Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
The new 2015 paper by Cai et al Increased frequency of extreme La Niña events under greenhouse warming has been getting a lot of alarmist attention recently. Examples: see the CBS News story Climate change expected to bring more La Niñas, and the BBC News article Study: Global warming ‘doubles risk’ of extreme weather, and, for those of you who are multilingual, see the German journal Bild der Wissenschaft post Mehr Besuche der kalten Schwester von „El Niño”. [Thanks to bloggers Alec aka Daffy Duck, Paul Homewood and Werner Kohl for the heads-up.] Also see Paul Homewood’s post BBC – Global Warming Doubles Risk Of Extreme Weather at NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat.<.
Cai et al. (2015) 14 co-authors are a who’s-who of climate scientists, including Michael McPhaden of NOAA’s PMEL, who’s written numerous papers about ENSO; and Eric Guilyardi, who’s the lead author of Guilyardi et al. (2009) Understanding El Niño in Ocean-Atmosphere General Circulation Models: progress and challenges.
We discussed Guilyardi et al. (2009) back in July 2012 in the post here. As you may recall, it was a study of how poorly the CMIP3-archived climate models simulated ENSO…that the models basically simulated no ENSO processes correctly. Thus one of their conclusions was:
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 (Joseph and Nigam 2006; Power et al. 2006).
Cai et al (2015) Increased frequency of extreme La Niña events under greenhouse warming is a companion paper to Cai et al (2013) Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming. We discussed the earlier paper in the post Our Climate Models Are Aglow with Whirling, Transient Nodes of Thought Careening through a Cosmic Vapor of Invention. It included a link to and discussion of Bellenger et al. (2012), which described how poorly the CMIP5-archived models simulated ENSO. Once again, the models simulate little if anything correctly. The same arguments apply to the newer paper Cai et al (2015), so there’s no need to repeat them, so please see the “Climate Models are Aglow” post.
The following is from an update to the “Climate Models are Aglow” post about the earlier paper. It should also apply to the newer paper:
Brian Kahn also covered Cai et al. (2013) in his ClimateCentral post Climate Change Could Double Likelihood of Super El Ninos. (Thanks again Andrew for the link to the post at HockeySchtick.) Brian Kahn’s article included the following and a remarkable quote from Kevin Trenberth:
The core of Cai’s results, that more super El Ninos are likely, was disputed by Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Corporation [sic] for Atmospheric Research.
He said some of the models used in the study overestimate the past number of El Nino events by a wide margin and do a poor job of representing them and their impacts.
“This seriously undermines the confidence that the models do an adequate job in ENSO (El Nino-Southern Oscillation) simulations and so why should we trust their future projections?” he said in an email.
Trenberth also said that some long-range climate models also fail to adequately simulate other natural climate patterns that influence El Nino let alone how they might also shift in a warming world.
Trenberth asked,“…so why should we trust their [climate models’] future projections?”
The obvious answer is ____________________ [I’ll let you fill in the blank].
Aren’t La Ninas associated with cooling?
The CAWG faithful are just trying to cover all the bases. Not matter what happens, it’s all man’s fault by emitting the evil CO2 greenhouse gas pollution.
CO2 is the most powerful molecule in the universe. It causes everything: More El Ninos, more La Ninas, more cold, more heat, droughts, floods. Truly amazing. It’s most pernicious effect, however, is on IQs.
+10
Amen to that … these are desperate times for desperate global warming, … wait …. climate change, … wait … “carbon pollution” loco ecos !
“CO2 is the most powerful molecule in the universe. It causes everything: More El Ninos, more La Ninas, more cold, more heat, droughts, floods.”
Earthquakes, sunspots, volcanoes, infertility….
I’ve heard that CO2 can also turn gold into lead, leading to world wide financial collapse. See, it wasn’t the bankers after all!
So, if we suddenly go into an “extreme” El Nino regime, will that be caused by global warming too?
Been there, done that.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990111180607.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/25433.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/76693.stm
Can’t say they don’t have their bases covered.
Been there and done that too. Here are some observations.
Izza Ice age a la nina, or is it too damn big for that ???
This is the first time I ever heard them mention increasing La Nina frequency due to global warming. It has always been increasing El Nino ‘s associated with global warming.
But that’s only in the Northern Hemisphere. El Ninos bring rain to California, La Ninas bring rain to Australia. I’m gonna drown.
How does these researchers reconcile increasing amplitude and decreasing wavelength in the ENSO cycle with the 20+ year decline in the piezometric surface of the Floridan aquifer? That is a real observation, which I observe in monthly measurements submitted to the IFAS database. We are just having weaker El Ninos than we did a few decades ago. Observation, not politics nor “interpretation”.
OK, OK, so I can’t type this morning! “How do” etc.
Observation is irrelevant.
observations are not perfect for the “IPCC borgs” They need to be assimilated (adjusted) to fit into the collective CO2 hoax 🙂
it’s very similar to what i encounter in Belgium: i live near a town named Ghent (population 250.000) in a small rural place at 15 miles from it. The meteorological regional station here is located in Ghent. i often am in town, and this winter i observed the following: In ghent i saw often no frozen puddles, while here only 15 miles out of town every puddle was frozen solid and remained frozen solid whole day….
For information Ghent is at roughly 40 miles from the coast
We are at roughly 30 miles from the coast (thus more chance of influence from the sea)
when i point this out it is often told as “inconsistency because you have no thermometer like the meteorological institution has”. like if they do not even look at the fact that when puddles freeze that it must be below freezing point while when they remain open it must be above or near freezing point. either way a significant observation that on rural places it is significantly colder then in towns
same with our “record” warm winter of 2013-2014: they observed no freezing in Brussels, while here in our rural little town we had some nights with some very slight freeze.
but well we are insurgants that need to be assimilated into the IPCC borg collective.
