Will Global Warming Increase the Intensity of El Niño?

FIRST CLIMATE MODELS HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SIMULATE EL NIÑO AND LA NIÑA PROCESSES—CAPABILITIES THEY CONTINUE TO LACK AFTER DECADES OF MODELING EFFORTS (PERSONALLY, I DON’T THINK THE MODELERS ARE REALLY TRYING)

BBCNews published an article yesterday by Matt McGrath “Global warming will increase intensity of El Nino, scientists say.” The article includes the usual phraseology:

Now, in this new paper, published in the journal Nature, researchers give their most “robust” projections yet.

And there’s the obligatory quote from an “uninvolved” third party, who just happens to work for the same organization as the authors:

According to Dr Wenju Cai, a scientist at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), who was not involved with the study, the paper is “significant”.

Does significant mean the study will make a loud noise when we throw it into the dustbin?

You’ll likely choose to immediately dismiss the paper based on the following sentence in the BBCNews article:

Using the latest generation of climate models, they found a consistent projection for the future of ENSO.

Climate models can’t simulate the vast majority of the fundamental coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that drive El Niño and La Niña events. That is, the past (CMIP3) and current (CMIP5) generations of climate models create virtual El Niños and La Niñas that bear little resemblance to those that occur in the real Pacific Ocean.

The paper being discussed is Power et al. (2013) Robust twenty-first-century projections of El Niño and related precipitation variability. The abstract reads:

The El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) drives substantial variability in rainfall, severe weather, agricultural production, ecosystems and diseasein many parts of the world. Given that further human-forced changes in the Earth’s climate system seem inevitable, the possibility exists that the character of ENSO and its impacts might change over the coming century. Although this issue has been investigated many times during the past 20 years, there is very little consensus on future changes in ENSO, apart from an expectation that ENSO will continue to be a dominant source of year-to-year variability. Here we show that there are in fact robust projected changes in the spatial patterns of year-to-year ENSO-driven variability in both surface temperature and precipitation. These changes are evident in the two most recent generations of climate models, using four different scenarios for CO2 and other radiatively active gases. By the mid- to late twenty-first century, the projections include an intensification of both El-Niño-driven drying in the western Pacific Ocean and rainfall increases in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific. Experiments with an Atmospheric General Circulation Model reveal that robust projected changes in precipitation anomalies during El Niño years are primarily determined by a nonlinear response to surface global warming. Uncertain projected changes in the amplitude of ENSO-driven surface temperature variability have only a secondary role. Projected changes in key characteristics of ENSO are consequently much clearer than previously realized.

So the key finding is:

By the mid- to late twenty-first century, the projections include an intensification of both El-Niño-driven drying in the western Pacific Ocean and rainfall increases in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific.

According to Power et al (2013), the climate models simulate at least one portion of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) processes properly. In order for you to understand why, during an El Niño, precipitation increases in the central and eastern tropical Pacific and decreases in the west, we need to discuss a few fundamentals. Don’t worry. There’s nothing difficult about it. Precipitation just tags along with the warm water.

ENSO BASICS 101:

Under normal conditions in the tropical Pacific, there is a trade wind-created pool of warm water in the western tropical Pacific (called the West Pacific Warm Pool). That sunlight-fueled pool of warm water can extend to depths of 300 meters and cover an area the size of Russia or twice the size of the U.S. In other words, there can be a monumental amount of sunlight-created warm water in the western tropical Pacific from time to time. Because the water there is naturally so much warmer than other locations, a lot of evaporation and precipitation takes place at the West Pacific Warm Pool.

During an El Niño, the warm water from the surface and below the surface of the western tropical Pacific floods into the central and eastern tropical Pacific and spreads across its surface. The warm water is focused primarily along the equator (brought there by a prolonged surge in the flow of the equatorial countercurrent, which travels from west to east).

Because the warm water has traveled into the central and eastern tropical Pacific during the El Niño, that causes that the evaporation, cloud cover and precipitation that is normally in the western tropical Pacific to accompany the warm water eastward.

Logically, precipitation increases in the eastern tropical Pacific and decreases in the western tropical Pacific during an El Niño. So the models, according to Power et al. (2013) appear to simulate that basic relationship.

DATA CONTRADICT MODELS

In order for there to be “an intensification of both El-Niño-driven drying in the western Pacific Ocean and rainfall increases in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific” in the future, as claimed by Power et al. (2013), El Niño events have to become stronger, or last longer, or occur more often, or a combination of the three, in their number-crunched, CO2-driven, climate model-based virtual worlds. The other possibility: there has to be a global warming-caused change in the background state of the tropical Pacific in the models.

However, Ray & Giese (2012) Historical changes in El Niño and La Niña characteristics in an ocean reanalysis found that El Niño events had not become stronger, or lasted longer, or occurred more often (among other things) since 1871. And manmade greenhouse gases are said to have caused global warming during that time period. The Ray & Giese (2012) abstract ends:

Overall, there is no evidence that there are changes in the strength, frequency, duration, location or direction of propagation of El Niño and La Niña anomalies caused by global warming during the period from 1871 to 2008.

So one wonders how climate models could simulate a future change in ENSO when there have been no changes in almost 140 years.

With respect to the background state of tropical Pacific, let’s look at the modeled and observed warming (and cooling) rates of the sea surface temperatures of the Pacific Ocean during the satellite era (basically 1982 to present). The following two illustrations are from my book Climate Models Fail. I’ve thrown a few notes on them for this blog post, simply to point out the locations of the tropical Pacific and the equator for the climate modelers. The data are NOAA’s satellite-enhanced optimum interpolation sea surface temperature dataset, Reynolds OI.v2. The models are represented by the average of all of the simulations (model runs) from the climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive–those that provided simulations of sea surface temperatures. (The CMIP5 archive was prepared for and used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report.) We use the multi-model mean because it best represents how climate models indicate the sea surface temperatures should have (would have, could have) warmed in response to human-induced global warming. (For further information, see the blog post On the Use of the Multi-Model Mean.) The forcings that drive the models are a mix of historic though 2005 and RCP6.0 afterwards.

