It's official: La Niña is back

I wouldn’t be surprised if we have a stretch of neutral conditions. It has been a while since we’ve had one. I’m speaking of “officially labeled” conditions. We may go into El Nino’s, and La Nina’s without them reaching the 5 consecutive, overlapping 3 month periods that would give them the episode classification. Only 2 of them since 1950 that were extended. JJA 1958 – JAS 1962, and JFM 1979 – MAM 1982. The first noted stretch was even longer(to MJJ 1963), but the new data set(ERSST.v3b SST) reclassified ASO 1962 – DJF 1963 as a La Nina. Every once in a while, nature does find some balance.

Minnesotans For Global Warming
http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/home.html
They even have a nice song video !
Their headquarter is homed in a luxury accomodation, no doubt, financed by big oil industry… (well, to be fair, only in part considering that they heat it with a wood stove)
Enjoy !

97% of scientists receiving grants to study anthropogenic global warming agree that AGW is real. The other 3% are ungrateful and will be dealt with shortly.

AMSU daily temps are showing a huge departure from December, but what does it mean? Is this indicating an end to La Nina and reversal of temperature for 2009? Or does it mean we are witnessing a preparation for a new wave of massive cooling coming in February and beyond?
One would think SST should be reflecting a gain in heat if there is an El Nino approaching.
Heat released into the atmosphere not being replaced in the oceans results in ???
Inquiring minds want to know. Where is Roy Spencer when we need him?

I still want to know how anything can be more than 100% below average rainfall?
I’m not too comfortable with southern Wisconsin being below normal for precipitation either. You don’t wait until it melts to measure it, it is measured as it falls so when and how if melts has nothing to do with precipitation measurements.
It is possible that late October and November were dry with fall rains coming early and November precip just being snow. I think I am saying that data may be created by the 90 day time frame with a couple feet of November snow not making up for a few lost inches of rain.

Sekerob (06:46:07) :
Office logic indeed says that La Nina will absorb heat, as does El Nino release. Lower water vapor, more drought on western half and more hurricanes on the eastern half. So, a 3 way bad thing, for underlying, the planet keeps covertly sucking in energy whilst doubtlessly as it has been doing for decades now the inexorable rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. Office logic is like the credit bubble. It will burst and than we’ll really learn what global frying is.
gee, “inexorable” and “global frying”. It all seems so certain to you Mr Rob. Still not replied to my many requests for you to inform us all why the IARC-JAXA ice extent data is so worthless in your eyes and Nansen is the bee’s knees. Please inform us.

I thought with the switch of the multidecadal Pacific Oscillation to colder times (Alaska suddenly being regularly colder) there is a mitigation of the El Nino/La Nina cycles.

I am confused about one thing: they state that a Kelvin wave is starting, and it sure appears to be, but they also state that La Nina conditions are expeced to continue through “Spring 2009”. These seem to contradict to me.

So, it’s a mini-Nina, or “La Ninette”? Darn, this will make it that much harder for the warmists to find a fall guy for the fact it isn’t warming. Guess they’ll have to fall back on aerosols again.

“…The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists…”
And CNN never thought to mention that the biggest recipient of government funding for combating man-made climate change are those same climatologists who are 97% certain that its man-made.
If I were a climatologist, I’d be at least 97% sure that I want that funding to continue.

I’m tired of chroma bias. If were are going to quartile, quintile or even dodecatile spectral data such as temperature or precipitation we need standards. And the one standard IMO that needs remain inviolate is that the plots be centered on zero variance with a neutral color and deviations be perceptually scaled for symmetry. For example the precipitation chart above. 0 to +25% is white but 0 to -25% is medium brown.

What will be interesting is if a negative PDO cycle will cause temperatures to reach the lows experienced during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s in North America.

Re: NCEP ‘report’
This report is simply a weekly update document. It doesn’t usually change too much but it does give the weekly anomalies for the NINO regions (see page 5). I’m guessing these anomalies are now in La Nina territory (i.e. at or below -0.5). In fact they have probably been in La Nina territory for a couple of weeks but the official definition of La Nina is based on a much longer period. Mary Hinge has something which talks about “5 consecutive over-lapping seasons”. Basically the ONI index uses 3-monthly readings (See Pages 24, 25 & 26) e.g. Oct-Nov-Dec (OND). OND is the most recent reading at -0.3, i.e. not yet La Nina. NDJ probably will go under the La Nina threshold but this needs to be maintained for further periods – though 5 seems a lot. I wonder if they really mean 3 which would cover 5 months.
Anyway MH is right, we might have La Nina conditions but not for sufficient time for the ENSO status to be categorised as La Nina. Also, as someone else has already remarked, I too think that conditions have weakened recently so I’m not sure where that leaves us. JH could be ‘on the money’ we could have the beginning of an El Nino by the end of the year.

