Arguments
It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
The skeptic argument...
It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
"The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is a temperature pattern in the Pacific Ocean that spends roughly 20-30 years in the cool phase or the warm phase. In 1905, PDO switched to a warm phase. In 1946, PDO switched to a cool phase. In 1977, PDO switched to a warm phase. In 1998, PDO showed a few cool years. Note that the cool phases seem to coincide with the periods of cooling (1946-1977) and the warm phases seem to coincide with periods of warming (1905-1946, 1977-1998)." (The Reference Frame)
What the science says...
| Select a level... |
Basic
|
Intermediate
|
Advanced
| ||||
| The PDO shows no trend, and therefore the PDO is not responsible for the trend of global warming. | |||||||
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is a climate phenomenon that occurs primarily in the North Pacific Ocean. The “oscillation” happens between warm phases (positive values) and cool phases (negative values) that last anywhere from 10 to 40 years. The phases are associated with changes in sea surface temperatures (SST). While the causes of the PDO are still unknown, the primary effects seem to be changes in northeast Pacific marine ecosystems and a changing jet stream path.
Important to note, however, is that the phases are not set in stone; there are frequently short sets of 1-5 warm years during a cool phase and vice-versa. Secondly, the “warm” and “cool” phases are less descriptive than they would appear. The cool period, for instance, is actually associated with extremely high sea surface temperatures in the Northern Pacific (see image below).
Figure 1: PDO warm phase (left) and cool phase (right). Image courtesy of JISAO.
One way to test this skeptic theory is to plot the Global Temperature Anomaly alongside the PDO Index (shown below). What we find is that although the PDO index appears to influence short-term temperature changes, global temperatures have a distinct upward trend, while the PDO Index does not.
Figure 2: Pacific Decadal Oscillation index (blue, University of Washington) versus Global Temperature Anomaly (Red - GISS Temp). Smoothed data (thicker blue and red lines) and trend lines (thick straight line) are added.
Natural oscillations like PDO simply move heat around from oceans to air and vice-versa. They don't have the ability to either create or retain heat, therefore they're not capable of causing a long-term warming trend, just short-term temperature variations. Basically they're an example of internal variability, not an external radiative forcing. If PDO were responsible for warming the surface, the oceans would be cooling, which is not the case.
These results are expected. The long term warming trend is a result of an energy imbalance caused primarily by an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In contrast, the PDO is an internal process and does not increase or decrease the total energy in the climate system.
Last updated on 16 September 2010 by Nicholas Berini.
Actually, there is no evidence showing we are about to enter a period of cooling (nor was the 70s a period of cooling either
"When I took advanced meteorology classes in 1981 the consensus was that we may be entering into another ice-age."
Please provide evidence that global cooling was the scientific consensus in 1981, because AFAIK that's not true.
"I visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. To label a skeptical scientist a denier is insulting."
"Denier" is not attached to the Holocaust, "Holocaust denier" is. Someone who deniers the theory of evolution is an "evolution denier," and someone who denies AGW theory is a "climate change denier." Don't wrap yourself in the mantle of indignant victimhood over this, it's kinda disrespectful for the actual Holocaust victims.
"Stick to the scientific method, stay objective, don't give in to personal bias, that leads to the dark side."
Sticking to the scientific method will lead you to acceptance of AGW theory. It's not a question of bias, but of evidence - believe me, I'd much rather AGW be false!
As far as UAH vs. GISS goes, why not use both? In fact, why not use all the data: Hadcrut, GISS, UAH and RSS? They may not all show the same temperature exactly, but they all show the same trend, and that's what counts.
Perhaps you should also refer to Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions, which demonstrates that all temperature measures are very similar. Figure 8 in that post renders PDO and even Nino/Nina influences on the long term trends a moot point.
"I hope we agree that the plot presented in post #39 is misleading."
No, we don't agree.
