Global Cooling In The Works
The current El Nino phenomenon that has brought prolonged drought and sweltering heat to Malaysia is the strongest of the 20 over the last 60 years, but there is no concrete evidence to link its heat intensity to global warming, says former IPCC vice-chairman. Climatologist and oceanographer Prof Dr Fredolin Tangang of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia said this year’s El Nino was even more extreme than the severe phenomena experienced in 1982/82 and 1997/98. “There is no conclusive evidence that the occurrence of El Nino (frequency and intensity) is influenced by climate change,” said Tangang, who had served from 2008 to 2015 as vice-chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations agency.
The IPCC, which comprises representatives from 190 countries, produces a report every six to seven years on the trend of global climate change, its causes and impacts and how to migitate these.
Saying that the current El Nino was in its final stretch and that the condition in the Pacific Ocean was expected to return to neutral by June, Tangang stated that the IPCC, in its latest report released in 2013, did not come up with a conclusion on the inter-relation between El Nino and global warming.
He said that unlike typhoons, which the IPCC concluded would increase in intensity as global warming intensified, El Nino occurrences did not switch in frequency or intensity due to climate change.
“El Nino is a naturally occurring phenomenon, which is part of the inter-annual variability associated with oscillation of the atmosphere-ocean interaction in the Pacific Ocean that occurs in a two- to seven-year cycle.
This system oscillates and it can be either in El Nino, La Nina or normal phases,” he said.
However, he did not discount that global warming could change the El Nino effect on the climate in a particular region.
Full story –Voon Miaw Ping, Malaysian National News Agency, 9 May 2016
h/t to Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF
Misleading headline
..You have a reading comprehension problem ?
Sir, I suspect You should read harder, as Mosher used to say.
Bill 2
“Misleading headline”
Well, what he did say was
““There is no conclusive evidence that the occurrence of El Nino (frequency and intensity) is influenced by climate change,””
which is indeed an orthodox view. But he also said
“For instance, he said, when the world continued to get warmer in future, naturally, and when an El Nino occurred, it would cause the overall temperature for the period to rise much higher than what was usually experienced.”
Also orthodox.
Nick says, “also orthodox”
———————————
Orthodox Christian or Jew?
‘naturally’
=======
whoever wrote this article…added this on their own……just got to get it in there….
“However, he did not discount that global warming could change the El Nino effect on the climate in a particular region.”
…he also did not discount that global warming can cause cows and sheep to interbreed”
Interesting how the current/fading El Nino is pronounced to be not related to Global Warming just as a swing to La Nina could cause much lower temps. It might have been nice to hear this declaration before the Alarmists had time to blame the El Nino for soaring global temps.
true…
The temps jump up
And the temps fall down;
They’re all on the up and up
Who narrate around the town.
==================
“the temps jump up…”
The temps move up then always move down, the temps make alarmists look like clowns.
Like a child
With a machine gun
These jokers wild
Have all the fun.
============
..” This system oscillates and it can be either in El Nino, La Nina or normal phases,” he said.
However, he did not discount that global warming could change the El Nino effect on the climate in a particular region.” ..In other words….” We have no idea what happens next ” !!
..Obviously, Mother Nature has a serious problem with, …ahem, … “Mood Swings” !! LOL
Have typoons increased in intensity? Anyone have a link?
https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/accumulated_cyclone_energy.asp?basin=gl
..I will take that as a big fat NO !!
In the northern hemisphere summer, when the temperature gradient between tropics and Arctic is lowest we get hurricanes and typhoons but in the northern hemisphere winter when the gradient is highest we don’t. I never did understand that since its supposed to be higher temperature gradient that causes storminess.
Mid-latitude cyclones draw their energy from a differential in temperature and humidity between separate air masses.
Hurricanes form in one air mass and do not have the same dynamics at all. In fact, the definition of a hurricane requires that only one air mass be present.
When hurricanes stray north and encounter a different air mass, they are said to “lose their tropical characteristics” and become extra-tropical.
Do you need a complete description of the dynamics of these two different types of storm systems?