John Finn (11:55:37) :
I wonder if they really mean 3 which would cover 5 months.

I think you might be right, it would make more sense considering the normal time frame for an ENSO event. The NOAA’s language is confusing and as Anthony said it is all very odd. The only thing I can think of is that they are trying to ‘support’ their model forecast back in September/October. There’s, then shortly afterwards the UKMet, predicted cool ENSO conditions whilst four other models including the Australian and Japanese predicted neutral conditions. This generated lively debates here between Kim and myself!
I think this report is a way out, they are saying the ENSO ‘conditions’ ‘reflect’ La NIna instead of saying that ENSO remains at neutral for the time being. They should take a leaf out of the Aussies book!
Well Anthony I guess we are in agreement about NOAA fudging for once, I hope someone from NOAA can explain what they actually meant to say.

Such sloppiness in the way CPC put together their report.
It’s clear from the report that a La Niña episode has not begun, yet the summary states that “La Niña conditions are likely to continue.” However, CPC’s standard for La Niña conditions are that SST departures meet or exceed -0.5°C for 3 consecutive months. For the current 3-month season (OND), the SST departure is only -0.3°C. We won’t know the status of the next 3-month season (NDJ) till mid-February.
At best, CPC can say that conditions are shifting from neutral to La Niña-like conditions.

“Mary [snip]:
Also the NOOA have not said that there is now a La Nina, rather that the conditions ‘reflect’ La Nina”
Thanks for the laugh!…you can bob and weave better than Mohamud Ali or a Wallstreet banker ;*)
“We didn’t actually LOSE money, rather our financial statements ‘reflect’ a loss.”
JimB

There is no confusion over the language about the predictions.
“La Nina *Conditions*” are a combination of low SSTs and wind weather patterns (easterly winds) that indicate La Nina and which only need to occur for a single week or month. If you watched the week-to-week predictions there was also a couple weeks where the forecasters hedged their bets and were claiming something like “La-Nina-Like” conditions before the SSTs and wind patterns definitively changed to La Nina.
A “La Nina *Event*” needs to have a trailing 3-month record of low SSTs. So we are probably about 1.5 months into a La Nina event which we won’t know for sure for another 1.5 months sometime in March after the Dec-Jan-Feb ONI numbers come out.
This is kind of similar to the formal economic definition of a recession, which always comes long after 90% of people and economists have figured out that we’ve been in a recession.
The weekly NOAA ENSO diagnostic discussion can be found here:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
It comes out every Monday. They clearly define what “conditions” and “events” are if you read closely.
Also note that a new warm phase of a Kelvin wave is starting and the current La Nina conditions should weaken over the next month or two (although it may then restrengthen, who knows…)

If the NDJ value is -0.5 or less(-0.6, etc.), and continues that way for 4 more periods(DJF, JFM, FMA, MAM), it’ll get the official “La Nina” designation for the books (5 consecutive, overlapping 3 month periods). The weekly anomalies are averaged over these 3 month periods to obtain the value for the period. OND of -0.3 is the average anomaly for that 3 month period. You can have La Nina conditions, and still have fallen short of the official designation. Sometimes these events are short lived.

Tony B
For most of the Australian continent, the recorded history of droughts only goes back to around the 1840’s.
Australia was first settled in 1788 at Sydney cove, principally for use as a convict settlement by the british.
So we are a very young country with only a short historical record to draw from.
There is evidence of a 20 year long drought starting in about 1640 in the Great Barrier Reef coral cores.

One of the problems the AGW’ers seem to be labouring under is the idea that “Classical Mechanics” works, especially when it comes to understanding things at large. Would it be too much to ask the AGW’ers to try to catch up a bit?

correcting myself:
A “La Nina *Event*” needs to have a trailing 3-month record of low SSTs
i forgot that it needs to hit the low threshold for 5 overlapping consecutive seasons… but that doesn’t change, and in fact reinforces, the fact that the triggering of the definition of a “la nina event” happens long, long after the start of the event.