R^2 for CO2 = 0.44
R^2 for PDO+AMO = 0.85
where (R^2 is the coefficient of determination)
A new article in the International Journal of Geosciences Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes, supports the idea of the weak correlation between CO2 and global warming, natural cyclical processes show stronger correlation in the surface record. Conclusions: "CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed."
So you are claiming that correlation requires causality? Did you run that past the denial establishment to see if they reached a consensus on that?
What causes the PDO/AMO?
Mind you I'm looking forward to the first articles from this prestigious sounding tome
OK, so the global temp has been flopping around in a 2-3 C range for the last 10K years. Do we have all the reasons for these "energy imbalances"?
Please read argument #2.
Anyway, I have to say that the 2nd graph in this post is misleading. One can't simply draw a straight line through the temperature record and the PDO. That's BS (bad science). Why? Simply because there are seasonal cycles in the temperatures and those need to be adjusted for first. Likewise with the PDO, which oscillates (sinus wave like pattern); see prior paragraph and my comment under #25.
After the seasonal adjustment is done, THEN a linear regression may be done through the entire data set. But, in this case we can't do that either as there are clearly years where trend-reversals occur (see comment #25). Hence, drawing a straight-line through the entire seasonally-adjusted data-set is also BS.
Since regression lines are in fact models, we need to find the model that best fits the (temperature) data, expressed as r2. In excel, a simple linear regression line through the seasonally adjusted data from 1900 to 2010 would give an r2 of ~0.68. A polynomial to the sixth (excel's limit) order gives an r2 of .81. Hence the data is better explained with a 6th order regression line. (of course with an even higher order it would explain up to an r2 of 1, but that's not the issue here; it's the fact that the increase has not been linear)
Back to the PDO and temperature; I don't think PDO can explain most/much of the observed temperature trend; only to a certain degree. But, instead, and as pointed out under comment #13, I think the PDO can explain the ENSO/NOI cycle much better.
But the chart on this page http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ shows it historically strong. Apparantly the table is ONI, measured by SST differences only whereas the latter graph is MEI (M for Multivariate) taking into account more variables. IMO the MEI would be a better indication of La Nina effects, so I would call it strong (strongest since the mid 70's). We also will have to wait and see about the duration, it hasn't been around long.
In addition, MEI is bi-monthly, ONI tri-monthly. Hence the fact that some bi-monhtly MEI rankings are high doesn't necessarily mean it is also the coldest (lowest SST) la nina, which it obviously is not according to NOI.
We indeed need to wait and see how the current la nina develops; in December SSTs crept up a bid, but have decreased again somewhat in January. The most recent pattern of SST anomalies is similar to that observed since mid November 2010. I'd expect the NDJ season somewhere between -1.3 and -1.6 at the most.
Note that global temperatures lack often 3-6 months in response to ENSO events.
I know that there is debate about the relationship between ENSO and PDO but I think they are connected. I see ENSO and the PDO as a transfer of heat from the tropics to higher latitudes. It’s like two steam generators that are connected through a secondary system. The relationship is dynamic, nonlinear and inherently oscillatory. Currently, with the cool phase of the PDO and La Nina working together, we are seeing a cooling response in the atmosphere. I’m expecting to see the UAH globally averaged satellite-based temperature anomaly for Jan. 2011 to be near or below zero, similar to the beginning of 2009. That would effectively wipe out 30+ years of warming in the satellite record. And the Sun is still unusually quiet. That’s my take, have fun tearing it apart.
So, you're saying that the anomaly you are predicting for Jan 2011 ("near or below zero") will be similar to the "beginning of 2009" (is that Jan 2009 or some/a few/several months ?) - the year before 2010, which UAH list as the 2nd warmest in their records, i.e. warmer than 2009 - and that this will subsequently "wipe out" the UAH positive trend of roughly 0.4C seen over the last 30 years ?