“your observations will be assimilated, publishing your observed true facts are futile”
(couldn’t resist to give it a little dose of humor)
What they are really saying is the variability of ENSO is going to be more extreme rather then the more or less neutral conditions that have been the norm over the past few years.
My bet is they will be wrong once again. Look for less extremes in ENSO going forward.
Well I they increase in frequency, doesn’t that make them more normal, so that makes them less extreme; or do I have that backwards ??
While the science world seriously tries to understand ENSO, WUWT decides that “Once again, the models simulate little if anything correctly. The same arguments apply to the newer paper Cai et al (2015), so there’s no need to repeat them”
You guys are pretty entertaining.
And you don’t think a paper claiming global warming is going to cause global cooling is pretty entertaining?
It’s really entertaining seeing that folks like trafamadope actually believe that warming causes cooling. Entertaining… and scary, because they can vote.
Yikes.
“scary, because they can vote”…and breed.
trafamadore, how many climate models have made correct predictions / projections since the setting up of the IPCC in 1988? Almost 30 years / almost climate. Papers or abstracts please.
Trying to understand???….No, they are saying they do understand…..and that’s what’s so funny!
“for a near doubling in the frequency of future extreme La Niña events, from one in every 23 years to one in every 13 years.”
trafamadore, they have not tried to understand. They have carried out simulations and present the results as evidence.
Very poor show if you ask me.
The purpose is not to further understand ENSO, the purpose is to say, “We got it all figured out to such an in depth degree that we can predict future ENSO behavior as far into the future as you want to go.” It would be nice it they did give more effort into understanding ENSO instead of setting up fortune teller booths.
BTW WUWT must be entertaining for you to keep reading, however it might be more appropriate for you to pursue kids entertainment.
I guess it would be equivalent, you’re right.
And here I was thinking that the science was already settled and all. At that stage in my opinion, even a less serious effort to understand is a giant leap forward.
P.S. Kurt Vonnegut hardly knew how much the intergalactical message from the supreme beings in the sirens of Titan was to entertain our generation.
Why don’t they just see what happens? Why the obsession with models whose farsical performance brings the field into disrepute, also deep division with Trenberth coming out against Cai et al. Is Trenberth the climate Trotsky now (watch your back Kev!)
The models don’t even start in the right place with ENSO being a nonlinear oscillator (which follows inescapably from the Bjerknes positive feedback). From then on the models are doomed, dooooomed!
“Why don’t they just see what happens? Why the obsession with models…??”
A model predicted the NE snowstorm. It wasn’t perfect, but a lot people stayed home and didn’t get hurt. Models are useful at predicting the future; you don’t need to be surprised all the time.
@trafamadore,
I can write a model that predicts that the sun will rise in the east next Thursday. So what? Read Langmuir to undersatand the difference between a good model and a worthless model. GCMs have proven to be not worth even a small fraction of the $millions wasted on them.
trafamadore concedes that the models are based on junk science … that’s how skeptics have found CAGW predictions in the recent past as the protagonists have had no idea of the causes in warming and cooling … it’s a great pity that they made all of these catastrophic predictions and milked the world for billions $ before they made any attempt to fundamentally understand anything.
oh noooooo…more warm cold
So… everything is caused by global warming, even ice ages (I expect them to say that soon).
I’m sure someone has, The idea for” The Day After Tomorrow ” came from somewhere
OK! Stupid science but I really enjoyed that film! Were did the idea come from? Kim Robinson? He goes on about the Gulf Stream.
I especially liked that during the worst that was going on outside, the help desk at the library was still being manned (or womanned). What would Jake have done otherwise?
The idea for “The Day after Tomorrow” was generated by Art Bell who used to host the night time radio show “Dreamland”, which George Noory took over. I believe Bell actually concocted a lot of the story.
I never heard Art Bell, but having spent many “change windows” (the only time change can be made to networks, midnight to 4am) during Noory’s tenure, I can see the connection with The Day After. beam me up ET! LOL!
Ed Moran,
I’m guessing no single source, but rather general talk in the climate community about Gulf Stream, or even full-on AMOC shutdown. Apparently Gavin Schmidt thought the science of the movie was appallingly bad … which is not surprising because even this layperson thought it was preposterous. Some interesting notes here: http://climatesight.org/tag/the-day-after-tomorrow/
They did a long time ago
Greenhouse Effect Culprit May Be Family Car; New Ice Age by 1995?…As the tropical oceans heat up (due to increased greenhouse gases), more of their moisture is evaporated to form clouds. The increasing pole-tropic wind systems move some of these additional clouds toward the poles, resulting in increased winter rainfall, longer and colder winters and the gradual buildup of the polar ice sheets. This phenomenon has come to be widely recognized by climatologists in recent years. What most of them do not recognize is that this process may be the engine that drives the 100,000-year cycle of major ice ages, for which there is no other plausible explanation….we may be less than seven years away, and our climate may continue to deteriorate rapidly until life on earth becomes all but unsupportable…. New York Times – Larry Ephron , Director of the Institute for a Future – July 15, 1988
One of the world’s leading climate experts warned of an underestimated threat posed by the buildup of greenhouse gases ‘ an abrupt collapse of the ocean’s prevailing circulation system that could send temperatures across Europe plummeting in a span of 10 years. If that system shut down today, winter temperatures in the North Atlantic region would fall by 20 or more degrees Fahrenheit within 10 years. Dublin would acquire the climate of Spitsbergen, 600 miles north of the Arctic Circle. “The consequences could be devastating,” said Wallace S. Broecker, Newberry Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University’s – Science Magazine Dec 1, 1997
Two years ago I saw a program on NatGeo that claimed that global warming could cause an ice age. There is no ‘soon’ about it – they’re already there.