Figure 7-29 is a graph that presents the sea surface temperature trends for the Pacific Ocean on a zonal-means basis. (Zonal means is another way of saying latitude average.) The vertical axis (y-axis) is scaled in deg C/decade. In other words, the positive numbers indicate rates at which the sea surface temperatures warmed and the negative numbers indicate cooling rates. The horizontal axis (x-axis) is latitude, with 90S (-90) the South Pole, “zero” (0) the equator, and 90N (90) the North Pole. El Niño and La Niña events occur in the tropical Pacific but are focused along the equator. So let’s look at the trends at the equator. The climate models indicate that if (big if) the sea surface temperatures of the equatorial Pacific were warmed by manmade greenhouse gases, the sea surface temperatures there should have warmed at a rate of about 0.2 deg C/decade…or more than 0.6 deg C over the past 3+ decades. But, the data indicate the sea surface temperatures of the equatorial Pacific actually COOLED over the past 31 years. Overall, there are few to no similarities between how data indicate the Pacific actually warmed over the past 30 years and how the models indicate they shoulda’, woulda’, coulda’ warmed in response to the increased emissions of manmade carbon dioxide.

Figure 7-29

Figure 7-30 presents maps of the modeled and observed rates of warming and cooling in the Pacific for the same basic period (1982 to 2012), using the same dataset and model mean as in Figure 7-29. There are no similarities between how the sea surface temperatures of the Pacific Ocean actually warmed over the past 3+ decades and how the models indicate they should have warmed, if they were warmed by manmade greenhouse gases.

Figure 7-30

Note: The observed “C-shaped” warming pattern in the Pacific (right-hand cell of Figure 7-30) is one associated with a period when strong, naturally occurring, El Niño events released vast amounts of naturally created warm water from below the surface of the tropical Pacific, which was then subsequently redistributed after the El Niños into the western Pacific Ocean (and East Indian Ocean, not illustrated) by ocean currents. The warm water “collects” in the region east of Japan referred to as the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension (KOE) and in the region east of Australia and New Zealand called the South Pacific Convergence Zone (SPCZ). The modelers obviously missed the naturally occurring spatial pattern of warming that takes place in the Pacific Ocean. That’s an important climate model failing for a simple reason: how, when, and where the oceans warm and cool dictate in part how, when and where land surface air temperatures warm and cool.

PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS ABOUT HOW POORLY CLIMATE MODELS SIMULATE EL NIÑO- AND LA NIÑA-RELATED PROCESSES

Power et al. (2013) cited Guilyardi et al. (2009), which is a paper I have referred to numerous times in blog posts (example here). Did Power et al. (2013) overlook one of the critical findings of Guilyardi et al. (2009)?:

Because ENSO is the dominant mode of climate variability at interannual time scales, the lack of consistency in the model predictions of the response of ENSO to global warming currently limits our confidence in using these predictions to address adaptive societal concerns, such as regional impacts or extremes.

In other words, because climate models cannot accurately simulate El Niño and La Niña processes, the authors of Guilyardi et al. (2009) have little confidence in climate model projections of regional climate or of extreme events.

Bellenger, et al. (2013) “ENSO Representation in Climate Models: From CMIP3 to CMIP5,” is a more recent confirmation of how poorly climate models simulate El Niños and La Niñas. (Preprint copy is here.) The section titled “Discussion and Perspectives” begins:

Much development work for modeling group is still needed in order to correctly represent ENSO, its basic characteristics (amplitude, evolution, timescale, seasonal phaselock…) and fundamental processes such as the Bjerknes and surface fluxes feedbacks.

  • “Amplitude” refers to the strengths of ENSO events.
  • “Evolution” refers to the formation of El Niños and La Niñas and the processes that take place as the events are forming.
  • “Timescale” can refer to both the how long ENSO events last and how often they occur.
  • “Phaselock” refers to the fact that El Niño and La Niña events are tied to the seasonal cycle. They peak in the boreal winter.
  • “Bjerknes feedback,” very basically, means how the tropical Pacific and the atmosphere above it are coupled; i.e., they are interdependent, a change in one causes a change in the other and they provide positive feedback to one another. The existence of this positive “Bjerknes feedback” suggests that El Niño and La Niña events will remain in one mode until something interrupts the positive feedback.

In short, according to Bellenger, et al. (2013), the current generation of climate models (CMIP5: used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report and by Power et al (2013)) still cannot simulate basic coupled ocean-atmosphere processes associated with El Niño and La Niña events–basic processes.

Power et al (2013) must have really had to search through the climate model simulations to find some ENSO-related response that appeared to mimic reality.

THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG

I was alerted to the BBCNews article and the paper by blogger mwhite in a comment this morning. (Thanks, mwhite.) mwhite’s note “The tail wags the dog???” refers to the fact that satellite-era sea surface temperature records indicate strong El Niño events are responsible for the warming of global sea surface temperatures over the past 3 decades, not manmade greenhouse gases. And ocean heat content records indicate the warm waters that fuel El Niño events were created during La Niña events—a process that is driven by sunlight, not greenhouse gases. So mwhite was asking rhetorically whether Power et al. (2013) had confused cause and effect.

If the subject of the natural warming of the global oceans is new to you, refer to my illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge”(42MB). The way data portrays how the oceans warmed may come as a surprise to you, especially with all we’ve been told about human-induced global warming. If you like audio-video presentations, see my two-part YouTube video series “The Natural Warming of the Global Oceans”. Part 1 is here and Part 2 is here.

WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT CLIMATE MODEL FAILINGS AND ABOUT EL NIÑO AND LA NIÑA EVENTS AND HOW THEY PROVIDE LONG-TERM GLOBAL WARMING?

Last year I published the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? It explained in minute detail (and in easy-to-understand ways for those without technical or scientific backgrounds) the processes that drive El Niño and La Niña events and how they contributed to the long-term warming of the global oceans. (Who Turned on the Heat? continues to sell quite well.)

However, before you click on the following links to Who Turned on the Heat? I also addressed the subject of the natural warming of the global oceans in Section 9 of my new book Climate Models Fail, but not in as much detail as in Who Turned on the Heat?