Among other aspects of the ENSO and PDO cycle, I wrote this in one of my earlier comments (#13):
"Adding PDO events (warm to cold reversals, vice versa, phase shifts, etc) to the NOI data we instantly see the following:
The 2008 la nina coincides exactly with the PDO GPTC
The 1998 el nino coincides exactly with the PDO phase shift from warm to cold
The 1988 la nina coincides exactly with the highest PDO (LPTC) since 1934
The 1977/78 el nino coincides exactly with PDO phase shift cold to warm
The 68/69 la nina coincides exactly with PDO's phase reversal
The 55/56 la nina coincides exactly with the lowest PDO value since 1900
In addition, between 1950 and 1977 there were 126 la nina seasons (months) and 75 el nino seasons: PDO was cold Between 1977 and 1998 there were 53 el nino seasons and 27 la nina seasons: PDO was warm."
Do we really need much more proof too see that ENSO and PDO are related?
Your examples hardly prove anything. In one case el Nino coincides with a warm to cold PDO shift, in another, it coincides with cold to warm. In one case la Nina coincides with highest PDO, in another it coincides with lowest PDO. Is that supposed to be causal?
Let me try again then :
So, you're saying that the anomaly you are predicting for Jan 2011 ("near or below zero") will be similar to that for "Jan. 2008...below -0.2 C" - a couple of years before 2010, which UAH list as the 2nd warmest in their records, i.e. warmer than 2008 - and that this will subsequently "wipe out" the UAH positive trend of roughly 0.4C seen over the last 30 years ?
I still can't see it so maybe you should show how you work that out ?
The fact then that ENSO events coincide EXACTLY with key PDO events thus proofs they are related.
I suggest learning more about the PDO (and probably ENSO cycle too) so you better understand the intricacies of natural cycles, how they inter connect and how they play a role on climate.
Ah-ha. That's much clearer now.
We heard this way back here.
For those who might not know, GPTC is "greatest perturbation in the torque cycle," a concept based on solar angular momentum from the writings of Theodor Landscheidt, "author, astrologer and amateur climatologist". Disciples of Landscheidt have us already in a new ice age.
There is a host of interesting stuff there:
Over the past several million years the planet has spent around 80% of its time under ice.
...
The outer planets over long periods influence the shape of the earth’s orbit via gravitation perturbations. ... changing the way heat is received from the Sun which leads to a gradual build up of snow/ice that does not melt during summer in the northern hemisphere.
...
The two oscillations combining to achieve the largest amplitude of modulation for over a hundred years that also corresponds to the large temperature increase between 1970 and 2000. The IPCC determines this as an AGW forcing but perhaps they have been riding a wave driven by celestial forces that is now crashing down around them?
What can be said that is large enough for all this?
Are you trying to make a climate related point from a single month's data? You haven't indicated in your post as to why you consider that datum important.
It has been said time and again, by lots and lots of people - you cannot make a climate estimate (~30 year trend) from short term (in this case, one month) data. There's too much short term variation to consider trend extraction from the short data set; you're talking about roughly 1/360th the data needed.
Want to guess what UAH will show in the next El Nino of 1.8 or more?
I don't follow what you are predicting for this La Nina, Nino 3.4. Some La Nina cycles last longer than others but there is no clear trend that I can see. Before 1980, we had no El Nino's >+1.8 C between 1950 - 1971, note: during negative phase of the PDO, then 1972 (+2.1), 1983 (+2.3), 1998 (+2.5), 2009 (+1.8). And La Nina's, 1955 (-2.0), 1973 (-2.1), 1984 (-1.1), 1988 (-1.9), 1999 (-1.4), 2010 (-1.4).
(updated February 15, 2011)
ENSO forecast:
The current strong La Nina condition would decay in following boreal spring and summer seasons but would rebound in fall and persist up to early 2012. The revived one would show a La Nina of Modoki nature.