Well they must have…..The climates warming yeah?? No need to check, just take as a fact. ……
‘there is no proof in science’
You’re dead, Mosher. Your choice.
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-hurricanes
yes there is evidence.
yes there are uncertainties.
proof?
there is no proof in science.
The evidence we have, while uncertain, like all evidence, SUPPORTS the statement
that hurricanes have increased in intensity.
The evidence does not suggest or support the opposite.
Folks can and will quibble about the uncertainties. but there is evidence. uncertain evidence.
like all evidence.
Now Mosh. People might accuse you of cherry picking. Your paper ends in 2010. The graph of ACE cited above your post goes to 2016. It shows an increase to about 2005 and a continuous drop since then. Your citation also shows an increase to 2005 and dropping after that. I would say that your assertion that the evidence supports the hypothesis that hurricane intensity has increased is not supported by the data. Yet.
Yes. That explains why we’ve been having a hurricane drought in the US for about ten years. And why ACE has declined as well, since 2005.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ACE-Global-2015.png
The argument has long been between increased energy in the system increasing storminess versus decreased polar/equatorial temperature gradient decreasing storminess. They may both be working, but the p/e gradient has a much greater percentage change than the increased systemic energy does. This would argue for overall decrease in severity of storminess.
Glaciated to interglacial transitions are marked by increased volatility and severity of storminess. Were there real increase of storminess, instead of this phony narrative of human guilt, we should be more worried about adapting to the end of the Holocene than in needlessly hampering our pitiful efforts to ward off the ice.
===================
Technically, if there are two alternate explanations for something, no theory can exclusively call it evidence.
So there’s that.
There is proof in science, not the “science” you perform, which is not science. You take truth “empirical data” and make it a “product”
Proof would be empirically established results that can be freely replicated and validated.
You know, those things that dont happen in warmist nonsense statistical mumbo jumbo and models.
So no wonder you think there is no such thing as proof in science, because proof is anathema to a fictional fantasy in the minds of activists
The narrative of human guilt is wrong and dangerously so. As moshe once amusingly misunderstood the fable of the alarmist herdboy, there was a wolf. Yes there was and yes there is. This time its coat is white.
============
The evidence we have, while uncertain, like all evidence, SUPPORTS the statement
that hurricanes have increased in intensity.
===
Earth to planet Mosh….
Ace took a nose dive after 1992….and is at it’s lowest level since records began
…while CO2 levels continue to increase
The evidence we have supports the statement that CO2 doesn’t have one damn thing to do with it……
So if evidence does not support the hypothesis that hurricanes have not increased in intensity, that means that it supports the hypothesis that they have increased in intensity?
How about the evidence having damn all to say one way or the other on the matter, or is that too obvious?
I would say don’t degrade ‘science’ for your own benefit, but as you know, based on natural cycles there is the increased risk of hurricanes this year, that’s just not cricket!!
The fact that the best you can do is to claim that it is uncertain is sufficient to disprove the hypothesis.
If CO2 was the demon gas that you and your fellow travelers claim it to be, the evidence should have been well beyond conclusive by now.
When that’s You’re science
Folks can and will quibble about the uncertainties. but there is evidence. uncertain evidence.
like all evidence.
You’re dead, Mosher
There is no conclusive evidence that the occurrence of El Nino (frequency and intensity) is influenced by climate change,” said Tangang,
_________________
if You don’t understand that that’s our man You’re dead, Mosher.
This car has 4 good tyres.. the fact that you can only se 2 of them…. blah..blah !!!
The engine works fine… but we don’t have a battery for it at the moment…..
LEMON !!!
“Have typoons increased in intensity? ”
No, but there is an incoming wave of tycoons on the horizon.
“global warming could change the El Nino effect on the climate in a particular region”
If it only has *regional* effects, why is it considered *global* warming?
Compare the ‘trends’ reported by Weinkle, et al. in 2012, as displayed here: (original paper not available on line at the moment). Note particularly the WPAC chart covering 60+ years.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/11/some-historical-perspectives-on-typhoon-haiyan-yolanda/
This type of data does not respond to ‘linear regression’ analysis or standard Gaussian statistics. It should be analyzed as a log-normal distribution using Poisson statistics. The ‘mean’ looks to be about 6 per year, with 90% uncertainty range of 3 to 12 (i.e a factor of 2 different from the mean, either way).