I have been publishing comparisons of data with climate models outputs for about two years. The climate models used by the IPCC clearly cannot simulate Earth’s surface temperatures, precipitation or sea ice area. Additionally, there are numerous scientific research papers that are very critical of how climate models perform specific functions. The following lists the processes that CLIMATE MODELS STILL SIMULATE POORLY:

  • The coupled ocean-atmosphere processes of El Niño and La Niña, the largest contributors to natural variations in global temperature and precipitation on annual, multiyear, and decadal timescales.
  • Responses to volcanic eruptions, which can be so powerful that they can even counteract the effects of strong El Niño events.
  • Precipitation — globally or regionally — including monsoons.
  • Cloud cover.
  • Sea surface temperatures.
  • Global surface temperatures.
  • Sea ice extent.
  • Teleconnections, the mechanisms by which a change in a variable in one region of the globe causes a change in another region, even though those regions may be separated by thousands of kilometers.
  • Blocking, which is associated with heat waves.
  • The influence of El Niños on hurricanes.
  • The coupled ocean-atmosphere processes associated with decadal and multidecadal variations in sea surface temperatures, which strongly impact land surface temperatures and precipitation on those same timescales.

Looking at those papers independently, the faults do not appear too bad, but collectively they indicate the models are fatally flawed.

In my book Climate Models Fail, I have collected my past findings about climate models, and illustrated others, and I’ve presented highlights from the research papers critical of climate models—and I “translated” those research findings for persons without scientific or technical backgrounds. And as noted earlier, there is also a discussion of the natural warming of the global oceans. The free preview of Climate Models Fail is available here. It includes the Introduction, Table of Contents and the Closing. Climate Models Fail is available in pdf and Kindle formats. Refer to my blog post New Book: “Climate Models Fail” for further information, the synopsis from the Kindle webpage and purchase/download links.

Back to Who Turned on the Heat?: It is only available in .pdf form. A preview is here. Who Turned on the Heat? is described further in, and is available for sale through, my blog post “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About El Niño and La Niña”.

CLOSING

It seems as though Power et al. (2013) went in search of some small portion, any small portion, of ENSO that climate models appeared to simulate correctly and then published the typical climate science paper that generates alarmist nonsense in newspaper articles.

When data contradict models in most scientific and engineering endeavors, the modelers rework the models. Not in climate science. In climate science, the climate scientists/modelers simply proclaim the findings of the fatally flawed models more often and with greater certainty, without revealing the model flaws. (Thus, the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report.)

102 thoughts on “Will Global Warming Increase the Intensity of El Niño?

  1. I think my last post at WUWT said something about “an ass-covering smokescreen to lend credence to a sour agenda.”

    Could this be yet another instance? Mind-boggling.

  2. By the mid- to late twenty-first century, the projections …

    YACUC: Yet Another Convenient Untestable Claim.

  3. “When data contradict models in most scientific and engineering endeavors, the modelers rework the models.”

    Pft, too hard. Just rework the data.

  4. The BBC, I have noted recently, does not allow comment on climate related articles anymore.

    This pile of merde deserves to be completely trashed and it would be easy to do so.

  5. Climate modelling seems to be facing a watershed. Since it takes a very long time to test their predictions, climate modellers have lived in a Nirvana like state where they have been able to believe that their models represented reality.

    Now that the model predictions are failing, they are in a difficult position, particularly as the rest of scientific community is becoming increasingly reluctant to accept that their models are valid.

  6. This reminds me of an experience I had with some thermal-hydraulic modelers for a piping system that had started to oscillate when modeling a perfectly symmetric piping system. When you changed the numbering of the nodes, the oscillations started in the opposite direction. Clearly a numeric bug, but the model authors insisted that the code was modeling 3-D behavior inside the control volumes. Even though the control volumes were 1-D elements.

    Oh, and the modelers were government contractors, working for a very prestigious national laboratory.

    The more-experienced the modelers, the “better” they can defend their models, and the more skepticism that needs to be applied to their results.

  7. Recently, I have been analyzing the statistical relationship between ENSO and the rate of change in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. I find a strong statitistical relationship that follows ENSO by about six months. This indicates that ENSO is controlling CO2 rather than CO2 “warming” controlling ENSO. I think the mechanism is in the dynamics of the water and CO2 thermodynamics in thunder clouds (the vertical change in dew point and CO2 solubility). CO2 emissions from ENSO are at least an order of magnitude greater than global anthropogenic emissions.

  8. What readers outside Australia (where this paper came from) should be aware of is that:

    (a) It is a co-production of CSIRO and the BOM, both of which were once respected scientific organisations, but are now openly committed to CAGW promotion; and

    (b) El Nino events are associated with severe drought conditions in Australia, which is why this is “scary.”

  9. thomam says: “BBC Article. Para 6. ‘…slosh…’.
    “Oh no, here we go again…”

    You’ll note that I used “floods” in my description:
    During an El Niño, the warm water from the surface and below the surface of the western tropical Pacific FLOODS into the central and eastern tropical Pacific and spreads across its surface.

  10. fhhaynie says: “Recently, I have been analyzing the statistical relationship between ENSO and the rate of change in the atmospheric concentration of CO2….”

    There are a number of discussions by NOAA on that topic:
    “The equatorial Pacific is the largest oceanic source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. ”

    Unfortunately, the NOAA/PMEL webpage isn’t working during the shut down:

    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/elnino.html‎

    There is an operational press release though for “Oceans Retain More Carbon Dioxide During El Niño Events”:

    http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases99/apr99/noaa99-30.html

    Regards

  11. If the ENSO cycle is the source of the warming during the last century then the key question is why did this inherently unpredictable process suddenly change the global temperature by a significant amount in a few decades when it has clearly been a neutral influence on the climate for the preceding 8000 years?

    And if ENSO is the ratchet process that is the source of observed warming, when will it stop?!
    At least with the CO2 theory there is a means of stopping the warming and estimating how bad it could get, if all the fossil carbon is burnt.
    The rapid warming, sea level rise and ice melt unprecedented in millennia might have no end point short of boiling of the oceans if it is purely an ENSO abberation.

  12. Off Topic but this was just published on Skeptical Science:

    Consensus study most downloaded paper in all Institute of Physics journals

    Posted on 14 October 2013 by John Cook

    In April, Skeptical Science readers became part of a landmark citizen science project when you helped crowd-fund $1,600 to make our consensus paper freely available to the public. It took just 9 hours for the crowd-funding to raise the required funds (apologies to the SkS readers who missed out on the opportunity to donate). Thanks in part to your contribution, the Consensus Project has gone on to make a significant impact. Within 24 hours, our paper was tweeted by President Obama’s Twitter account and received mainstream media coverage in countries all over the world:

    Figure 1: Mainstream media coverage of Cook et al. (2013).