Why don’t these bozos make it easy on themselves (and us) by telling us what global warming will NOT be responsible for causing?
acne
bedbugs
bad smells
traffic jams
incontinence
mushy strawberries
chainsaw accidents
forgetfulness
albinism
broken milkshake machine at McDonalds…
It’s official. There’s nothing left NOT on the list.
For a rather larger list:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Dilapidated bits of ceiling paper.
Cold coffee
Corroded batteries
Bits of stale toast
Crumpled Rizla packets
Mould
Leaking Highlighter Pens
Amphetamines
Stray Beard Hairs
Dandruff
So, if CAGW climatologists were only to look around their desks, they’ll see that, actually, there’s still plenty of inspiration left to blame global warming on.
I saw a paper a few weeks ago blaming increases in bedbugs on global warming.
The heartbreak of psoriasis.
Tired, poor blood, but Geritol easily fixes that.
But I can’t find anything about the effect on cricket. How can we take this AGW seriously?
The underlying cause of Climate Science going off the rails and into the ditch is a multi-factorial ensemble of dishonesty, rent-seeking, and ego-reputation saving. Everything else is the effect.
I wouldn’t knock ’em too much. The po’thangs is just trying to continue to justify their jobs and keep the fundin’ coming.
Joe, the problem is that they are helping the taking away of our democratic rights and wasting billions that could be better used.
Ed,
I was being a little sarcastic in my post… guess I should have used the /sarc tag. However, thanks to Steve Mac’s site, Judith Curry’s, this one and several others people are finally starting to notice what is actually going on with “Climate Change”, or what ever it is currently being called.
There is a good post over at Judith’s Climate Etc.(i.e.,http://judithcurry.com/) called “Climate change as a political process”. It refers to a recent Ph.D. thesis from Finland by:
It is a good read. Evern some of the politicians are finally catching on.
“It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going
to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years,
or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water
periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the
norm. And you’ll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years,”
he said.
-Dr Russ Schnell, research scientist at Mauna Loa Observatory, BBC November 7, 1997
Oops… reverse that. He must have meant La Ninas and cooler. Or did he really just mean that mankind is terrible and we are taking the planet to h*ll with us? Details to be disclosed at a later date… perhaps after Dr. Schnell has retired. In any case TRUST THEM, THEY KNOW!
This Chicken Little cartoon sums it up.
http://www.maxphoton.com/chicken-little/
Absolute BS
The biggest scam and fraud in the history of the world.
Foxy Loxy’s at work again for the Paris roundup.
@FrankKarr, I haven’t seen that cartoon since 1967. I was shown it as a lead to another movie in my grade 7 class.
From the cartoon “undermine the faith of the masses and their leaders”, the metaphorical “Chicken Little” seems to be the willing dupes, our leaders, the scientists who are falsely panicky, the MSM etc. etc. etc who are crying the cAGW sky is falling. How would you define Foxy Loxy, as in the cAGW narrative Chicken Little and Foxy Loxy seem to be knowingly colluding to stampede the chicken masses ?
AnonyMoose, obviously no, not anymore, apparently. During a typical La Niña, even though you are correct in knowing that sea surface temperatures across the equatorial Eastern Central Pacific Ocean historically dip by about 3–5 °C below normal, from now on it will SCALD you when you stick your toes in the water – oh, and an El Niño will evolve into a fire-breathing serpent causing FIRST DEGREE BURNS. Allegedly.
The abstract has no mention of the PDO or any other natural climate variables that may affect ENSO, such as solar variables.
Just by reading the abstract is seems like they have fully accepted “modeled evidence” of the increase of extreme El Ninos as truth and used those models to determine what La Ninas will do. They conclude that extreme La Ninas will increase and that 75% of those will occur after extreme El Ninos, that will also increase. In other words, climate disruption is caused by changing the atmospheric CO2 from 300 ppm to 400 ppm. But who needs to verify these models with historical data when you’re on the AGW gravy train?
In my opinion there is a connection between ENSO and the PDO.
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/645fall2003_web.dir/Jason_Amundson/enso.htm
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/ext.ts.jpg
http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/126_5.gif
http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/compensopdo.shtml
Very interesting. I’d be glad to get Dr Easterbrook’s take on this as well. Those of us old enough to remember the 1970s can verify it was not caused by global warming. While I hope “past performance is not indicative of future results” I’m also insulating and getting wool socks ready.
Excellent graphs by the way. 83 & 98 really stand out on the warm side as do 55 and 74-5 on the cold side.
TRM ………..very interesting I agree……….of note is that in Australia, 1955 was very wet and 1956 were very big flood year……….as was 1974- 5 period.
The phase to cool/La Nina dominance was in 2006. That is why temps have continued to stay flat. The last cool trend was between 1946/47 and 1876/77. Although it was a weak cool trend. That is what gave the next 30 year warm trend 1976/77 to 2006/07, a leg up on the temp chart. The last warming started from a higher base. The question is “how weak or strong will this cool phase become?”, and “what affect will solar related changes have during a cool trend?”.
Made an error in the above…” between 1946/47 and 1876/77. ” should have read as …1946/47 to 1976/77.
OK, let me get this right – we’re dammed if it does and we’re dammed if it doesn’t? Make your minds up guys.
Climate Change? Yeh, it does that – the climate changes – it always has! As for Global WARMING, all I can say is Bring it on, I’m b****y frozen!
Warmer warms
Colder colds.
On average they won’t balance out
Over time a slow secular trend.
The concept isn’t hard to grasp.
Will it happen?
Different question. But the concept is not rocket science as
Anyone who studies time series can tell you.
Yeah, why didn’t they just ask you?
This study thinks it’s coming up with something new but it’s, like, so obvious!!
I get tired of the oxymoron “rocket science” – there is no science in rocketry, its engineering – the only technical discipline that HAS to keep its head above the nonsense.