No time-dependent trend is in evidence.
Seems the glibbering climb down continues.
The Weather Channel here in Canada shocked me yesterday , they actually reported that the Ft MacMurray fire was not unusual, that the northern forests are fire dependent,that past fires have been far worse and finally that fire suppression has consequences…
Coming from a crew who have been over the top gullible twits with respect to Global Warming AKA Climate Change, I was appalled…..Can’t even trust crusted on propagandists to keep their story straight.
Whats the world coming to? Sanity at last?
What am I going to do if these clowns stop running those air head stories..?
I mean, talking head; “Worst floods ever, epic, biblical proportions”… as the cameraman pans across to a flood marker, over her shoulder…showing 3 higher levels in only the last 50 years.
I will be starved of comedy.
..I saw that too, complete 180 from what they stated 2 days prior !
Roger Bournival on May 9, 2016 at 12:08 pm
So now they’re back to calling it Global Warming? Make up your minds already!
_____________
Who’s they’re – don’t you realise it’s us an’ that’s OK?
John R
Noted. Do you remember the great fire around Sioux Lookout, Ontario, 2011? The burn patch was so large it was visible from the moon (if you could get there to look). The Ft McMurray fire is unusual in that the conditions were ripe for disaster, and a disaster struck. The unbelievable luck was there were thousands of beds available in the oil field camps to the North. That is amazing. It could have been much worse.
http://www.timminstimes.com/2011/11/01/one-of-the-worst-ever-forest-fire-seasons-in-ontario-comes-to-an-end
1400 sq km burned in a single fire. Another the same year was 1100 sq km.
So now they’re back to calling it Global Warming? Make up your minds already!
…good catch
When the global temp goes up it’s ‘Global Warming’. When it comes back down its ‘Climate Change’. When it just kind of bops along at the same level it’s ‘Global Weirding’ or ‘Climate Disruption’ or some other nonsense.
Since climate models that project AGW don’t do ENSO, ENSO cannot be global warming. QED.
The fact that the only warming this century was caused by the El Nino part of ENSO is, OTH, a bit of a problem for those same AGW models. Got Gavin Schmidt all upset with John Christy for graphing that truth for all 102 CMIP5 runs in 32 model ensembles versus 4 weather ballon and 3 satellite records. Schmidt complained about it to Judith Curry (who was going to use Christy’s newest version in a talk) and proposed an alternative graphic. Steve McIntyre just handed Gavin a massive two part smackdown: part 1 Christy’s chart is not trickery but Gavin’s suggested baseline alternative is, part 2 Gavin’s alternative just shows more robustly (statistically) that Christy is right and Gavin is wrong. All should read both posts.
https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/
https://climateaudit.org/2016/05/05/schmidts-histogram-diagram-doesnt-refute-christy/
Thanks for putting up the links. I cannot do that when commenting on an old iPad in an easy chair.
LOL…..+1
On your feet!
==========
But Gavin achieved his objective – Judith pulled John Christy’s graph from her talk. Steve McIntyre’s analysis came too late to rescue it.
MJ, true tactically.
But not strategically. Gavin apparently does not understand the difference, or would never have handed the ‘Auditor’ this golden opportunity to debunk him, twice.
Judith should now be twice as ‘p*ssed’ by Gavin’s unjustified assult. And now has the ammo tomfire foreward. Spread the word on this far and wide. It is not instant media timing, it is slow erosion of all warmunist credibility that will win this guerrila war. SM just gave us much ammo.
So? The Climate Faithful have already convicted Curry for climate heresy. Whether she realizes that none of the faithful can be trusted is immaterial to them. The only point of concern for the faithful these days is to slow the knowledge that CAGW is false from spreading as much as possible.
Most of the higher ups in this con know the wheels are coming off by now. They’ve told to many lies and made to many failed predictions. Their only concern is keeping it going for as long as they can.