    Most downloaded paper in all Institute of Physics journals

    This week, the number of downloads of our paper passed 100,000. To put this number in perspective, the previously most downloaded paper in Environmental Research Letters (ERL) has been downloaded 60,000 times. In addition to ERL, the Institute of Physics publish over 70 peer-reviewed science journals. Over the last week, Cook et al. (2013) became the most downloaded paper in all Institute of Physics journals (this paper is second).

  13. From Bob Tisdale’s post:

    “Does significant mean the study will make a loud noise when we throw it into the dustbin?”

    Hilarious! (Thanks, Bob.)

  14. RC Saumarez says:
    October 15, 2013 at 5:01 am

    Climate modelling seems to be facing a watershed.

    I’d say it seems to be facing the outhouse.

  15. Even a broken clock is right twice a day… What a crock of cherry-picking data and ignoring reality….

    Authors response to skeptics? “How dare you question me and my letters-after-my-name??????

  16. I have just listened to a sick-making afternoon play on BBC Radio 4 about the ‘Kingsnorth Six’ which treated them as a bunch of heros, and was pure propaganda from start to finish. The sad thing is that many listeners will regard it as fact rather than fiction. So much for the BBC’s supposed impartiality.

  17. Just like it will increase severe weather and droughts? Except it’s cold dry air, especially when pushing back the tropical zone, that causes those. Can you say “180° wrong”?

  18. It’s behind a paywall. How do they know that the projections are robust?

    Experiments with an Atmospheric General Circulation Model reveal that robust projected changes in precipitation anomalies during El Niño years are primarily determined by a nonlinear response to surface global warming.

    I am glad to see the discussion shift away from the equilibrium to the transient. If it has: I am not familiar enough with the GCMs to know if equilibrium assumptions are built-in.

    Nice models of ENSO are presented in the books by Henk Dijkstra that I have mentioned: “Nonlinear Climate Dynamics” and “Nonlinear Physical Oceanography”. I say “nice” — they are a work in progress.

  19. >And there’s the obligatory quote from an “uninvolved” third party,
    From RealClimate:

    Several people have written saying that it would be useful to have an expert opinion on the state of the surface temperature data from someone other than RealClimate members.

    Here you go:

    You don’t get more expert than Jim Hansen.

  20. yeah…the ENSO…El Nino Southern Oscillation…when it gets warmer off Peru…it cools at the other end of the Pacific…and vice versa…looks like it should be a wash either way…as far as the so called Global Average Temperature is concerned…can anybody elucidate why it makes a difference…to the GAT

  21. izen says: “If the ENSO cycle is the source of the warming during the last century then the key question is why did this inherently unpredictable process suddenly change the global temperature by a significant amount in a few decades when it has clearly been a neutral influence on the climate for the preceding 8000 years?”

    One would assume you’re speculating with this question. How would you know that ENSO “has clearly been a neutral influence on the climate for the preceding 8000 years”? Do you have access to gridded monthly global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content records of a sufficient resolution and accuracy so that you can confirm that ENSO “has clearly been a neutral influence on the climate for the preceding 8000 years”? If so, please provide us a link to the (non-existent) data.

    izen says: “And if ENSO is the ratchet process that is the source of observed warming, when will it stop?!”

    Apparently you aren’t very observant, izen. What occurred in 1997/98 that causes people to use 1998 as the start year for the warming hiatus?

    No strong El Ninos = no warming.

    The 2009/10 only bumped up the surface temperatures of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans by about 0.05 deg C.

    But the cooling in the East Pacific with all of those La Niñas has been more than enough to counter it, apparently, since global surface temperatures haven’t warmed since 2001:

    izen says, “The rapid warming, sea level rise and ice melt unprecedented in millennia might have no end point short of boiling of the oceans if it is purely an ENSO abberation.”

    Thanks, that’s the funniest comment on the thread today. Almost spit out my coffee.

    Regards.

  22. gopal panicker says: “yeah…the ENSO…El Nino Southern Oscillation…when it gets warmer off Peru…it cools at the other end of the Pacific…and vice versa…looks like it should be a wash either way…as far as the so called Global Average Temperature is concerned…can anybody elucidate why it makes a difference…to the GAT”

    Your comment betrays you limited understanding of ENSO. ENSO acts as a chaotic, sunlight-fueled, recharge (La NIna)-discharge (El Nino) oscillator. There’s a quick overview of it’s long-term impact on global surface temperatures in the essay I linked within the post. I’ll save you the trouble searching for it. Here ya go:

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-manmade-global-warming-challenge.pdf

    Regards

  23. The density of water is around 1,000 times greater than the density of air. In addition, it takes more energy to heat the same weight of water vs air.
    The end result is that our oceans have easily 1,000 times more heat capacity than our atmosphere.

    For atmospheric CO2 to be the driving force of temperature in the total ocean/atmosphere mass system, it’s influence must be more than 1,000 times greater than any separate influences that drive ocean temperatures.

    There are other considerations but this incredibly powerful and irrefutable scientific fact continues to elude many climate scientists, who don’t give it proper weighing in global climate models(either because they don’t want to or can’t).

    Once you think you’ve learned something, all new information is processed differently. If it confirms your assuming, it’s gets stored in the brain as knowledge and reinforces what you think you know.

    If it contradicts what you think you know, it gets rejected.

    We all remember the conditioned response of Ivan Pavlog’s dog, who learned to salivate ahead of the presentation of food, when it was preceded by the sound of a buzzer.
    The dog of course, leaned to associate the sound of the buzzer with an upcoming meal………..while clearly, in science there is 0 causation.
    My cat does the same thing when she hears the sound of our can opener……….even if its to open a can of green beans.

    Our climate scientists, some of them with brilliant minds and comprehensive understanding of the physics of the atmosphere, oceans and effecting forces are in a way acting in similar fashion.

    When the CO2 buzzer goes off, their mind makes the correlation to warming and assumption of it also being causation as a conditioned response……………while ignoring massive empirical data that contradicts this causation and at the very least, should be investigated.