IO forecast:
Associated with the La Nina impact, the surface temperature in the equatorial Indian Ocean has become colder than normal in January 2011. The tropical Indian Ocean surface temperature would decrease further in following seasons but with strong warming along the west coast of Australia. In the second half of 2011, a weak negative IOD might tend to occur.
Regional forecast:
Associated with the La Nina influence, below-normal surface air temperature and above-normal precipitation would continue in Australia, northern Brazil, and southern Africa during the austral fall-winter.
Southeastern China,southwestern Japan, US and Europe would have warmer-than-normal and dry climate during spring-summer seasons.
According to data from the Queensland Natural Resources and Mines, La-Nina conditions that extended over multiple year occurred in 1892-93, 1916-17, 1955-56, 1970-72 and 1973-74-75.
El-Ninos that extended over multiple years occurred in 1913-1914, 1918-1919, 1940-41,and 1991-92-93-94.
Note, to avoid confusion, given the NR&M classify the years as from April to March, the beginning years are as indicated, but the ending years are at the end of March in the year following that indicated above.
I'm open to the idea that the 0.5 C warming in the last 30 years is both natural and anthropogenic. My argument continues to be more from natural variability than man-made CO2 induced. If the UAH annual trend continues upward this decade, >0.8 C, then I think the AGW proponents have a stronger case. If the trend is flat to cooler, <0.3 C, then the AGW case will be weaker. Sorry to hear about the failed Glory launch. We need better satellite-based measurements.
I think it's clear that the PDO has a negligible impact on centennial trends (if at all), but the skeptical focus is on decadal trends, and the argument is that the global temperature trend of the last 30 years or so is partly a result of the upswing (to about 1998).
A question i've had in mind is about the difference between ENSO and PDO, where the former is linked to short-term fluctuations in the global temperature record, but the PDO is not. the language most often used is something like 'PDO shifts heat around within the system, but doesn't influence global temps.'
I do not understand why one ocean/atmosphere system with fluctuating temperature indices should impact global temps (ENSO) and another shouldn't.
In the other thread, I asked about this and was directed here with the comment, "PDO is basically an index whereas ENSO is a physical system."
PDO and ENSOS are both expressed as indices - temperature indices. I don't see how one is a 'physical system' and one isn't.
Nor does it matter what causes PDO or ENSO for the purposes of my enquiry. If PDO has a decadal influence on global temps, then it can be said that the thirty year global temp trend to 1998 may partly be a result of the PDO warm phase. Solar variability and cosmic rays show no trend for this period, but if PDO can be linked to decadal fluctuations in global temps, then the notion that natural factors have had a negligible effect on the trend for this period is undermined.
Consequently, the trend rate for the last 30-40 years is only partly to do with CO2.
I think skepticism has largely moved on from claiming the PDO is responsible for global warming on centennial scales, but I don't think we yet have a satisfactory response to argument about PDO effect on shorter time-scales.
The interest with temperatures is not to link them to any index, but to link them to underlying physical system. This would happen if it was discovered there was an underlying ocean phenomena beyond ENSO.
I can also answer my question from January, the La Nina was strong, especially in its effects on the continental US stemming from abnormally cold Pacific temperatures. Those effects still linger, but the La Nina has ended. However it is predicted to return, not good news for drought-stricken Texas and rain-soaked Montana.
I have done some work looking at the linear vs. oscillatory trends. Two cylces have been observed with a period of just under 61 years and an amplitudes of 0.3C. When this is subtracted from the temperature data (CRU), a linear increase of 0.6C / century remains.
Should these two trends continue, global temperatures would bottom out again at around 2033 at ~0.1C below current levels, before rising again. The strong La Nina has definitely been an influence as temperatures for 2011 have been below the combined trendline for five of the first six months of 2011.
Scaddenp may be correct in that the PDO is just a long term index related to ENSO.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/akh241460p342708/
Yes, it's been conjectured in the literature, but I'm not sure how that would undermine the proposition of a long-term temperature oscillation that adds its influence to global temperature fluctuations on decadal time-scales. Nor do I understand why causes matter. If we did not know the cause of the 11-year sun cycle, still we could still estimate its impact on global temperatures.
