NOAA announces the arrival of El Niño

Horrors! We must raise taxes, immediately!

This will mean more BBC and Monbiot driven thermageddon. I can hardly wait…

” NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.”
What an arrogant, ignorant piece of bloviation that is! It enrages me every time I read it (but then I am also enraged by John Lennon’s moronic mewl ‘Imagine’). On the other hand, what would one expect from an outfit that styles itself the Administrator of Ocean and Air? Poseidon and Aeolus wrapped up in one.
At the name of NOAA, every knee shall bow.

The last paragraph kind of says it all…
“…NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.”

Joe Bastardi from Accuweather, who predicted the El Nino back in January, predicts that it will be no more than a moderate one, and that it will fall apart by late fall or winter. That being said, the AGW’ers and the media will no doubt start having a field day as it will be proclaimed that “global warming has resumed just like the models predicted.” I can’t wait (heavy sarcasm).

Yes Brian, predictions that are actually observed should be emphasized.

UK Sceptic, I fully agree (as a fellow UK BBC sufferer), but won’t it be great if the high temperatures don’t materialize? How will they defend that? El Nino, but cool temps. I can’t wait.

UK Met Office and CRU web site has been down for three days now! Bet they can’t wait to get back online with their dire predictions.

Well, they’ve been predicting it long enough. Remember that while we may be in the negative phase of the PDO, it doesn’t preclude experiencing a few El Niño events. It’ll probably turn out to be a weak event, despite some folks’ hopes for a repeat of ’98. La Niña events, on the other hand, tend to be predominant during the DPO’s negative phase. The good news, I suppose, would be fewer Atlantic hurricanes – haven’t had a named storm yet this season – not even a “Tiny Tim”.

“Advanced climate science allows us to alert industries, governments and emergency managers about the weather conditions El Niño may bring so these can be factored into decision-making and ultimately protect life, property and the economy,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator.
Next time they are proven wrong, we’ll know their climate science was not advanced enough… Just as for the Communist planification, they’ll have to find another qualificative to describe their product: Hyper-cerebral, Mighty-weaponed, Multi spatial climate science… LOL

The next few months are going to be very interesting for anyone who follows the evolution of global temperatures and the whole climate change debate.
Remember, the UK MetOffice predicted about seven months ago that 2009 is going to be one of the top five warmest years ever recorded. The great La Nina of 2007/08 and the minor one peaked in January 2009 has gone. Then we have this announcement from NOAA about the beginning of a new El Nino. The global temperature anomaly tends to lag short-term ENSO variations by 2-5 months. It seems that the 2009 forecast is going to ‘overshoot’ the real 2009 value, like any other years since 1999. Altough this is not good for the credibility of the MetOffice, the real question is the temperature response to the next El Nino. If the global anomaly can’t exceed the pre-2008 levels during an El Nino, the main assumption of the AGW camp that increasing CO2 is the main driver of global temperatures will get a serious hit.
According to Dr. Spencer at UAH, the satellite-measured global near-surface temperture anomaly in June was zero (0.001°c) with respect to the 1979-98 reference period. The lack of statisticially significant warming since about 1995, the lack of any warming trend since 1997, and the obvious cooling trend since about 2001 can be seen even in the HadCRUT dataset. Despite of this fact and the systematic bias in the annual global temperature predictions of the MetOffice, Phil Jones just keeps repeating the very same mantra:
“The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming – the period 2001-2007, with an average of 14.44 °C, was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000.”
The recent 9-year cooling trend may have not been caused by a single ENSO event, it must be something else – something they weren’t aware of. The effects of the oncoming El Nino, the recovery or non-recovery of global temperatures to pre-2008 levels will be a very important issue.
This single event can prove the whole CRU and MetOffice wrong (or ressurect their credibility if the outcome will be the opposite).

Follow the weekly updates (out every Monday). The Oceanic Nino Index needs to be +.5 or above (the one posted for July 6th was at .2) and then forecasted to continue at that or above level for 3 months. Not all forecasting models predict this. The statistical models indicate a near equal chance of neutral or El Nino. The dynamical models indicate mostly an El Nino condition. Most predict a weak one at that. It is to be remembered that during a cool PDO flip, El Nino’s will occur. Just not very many and not very strong. The last 3 have all trended down. I still consider the PDO to be in a cool phase and I think that the trend will continue for weaker and weaker El Nino’s. This is probably why NOAA issued an El Nino ADVISORY. If this turns out to be a weaker El Nino, the Northwest could still see very wintery and snowy conditions.