  24. Yet more self delusional ‘modelling':

    Dr Power says that ‘Global Warming …..will affect El Ninos….’

    What global warming? The warming that has started hiding in the oceans, that the models couldn’t predict, along with anything at all to do wth ENSO?

    Yet they can ‘robustly’ conclude that El Ninos will be affected by global warming nearly half a century in the future.

    ‘Robust’ as in wet lavatory paper

  25. McLean & Freitas 2009 also showed pretty convincingly that the temperature follows El-Nino index. If warming would also cause El-Nino, an oscillating or bi-stable system would be the result. The warmist are grasping at straws. I’m sure one could invent various hypotheses which could prevent oscillations or run-away effects but one would still be grasping at straws.

    I will really enjoy meeting the climate science gang in a few years looking for jobs. The axe is coming down on them really fast now.

  26. Gavin at RC has already gone on record several years ago that global warming is not only causing more El Ninos, but likely would prevent the PDO from ever shifting negative again. I wish I could find that post…

  27. They just don’t get it do they? The models have proven themselves to be useless. The climate they predict/project is a fantasy. Today’s predictions/projections are further from reality than yesterday’s, and tomorrow’s predictions/projections will be even worse. Any new studies based on climate models are DOA.

  28. This means there is another source of error in climate models. For a long time I saw where a number of people said that the natural cycles in the climate were cyclic and the net effect was zero; although I have never seen that proven.

  29. Ezen says:
    “At least with the CO2 theory there is a means of stopping the warming and estimating how bad it could get, if all the fossil carbon is burnt.”
    Forgive me if I misunderstood your comment, but did you really mean to imply that the validity of a climate hypothesis is to be judged by how simple the counter measures are to implement?

  30. MattN says:
    October 15, 2013 at 9:53 am

    Gavin at RC has already gone on record several years ago that global warming is not only causing more El Ninos, but likely would prevent the PDO from ever shifting negative again. I wish I could find that post…

    Please do. I’ve learned it is dangerous to trust my memory regarding what someone once posted somewhere.

  31. Clearly AR5 is now followed by a series of alarmist garbage published in the usual journals. These are well publicized by the usual media, instantly broadcast worldwide as another proof of the bludgeoning censorship the “denial” machine is imposing on victim scientists… /sarc

  32. These studies do serve a purpose. That is to document all of the micro effects of warming to be flipped around in the case of upcoming cooling in the face of decadal cycle downturns and global cooling. ENSO is a short term cycle to turn down as part of the larger cycle downturn. At least we get a small benefit out of the billions spent on research along the road to the day when we flip the switch to cooling paradigm, even if it is grossly inefficient research mill baby steps.

  33. Bob,

    You have become the number one authority on the facts of ENSO and similar phenomena. In addition, you provide timely explanations as new Warmist literature occurs. Your work really deserves a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

  34. So, here we are, years into a nearly neutral ENSO cycle. Not extreme. Bland. Blah.
    And the AGW promoters avoid dealing with that and instead make scary claims about what is not happneing.

  35. “So, here we are, years into a nearly neutral ENSO cycle. Not extreme. Bland. Blah.
    And the AGW promoters avoid dealing with that and instead make scary claims about what is not happneing”

    Yes, this is incredible.

    Climate science has long since parted ways with empirical data based, real world evidence.

    One could make the case that the science is not settled and that some on one side are justified in believing their unproven theories and global climate models based on the fact that the planet has in fact warmed over the last 100 years.

    What negates the legitimacy of that position entirely in my mind and proves clear bias by that side, is the one aspect of CO2 that is irrefutable fact in science……….it’s key role in photosynthesis and the massive gains to our planets biosphere and vegetative health, crop yields and world food production.

    Ignoring these profound benefits from CO2 in the discussion, when they should by far be getting the most weight of all, is a blatant display of bias.

    With the temperature increase stalling out for over a decade now, the debate over catastrophic warming that global climate models show is becoming scientifically silly.

    Who is not in agreement that plants use CO2 to make food?
    Why does this not overwhelm the silliness?

  36. I see no evidence that Tisdale has read anything more than the abstract to the paper. Does he know what’s in it?

  37. Pippen Kool:

    At October 15, 2013 at 1:12 pm you say

    I see no evidence that Tisdale has read anything more than the abstract to the paper. Does he know what’s in it?

    I see no evidence that you have a properly functional brain. Do you know how to correct that?

    Richard

  38. Bob:
    I am keeping a list of climate-related books to order when I think I’m going to have time to read them and yours are right at the top.

  39. richardscourtney says something irreverent or was that irrelevant. yes, irrelevant that’s the one.

    Inanycase, you fail to show me incorrect.

  40. Pippen Kool:

    I pointed out that – as is often the case with you – you had made an idiotic and unsubstantiated assertion. This link jumps to my post which was at October 15, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/15/will-global-warming-increase-the-intensity-of-el-nino/#comment-1448967

    At October 15, 2013 at 1:42 pm you have replied with direct evidence that – as my post asked – you don’t have a properly functioning brain. This is your reply in full

    richardscourtney says something irreverent or was that irrelevant. yes, irrelevant that’s the one.

    Inanycase, you fail to show me incorrect.

    You made the assertion. It is for you to justify it. I only observed that it is daft.

    Your track record of incorrect and daft assertions is all the evidence needed to evaluate whether this assertion from you is likely to be true when you have not provided anything to support it.

    Richard

  41. Now let me get this right, according to recent papers, more frequent, stronger El Ninos mean a greater rate of energy loss by the earth system (that’s what El Ninos do). It means that there will be less time for warming between the El Ninos. Additional heat is also meant to be heading off into the deep ocean. More energy is going into the increased greening of the planet due to more CO2 plant food and being fixed as it sinks into the earth/oceans. The models continue to predict temperatures rising faster (based on AGW theory) than the last 15 years empiirical measurements show. Where is all the extra energy going to come from to crank the global temperatures up? To coin a phrase, I think it’s a travesty that we don’t know!

  42. So El Nino is associated with Australian droughts. It’s also what greens the desert Southwest. Looks like a push to me.

  43. I listened to the announcement of this yesterday here in Oz on the good old AB friggin’ C as we often refer to it , our climate change crazy national broadcaster and when it became clear that it was just another “modelling” exercise I switched off. On their performance to date if you tweak the model parameters enough and they will predict the end of the world if a dugong farts.

