they were.

You wrote, “As for the effect it seems that you agree with me.”

An unfounded assumption on your part. I was simply discussing a better way to conceptualize what you’re proposing.

You continued, “Poleward movement of the cloud bands increases shortwave solar energy into the oceans and equatorward movement reduces it.”

Also an assumption on your part. How many degrees latitude does it vary, Stephen, and during what season? Does the ITCZ total cloud amount decrease or increase in area as it migrates northward or southward? What is the variation in DSR (in Watts/m^2) at the surface caused by the migration of the ITCZ?

You repeated, “It is the changing angle of incidence of solar energy onto the clouds that alters the albedo and thus the net energy flow into the oceans.”

Incorrect. If (BIG IF) there is less cloud cover in the tropics as you propose, it is the increase in ocean surface area that is receiving more DSR that causes the net increase in energy to the tropical oceans. Again, refer to my aperture discussion above.

The clouds are not exclusively seasonally dependent. They shift latitudinally beyond normal seasonal variation. During the LIA the ITCZ and the jets were all nearer the equator than now. During the late 20th century they were all nearer the poles than now.

Simple observation is all that is required to notice that but the full significance has never been appreciated and no adequate measurements have ever been recorded.

As for the effect it seems that you agree with me. Poleward movement of the cloud bands increases shortwave solar energy into the oceans and equatorward movement reduces it. Within the equatorial regions themselves there will be irregularities from region to region such as you correctly describe but the net global energy budget is as I say (and as you say)namely more net warming of the oceans the more poleward the clouds go (reduced albedo) and more net cooling of the oceans the further equatorward (increased albedo)the clouds go.

It is the changing angle of incidence of solar energy onto the clouds that alters the albedo and thus the net energy flow into the oceans.

You missed the reason for my questioning your use of the term, Stephen. If the ITCZ has moved northward (as you constantly claim), this means the total cloud amount over the equatorial oceans has decreased. If there is less cloud cover over the equatorial oceans, there will be more downward shortwave radiation warming them. Think of it as the aperture of a camera, Stephen. A lower f-stop number will open the aperture and admit more light onto the camera sensors. Lower total cloud amount over the tropics allows more sunlight to warm the oceans. Why complicate a discussion with phrases like “…the angle of incidence of solar energy onto the clouds…” when they are seasonally dependent and beyond your means to calculate and document?