Mid-centennial aerosol cooling is a strong contender for the phase shift for that period, but AFAIK, there is enough uncertainty to allow a non-anthropogenic source to be considered.
I figure the consequence of a PDO-like signal (60-65yr oscillation, peaking around 1998) would be that the period of modern warming (from 1975) is not so indicative of an acceleration. What I'm now curious about is the confidence with which that can be ruled out.
I'm reading some other papers on in, as well as the suggestions (thanks).
http://www.metlink.org/pdf/articles/observed_climate_folland.pdf
http://schraglab.unix.fas.harvard.edu/publications/CV32.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442%281999%29012%3C2719%3AMVIGSS%3E2.0.CO%3B2
1) If the the PDO is just "a long term index related to ENSO", then its effect is completely included by including the effects of ENSO.
2) Further, evidence suggests that the ENSO pattern is changing, both in that neutral conditions are starting to resemble an unusual El Nino like state; and there is some evidence that with warmer conditions true El Nino like states become more frequent and stronger. Given that, if the PDO is related to ENSO, past fluctuations are not a guide to future behaviour, which can be expected to change.
3) Further, if the PDO is related to ENSO, and given the response of ENSO to a warming world, the correlation between the PDO and global temperatures is more likely a causal response of ENSO (and hence the PDO) to global temperature fluctuations than a causal response of global temperatures to fluctuations in the PDO.
4) This leaves aside the issue that evidence for an actual cyclical behaviour by the PDO and AMO are weak. Using the AMO as an example, Tamino tested the case for true periodicity and found it very weak. Often tests of statistical significance for such periodicity are based mathematically on the assumption that only one period is tested, whereas in fact many periods are tested. Allowing for this, Tamino shows the only significant period in the AMO as tested using the Greenland Icecore is around 6,500 years long.
Given this, and given that we have no knowledge of the causal antecedents of the PDO, predictions of it future behaviour are simply guess work.
Let me be clear: I am not proposing, or hoping to propose, a coming cooling period based on PDO-like indices.
I was intrigued by Tamino's posts where he subtracts natural variations (solar, ENSO, volcanic) from the temp record, [Eg.], and how that impacts trends in the temp records.
To restate: I am curious to know, with what confidence have the apparent decadal fluctuations of the PDO been ruled out as a low-frequency oscillation influencing global temperatures on decadal, rather than centennial, time scales.
I'm not sure that "related to" = "is purely an artifact of". I appreciate conjecture, but am curious about the degree of confidence on this. Tamino has probably had a go at quantifying a possible relationship. I read an old post of his recently on the AMO, but that was more about long-term trends.
I think my interest stems from the advice that apparent oscillatory ocean/atmosphere patterns (PDO/AMO etc) simply 'shift heat around'. I had thought this was also the case with ENSO. I'm 99.9% confident it's just a hole in my understanding - and this is a good place to remedy that.
Personally, I consider that to be evidence of a high, and positive climate feedback. When additional surface warmth in the tropical Pacific results in a greater global warming than can be accounted for just by the change in surface temperature involved, it is difficult to interpret it any other way. However, given a high climate feedback, and given the known variations in anthropogenic SO4, it is difficult to find room for variation left for the AMO or PDO to explain.
Further, contrary to denier claims, the PDO has been decreasing in average strength since around 1985. That means that even if it has an effect, it may have contributed part of the rapid rise in temperature from 1975 to 1985, but it would have been reducing the rate of temperature increase since then. That there is little difference between the rates of increase between the two periods again suggests a minor influence of the PDO on global temperatures, if any:
[DB] Fixed linked image (system didn't like that jpg).