And as I’ve said before, there will be no admittance of guilt at the end, no mea culpa. Just like peek oil, the ozone hole, or the population bomb, they will simply slither off to the next big scare and do it all over again with the next generation.
Schitzree, what you suppose will not happen on my watch. Why now three ebooks at Amazon.
Rather than dispair, lets get together and do the warmunists in permanently.
BTW SR, my feet up on the recliner might be a temporary head fske. Or just enjoying a respite after six intense years writing three research intensive ebooks.
“The fact that the only warming this century was caused by the El Nino part of ENSO is, OTH, a bit of a problem for those same AGW models.”
How is that a fact? The fact is that the warming in this El Nino was a lot warmer than in the last big El Nino. That is incompatible with the “no warming” hypothesis unless this El Nino was much bigger than the 1997/98 one. We have had several posts here explaining that it was not much bigger. The best explanation is underlying warming.
Seems to me the frequency and distribution of typhoons is more affected by ENSO than by global temperature. (Just an old fart sayin’…)
I am going out on a limb here and can be proven totally wrong at the end of the month. We know the January to April values for 1998 and 2016 for UAH. As for May, up to May 7 here:
http://moyhu.blogspot.ca/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#NCAR
The average is below the October value where the anomaly was 0.412.
And up to May 8 here:
https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl
The average so far for 2016 is below the May 2010 value on ch06 where the anomaly was 0.414.
So I will assume UAH for May will be 0.414 in 2016.
The 5 month average for 2016 would then be
(0.540 + 0.832 + 0.734 + 0.715 + 0.414)/5 = 0.647.
For 1998, the average was (0.479 + 0.653 + 0.475 + 0.743 + 0.643)/5 = 0.5986.This is a difference of 0.0484 C over 18 years which translates to 0.27 C per century. That is certainly nothing to worry about!
Werner….and 1/2 degree in 2000 years is nothing to sneeze about!
🙂
Werner,
“As for the 30 years, do not forget we had a pause of over 18 years and that is reflected in the low 0.27 C/century.”
________________
Indeed, there was a period within the past 30 years of UAH data during which there was no temperature increase. Despite this, the rate of temperature increase over the past 30 years in UAH is still 1.1 C/century.
this suggests that the period of zero temperature increase was surrounded by periods of rapid temperature increase, such as we have seen in UAH over this past 5 years.
Therefore it is illogical to zero in on relatively short term periods of low or zero temperature increase and conclude that this is all there is.
18 years is one thing. But 5 years is another, especially when there is either a La Nina at one end and an El Nino at the other, or both as is the case here. 2011 was a La Nina year and 2015/6 are El Nino years.
“This is a difference of 0.0484 C over 18 years which translates to 0.27 C per century. That is certainly nothing to worry about!”
_____________________________
Werner
All you’re doing here is calculating the trend between El Niños. Why not the trend between La Niñas; or between El Niño peaks and La Niña dips; or La Niña dips and El Niño peaks, etc? Using the whole record or a multiple decade period irons out all these natural variations.
The rate of warming in UAH v6 beta 5 over its whole period to April 2016 is 1.2 C/century. The often used 30 year climatology is currently warming at a rate of 1.1 C/century, and the 30-year trend has never fallen below 1.0 C/century during the entire UAH period of record.
By comparing just two more or less equally strong El Ninos about 18 years apart, we are comparing apples with apples. As for the 30 years, do not forget we had a pause of over 18 years and that is reflected in the low 0.27 C/century.
Sorry, I meant to insert the above response here.
..More proof of the dishonesty of the liberal left !
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/09/former-facebook-staffers-say-conservative-news-is-deliberately-suppressed.html?intcmp=hpbt3
Regarding the recent El Nino being the strongest in 60 years: Bob Tisdale seems to say otherwise in https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/17/is-the-current-el-nino-stronger-than-the-one-in-199798/
El Nino is the continuation of La Nina by other means. In goes the good warmth, out goes the bad warmth.
H/t A. Bernaerts et al.