An Inquirer:
“Most likely, even most skeptical scientists in the AGW debate would agree that “humans play a role.”
I’m not sure this is true…what are you basing this on?
“If we irrigate valleys in the West, that will affect temperature. If we built cities and change prairies to farmland, we will increase nocturnal temperatures.”
Then you believe that the human population can definitely control the earth’s temperature.
Might I ask what temperature you are lobbying for?…and what you base that ideal temperature on?, and where should it be measured? Is it warmer than what we’re seeing now, meaning we should increase the activities that you believe cause temps to rise?
JimB

hardly a word on the relation of SST patterns to the jetstream – it is the latter that distributes the heat and the moisture to land by its effect on lower level winds, clouds and storm tracks – by my understanding it has geneally shifted south not north, but the standing wave changes andcan be influenced bySSTs – take a look at the northern Pacific right now on Intelliweather’s site – the air masses are directed northward almost vertically from the trough of the wave, hence depriving California of rain – it is as if the American land mass somehow blocks the wave – I don’t know why, but a similar blockng pattern in the Atlantic this past month or so sent warmth and moisture north into Labrador nstead of westward and Europe froze – right now we are getting the downloop of cold moist air from the N Atlantic, rather than the uploop fromfurther south – it looks to me as if the amplitude of the wave has increased since the summer when it moved south generally – but I am no expert and have just this year been paying this subject due attention – what causes the blocks in the waves? What shifts it south when solar magnetics are low – as durng the Maunder Minimum (Shindell, 2001)?

I’d have to say our Mary was more right than I a month and a half ago. I fully expected La Nina winds to turn the SSTs over for OND.
Could there be too little energy in the system?
Erl is forecasting a move away from La Nina in March.

JimB,
Let’s start off with an understanding of my terminology. In the AGW debate, I see a continuum ranging from global warming pessimist to skeptics. A global warming pessimist believes six steps: (1) increased CO2 levels induce temperature increases under laboratory conditions, (2) this reaction is duplicated in uncontrolled chaotic real atmosphere, (3) that humans are responsible for significant increases in atmospheric CO2, (4) that there are positive feedbacks that magnify the impact on temperature beyond the laboratory results, (5) that these CO2-induced temperature increases will swamp other impacts on temperatures and (6) that the resulting temperature increases have dire environmental consequences. As I have listened to skeptics such has Spencer, Christy, Pielke, McKitrick, I do not hear many objections to the first three. (In fact, they seem to accept that the earth is now hotter than it has been in the last 150 years – a conclusion that I am somewhat hesitant to accept until someone can explain why the dramatic impact of 1930s weather conditions are not being repeated now and why we need to assume that thermometers in the 30s were biased upwards.) However, skeptics do have problems – and point to contrary evidence – to the last three points. Also, they have pointed out we should not limit ourselves to CO2 in understanding increased temperatures. Any reading of Pielke should lead you to his views on the impact of land use. Christy points out that increased temperatures in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys have not followed GCMs but rather have been spurred by irrigation. McKitrick’s studies show that increased temperature measurements by locality are highly correlated with robust economic activity. Other scientists have concluded that UHI leads to decreased differences between daytime and nocturnal temperatures. Smith and Freeman have separately pointed out that coal ash from China’s (polluting) coal plants might be having a substantial melting effect on snow and ice.
Therefore, I believe that most skeptical scientists would point out that “humans play a role.”
You have a legitimate concern on who should play the role of God in determining what is the optimal temperature, but your (taunting) question does not follow from my post.

“Have a role” is not the same as “is the major influence on”. I would not be at all surprised that 97% of climate scientists agree with “have a role”.
The question comes down to CO2. If humans increased CO2 in the atmosphere, then even with negative feedback, humans had a role. If CO2 follows temperature only, then humans may not have had a role. But if that’s the case, we should be seeing dropping CO2 levels already. I don’t think we are.

If humans increased CO2 in the atmosphere, then even with negative feedback, humans had a role.
Yes, there is no doubt that, if the Queen had balls, she would be King. However, I think you are asking too much.