Steven:
The devil of time series will always be to pick the correct time frame. Are we in a cooling trend for the past 8,000 years? Are we in a warming trend for the past 100 years? Are we in a flat trend for the past 15-20 years? Yes. The key question is, does anyone KNOW the causes for these trends and methods for altering them going forward? No.
Another cliché from Mosher. At least rocket science is an exact science while current so called “climate science” as practised by alarmists is a dogs breakfast of unsubstantiated “make it up as you go along if things don’t fit the data” excuses.
Well it is rocket science, because rocket science is pretty much hit and miss.
I thought the data shows not warmer warms but warmer colds which results in warmer averages…
Over time a slow secular trend.
======
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
So the graph is the interglacial warm period with cooling trend and thenterglacial is over run anyway. We are slowly cooling towards the next major ice age?
Just like more tornadoes that aren’t happening and more hurricanes that aren’t happening and increasing drought that isn’t happening and increasing extreme cold that we found out would happen after it happened last Winter in the US.
Now, when the cycle features more La Ninas then the previous 2 decades(80s-90’s) we find out that climate change also makes these more extreme.
Let’s face it, the only thing that makes sense, if you believe that increasing CO2 will cause dangerous warming and want legit evidence of it is the occur acne of dangerous warming.
In the absence of dangerous warming(+0.04 C in 15 years on thermometers is evidence of no dangerous warming) all this other stuff makes no scientific sense.
And it always helps when the data is adjusted to assist the models………….
OK, now the Climate Activists and the AGW crowd have truly and utterly lost me. I get the El Nino part that comes with global warming. No questions there, thermodynamics wise, that makes complete sense. More heat stored = more heat emitted from the biggest freaking heat sink on the planet, aka the Ocean.
But more La Ninas?! As in massive cooling mechanisms growing with more warming?! WTF?! What, are these the warmest La Nina’s ever? Like the fact that we’re getting more global snow cover, much more sea ice, but hey, it’s the WARMEST snow and WARMEST ice ever?! I’m beginning to wonder if climate skeptics just need to step aside and watch the AGW crowd shoot themselves in the foot over, and over, and over again.
Here are some observations of the past.
The PDO just entered its 30-yr cool cycle in 2005, so it’s likely there will be fewer strong El Niño cycles for another 20 years.
During the 15 years between 1983~1998, there were SIX El Niño events, including the 97/98 Super El Niño. It’s no coincidence that the last 30~yr PDO warm cycle was from 1979~2005.
During the 15 years between 1999~2014, we’ve only had 2 El Niños plus the weak El Nada event last year….
The CAGW Chicken Littles won’t have much to squawk about for the next 20 years as we should eventually start seeing some cold La Niña events during this current PDO cool cycle.
To further exacerbate the Warmunists, the next 30-yr AMO cool cycle will start in a about 5~7 years. To make matters even worse, we’re in the weakest solar cycle since 1906, which peaked last year and starts its downward slide until the next solar cycle starts around 2022… To put a nice little cherry on top of all this, the next solar cycle is predicted by some astrophysicists to be the weakest since 1715, and could mark the start of a new Grand Solar Minimum that could last 80 years.
If all these cooling factors aren’t enough, with all the recent seismic activity taking place all around the globe, there also seems to be a high probability of a major volcanic eruption taking place in the next 5~10 years.
That’s a lot of potential cooling factors all coming together at the same time…
I love the smell of desperation in the morning… It reminds me of victory…
Not knocking on the natural cycles explanation. IMO, that is what we are seeing & not any “human fingerprint” on climate. But, PDO = Pacific Decadal Oscillation. How does a 30 year cycle fit into that? I know that many natural cycles are thought to be 30 or 60 years in duration. I just never thought the PDO was one of them. Thanks!
Scotth– Since 1850, there has been a 100% correlation between 30-yr PDO warm/cool cycles and global warming/cooling trends:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1921/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1921/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1921/to:1943/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1921/to:1943/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1977/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1977/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1977/to:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1977/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/trend
CAGW is screwed… In about 5 years, CAGW projections vs reality should be close to 3 standard deviations off, with almost a quarter of a century of no global warming trend…
Well on a global scale, the skeptic view is winning policy wise. China artfully negotiated a “sure, we’ll cut emissions, after we’ve peaked in emissions.”, India did the right thing, “we place a priority on helping our poor.” Australia and Canada have that anti Obama carbon coalition going, Germany woke up to its Energiewende disaster, and the EU is dismantling and consolidating their green energy commissions. That’s what, most of the world’s population right there? And global warming, aka climate change obfuscation, is the lowest of all the concerns no matter which poll you take, from Pew to whomever. And that’s globally.
I’m willing to pay the price of having to see or hear neurotic AGW crowd freak out about AGW for those victories. After all, at the end of the day, for most of us, it’s really just a bunch of smack talk. End results are what count, and that’s what matters to me. I personally witnessed a lot of people starve and get hammered by the food to biofuel policy initiative greenlit by the IPCC back in 2007. That also started the Arab Spring. It took seven years for the IPCC to figure out that wasn’t smart and to stop it, and the AGW crowd still hasn’t accepted their role in it and the blood on their hands. As long as skeptics can keep that kind of insanity from becoming public policy, that’s what matters most.
Er, so the biofuel initiative caused starvation which triggered the so-called Arab Spring? Not sure that all this fits together.
It’s good that the scepticview is winning policy-wise, but the AGW grip on climate science has still not been broken.
Worse, Mike Jonas, the AGW grip on the POLITICIANS has not weakened.
If this Negative PDO is a grand minimum, we will see a repeat of past US SW Megadrought conditions. Cold begets drought in many mid latitude areas.
Exactly, Samurai. It’s the beginning of the end for the CO2 cultists. The sun rules our climate. I wouldn’t be surprised to see all of the warmth we gained since the end of LIA lost in the coming years.