    Nothing to see here folks, just some more scientists reporting on their research, sorry modelling game playing, funded by the previous climate crazy Australian “Government”

  44. This paper from way back in 2004 shows ENSO associated with D-O cycles in the North Atlantic record. I’ll also link it in reference to my discussion with Dr. S. about the reality of D-O & Bond cycles. Don’t know if it’s acceptable to post the same reference under two different active blog topics:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6980/abs/nature02386.html

    The El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon is believed to have operated continuously over the last glacial–interglacial cycle1. ENSO variability has been suggested to be linked to millennial-scale oscillations in North Atlantic climate during that time2, 3, but the proposals disagree on whether increased frequency of El Niño events, the warm phase of ENSO, was linked to North Atlantic warm or cold periods. Here we present a high-resolution record of surface moisture, based on the degree of peat humification and the ratio of sedges to grass, from northern Queensland, Australia, covering the past 45,000 yr. We observe millennial-scale dry periods, indicating periods of frequent El Niño events (summer precipitation declines in El Niño years in northeastern Australia). We find that these dry periods are correlated to the Dansgaard–Oeschger events—millennial-scale warm events in the North Atlantic climate record—although no direct atmospheric connection from the North Atlantic to our site can be invoked. Additionally, we find climatic cycles at a semiprecessional timescale (approx11,900 yr). We suggest that climate variations in the tropical Pacific Ocean on millennial as well as orbital timescales, which determined precipitation in northeastern Australia, also exerted an influence on North Atlantic climate through atmospheric and oceanic teleconnections.

  45. When they stop doing “projections” and are confident enough to do “predictions” I’ll take some notice.

  46. Without even looking at the paper you could take a good bet on two things , the word ‘may ‘ will appear a lot and they will have given themselves a get-out should their claims fail. Either via a long time line or by sticking in a ‘however’
    Its an approach that makes for good politics and OK religion, but its poor science . So standard for climate ‘science’

  47. The ENSO has no trend over time.

    It is one of the few places in the oceans (or anywhere for that matter) which exhibits Zero trend and which has these wild, but still lasting for months at a time, swings.

    So far in the last 159 years, increased CO2 has had absolutely Zero impact on this most important weather phenomenon on the planet. A person would have been truly committed to an unlikely theory to bet against that trend.

    History of Nino 3.4 in four different datasets back to 1854.

  48. Pippen Kool says: “I see no evidence that Tisdale has read anything more than the abstract to the paper. Does he know what’s in it?”

    And I see no evidence that the new troll Pippen Kool read my blog post. “Does he know what’s in it?” If Pippin Kool read it, does Pippin Kool understand it?

    Power et al (2013) performed an EOF/PC analysis of precipitation using the multi-model means of different scenarios (CMIP5 models). Power et al (2013) happened to find that the modeled 1st EOF presentation of tropical Pacific precipitation was a reasonable facsimile of observations and assumed the model 21st Century projections of precipitation would then be relevant.

    Unfortunately for Power et al (2013), Pippin Kool, ENSO is a coupled ocean-atmosphere process, meaning that sea surface temperatures, cloud cover, precipitation, trade wind strength and direction, etc., are all interdependent. If by happenstance the models get one portion right (as Power et al (2013) found) without getting other portions correct (and we know the models do not simulate them correctly), then the portion the models got correct has no basis in reality.

    Is that clear enough or would you like me to expand on the explanation?

    Have a nice day, Pippen Kool.

  49. Bill Illis says: “The ENSO has no trend over time.”

    At all times other than El Nino events, the eastern and central Pacific are supplied by cool (upwelled) subsurface waters. The fact that NINO3.4 sea surface temperatures show no long-term trend suggests that the temperature of the subsurface waters there have no long-term trend.

    Regards

  50. Thanks for another great post Bob.

    The tali wagging the dog was my instant reaction to the paper. These researchers would do well to buy your ebooks.

  51. That steady cold upwelled tongue comes from the circumpolar current, yes? It is one of the most dependable currents we have. The Humboldt current breaks away from the circumpolar prior to Drake’s Passage and travels up the coast of Peru, to emerge at the far eastern equatorial Pacific, providing a steady source of temperature as it mixes with surface water. No wonder there is no trend there.

  52. It is totally unscientific to use the word “robust” when describing a guess into the future.
    The phrase “….that further human-forced changes in the Earth’s climate system seem inevitable…..”
    requires qualification. It might be a correct phrase if one includes common-sense tiny changes, but when considering significant, large changes, then a quantitative, accepted equation linking the effect of man to the change in climate is a minimal requirement. This is not new news. It is the same old assertion that man-made GHG cause a substantial temperature increase. This has NOT been shown.

  53. ColdinOz says: “These researchers would do well to buy your ebooks.”

    Thanks and thanks for reminding me, ColdinOz.

    MANY THANKS TO ALL WHO PURCASED COPIES OF MY BOOKS AS A RESULT OF THIS POST AND TO THOSE WHO PURCHASED THEM FROM OTHERS!

    Regards

  54. Thinking out loud: The Humboldt current makes a sharp equatorial turn left and heads towards Japan, mixing and warming along the way. When the wind blows and sends the surface waters west, it uncovers the deeper portion of the Humboldt current, causing us to call it by another name, La Nina. Maybe it should just be called the cold naked Humboldt current instead of La Nina, having had its coat blown off by the wind. On the flip side, when the wind stalls long enough, this cold tongue goes into hiding, not wanting to rise to the surface much at all. When it doesn’t, it also fails to gouge out nutrients that it brings to the surface under normal conditions. El Nino’s calm devastates coastal fisheries, sending marine life elsewhere for food.

    http://www.scienceandthesea.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=265&Itemid=10

    • Pamela,

      I suspect the topography of the ocean floor also contributes to the upwelling off the coast of Peru. Eddies from the conveyor belt could be bringing up all those minerals (and CO2) from the cold deep.

  55. MattN says:
    October 15, 2013 at 9:53 am

    Gavin at RC has already gone on record several years ago that global warming is not only causing more El Ninos, but likely would prevent the PDO from ever shifting negative again. I wish I could find that post…

    Please do. I’ve learned it is dangerous to trust my memory regarding what someone once posted somewhere.