Here's a good website for PDO. The PDO has been more negative than positive since 1998 and could account for some of the pause in surface temperature increase in the last decade. Since global temps are tracking scenario C the best, the pause can not be related to CO2 emissions, CO2 emissions have not stopped since 2000. If the negative PDO trend continues, we should see a shift from more El Ninos (80's, 90's) to more La Ninas (00's, 10's?).
As ENSO is already factored into climate attribution (most recently and most neatly by Tamino), there is no great mystery, at least in relation to PDO. I prefer PDV, with V for variation, as there is no demonstrated cyclic pattern; additionally the 'cool' part of the variation has large positive heat anomalies in the central North and south Pacific.
The PDO was positive from 1977 - 1998, and could have contributed to the obserbed warming during that period. For the next decade, it oscillated around 0 until around 2008, when it turned negative. Compare the following graph to temperature graphs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg
The fact that Tamino can correlate temperatures to ENSO (or PDO) should indicate that it is a factor. How great a factor is still under investigation.
That is incorrect. If PDO is merely an index of ENSO, then the effects of PDO on temperature is precisely zero conditional on measurements of ENSO. Secondly if PDO is merely an index of ENSO then it is a bad idea to make projections of future climate based on PDO as it may not have any physical significance at all.
There is also the point that PDO may measure the effect of changes in climate on ENSO rather than the other way round. The warming of the early 20th century is explainable by changes in solar forcing. The Pacific ocean has a large surface area and a low albedo, so it will have absorbed a fair bit of extra energy over that period. Is it inconceivable that might have had an effect on ENSO, causing the PDO?
We all know that ENSO is a factor, and we have physics that can explain the magnitude of the effect, as ENSO is reproduced in modern AOGCMs.
Continually pointing out correllations without a physical mechanism that can explain the strenght of the effect is not science, is fine, but it is not a good reason to doubt solid physics.
I do not think that anyone is doubting physics here. The contention was whether the PDO drives, or is simply a measure of ENSO variations. Considering that ENSO has been shown to influence temperature, then if PDO is causing the ENSO variation, then it logically, influences temperature. If PDO is simply an index of ENSO, it will indirectly influence temperature through ENSO variation. However, in this case, it would be better to use ENSO as Tamino an others have done.
Pointing out correlations is indeed science, as it leads to experiments resulting in greater understanding of the correlation (or rejection thereof). To dismiss such a correlation without investigation, is not science.
A general question for anyone who knows, what is the sum of all ocean temperature anomalies, both positive and negative, associated with the PDO region? Or how much energy is released/absorbed by the warm/cool segments of the PDO region. As there are large warm anomalies at the same time as cool anomalies, the net influence on global temperature from the PDO region is perhaps less than thought? It would be interesting to see those numbers in relation to the same data for the ENSO region too.
We know that ENSO is driven by atmospheric pressure variations in the higher latitudes, which determine the strength of the trade winds. The atmospheric pressure changes occur over long time frames, for which an adequate explanation has not been found yet. It is entirely possible that the Pacific Ocean is driving the changes in atmospheric pressure.
Therefore, we cannot say whether PDO is driving ENSO (via changes in atmospheric pressure) or is just an index of ENSO.
No, you misunderstand. We don't entirely care what drives ENSO (we do, but it's not relevant here) as far as what causes it to happen and to change cycles.
What we do care to understand is how the changes in circulation during an El Niño/La Niña event of the ocean expose more or less warm/cold water on the surface, thus raising/cooling global temperatures. We further know that this doesn't actually change the temperature of the planet (except in so far as the planet radiates less heat away during a La Niña and more heat away during an El Niño, so while the planet appears cooler it is losing less heat, and while it appears warmer is is losing more heat).
But while ENSO does affect temperature observations, it does not actually affect climate. It can't, and neither can PDO with out some dramatically magical (and understandable and measurable) mechanism.
What you are failing to do is to explain how PDO works in any way, let alone how it can possibly (over longer time scales) warm or cool the planet.