This is more of their double talk , just like they did with their original more zonal atmospheric forecast (less extreme in the climate due to global warming) only to change it when they saw they were wrong. Same thing is going on here.
They are phonies.
The obvious answer is they do not work. At least on this planet.
to SAMURAI:
I believe you are correct. Certain “climate scientists” see the same things you have listed and are staking their claims on the next 20 years turning cooler.
They have simply put their money down on a bet that it MIGHT be cooler, and if they guess correctly and CLAIM that the downturn is caused by AGW, then they will have adequate funding for the rest of their working lives. That’s how it works it climate-world. After all, in the worst case they can be totally wrong today and all will be forgiven/forgotten before they need to apply for another grant.
Exactly! They are covering their bases knowing that any cooling will be blamed on global warming. Good stuff indeed. They have mortgages to pay, and they never predicted cooling back in the day. Oh wait….
It would be interesting to see these guys play craps. You win [something] every time if you’ve hedged all your bets, but you are guaranteed to lose in the long run.
So here is the ‘evidence’ presented. Good job boys.
The more technical solar cycle observers might confirm that the sun was very [quiet] during the little ice age and that the southwest was in extreme drought during that period. It seems to me that relating cool
periods to the low sun cycles is more accurate to these super computer models. Am
way off in this thinking?
don Anderson. The problem is .. just because two things happen at the same time does not mean they are linked no matter how rational such a link would appear. for now its is just an observation. And yes a possibility. We will know more in the years to come.
michael
There is another element that may enhance the cooling period. I can’t help but think that there is also a connection between heightened quake and volcanic events during a grand minimum. There is also a similar correlation around the years of a Gleissberg cycle. The large eruption at Colima Mexico last week could well fit the pattern. That volcano erupted 7 times during the Dalton GM. The Icelandic volcanoes show some of their highest levels of activity during a grand minimum period, as well as during the intermediate period. Look at what is currently underway in Iceland at this time. Mt Lassen In California shows similar periodicity. The New Madrid fault shows similar periodicity with events in early 1900s, the Dalton, and the Maunder. In the last 6 months or so, quakes striking at Anthony Kansas have become a regular feature on the USGS quake map. There were very few to none striking Kansas in the 3.5 years prior. Is this a possible first sign for the New Madrid fault?
If there is a connection, and a grand minimum is just around the corner, then the odds are increased that there will be some strong seismic/volcanic events during the next 20+ years.
Hope this works .
More cartoons these by Dr Seuss during ww2 enjoy
michael
Negative phases of the PDO are associated with increased La Ninas.
We are entering a negative phase of the PDO.
Sounds like they know more La Ninas are coming and want to pro-actively claim that CO2 is responsible.
Bob, thanks for reading this paper and summarizing it for us. I went to the Nature link for the abstract, and after plowing through 4 sentences got this:
“Here we present climate modelling evidence…”
at which point I figured my time wouid be better spent reading about deflated footballs.
Or reading about all those asteroids of late (now that’s interesting stuff!).
Yeah, I heard that this latest asteroid had its own satellite. I would bet that explains the major coincidence in 2013 with the asteroid flyby and the Russian meteor.
Aahh, They’re just desperately hoping for a reverse Gore effect.
Two reverse Gores and pike, then flat on their faces pool side.
I keep waiting for the extreme environmentalists to punch themselves out, but they are relentless and without boundaries. I’m glad there are people like Mr. Tisdale, and several others who post on WUWT, who can match their energy and are equally relentless.
Here is an idea for generating Global Warming articles.
Just take the sheet below and put in Global Warming/Climate change cliches.
DO-IT-YOURSELF COUNTRY & WESTERN SONG
I met her __________ _____; I can still recall _________
(1) (2) (3)
1. 2. 3.
on the highway in September that purple dress
in Sheboygan at McDonald’s that little hat
outside Fresno ridin’ shotgun that burlap bra
at a truck stop wrestlin’ gators those training pants
on probation all hunched over the stolen goods
in a jail cell poppin’ uppers that plastic nose
in a nightmare sort of pregnant the Stassin pin
incognito with joggers the neon sign
in the Stone Age stoned on oatmeal that creepy smile
in a treehouse with Merv Griffin the hearing aid
in a gay bar dead all over the boxer shorts
she wore; She was ______ _____,
(4) (5)
4. 5
sobbin’ at the toll booth in the twilight
drinkin’ Dr. Pepper but I loved her
weighted down with Twinkies by the off-ramp
breakin’ out with acne near Poughkeepsie
crawlin’ through the prairie with her cobra
smellin’ kind of funny when she shot me
crashin’ through the guardrail on her elbows
chewin’ on a hangnail with Led-Zeppelin
talkin’ in Swahili with Miss Piggy
drownin’ in the quicksand with a wetback
slurpin’ up linguini in her muu-muu
and I knew _______; _______ I’d ______ forever;
(6) (7) (8)
6. 7. 8.
no guy would ever love her more I promised her stay with her
that she would be an easy score I knew deep down warp her mind
she’d bought her dentures in a store She asked me if swear off booze
that she would be a crashing bore I told her shrink change my sex
I’d never rate her more than “4” The judge declared punch her out
they’d hate her guts in Baltimore My Pooh Bear said live off her
it was a raven, nothing more I shrieked in pain have my rash
we really lost the last World War The painters knew stay a dwarf
I’d have to scrape her off the floor A Klingon said hate her dog
what strong deodorants were for My hamster thought pick my nose
that she was rotten to the core The blood test showed play “Go Fish”
that I would upchuck on the floor Her rabbi said salivate
She said to me ____; But who’d have thought she’d _____
(9) (10)
9. 10.
our love would never die run off
there was no other guy wind up
man wasn’t meant to fly boogie
that Nixon didn’t lie yodel
her basset hound was shy sky dive
that Rolaids made her high turn green
she’d have a swiss on rye freak out
she loved my one blue eye blast off
her brother’s name was Hy make it
she liked “Spy vs. Spy” black out
that birthdays made her cry bobsled
she couldn’t stand my tie grovel
___________; _________ goodbye.
(11) (12)
11. 12.
with my best friend You’d think at least that she’d have said
in my Edsel I never had the chance to say
on a surfboard She told her fat friend Grace to say
on “The Gong Show” I now can kiss my credit cards
with her dentist I guess I was too smashed to say
on her “Workmate” I watched her melt away and sobbed
with a robot She fell beneath the wheels and cried
with no clothes on She sent a hired thug to say
at her health club She freaked out on the lawn and screamed
in her Maytag I pushed her off the bridge and waved
with her guru But that’s the way that pygmies say
while in labor She sealed me in the vault and smirked.