    —————-

    Can’t find it. It was way back, maybe 2005ish. I imagine he made that entry disappear once it was obvious it was wrong.

  56. Bob Tisdale says: “And I see no evidence that the new troll Pippen Kool read my blog post.”

    Most unfortunately I did. Quite a waste of time. Actually, I did read the original paper. Quite good, actually.

    Look, you cant sit a say a paper is trash without looking at the data. As far as I can see, you are trashing it based on your idea of your own idea first principles.
    I still don’t think you have read or understood the paper; you have not addressed a single figure of the paper.
    So, I think you need to up your game. Because the ‘you can trust me dialogue’ only works with people like richardscourtney who don’t know enuf to know better.

  57. BBCNews published an article yesterday by Matt McGrath “Global warming will increase intensity of El Nino, scientists say.” The article includes the usual phraseology:

    Now, in this new paper, published in the journal Nature, researchers give their most “robust” projections yet.

    At least Richard Black’s articles at the BBC sometimes allowed comment, before he went off to save the oceans. Matt McGrath seems to have almost seamlessly fallen into the same groove. Curious.

    Also, as Geoff Sherrington notes above, the word “robust” is often the inflammatory language that marks the fact that the inferences are likely anything but “robust”.

    I am also allergic to language referring to “state-of-the-art” models.

  58. Pippen Kool says:
    October 15, 2013 at 5:51 pm

    I’m pretty sure, Mr. Kool, that Mr. Courtney knows a lot more about relevant scientific subjects than you (whatever might be the gaps in his historical data base). Do you really want to go down the Yellow Brick credential comparison road, joining as Scarecrow the board’s own Tin Woodsman (fill in the blank) & Cowardly Lion Poptech?

  59. Pippen Kool says: “Look, you cant sit a say a paper is trash without looking at the data.”

    I have looked at the data and I’ve also examined the model outputs, Pippen Kool.

    Do you see any similarity between the 1st EOF of sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific (1982-2012)…
    1st eof sst data 1982 to 2012
    …and the 1st EOF of the modeled sea surface temperatures of the tropical Pacific (1982-2012), or anywhere else for that matter :
    1st eof modeled sst 1982 to 2012

    Just because illustrations do not appear in one of my blog posts, Pippin Kool, it doesn’t mean I have not looked at the data or the model outputs.

    Good-bye, troll.

  60. Pippen Kool says:

    Look, you cant sit a say a paper is trash without looking at the data. As far as I can see, you are trashing it based on your idea of your own idea first principles.

    Take an aspirin and lie down. You’re babbling.

  61. Cheers Tisdale:

    So I am sorry, those aren’t figures from the paper. They actually aren’t even close. What is your point, really? Could you explain in English rathe than Tisdalize?

    So I used to think to think you were clueless. Now I think different.

  62. Climatologist@7:54 a.m.: That El Nino winter brought the Upper Great Lakes the warmest winter in history.

  63. Pippen Kool says: “So I am sorry, those aren’t figures from the paper.”

    Of course they aren’t. You continue to broadcast your lack of understanding of the subject matter. Go back and read my first reply to you. Then look at the maps I provided.

    You’re wasting your time, and more important to me, you’re wasting mine. You have no wish to understand what’s being discussed. You’re simply arguing for argument sake. Not sure why. You’re not impressing anyone here with your compete lack of understanding of the topic at hand.

    Good-bye

  64. Pippen Kool says: “So I am sorry, those aren’t figures from the paper.”
    Bob Tisdale says:”Of course they aren’t. You continue to broadcast your lack of understanding of the subject matter.”

    Really? Really?

    I am a skeptic. This is a site for skeptics I have heard.

    So I am skeptical:
    Have you actually read the paper and understood it? What figure is incorrect? Oh maybe, can you crit figure by figure…it should be easy because there are only two data figs.

    Or are you a fake skeptic, just making noise.

  65. Dmilodonharlani says “I’m pretty sure, Mr. Kool, that Mr. Courtney knows a lot more about relevant scientific subjects than you (whatever might be the gaps in his historical data base). Do you really want to go down the Yellow Brick credential comparison road, joining as Scarecrow the board’s own Tin Woodsman (fill in the blank) & Cowardly Lion Poptech?”

    Don’t worry, Dmilodonharlani, I am not convinced that Tisdale or Courney know anything that I do not know. The fact that Tisdale has never published in peer reviewed media suggest that he that knows is stuff would get ripped apart, and he doesn’t really take criticism well because he thinks he knows more than the experts.He’s a pretty good example of Dunning–Kruger effect, at its best.

  66. Pippen Kool says:

    “I am a skeptic.”

    heh.

    Pippen Kool is about as skeptical as a witch doctor’s acolyte.

  67. Bob, I’ve been splashing around in Nino waters this week too, looking for relaationship to LOD.

    One think came out of this that may interest you. I noticed that SST in Nino1.2 region 0-10S; 80-90W seems to be positive spikes sitting on a decadaly variable base line.

    I note that, unlike MEI index from a number of physical factors, SST in this region only has very small negative swings. That seems to point to the kind of asymmetric process you have been trying to highlight for some time.

    Nino 1+2 has the strongest and sharpest El Nino peaks so would seem to the key region to study (rather than the usual focus on Nino 3.4)

    Here you can see the lack of negative swings:

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=554

    here we see how El Nino in this region directly correlates with acceleration / deceleration in Earth’s rotation (implying evaporation and energy transfer to atmosphere):

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=556

    This may provide direct regional confirmation of your ENSO pumping hypothesis.

    (No detrending, no volcanoes needed.).

  68. BOB says ” Do you see any similarity between the 1st EOF of sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific (1982-2012)…”

    Since you ask, there’s a little green bit in the top right hand corner that’s quite similar, also orangey bit in bottom right.

    Other than that, I can’t see a lot of similarity. ;)

  69. Pippen Kool says: “Have you actually read the paper and understood it? What figure is incorrect? Oh maybe, can you crit figure by figure…it should be easy because there are only two data figs.”

    You, Pippen Kool, are broadcasting for all who read this thread now and in the future that you, Pippen Kool, have not understood the paper or the discussions of this blog post. If you insist, please continue to make your blatant display of obliviousness.

