Guest post by Paul Homewood
In their attempts to disguise the fact that 2012 will likely turn out to be one of the colder years this century, NOAA have made the ludicrous, and frankly dishonest, claim that this year will be the “hottest La Niña” year on record.
But is it a La Niña year?
NOAA’s own Multivariate ENSO Index is shown below.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
And the monthly numbers:-
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
To November, the index averages +0.160, which would be classified as between neutral and weak El Niño. The monthly rankings below also confirm that the index for the year is above average, coming in at 36th out of 63. (The rankings run from 1950-2012). The July ranking of 57 shows that there were only 6 July’s that had a higher MEI.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/rank.html
And did this ENSO transition from negative (La Niña) to positive (El Niño) have any effect on temperature during the year? You betcha!
Take a look at UAH, for instance.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
UAH anomalies hit a low point of –0.13C in Jan/Feb, and then bounced up to 0.34C in October, before sinking back to 0.28C in November as the El Niño fizzled out.
For NOAA to pretend that 2012 was a La Nina year, and then use temperatures, heavily affected by El Niño conditions throughout the summer, to “prove” that it is the hottest La Nina year is not something real scientists do.
For a more realistic comparison, the last 12 month period, when ENSO was pretty neutral, was April 2001-March 2002, when the MEI averaged minus 0.003. The UAH temperature anomaly was 0.157C for that period, and compares with a current figure for the last 12 months of 0.150C. This, of course, suggests little underlying change in global temperature for the last 10 years.
But, it seems , NOAA are more interested in propaganda than the truth.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Snow storm coming in today. Looks like a duzy. Maybe its another super storm.
Waiting for Bob Tisdale to weigh in here. I hate to ascribe nefarious motives to people until all other explanations have been eliminated.
Clearly yet another example of La Niña-abuse by the Alarmistas in their continuing crime spree of El Niño data molestation.
Annual temperatures correlate to the ENSO phase early in the year, so yes, 2012 is a La Nina year for this purpose.
This is all part of the hollowing out process of agencies and institutions—-for the children.
I have been finding out that the educated Green folks are in denial of anything of logic. There is desperation in their blatant disregard of what’s real.
As I posted recently, their ilk is can only be compared to religion where mankind’s ecoscientists have reached the pinnacle of their evolution. No longer can they adapt to an ever changing world; Instead they believe they can control the world like gods.
I perhaps a bit foolish, I think this statement is closer to reality than the summary for policymakers or this claim coming from NOAA… indeed, hottest La Nina!
Can’t someone make the case it is the “coldest El Nino on record”?
Those promoting CAA (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Anything) are hell bent on shooting themselves in the foot. Over and over and over. People are noticing, and if they keep on doing it, even more will notice, but does that stop these fools? No. They are desperate to get back to business as usual. How stupid are they going to look with yet another FAIL to show the world, and what are they going to do for next year? Why do I even ask? It’ll be more of the same, as always.
I wish these “climate scientists” and propagandists would grow up. Will they behave like lemmings right up to and over the cliff edge? All the signs so far lead me to think the answer is most likely “yes”.
Paul, on the NOAA link you provided…
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/11/supplemental/page-2/
…they define a La Nina year as “…occurring when the first three months of a calendar year are classified under La Niña conditions.” And they also use the Oceanic NINO Index…
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
…as the reference for La Nina conditions.
Regardless, it’s just a childish effort to keep global warming happening. The first time I can recall seeing this “warmest La Nina year” nonsense was last year, and it was the WMO making the claim.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Tuesday 18 December 2012
“The tropical Pacific Ocean remains neutral – neither El Niño nor La Niña.”
Looking through the archive, taking the first report each month, we get:
Wednesday 4 January
“La Niña conditions continue over the tropical Pacific Ocean.”
Wednesday 1 February
“La Niña showed only small changes over the past fortnight and are expected to maintain an influence upon Australian climate over the coming months.”
Tuesday 13 March
“The 2011–12 La Niña event is nearing its end, with most indicators approaching or at neutral values.”
Tuesday 10 April
“Following the demise of the 2011–12 La Niña, the state of ENSO across the tropical Pacific remains neutral (neither El Niño nor La Niña).”
Tuesday 8 May
“Climate indicators across the tropical Pacific Ocean remain neutral (neither El Niño nor La Niña).”
Tuesday 5 June
Tropical Pacific climate indicators remain at neutral values for this time of the year.”
Tuesday 3 July
“Climate indicators continue to show a shift towards El Niño, in line with most model predictions.”
Tuesday 14 August
“Climate indicators in the tropical Pacific Ocean remain close to El Niño thresholds.”
Tuesday 11 September
“Tropical Pacif ic Ocean sea surf ace temperatures remain at values close to El Niño thresholds.”
Tuesday 9 October
The chance of El Niño dev eloping in 2012 has reduced ov er the past fortnight.”
Wednesday 7 November
Indicators of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation remain at neutral levels.”
Tuesday 4 December
“The tropical Pacif ic remains neutral with respect to ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation), that is, neither El Niño nor La Niña.”
No-one in their right mind could possibly call that a La Nina year.
Wow… it is hard to believe that NOAA would actually claim the last two years are the “warmest” cold years on record.
According to the monthly ENSO reports over the last couple years, this last La Nina was quite short and so weak it only briefly barely qualified for La Nina status.