Anthony , please check out :http://us.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html .This survey by Indiana Univ. should set everyone straight on AGW – or not. (Sorry I couldn’t get it to come up as a link.)

“An Inquirer:
You have a legitimate concern on who should play the role of God in determining what is the optimal temperature, but your (taunting) question does not follow from my post.”
I apologize for my “taunting” question, but I believe it to be a genuine and acceptable part of the debate. I am also unfamiliar with the varying degrees of pessimists to skeptics. I’m so used to seeing everyone who doesn’t agree with the C02 theory lumped into the same bag, if you will.
The reason I feel my questions are valid is your statement that “Therefore, I believe that most skeptical scientists would point out that “humans play a role.”
I have no belief and therefor no understanding of a “God” element in any of this, so I reject that analogy.
So what’s the temp?…and who gets to set it?…assuming the theories of control are correct? Or is it that humans can have an impact, but not control?
JimB

“” Pamela Gray (06:49:09) :
This is good news for California grapes and Florida oranges. Sun is good! Not so good for all the other states that thought they could grow grapes and oranges. We could see wine prices going back up and oranges getting scarce again. When I was a child and we were freezing in bitter cold, we drank home-made wine and one of our Christmas gifts was a family box of oranges. It was the only time Safeway had any oranges. “”
How do you figure that Pamela ? We aren’t going to have enough water in California, to even grow grapes; well maybe the farmers can grow sun-dried rasins right on the vine; that should make them cheap.
George

“” Pierre Gosselin (11:55:00) :
tty
Maybe only 3164 respondents were counted! “”
Well that scientist survey was just a scam. They asked basically two questions.
1/ do you believe we have had a period of warmer temperatures in recent years (or words to that effect) ? Who wouldn’t say yes to that ?
2/ Do you think man has any influence on the climate ? Well who wouldn’t say yes to that.
3/ The question they didn’t ask. Do you think the extent of man’s influence on climate is significant ? So who would say yes to that.
So you ask some stupid questions, and you get some stupid answers.

“” An Inquirer (13:07:36) :
Regarding:
“The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.”
I believe it would be proper to ratchet down cynicism. Most likely, even most skeptical scientists in the AGW debate would agree that “humans play a role.” If we deforest eastern Africa, that will affect precipitation around Kilimanjaro and elsewhere. If we irrigate valleys in the West, that will affect temperature. If we built cities and change prairies to farmland, we will increase nocturnal temperatures. If we build roads and houses, we will decrease the albedo effect. (I believe that we have over 2.5 million square kilometers of blacktop in the United States – that is larger than the loss of Artic Ice under discussion and probably is impactful that the ice loss.) . . . Oh, I have not mentioned CO2 yet, and that subject has potential. Perhaps in the real world, CO2 has only 50 to 100% of the laboratory impact on temperature, but that is still more than zero. And we could also look at secondary socioeconomic impacts – increased CO2 has increased crop production which has enabled more humans to “thrive” and produce more heat through transportation, cooking, and HVAC activities. “”
All very good points enquirer.
So how come you didn’t say that any of those influences would be deletarious; or of any great significance.
The rain forests on the plains around Kilimanjaro, were all cut down centuries ago (by the natives), so nothing much has changed there in centuries. The ice still doesn’t melt, but it does sublime because of low humidity over the mountain; and that has nothing to dow ith global warming.

WANTED: STATISTICAL DATA ANALYSIS HELP
The following is a graph of the latest and greatest version [ERSST.v3b] of NINO3.4 and Southern Ocean SST anomalies. It’s always struck me that there was an underlying component of the Southern Ocean SST anomalies in the NINO3.4 SST anomaly data, but proving it is beyond my capabilities. Even though I’d be reprimanded for it, the best I could do would be to put a 6th-order polynomial trend of the NINO3.4 data on the graph and say, “Hmm, that looks like it fits,” which is exactly what I’ve done with that graph.
http://i44.tinypic.com/o7srh3.jpg

A dry California is a better wine producer. Here is why:
PRECIPITATION
Grapes grow best under mild, dry spring weather conditions, followed by long, warm dry summers after bloom. Cold temperatures and rainfall during the flowering period may interfere with fruit set. Rain and wet weather at any time can create climate conditions conducive to the growth of pathogens detrimental to crop production and vine health. Rain at harvest may also reduce fruit quality. The advantages or disadvantages of rain depend on when, how long and how much it rains.
http://www.farmwest.com/index.cfm?method=pages.showPage&pageid=547

MattN (15:41:55) :
From the http://www.drroyspencer.com/ site:
The fairly large fluctuations seen within individual months are usually due to increases (warming) or decreases (cooling) in tropical rainfall activity, called “intraseasonal oscillations”.
Has there been any unusual precipitation in the tropics?
If this is true how does the ENSO El Nino fit into this in any way?