Actually no, I don’t agree, I think there is more to climate than solar cycles and magnetic fields.
I see where this is going. Its going to get colder over the next few decades and he wants to be able to say I told you so!!! The global warming is taken for granted.
So, I gotta ask, Global warming will bring more extreme La Niña events AND Global Warming will bring more extreme „El Niño” events?
Does this mean we will have more La Niña events or more El Niño” events?
Or does it mean that there will be greater La Niña event peaks followed by stronger El Niño” event peaks with a greatly increased oscillation between and occurrences of peaks?
yes
As noted before these climate modelers act more like clueless day traders betting on each new trend with every change in the weather. Declining trade winds then rising trade winds, more El Ninos then more La NInas. Its good propaganda, but bad science
Based on the response of the oceans to lower solar irradiation during the Little Ice Age and the current drop in solar output, I would predict a more El Nino-like Pacific. That means a decrease in the east-west temperature gradient, not a change in frequency or intensity. The Intertropical Convergence Zone moved southward and that can affect the trade winds and El Nino frequency. HOwever there was a decrease in upwelling during the LIA, and ocean temperatures dropped as identified by Rosenthal 2013. During the LIA southeast Asia suffered more droughts, and that is the opposite of what is expected during heavy La Nina years
All told, those conditions suggest more moderate La Nina-like conditions over the next 2 decades if solar output remains low. So time will test the latest in the wave of climate fear mongering models.
Frequency of El Nino would increase in the weakest part of a solar minimum. During the coldest years on CET in the Dalton minimum (1807-1817), there may have been five El Nino episodes:
https://sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/Home/historic-el-nino-events
Michael Mann said the same in his book, referring to a possible Pacific Thermostat Hypothesis.
The result is less warming, as these La Ninas are long term negative feedback.
To Sun Spot’s question above on Foxy Loxy: that would be UNconscionable for me to comment on.
“This seriously undermines the confidence that the models do an adequate job in ENSO (El Nino-Southern Oscillation) simulations and so why should we trust their future projections?” he said in an email.
=
Given the 2014 El Nino prediction success…
6CH4 + 12O2 ——— >6 CO2 + 12 H2O ———- > 6CO2 + 6H2O ——> C6H12O6 + 6O2
End of Story.
Great story, Brian. To re-establish the balance Pachauri’s administration should perhaps first open the windows and, because it’s around 0°C in Geneva now, continue by watering their plants.
It’s only a matter of time before the inevitable paper title: ” Global warming doubles the risk of extreme La Nada events!”
”Global warming doubles the risk of extreme La Nada events!”
OR; Global warming studied have shown to cut the risk of extreme La Nada events, film at 11…
Bob, you must be sick to the back teeth of these clowns. You explained in your book and, here, a long time before that; the sequence of events following an El Niño.
While attempting to explain the long plateau in temperatures, they keep coming up with more negative feedbacks to global warming. It used to be that all the feedbacks were positive and would lead to runaway warming. But now, if they come up with any more negative feedbacks, they’ll have to admit that the planet’s climate is self-regulating and that more CO2 is not going to be a major problem.
We pay them a fortune just so they can come to the same conclusion as we, only 5 years later.
Defund them all and sue them to reclaim the money.
Bob,
I urge you to take a look at this gret new blog if you have not yet done so:
http://climatechangepredictions.org/category/hardest_hit
I believe you especially might enjoy the work they do there.
Thanks, by the way, for another great look at the idiocratic nature of the the climate obsessed movement.
When El Nino returns, we will certainly be reading serious peer reviewed articles claiming that El Nino is expected and predicted to be more frequent in ‘climate change’.
And Jo Nova commented a couple of days ago
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/climate-change-will-hit-australia-and-asia-africa-arctic-eu-pacific-harder-than-rest-of-world/
Looked at the site – deadpan recital of contradictory alarmist claims over the years .
They have a page that includes past stories such as the “Ship of Fools ” expedition a year ago.
One news snippet is a quote from Chris Turney :
“He said the expedition was not a “jolly tourist trip” as some had claimed and that it will be judged by its peer-reviewed publications on the scientists’ return, according to the Mercury News, 7 January.”
So naturally one is curious: have the peer reviewed scientific papers appeared yet ?
The state of “science” and “scientists” in the US.
I had a question about dark energy which I put to “Ask a ‘scientist'” in the UK and at Newton, run by The US DOE.
As a matter of curiousity I looked at their “Question of the week”. A girl asked how can we get rid of pollution already in the air.
The answers the stalwart “scientists” gave this poor girl was all about getting rid of CO2. Nothing about air pollution as defined in Wikipedia or the main air pollutants identified there, CO2 being conspicuous by its absence.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/week.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution
I was reading an academic dissertation not so long ago that proposed a “persistent La Nina” condition during the LIA.
Thanks Bob.
Interestingly, last evening, I just re-read “An Introduction To ENSO, AMO, and PDO — Part 3” posted on WUWT on 3 Sept 2010. My re-read was a response to material I was reading elsewhere. Despite all your posts about such things I see a lot of misunderstandings. I did suggest that the person find and read that post.