================
And for those interested, the 2015/16 El Nino is decaying as expected. It’s now a weak El Nino, with NINO3.4 region sea surface temperature anomalies at 0.8 deg C.
The graph is from the April 2016 Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Update,which I posted today:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/april-2016-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
“There is no conclusive evidence that the occurrence of El Nino (frequency and intensity) is influenced by climate change,” said Tangang, who had served from 2008 to 2015 as vice-chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations agency.”
“El Nino is a naturally occurring phenomenon, which is part of the inter-annual variability associated with oscillation of the atmosphere-ocean interaction in the Pacific Ocean that occurs in a two- to seven-year cycle.
This system oscillates and it can be either in El Nino, La Nina or normal phases,”
What’s more to say – Hans
“He said that unlike typhoons” which perhaps are not naturally occurring.
Bob Tisdale on May 9, 2016 at 1:22 pm
And for those interested, the 2015/16 El Nino is decaying as expected. It’s now a weak El Nino, with NINO3.4 region sea surface temperature anomalies at 0.8 deg C.
Yes, I’m interested: Thanks, reliable Bob Tisdale !
I’ve never really understood the arguments about whether a large El Nino is or is not a sign of global warming. “Is” …. “T’isn’t” ….. “Yes, tiz!” seems about the sum of it, and aboutas sterile as an argument can get.
I’m a sceptic, but I’m pretty comfortable with the idea that global warming, if it happens, might well appear, staccato fashion, courtesy of the ocean burps that ninos represent. Considering the vast heat content of the oceans, that’s what we might expect. But reverse-engineering ENSO events to prove the link seems highly unlikely. So why don’t we just take it as it comes and see what happens to the actual temperatures? And even then, we still haven’t solved the attribution problem..
MC, ponder the oceans more. They are turbulent in x,y,z. Examples of XY include famous currents like Gulf Stream, Labrador, and Humbolt. Examples of Z include NA pacific coast upwelling due to Eckman transport currents (wind driven, pH changing) and global thermohaline circulation. Examples of XYZ include Pacific trades driven ENSO. Bottom line, when you just dunno, you do not yet know.
“El Nino is a naturally occurring phenomenon, … that occurs in a two- to seven-year cycle.”
Why is it called a cycle? It is not even a periodic oscillation. Just an oscillation with an average and standard deviation occurrence. A frequency analysis of El Niño would yield nothing at all.
What most people ignore, however is that El Niño is a phenomenon that didn’t occur during the early Holocene before 7000 years ago, and that it has a relation with Bond events. It is a feature of a cooling world.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/ENSO-Bond_zpsqiqwmj1z.png
Woah! I didn’t realize El Nino was not around in the early years of the Holocene,but having an increasing number of them is indeed a sign of a cooling world as the Ocean waters is slowly cooling down over the centuries.
There are some science papers attesting that Oceans were indeed warmer than now even by late as the medeivel warm period.
Yup, the globe is cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
We should hope that the warming since the Little Ice Age is predominantly natural, for if man is responsible, via a high sensitivity, then we can’t keep it up much longer.
==============
It has been steadily cooling since the peak of the Minoan warm period,successive warm peaks are lower than previous on as clearly shown in the Greenland Ice core data. Cooling for around 6,500 years.
Antarctica ice cores reveal a smaller decline in temperature as well for almost as long as the Greenland one.
Here is an old simple post I made showing the charts:
We are already sliding into the next cold ice age.
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-520.html
It’s the mechanism of cooling but whether as cause or effect I dunno. Los Ninos cool the globe overall, manifested in the ocean, because the higher atmospheric temperature has allowed more energy to escape to space than during Las Ninas.
I suspect the loss is driven from the oceans, rather than the atmosphere, since they have so much greater magnitude of action, though less range.
Ultimately it’s gotta be solar driven, whether Milankovich, or albedo ordered oceanic absorption, or the more minor atmospheric irregularities.
And all down to clouds, most likely, but how, I dunno.
===================
Professor Humlum at Climate4you suggests at least an overall causal relationship that even I can understand:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif
(Climate4you: Oceans + Climate + Clouds).
That reply didn’t come out quite the way intended Kim, no offense intended.