    If you, Pippen Kool, had read and UNDERSTOOD my blog post, you, Pippen Kool, would know that I understood the paper. There are no figures in the paper that are incorrect, as far as I know. It’s the fact that they searched for and discovered one portion of the ENSO process that the models APPEAR to simulate properly, while overlooking the fact that the models must be able to model all coupled ocean-atmosphere processes associated with ENSO in order for their findings to be valid.

    Adios, troll!

  70. Pippen Kool:

    You continue to attempt to disrupt this thread with irrelevant and nonsensical babble. For example, at October 15, 2013 at 9:34 pm you say

    I am not convinced that Tisdale or Courney know anything that I do not know.

    Assuming that by “Courney” you mean me, then there are many things I am sure I know that you don’t; for example, the maiden name of my maternal grandmother.

    If you are capable of understanding the issues being discussed – and your posts in this thread indicate you lack that capability – then please address those issues. Otherwise, please go away because you are being a disruptive nuisance.

    Richard

  71. To change direction entirely, what’s happened to this month’s analysis of the global temperatures for September, as reported by UAH, NASA, Hadcrut, etc?

  72. Interesting. A relative newcomer in short term ENSO forecasting comes from a hybrid model. Dynamical Ocean coupled with a statistical atmosphere model. I am searching the net for how it is made to see what, if any, AGW pieces are in the model and whether or not plans are being put together to turn this into a long-range component of GCM projections. I love my ENSO prediction pages. So full of great reading.

    http://essic.umd.edu/joom2/index.php/current-news/featured-essic/1250

  73. So here is what I have learned. This model depends on the injection of actual current SST temperatures prior to each forecast, done on a monthly basis. The forecast extends to 12 months each time. Though this model produces errors, it is more accurate than nearly all other ENSO models. No wonder. It uses actual SST data to initiate each forecast period, and as far as I can tell, model components that do not have AGW pieces in them (though I am still looking into that).

    http://www.math.nyu.edu/faculty/kleeman/Zhang05.pdf

    Here is the real point. If this model, based on real data and quite good at forecasting ENSO events, has errors in it that grow within 12 months, no wonder GCM ENSO forecasts are in another Universe.

    Summary thinking about connections between ENSO forecasting and GCM projections. To improve GCM projections, it is likely they will have to re-initialize with real SST or land temperature data on a regular basis in order to reduce overestimating projected warming. Which tells us that GCM projections are probably only good out to a year before you have to schedule another session with the super-duper computer. Bad business for IPCC. It would come to a screeching halt and folks around the globe would be wanting their money back. On the bright side, try to get any political body to pass anything related to mitigation or reduction in something that is 12 months or less away.

    Note: The authors mention that the hindcast accuracy (which was amazingly good) could be artificial. And they tell us why. They used historical data to train the model. Stating the obvious,

    “As such, the skill for SST [hindcast] predictions can be artificial, because of observational information of SST and variability covering the prediction period being already included in
    the training period.”

    In other words, they coulda said “duh” and probably wanted to. Is this mentioned anywhere in the WG1 summary document for AR5 regarding its GCM hindcastings?

  74. Bob Tisdale: Do you see any similarity between the 1st EOF of sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific (1982-2012)…

    Exactly what have you plotted there, that is, what model?

  75. Bob Tisdale: (PERSONALLY, I DON’T THINK THE MODELERS ARE REALLY TRYING)

    On what do you base that?

  76. “Experiments with an Atmospheric General Circulation Model reveal that robust projected changes in precipitation anomalies during El Niño years are primarily determined by a nonlinear response to surface global warming.”

    I’m no doubt showing my ignorance of climate models and what they are capable of, but Is it reasonable to say you can run an experiment with a model? Isn’t the result pre-determined based on the parameters set by the modeler?

  77. The result of the paper states what has been known thus is no new information. Precipitation during El Nino years is primarily determined by a nonlinear response to surface global warming caused by El Nino oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections. ENSO dynamical and statistical models have been demonstrating this for years.

  78. DavidS:

    At October 16, 2013 at 12:39 pm you ask

    Is it reasonable to say you can run an experiment with a model? Isn’t the result pre-determined based on the parameters set by the modeler?

    The answers to your questions are
    No it is not “reasonable”
    and
    Yes the result tells about the model’s performance but nothing else.

    The mistake you point out is commonly made in so-called ‘climate science’, and it goes to the heart of the criticism of the paper by Bob Tisdale.

    Richard

  79. We have a pretty good statistical data set of the percent of the time a particular precip or temp pattern happens under El Nino or La Nina conditions. Because of this data set and the relatively stable no-trend-visible 3.4 area of the Nino geographical area, I would hope to shout that most oceanic/atmospheric models get this right. It would certainly be the data set I would train a model on. Which leads me to speculate that the paper’s conclusion that they got one section right, therefore the rest of the model must be good too is probably artifactually based on what data they trained the model on and not because the model as a whole is a good one. It seems a step too far in terms of giving us confidence in the projection as a whole.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/ENSO/composites/

    • Pamela,
      Becaues they find a statistical relationship between ENSO and atmospheric concentrations does not mean that CO2 is “forcing” a temperature rise. It is more likely that the accumulation of CO2 is following a rise in temperature. In order for their model to have any predictive quality, they need to know what is causing ENSO. CO2 is a laging indicator.

  80. Matthew R Marler says: “Exactly what have you plotted there, that is, what model?”

    That’s the dominant spatial (warming/cooling) pattern of the simulations of sea surface temperatures of the multi-model ensemble mean of the CMIP5-archived models, from 1982 to 2012, using history forcings through 2005 and RCP6.0 afterwards.

    Note that I had to skew the contour levels for the models so that the plot would bring out some type of pattern. Otherwise, if I set the range to -1.0 to +1.0 like the data, the model EOF plot is basically all red.

    Regards

  81. Richard Barraclough says: “To change direction entirely, what’s happened to this month’s analysis of the global temperatures for September, as reported by UAH, NASA, Hadcrut, etc?”

    Sorry. No data for September 2013. NCDC hasn’t updated yet, and the GISS website is down, both likely responses to the government shutdown. And the Hadley Centre doesn’t update until the end of the month.

    Regards

  82. hmmm. I don’t think I mentioned atmospheric concentrations of CO2. I don’t know which part of my comments you are responding to.

Comments are closed.