~~~~~~~
Richard at 11:53
I just went to the newton link and read the response to Carrie, the young lady. Someone that knows someone in the DOE Office of Science ought to get in touch.
Unless Carrie mentioned CO2 in her question (it does not appear so) then the responses are pathetic. Carrie is 12 or 13 and the first writer includes this in parenthesis: “(and you cannot cause a new problem while fixing another)”. I know what the meaning is of this – did Carrie? The DOE should be ashamed of this set of answers.
I would have told her that in the US, much has been done and for her to look at some of the things, such as
http://www.popularpittsburgh.com/pittsburgh-info/pittsburgh-history/darkhistory.aspx
This is off topic, so I won’t go on.
It’s all part of the ‘extreme’ meme that is replacing AGW, Climate Change, Climate Pollution (I loved that one).
Since they have failed miserably to prove that the globe is warming measurably or dangerously, they are falling back to an ‘unprovable’ and ‘unfalsifiable’ claim of CO2 causing ‘extreme climate’. Very difficult to falsify a claim that something will become more ‘extreme’ in the future, given that ‘extreme’ isn’t quantifiable like ‘temperature rise’ is.
There seems no escape from global warming angst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edvard_Munch_-_The_Scream_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
Bob,
No, as you quoted directly above, Trenberth actually wrote: “This seriously undermines the confidence that the models do an adequate job in ENSO (El Nino-Southern Oscillation) simulations and so why should we trust their future projections?” Why would you incorrectly paraphrase him so blatantly directly after quoting him directly?
The obvious answer is ____________________ [I’ll let you fill in the blank].
For thinking readers I offer the following points:
1) The whole idea of CO2 mitigation is to reduce reliance on foward-looking models which are obviously wrong, and always will be.
2) Climate researchers, and indeed anyone who is rational and has some basic understanding of thermodynamics, understand that processes like ENSO, AMO, PDO, etcetero, do not create or destroy energy. All they do is move it around. Think, “What goes up must come down,” and run it both ways. Hence the word “oscillation”, which is a very different concept from “secular trend”.
”Climate researchers, and indeed anyone who is rational and has some basic understanding of thermodynamics…”
Brandon,
that would be your problem right there, climastrologists have little understanding of thermodynamics, let alone radiative physics. Our radiatively cooled atmosphere is increasing the cooling rate of our solar heated oceans. Climastrologists claim the reverse, saying that IR from the atmosphere is slowing the cooling rate of the oceans. This is ridiculous. So too is their claim that the oceans would freeze without IR from the atmosphere.
In the first case empirical experiment proves that incident LWIR has no effect on the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. In the second case empirical experiment proves that liquid water is a SW selective surface not a near blackbody. It is sunlight alone that heats our oceans. LWIR plays no role.
How could climastrologists who have gotten the “basic physics” of the “settled science” so breathtakingly wrong with regard to our oceans ever have anything useful to say about ENSO, AMO or PDO?
Konrad,
Well yes, that would explain why both the surface and oceans have warmed since 1880.
A popular argument here. Problem is, evaporation doesn’t remove latent heat from the atmosphere so lab bench experiments which don’t take that into account won’t cut it.
Ditto everything. IR doesn’t penetrate dirt either. Neither does sunlight for that matter.
You don’t actually expect me to give you a serious answer to that question …
Brandon Gates
January 29, 2015 at 12:47 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////
”Well yes, that would explain why both the surface and oceans have warmed since 1880.”
Wrong. Cloud and solar variation is all that’s required. What frequencies vary most in component TSI? Which frequencies penetrate deepest into the deep selective surface of the ocean?
”A popular argument here. Problem is, evaporation doesn’t remove latent heat from the atmosphere so lab bench experiments which don’t take that into account won’t cut it.”
Popular argument? More like results of repeatable empirical experiment. Evaporation doesn’t remove energy from the atmosphere. Radiative gases do that. But you diversion is irrelevant. Climastologists claimed that the oceans would freeze without DWLWIR. Empirical experiment proves them utterly wrong.
”Ditto everything. IR doesn’t penetrate dirt either. Neither does sunlight for that matter.”
But incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of dirt, it just doesn’t work for 71% of the planet’s surface. And sunlight does penetrate water, which is the whole point. This makes water a UV/SW/SWIR selective surface, and climastrologists provably treated the oceans as a “near blackbody”.
”You don’t actually expect me to give you a serious answer to that question …”
I got pretty much what I expected. Your physics is woeful. Let me get you up to speed –
http://i59.tinypic.com/10pdqur.jpg
Which of these five rules apply to our oceans?
Where is the evidence that climastrologists used these five rules when claiming 255K for surface without atmosphere?
This fist-biting error is at the very foundation of the AGW hoax. No amount of hand waving about fudged surface station records or heat hiding in the oceans will ever make it go away. The is no net atmospheric radiative GHE on this planet. AGW is therefore a physical impossibility. The 255K “surface without radiative atmosphere” claim can never be erased. It is foundation dogma of the Church of Radiative Climastrology. They tried to use standard S-B equations on a material that was SW translucent and IR opaque. Their shame will burn forever.
Brandon
How do you distinguish a long term oscillation from a secular trend?
Remember that Lorenz showed that nonlinear oscillation has no long term mean to return to but always jumps to different temporary “means” even with no change to system parameters.
All that is needed for climate change is cloud cover change driven by nonlinear thermodynamics and the Lyapunov stability of clouds.
Phlogiston,
Since correlations will fool us in such scenarios, it’s best to look to first principles of physics for plausible causal mechanisms.
True. He also said nothing about observable, measurable, physical systems being magical.
“All that is needed” is the first step toward oversimplifying a complex system. One then risks making a single agent or mechanism responsible for all change. I’m surprised a WUWT reader would do such a thing.