Oh, yeah, clearly(heh) clouds. But just how they do the things they do!
==========
Javier, do you have a link for the chart or science paper about it?
The reference is in the chart itself, Moy et al., 2002
Moy, C.M., et al. 2002. Variability of El Niño/Southern Oscillation activity at millennial timescales during the Holocene epoch. Nature 420, 162-165.
wasn’t there a thread about chearleadery and
yes,
1. reading ability
but
2. get. What You read.
Wait – “The current El Nino phenomenon that has brought prolonged drought and sweltering heat to Malaysia is the strongest of the 20 over the last 60 years, but there is no concrete evidence to link its heat intensity to global warming, says former IPCC vice-chairman. …. There is no conclusive evidence that the occurrence of El Nino (frequency and intensity) is influenced by climate change,””
what about the other way around?
Is there concrete evidence to link El Nino’s heat is a contributing factor to “global warming”?
The total earth has cooled during an El Nino, it regains during a La Nina. It’s the predominance of one over the other over time that matters. Also, our set dividing point between the two of them may not be thermodynamically in tune with that definition.
But, as shown above by Javier, Los Ninos are the mark of a cooling globe.
Our perspective has been so primitive, and it’s being made even more savage by the drumbeat of a narrative of guilt, fear, and the will to power.
=====================
I am not sure La Nina by itself actually exist at all, could be just a variation on how much energy is leaving the ocean waters.
Ocean waters is ALWAYS releasing energy even during a “La Nina” phase since it only pertains to part of the Ocean region.
El Nino = a marked increase in energy outflow from the Pacific ocean waters,causing the atmosphere to warm up.But the atmosphere which didn’t warm up by itself,will cool back down in time when the warming phase fades away.
La Nina= a marked decrease in energy outflow from the waters. Causing the atmosphere to cool back down to a lower energy state. Still energy is still coming out of the Pacific ocean into the atmosphere even when the El Nino phase goes away
We don’t track “global warming” by heat (maybe we should). We track it by temperature changes – an effect of heat flow. Because El Nino causes increasing SST in the Pacific Ocean, it can contribute to “global warming.” For instance, the relatively high global temperature anomaly in 2015-16 might shorten the global warming pause. It’s an artifact of fitting a regression line to a set of data points with two data points relatively high due to a strong El Nino.
“For instance, the relatively high global temperature anomaly in 2015-16 might shorten the global warming pause.”
Not might, has shortened the pause to a couple of months.
“It’s an artifact of fitting a regression line to a set of data points with two data points relatively high due to a strong El Nino.”
The pause itself was an artifact of fitting a regression line with some data points at the beginning being relayively high due to a strong El Nino. The recent strong El Nino balances that out, and the pause disappears overnight, as artifacts are wont to do.
The ‘pause’ has disappeared but global warming has slowed down from 0.7 C per 100 years in the 20th century to 0.15 C per 100 years in 1997-2016 when it should have accelerated due to man’s CO2 “pollution” and two strong El Nino’s cancelling each other out
?w=675
“The pause” has not disappeared. We simply do not know at present what is the warming rate because we are in the midst of an El Niño. As the warming rate is masked we do not know if the pause is continuing or not. We will know when we have a little perspective in a few years. Stating that the pause has ended is premature.
The natural 60-year cycle — in the sine curve the maximum was reached in 2016 and started downward trend now. This might added to 2016 El Nino intensity over those of 1997-98 and 1982-83.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
The last 3 BIG El Ninos have occurred about 15-17 years apart. This one was right on schedule.
Honestly Eric? What the IPCC considers relevant concerning the subject of global warming or climate in general is of no interest. They’ve never been right before so if they are now my guess is it’s luck.
Sorry. Should have been addressed to Anthony, not Eric.
Difficult to believe.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Only if you believe that contrived nonsense.
..Hmmm, how about showing some actually data, instead of your cherry picked “adjusted” graphs..? ( and do you really think a rise of 0.08 in 135 years is significant ? ) YOU are the “climate change denier” !
Global cooling. See and believe
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01310f4ff7a6970c-pi