The bottom line is that only factors which noticeably cause a radiation imbalance (albedo, GHGs, aerosols, clouds) can actually warm or cool the planet. Magical, ill-defined "but what if" oscillations are not science, they're voodoo-magic-superstition.
The El Nino / La Nina cycle does change temperatures by the exact process you describe. When the trade winds are strong, the ocean tropical ocean turnover is greater, exposing more water to evaporation. When the trade winds are weak, the ocean calms, allowing more heat to remain in the ocean. Hence the changing ocean temperature. It has nothing to do with appearance, it is real.
ENSO does affect climate, everywhere on this planet. Witness the last few strong El Ninos and La Ninas. You can deny it if you wish, but that will not make it go away.
I actually respected your scientific knowledge until your last line. Now it appears you are only interested in your own agenda, and are trying to shout done those who oppose you. So sad.
[DB] It has become transparently clear as to which parties use scientific, peer-reviewed sources based on physics to support their positions versus the hand-waving of those dissemblers who continue to publish their narrative of "It's not Happening/It's Beyond our Understanding/We Must Wait for more Information" without actual understandings or explanations given as to why what we know about the climate system don't actually work the way we observe them to.
That, as my child says, is a "tapestry".
You need to distinguish between a few very different things:
1) The measured mean global temperature of the ocean surface and the atmosphere (this is not the temperature of the system, but merely what is easy to measure and observe).
2) The amount of energy in the entire "earth" system (which, by proxy, can also represent the total temperature of the entire system)
3) Short term fluctuations in the first item (which represent weather, or, at a stretch, short lived and almost certainly regional climate changes)
4) Long term fluctuations in the actual climate of the earth (meaning changes that represent an actual new equilibrium state)
Obviously the difference between 3 and 4 involves some degree of subjectivity, just like the difference between warm and hot is not a precise boundary.
But with those four points in mind...
ENSO changes number 1, but not number 2, and so is of little interest in anything other than year to year variations.
As a result, ENSO also changes only number 3, but not number 4, and so is of no interest in climate changes.
PDO is the same.
You need to understand the differences here to understand where you are going wrong in focusing any energy at all on something like the PDO.
The only things that are actually going to affect the amount of energy in the system are things that cause heat to leave the planet. There are only two ways to get heat off the planet.
The first is to heat something up (say, a vat of molten lead) and shoot it into space on a rocket. Obviously, this doesn't happen very often.
The second is through radiation. Some mechanism must use radiation to direct energy out of the system and into space.
PDO doesn't do that. ENSO doesn't do that (except, as already explained, through slightly increased/decreased radiation, but in the opposite direction of the observed temperature increases).
The only things that do affect radiation are albedo (clouds, ice, aerosols) which reflect radiation out before it even heats the planet, or greenhouse gases (which trap radiation in the system) or changes in solar insolation (which increase or decrease the input into the system).
PDO can never, ever change climate, and nor can any other fantastical oscillation.
You need to distinguish between the popular definition of climate provided by Mark Twain, ie, that climate is what you expect, and weather is what you get; and the formal definition as used by the IPCC:
Fairly clearly, individual ENSO oscillations do not result in statistically significant changes to the thirty year averages of temperature, precipitation, etc, and hence do not change climate in terms of the formal definition. That is what Sphaerica was claiming.
Equally obviously, and for those with the relevant knowledge, an ENSO oscillation does change what we expect to get, and so does change climate for that first, popular definition. However, that change is only due to the advance of our knowledge, and it is dubious to what extent that knowledge has penetrated to the general public. That is why it is just a popular definition, it needs to be indexed to a particular time and population to deliver unambiguous results.
Finally, something which changes the frequency of El Ninos to La Ninas, or changes the neutral state to more resemble an El Nino or La Nina state over a multidecadal period would result in a change in climate under the technical definition. On that basis I disagree with Sphaerica's comment about the PDO not effecting climate "without some dramatically magical mechanism", although that sentence is entirely accurate if you substitute "physical" for "magical".