Maybe this isn’t a La Nina, but instead a cooling of the ocean not caused by the swapping of warm and cold water. This could possibly mean this is a start of an EL Ninas that is already cooled. It could also mean the cycle is becoming broken from lack of energy to drive it.

I guess we’re all going to have to watch “Out in the Cold” at (I apologize in advance for messing up the html…)

California has also “rode in” on the tails of a warm, wet weather pattern for a bit under half a century, one that will change back to the drought of years gone by when dust bowl laborers flocked to one of the only states still able to produce. However, that was then. Like Oregon, lizard dwelling high desert plains are now filled with crops. And like Oregon, its ability to maintain wet weather pattern production with reservoir reserve during decadal drought is a pipe dream, but only if there is water in them pipes. California’s saving grace is that it has warmer nights and in many areas, a year long growing season. Oregon’s crops pretty much have a few months to make it or die on the vine. I don’t know how this is going to pan out. Will farmers return to low profit plain Jane food or stick it out with high profit but risky grapes? Hell, we couldn’t even harvest a decent pumpkin this past fall. They froze while still green.

The current farmer hasn’t a clue.
There was no agriculture here just over 150 years ago (Western N. America).
It’s all corporate farms now, and I’m quite sure they think everything can be solved with petrochemicals and cloud seeding. They have no roots even with early agriculture, let alone long-term climate change of any genre, no matter what happens to the sun, oceans or whatever other models might be considered.

Here’s what I was refering to :
L’EXPRESS
THE SNOWS OF MOUNT KILIMANJARO By Claude Allegre
The cause of climate change remains unknown. So, let us be cautious.
September 21, 2006
“So, the question that arises is whether there is climate warming or not? The argument that builds upon the retreating white cap of Kilimanjaro seems implacable. The retreating white cap is observable, tangible. Indeed, but things are not as straightforward as they seem. The gradual retreat of the snows of Kilimanjaro is often imputed to local phenomena, the main one of these being desertification in East Africa. In a recent issue of Science magazine, French researchers have shown that this desertification was in a large measure due to tectonic activities responsible for the gradual uplift of the African continent, thereby inducing a reorganization of atmospheric circulation. Greenhouse effect plays no significant role in these processes.”

JimB (12:57:32) :
“Mary [snip]:
Also the NOOA have not said that there is now a La Nina, rather that the conditions ‘reflect’ La Nina”
Thanks for the laugh!…you can bob and weave better than Mohamud Ali or a Wallstreet banker ;*)

How can I be bobbing and weaving when I have been shown to be correct? I said in the fall there would be no La Nina, there is no La Nina event now and there is unlikely to be one now. Don’t you like that? Does that spur you to ad hominem attacks?

Fernando (13:15:57) :
Mary Hinge:
First a coffee:
Unfortunately, I saw what happened to the models for ENSO. (Except CFS). October 2008.
All indicated neutral to El Niño.

Hi Fernando. This is the latest model from NCEP, http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst/images/nino3SSTMon.gif unfortunately I haven’t got the October chart. They are still showing ENSO as cool and predicting cool conditions into May/June. Compare this to NASA’s models which show almost the opposite happening http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/products/climateforecasts/index.cgi For the recent record NASA has been more accurate than NCEP in ENSO forecast.
I did mention on another post that I would stick my neck out and say an El Nino was a strong possibility next SH summer, this is starting to look more and more likely.
For those who are interested. an interesting link here to maps of outgoing long wave radiation, a good indicator of cloud depth and rainfall. http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/matw/maproom/index.htm

Pamela Gray (20:13:16) : wrote:
What is extraordinary about my last post is that the above farmwest online publication is for Canada. Putting into place a vineyard in Canada is just plain stupid (there is currently about 7500 acres in British Columbia).
———————————————-
Pamela, stupidity is in the eye of the beholder. If you’re told that there’s only going to be warming from here on out then it would be “sensible”. A litigator might use a different word – “damages”.
I shall keep you updated, space-permitting, on the progress of my 2-year old Pinot noir vines in the East San Francisco Bay this year. They are already budding. Must be the carbon dioxide? Which would bring me full circle to my first sentence if I wasn’t being sarcastic.