Going by their apparent definitions for El Nino vs La Nina years then according to the NINO3.4 SST Index on the ENSO page http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png 2008 was entirely La Nina except for a little Neutral time in Jul & Aug. 2009 started as La Nina but topped neutral in March and entered a strong El Nino through the end of the year. Arguably the strongest La Nina year by their definition. 2010 started as El Nino (the end of the strong 2009 season) and remained as El Nino until May then entered a Strong La Nina phase till 2011. Should this be listed as the “Coldest El Nino on record”??
2009 started as La Nina but topped neutral in March and entered a strong El Nino through the end of the year. Arguably the strongest La Nina year by their definition.
Correction
2009 started as La Nina but topped neutral in March and entered a strong El Nino through the end of the year. Arguably the warmest La Nina year by their definition.
The measured global average temperature value lags ENSO conditions by 5-6 months depending upon whether the data is lower troposphere (satellite) or surface data. So really the values to look at are the last 5/6 from last year and the first 6/7 of this year. If we do that, we get the following MEI values:
Last 6/first 6 = -0.39
Last 5/first 7 = -0.29
So technically this year should reflect weak/mild La Nina conditions.
-Scott
Don’t forget NOAA is claiming record warmth in it’s data set which covers less than 2% of the earths surface.
And, of course, the apparent recent increase in the frequency of La Niña conditions is weather and not climate. It is early, but if 2010-2030 looks like 1950-1970 (top chart) we may be in for a bit of chillin.
Count your blessing, Y’All !!
Russia is gripped in truly brutal winter conditions.
http://rt.com/news/russia-freeze-cold-temperature-379/
Baby, It’s Cold Outside!
Merry Christmas To All, from the Great NorthWet!
MtK
Had a meeting with my bank manger this morning, he just could not grasp the fact that by my being in credit for the first 3 months of the year I would therefore be in credit for the whole of the year irrespective of the debt I had amassed over the following 9 months.
The man is obviously a fool!
UAH anomalies hit a low point of –0.13C in Jan/Feb, and then bounced up to 0.34C in October, before sinking back to 0.28C in November as the El Niño fizzled out.
If you are interested, below are the latest monthly numbers for 5 other data sets as well.
2012 in Perspective so far on Six Data Sets
Note the bolded numbers for each data set where the lower bolded number is the highest anomaly recorded so far in 2012 and the higher one is the all time record so far. There is no comparison.
With the UAH anomaly for November at 0.281, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.281)/11 = 0.156. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.132.
With the GISS anomaly for November at 0.68, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.32 + 0.37 + 0.45 + 0.54 + 0.67 + 0.56 + 0.46 + 0.58 + 0.62 + 0.68 + 0.68)/11 = 0.54. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.89. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.514.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for October at 0.486, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.217 + 0.193 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.475 + 0.477 + 0.448 + 0.512+ 0.515 + 0.486)/10 = 0.411. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.340.
With the sea surface anomaly for October at 0.428, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.385 + 0.440 + 0.449 + 0.428)/10 = 0.336. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.273.
With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147.
With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for November at 0.512, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.288 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.525 + 0.531 + 0.506 + 0.470 + 0.532 + 0.515 + 0.524 + 0.512)/11 = 0.45. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.399.
On all six of the above data sets, a record is out of reach.
I live next to the Pacific, and my observation had been that we have had two la Nina type years, and the latest had been a fairly weak el nino year. I merely base this on observations of both rain and temps in oz, but I am fairly sensitive (or maybe appreciative) of both, so i think my conclusions are reasonable.
Right now we are waiting on the late rains yet again in north Queensland. This is, add I understand it, a typical el nino result. Likewise the temps have been somewhat lower these last couple of years, and are still not pulling up to what a strong el nino would give us.
Bob Tisdale
they define a La Nina year as “…occurring when the first three months of a calendar year are classified under La Niña conditions
Thanks, Bob. They may just be taking advantage of semantics. However, I was intrigued by their statement
“A La Niña year is defined here as occurring when the first three months of a calendar year are classified under La Niña conditions.”
Are they making up their own definition?
Scott
The measured global average temperature value lags ENSO conditions by 5-6 months depending upon whether the data is lower troposphere (satellite) or surface data.
UAH numbers went from -0.13C in Feb to +0.23C in April, following the MEI changes about a month later. Similarly they fell from 0.34C in Oct to 0.28C in Nov, suggest lag of about 2 months.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
RSS figures suggest the same.
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
Yes, the whole thing is made up. What is ENSO other than an homo sapiens “made up” Index?
For the here and now actual SSTs in the ENSO are more relevant. The index may foretell, may indicate implications, but for what is happening now look to the SSTs. Which makes the NOAA – the first 3 months makes a year even more nonsensical.
Paul Homewood says:
December 21, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Hi Paul. It has seemed that over the last year or two the lag has been less than the 5-6 months I stated…I’d noticed that earlier this year. I got the 5-6 number from Roy Spencer at one point I believe…and it’s similar to a number Tamino popped out too IIRC. I’ll see if I can dig up references at some point…or maybe someone else could chime in.
-Scott
I had a similar argument with the UK Met, who claimed that the August temperatures this year still reflected La Nina.
When I pointed out to them that from Feb to Aug HADCRUT temps had increased by 0.32C, they told me
Please also note also that there are many factors which impact global temperature, in addition to the state of the ENSO cycle. The natural climate variability dominates any changes in global temperature values over timescales of a few months or years.”
So apparently 0.32C can be due to “natural variability”, but they are also sure that a similar increase since 1980 is due to CO2!