At what point do the scientists become embarrassed by all this nonsense.
The latest is that male polar bear parts are at risk.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/01/26/pollution-is-weakening-polar-bear-penises/
From an actual study published in the journal Environmental Research.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935114004770
Be kind Bill,. Perhaps those scientists are just desperately searching for reasons to excuse their own shrinking genitalia.
Hasn’t the last decade or so been dominated by La Nada?
La Nada will rule going forward this decade.
Extreme La Bambas to Become More Frequent under Global Warming.
New paper claims digital breakthrough events linked to defective toilet paper to become more frequent under global warming.
Lead author – Steve Lewandowsky.
I would say that is correct, increased forcing of the climate increases La Nina conditions, and also increases positive NAO/AO, which is directly associated with stronger trade winds. Increased forcing of the climate over a number of years will also cool the AMO. Such that there is no need for aerosols to explain the (global) cooling in the mid 1970’s.
The multi-year and stronger La Nina’s are all when the solar wind is faster, and the big El Nino’s occur when it is slower, apart from those during cooling effects from large volcanic eruptions.
http://snag.gy/hSqT4.jpg
Oh look. Bob Tisdale doesn’t like a science paper that challenges his ideology.
It must be a day ending in ‘y’.
Is that all you’ve got, troll?
Please below the data of El Nino and La Nina years under different rainfall conditions under Indian context for 1880 to 2006:
Condition — below normal — normal — above normal — total
[number of years]
El Nino — 12 — 05 –01 — 18
Normal — 27 — 37 — 20 — 84
La Nina – 00 — 14 — 17 — 34
Total — 39 –49 — 38 — 126
Out of 126 years, the rainfall was below normal in 39 years and above normal in 38 years with 49 years normal. El Nino years are 18 and La Nina years are 34. This s normal condition.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
The warmer the climate globally, the less steep the temperature gradient between the polar and equatorial regions and the less convective turbulence and extreme weather as a result.
I have no idea what Cai et al are smoking.
On 27 January the Australian CSIRO released a statement “Greenhouse warming increases frequency of devastating La Nina events” based on research published in “Nature Climate Change”. The “study used 21 climate models that participated in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.”, had a lead author, Dr Wenju Cai, and a co-author, Dr Guojian Wang, both from CSIRO.
It is incredible that anyone would use the IPCC climate models when they have repeatedly failed to correctly predict actual changes in climate. Even worse, the models are based on the IPCC claim that increased atmospheric CO2 concentration causes an increase in global temperature when data from the CSIRO’s own field stations plainly shows this to be false.
The CSIRO undertakes CO2 and temperature measurements at Cape Grim, NW Tasmania, at Macquarie Island and the Antarctic bases of Casey and Mawson. The resulting data is freely available on the Internet.
Statistical analysis of the data shows that there is no significant correlation between monthly changes in CO2 concentration and temperature. In fact the correlation coefficients are negative in every case meaning that a rise in CO2 would cause a fall in temperature, however the probability result shows the values are not significantly different from zero.
Further, analysis shows that correlation between annual increments in each variable are, again, not statistically significant, some being negative values, so there is definitely no measurable causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. Hence there is no justification to issue catastrophic climate predictions based on the erroneous IPCC claim.
However, correlation between the CO2 data and the relevant Satellite lower tropospheric temperature reveals that the annual increment in CO2 concentration is highly correlated with the average satellite temperature for the period concerned with negligible probability that the correlation is zero. This means that the increase in temperature since the last ice age has been driving the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, not the reverse as the IPCC would have us believe.
It is sad to see a once highly respected Australian institution sink to such a low level.
The CSRO (As it was called) lost all credibility in 1935 IMO when it worked with Brisbane sugar companies and the Queensland Govn’t to introduce the cane toad all the while wanting to introduce the European toad in other parts of the country.
There is however a severe risk of a leadership challenge on Abbott by Turnbull (And to be fair Abbott is not doing himself any favours such as awarding a knighthood to Prince Phillip, the Greek husband of the Queen of England – Silly boy!). If Turnbull challenges, and wins, that will be the end of the debate on climate change in Australia if that happens. Turnbull is a pro-AGW believer and staunch supporter of a carbon tax (Ex- bankers) and very much liked by the ALP and Greens.
Blowing hot and cold.
the obvious answer is: “CO2 is the most versatile fragment in our atmosphere that drives warm and cold spells. look: our models are always correct in proving this fact”
but in truth they forget to mention: climate has never been stable today it goes up and stagnates now, it may go up again in future, but also down. “we do not know what future brings for our earth’s climate” would be the only correct scientific answer.
But we really do know what is going to happen next.
There is around a 100% chance we will soon slide into another Ice Age. It is pretty much inevitable.
Thanks for all the science, but I got lost at doubling the risk. Extreme weather is already a 100% certainty. Are they twice as absolutely certain that we will experience “extreme” weather? Are they making a verifiable statement such as there will be twice as many F5 tornadoes in the world or in the US or twice as many sub-zero days in Europe? No. I didn’t think so.
New Paper Claims Pre-Existing Tautology Is Caused By Anthropogenic CO2 Because Tautology
Thanks, Bob. You have shown the GCMs failure to model ENSO, and the importance of ENSO in Earth’s climate; There is no reason to trust the GCMs.
“Climate change expected to bring more La Niñas”
Ever notice how many climate change studies say, “expected”, “predicted”, “could” and “might”. It reminds me of Wayne Campbell “Wayne’s World” saying, “yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt”.
“This I had also forseen”
The Soothsayer in “Asterix and the Soothsayer”.
“Study: Global warming ‘doubles risk’ of extreme weather,”
But on Hockey Schtick I see
“New paper finds global warming reduces intense storms & extreme weather”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/new-paper-finds-global-warming-reduces.html
What sort of doom am I supposed to prophecy?