As a Chicagoan I monitor great lakes water levels on an almost daily basis. There was a lot of press given to the record low lake levels in 2007 and what was expected to be an even worse 2008. Low and behold as of of Jan 2009 Lake Erie, Ontario, Lake St. Clair (I know not a Great Lake but part of the system) are all already at or above the long term mean lake level for this time of year.
Lake Superior was about 5″ below the long term mean at it’s last reported reading December 8th. For some reason, NOAA has not updated Lake Superior levels for the last 40 days or more despite several emails to the contact listed describing the error. To the extent that the other lake levels are already 7-8″ ahead of 2007, it’s likely that Lake Superior has also recovered close to the long term mean level.
Lake Michigan is still about 10-12″ below the long term mean but has recovered significantly in just one year. There are some man-made problems (St. Clair river dredging, Chicago Sanitary canal and increasing consumptive use) that create outflows out of Lake Michigan that partially explain much of it’s lower lake levels compared to the other great lakes.
The NOAA forecasts show a very high probability that 2009 will see Lake Levels that are at or very close to the long term mean.
Although La Nina is tied to more severe weather events it’s probable that it will contribute to increased lake levels due to colder weather that will limit winter evaporation.
thanks
Ed
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/wr/ahps/curfcst/curfcst.html

To clarify the significance of evaporation:
If water is warmer than air the latent heat of evaporation comes from the water which cools rapidly.
If water is cooler than air the latent heat of evaporation comes from the air and so is no longer available to warm the water.
If downwelling longwave radiation warms the water surface then any energy added to the water surface is taken away by the latent heat of evaporation.
Evaporation occurs at all temperatures if the air is not saturated because air is less dense than water.
Neither air nor downwelling radiation are able to warm water because the evaporative process always uses the energy supply most readily available and if the water is warmer than the air it is taken from the water and any warming effect negated.
If one cannot warm the oceans one cannot warm the air. If extra heat is put into the air from say extra GHGs it cannot be retained because the air temperature at the surface has to match the SST globally. The mechanism which maintains the equilibrium is the latitudinal position of the weather systems.
Don’t ask me why this is not all obvious to the climate professionals

Pearland,
That story is incomplete. It covers pages 1 and 2 of this article: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
But it’s at page 3 where it gets interesting.
Neven

“” Just want truth… (22:20:16) :
in regards to
George E. Smith (17:32:18) :
“The rain forests on the plains around Kilimanjaro, were all cut down centuries ago (by the natives),”
A study done by some French fellows says it’s continental lift caused by tectonic plate activity that makes there to be less snow on Mount Kilimanjaro, not from global warming and not from deforestation “”
None of which negates my assertion that the local natives did in fact cut down all that forestry, to use for whatever they needed it for. Who knows; maybe the rmoval of all that wood weight was the reason from the tectonic uplift that Frechie asserted.
However it is established that the snow/ice on Kilimanjaro sublimes because of low humidity, and does not melt due to high temperatures. Kilimanjaro is 20,000 feet high.
There is some rain forest on the lower slopes of the mountain which does create local moisture and rain in some streamlets; but it is too small an area to maintain the envirinment that was there thousands of years ago.
In any case in recent years, K has been as snowy as ever so is in fine shape.

