“Atmospheric and oceanic features are consistent with La Niña conditions………. Based on recent trends in the observations and some model forecasts, La Niña conditions are likely through early 2009.”

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

Thanks for the details. yes, quite complex. I was hoping for a general statistical yes/no, but maybe that’s too simplistic…

IF reduced solar gave reduced sst AND more clouds (via cosmic rays or…) then there would be a correlation and that would be valuable to know. Then again, with so many moving parts and long time delay effects maybe it was too much to hope for…

Niño 4………..-0.4ºC
Niño 3.4…… -0.5ºC
Niño 3 ………-0.3ºC
Niño1+2 ……-0.9ºC

FM

gary gulrud (07:58:31) :

“Yeah, we are still a ways from a technical La Nina”

By the same token the 3-month average never crossed the zero line and La Nina winds never departed. Why did we ever say La Nina was over?

The general consensus is for NINO 3 temperatures to be 0.8C below normal. Temperatures are average at the moment.

As we’re splitting hairs: Mary, Mary quite contrary, what says the CSIRO?

Not splitting hairs, just telling as it is ;-). CSIRO will update you in a couple of days, if you can wait that long!

I’d like to encourage a greater appreciation for the importance of ocean temperatures in this whole discussion, because of the much greater heat capacity in the oceans compared to the atmosphere. Obviously, we need data over an even greater range of depths.

I would wholeheartedly agree with this. SST’s give a good indication but are affected by cloud, winds and currents. Using the sea level data in conjuction with SST’s gives more accurate results but we really need to be able to measure ocean conditions over a wide area of the sea bed, especially the lower ‘conveyor belt’ currents.

From George
So to me it is self evident; the exact mechanism may be quite complex, but I am convinced that cloud modulation is regulating the temperature of this planet, and CO2 has virtually nothing to do with it.
-end quote

I think you are spot on. What’s regulating the clouds is speculative, but that they are critical is clear, and that they are left out of the models is criminal.

Are clouds variable with El Nino / La Nina cycles? “”

E. M. I’m not a Meteorologist, and I don’t know much about the different cloud types and what physical conditions determine what kind of clouds form; but I do know that to get clouds, you first have to get water droplets to form, or ice crystals depending on how cold the air mass is. Water evaporates quite readily, but it is not in any great hurry to condense back into water droplets. A drop of water has an internal pressure that is higher than the ambient air pressure around it; because of surface tension. Surface tension in water arises because the water molecule is a polar molecule because of that 104 degree bend betweein two two Hydrogen atoms. The Oxygen end is negative because of it borrowing the electron from the hydrogen, and the hydrogen ends are positive becasue the electrons spend a lot of time with the Oxygen. So the molecule is a little electric dipole, and they attract each other nose to tail so to speak. At the surface you are missing the molecules above pulling, so the surface sees a net downward force that results in the surface area shrinking to the smallest area, which creates an excess pressure inside. It is a trivial exercise using what is called the principle of virtual work, to calculate just what the excess pressur is, and it comes out to 2t/r, where r is the radius of the droplet, and t is the surface tension in Newtons per meter. in a soap bubble with an inner and outer surface the excessinternal (vapor) pressure would be 4t/r.

Now droplets have to start off small, and the smaller r is the higher is the internal pressure. The same thing occurs in boiling water, where bubbles form inside the bulk of the water, and the internal vapor pressure has to exceed ambient by 2t/r, so it has to get hotter than 100C to form a bubble, unless there is some “core” for the bubble (or water droplet to nucleate on. Dust or microbes or even charged particles can act as nucleation centers, and if that happens to superheated water, you can get explosive bubble formation, which is why the pot bangs on the stove when you are boiling clean water

So the process fo droplet, and hence cloud formation is strongly dependent on the presence of nucleation sites for water droplets to grow on; and this is the activator of the Cosmic ray effect. Water droplets can form high in the atmosphere when high energy charged particles either from the sun, or cosmic rays strike the atmospheric gases and create heavy ionisation tracks. This is the principle of the Wilson Cloud chamber that was used to image charged particle tracks and reactions in the early days of nuclear physics.

So dust, aerosols, bacteria, charged particles; anything that goives water a core to grow on, aids in the formation of clouds so clouds will form at a lower humidity than in the absence of nucleation sites.

Water as a vapor, is a positive feedback warming mechanism, but water as a liquid or solid, forms clouds, and they always act as a negative feedback cooling influence, because they reflect sunlight to space (albedo), and they block additional sunlight from the surface, which results in cooling the surface. Now the cloud will be warmer due to the extra solar absorption, and also IR warming from the ground, but the warmed cloud rises, and transports that energy to higher altitudes, where eventually iyt will be radiated to space.

The cooling effect of volcanic eruptions is NOT the scattering and blockage of incoming solar radiation, but the dust froms nucleation sites for cloud droplets, and it is the cloud increase that cools the surface; and incidently helps remove that dust from the atmosphere..

Increase in CO2 creates a small surface warming which evaporates more moisture from the top few microns of the oceans and lakes, and that leads to more clouds, which lower the ground level sunlight so the surface doesn’t get as warm as the AGW modellers claim it should.

Water is the ONLY GHG that exists in the atmosphere in all three phases, to provide this self regulating temperature control. Anything that inhibits cloud formation, will allow surface temperatures to rise, and anything that enhances cloud formation, will allow temperature to adjust downward.

Remember that the AGW Crowd is proposing a massive shift in industrial infrastructure – a herculean task requiring an enormous investment of technical knowhow and excellence in project management to carry it all off.

I suspect that incompetance will hamper their efforts and slow the whole process down and allow for other more sensible options to become more viable as the costs start to come home and the benefits are not seen.

John the trend over the last 7yrs-10yrs–almost 1/3 of the only source to be trusted–satellite data–surface temp data are all crap and not to be trusted

The trend over the last 10 years (120 months) is positive whichever data is used. The trend (for all data) is in, all probability, not statistically significant but none of the records show cooling which link in nicely to Kim’s post.

The recent stasis in sea level rise is evidence to me that ‘extra heat’ is not accumulating deeper in the ocean. It is ocean heat content that rules.

No argument on this. I never said it was warming just that it isn’t cooling.

I may be mistaken, but it is my understanding that the Argos buoys dive to 3,000 meters, which is 3km, or approximately two miles. And if you look at the sea level graph shown in another thread here on Watt’s Up, you’ll see that the stasis in sea levels persists.
==================================

kim (04:48:00) :

More important, in my estimation, is that the Argos buoys also demonstrate a slight cooling of the ocean for the last four years, at least to two miles deep.

Forgive my shameful joy in this case but the Argos/Argo measurements are to 2KM not 2 miles as you so incorrectly stated. The reason this is important is that the average depth of the oceans is 3.5 km and we know for certain that the currents at the bottom of the Atlantic, all part of the ocean conveyor belt are 3km down.
if you look at the latest Uni Colorado graph (link above) you see that the latest sea levels have ecovered sharply from the strong La Nina (as I pointed out to you earlier the Pacific is cooled by increased evaporation) and is now following the long term rising trend.

He gains credibility daily.

Link here:

http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html#intro

Note that he only claims it to be a statistical exercise which is an honourable stance to take.