“” Stephen Wilde (10:19:40) :
To clarify the significance of evaporation:
If water is warmer than air the latent heat of evaporation comes from the water which cools rapidly.
If water is cooler than air the latent heat of evaporation comes from the air and so is no longer available to warm the water.
If downwelling longwave radiation warms the water surface then any energy added to the water surface is taken away by the latent heat of evaporation.
Evaporation occurs at all temperatures if the air is not saturated because air is less dense than water.
Neither air nor downwelling radiation are able to warm water because the evaporative process always uses the energy supply most readily available and if the water is warmer than the air it is taken from the water and any warming effect negated.
If one cannot warm the oceans one cannot warm the air. If extra heat is put into the air from say extra GHGs it cannot be retained because the air temperature at the surface has to match the SST globally. The mechanism which maintains the equilibrium is the latitudinal position of the weather systems. “”
The downward radiation from the atmosphere is long wave IR due to the temperature of the atmosphere. The capture of 14.77 micron band IR from the earth’s surface by CO2 or other GHG and other wavelengths (water vapor too) is part of what warms the atmosphere.
That downward IR is all absorbed in less than the top 10 microns of the ocean surface (73% of planet’s surface), so it leads to immediate prompt evaporation.
The solar spectrum radiation propagates tens of metres deep in the ocean, and is only slowly returned to the surface by convection.
But evaporation occurs because the kinetic energy of the surface molecules is increased, and it is the higher energy tail of the statistical distribution, of molecular velocities, which escape the surface attraction into the atmosphere. The warmer the atmosphere is, the more receptive the atmosphere is to accept the water molecule, but the energy of the molecule came with it right out of the water. The density of water molecules in the boundary layer, will determine how many of them return to the water; so there is a dynamic exchange going on. If the air is warmer, then atmospheric convection will transport the water vapor away from the surface so those molecules can’t return to the ocean.
The loss of that high energy tail of velocity distribution, is the reason why the average temperature of the water surface decreases due to evaporation.
The atmosphere may be the source of the energy that heats the water surface, but the energy transported with the water molecule, comes right out of the water.
George
And yes I agree; why don’t they know this?

Does evaporation occur when the water beneath is frozen? As an example, water levels on the great lakes tend to be higher after a cold winter when there has been a great amount of the lake surface covered in ice. Liquid water cannot evaporate through an ice covered surface. Is this accurate and are there any implications to the rest of the planet as it relates to the poles and the amount of ocean covered in ice?
Reply: Ice can evaporate directly without ever changing to liquid water. The process is known as sublimation ~ charles the moderator

HI Anthony et al,
” JimB (17:17:12) :
Not sure where to put this, so it’s landing here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7843186.stm
”
probably deserves it’s own thread.
Cheers
Richard

philincalifornia,
Raindrops are usually at the temperature of air higher up and so usually carry less energy than the ocean surface.
The professionals should also know that positive feedbacks don’t work either because the weather systems just change their positions to maintain an equilibrium between sea surface temperature and surface air temperature without disturbing the balance between energy arriving at the Earth from the sun and energy leaving the Earth to space. Because those movements balance the energy budget no temperature rise can occur.
The latitudinal movement of the weather systems thus cancels out the variability in energy flow from the oceans and any disturbance in the energy budget of the atmosphere alone.

Pearland Aggie,
Sorry about the preachy tone, I am one of the ‘alarmed’ after all. 😉
It’s just that pieces like that on the website you linked to get on my nerves. I think that a ‘skeptic’ side to the debate such as WUWT has a part to play in the near future but this part is heavily undermined by misinformation such as the piece by the Baltimore Weather Examiner and even more so by sites like Icecap that give such stories a prominent place. Of course, only undermined inasmuch people research the background and provenance of these stories. Otherwise the purpose of dishing out misinformation is well-served of course.
I might be wrong about this but I have a feeling some time soon there will have to appear a dividing line in the ‘skeptic’ community between the part that deliberately misinforms for financial reasons (for instance Fred Singer) and egotistical reasons (such as Tim Ball and all those other old men that IMO systematically fail to show any wisdom corresponding to their age), and the part that is honestly questioning everything surrounding AGW.
Actually, in that light I have high hopes for WUWT, entirely based on the picture I have of Anthony Watts based on how he responded to me in the recent past (on the question what the moral implications of (un)deliberately spreading misinformation are) and the fact that he’s a proponent of renewable energy (or at least he has solar panels on his roof). But it’ll take a few more years of science rolling in to see which way things’ll be progressing.
Neven

Oh, and more information from the service is here.

To update the ENSO situation. The latest SST shows rapid warming of Eastern Pacific equatorial waters and continued slower warming of the rest of the equatorial waters. http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.1.26.2009.gif
This is also shown by the NINO charts showing warming throughout the range. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml
SOI is down to is lowest value since September http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/soi30.png
This should confirm that there will be no La Nina, indeed the rapid warming of the Eastern Pacific and the Southern Pacific suggests an intense El Nino later this year is becoming more probable.