As an AGWer, I’m actually hoping for a moderate El Nino of +1.5C to +2.0C or so and for SC24 to remain reasonably quiet. This is both because a repeat of 1998 will be damaging to the environment, and because a more moderate event that crushes the 1998 records will be more convincing (and probably we’ll see another low in arctic sea ice as well).
And for all those anti-AGWers that are suggesting that we “remember” predictions like those I just made… Remember all the predictions that you are making. I’ve heard people make predictions on this blog that El Ninos will never happen again which has pretty convincingly fallen now. What happens when we simply have a substantially normal El Nino that lasts into next spring and doesn’t “collapse” in late fall? What happens when we beat the 1998 record and the whole “cooling for a decade” argument is no longer valid? What happens when solar cycle 24 heats up and that shows up in the ocean temperature measurements and the whole “flat since 2005” argument totally collapses? What happens when we set a new record low in arctic sea ice? If all those happen in the next 5 years, will you all admit that AGW is correct?

For the week centered on Wed July 1, 2009, NINO3.4 SST anomalies (OI.v2 data) were at 0.88 deg C.
http://i27.tinypic.com/10py105.png
The June 2009 anomaly was 0.62 deg C.
http://i28.tinypic.com/9gda3c.png
The rest of my monthly update for June 2009 is here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/june-2009-sst-anomaly-update.html

Lamont 9:04:23
No, Lamont, I’ll admit nothing. I would like to see real understanding of climate, which we don’t have now. Even if those events you mention happen that is still no proof of the CO2=AGW paradigm, just as their corollaries are no real negation of the paradigm. But high sensitivity of climate to CO2 is just not being revealed; wide ranging episodes of weather even argue against it.
And just how, pray tell, would a more active sun warm the earth? I’m dying for the answer to that question.
====================================

Bill Illis: To add to those, Western Pacific Warm Water Volume and Depth-Averaged Temperature are not above the “norm” for the post 1997/98 El Nino.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/wwv/gif/wwv_t300_anom_w.gif
TAO Project data here:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/wwv/data/

Well I’m sure the folks fretting over drought in California will be pleased to know relief may come. But then once La Nina hits again…’Oh noes! Drought!’
Come on. Why don’t you praise the rain when its in cycle.
With weather, it’s always feast or famine! Same with life!
To me, some people just love to whine about everything.
Because to them, everything is bad. That is the same reason why the wolf ate Peter…er…the people didn’t listen to Peter’s screams.

I just hope it brings some rain to TX. We are baking here in Austin!

Can someone explain to me-I don’t get how the PDO is in negative phase when EL NINO conditions prevail.

This is not an El Nino folks. It is an El Nino condition ADVISORY and only just barely. The month average has to be .5 or above and then predicted to stay that way for 3 months or longer in order for the condition to stay current. If the prediction holds true, after that it can be called an El Nino condition and not just an ADVISORY. And then after 5 months it can be called an El Nino Event. Or something like that. It is expected that temps right now would continue to be cool (no need to laugh) and warm a bit into possibly an Indian Summer. But that’s it folks. The show will be over come November. IMHO.

Lamont:
“What happens when we simply have a substantially normal El Nino that lasts into next spring and doesn’t “collapse” in late fall? (1) What happens when we beat the 1998 record and the whole “cooling for a decade” argument is no longer valid? (2) What happens when solar cycle 24 heats up and that shows up in the ocean temperature measurements and the whole “flat since 2005″ argument totally collapses? (3) What happens when we set a new record low in arctic sea ice? (4) If all those happen in the next 5 years, will you all admit that AGW is correct? (5) ”
Absolutely! The thing about being a skeptic, not a denier, is that you are driven by information, not idealogue. I have very little opinion on question #1, but it 2-4 happen and #5, which is they happen in the next 5 years happens, you will ABSOLUTELY have my vote. It will be hard for 2009 to reverse the 10 year trend at it’s present rate, so the decade thing will probably stand…. I believe that a warmer Earth is a better Earth, which will provide more growing areas, more evaporation and life giving rain and longer growing seasons, but I will bow to the wise AGW theory if these 5 signposts comes to pass.
Let me turn it around and throw out #1 about the El Nino. If we do NOT surpass 1998, in the next 5 years, if we continue to cool, even as SC24 eventually does start up (and it peaks WELL short of the last 5 cycles), if the Ocean’s temps and levels remain flat to cool (recede) for 5 years – will you leave behind your misguided models?
I saw a great article from a physicist born in 1945, who lived through 25 years of cooling until 1970. Then 28 years of warming, through 1998. Now he has seen 10 years of cooling again – he asks the question – HOW CAN I BE ALARMED AT THIS NON TREND? I ask how can anyone? The guy’s 53 years old, by my calculation. How many well meaning AGWer’s were born closer to the 1970 mark and simply lack perspective and life experience?
Lamont, if your bold predictions occur, you win my vote – I say it again. Maybe Anthony will consent to post your comment every year, 1 time on it’s anniversary, for 5 years? It’s the first reasonable post I’ve seen from your side of the equation. You made a prediction, you asked reasonable questions – are you sure you REALLY beliebve in AGW?

I sincerely hope we have an El Nino, as those of us in California need the rain to make up for a three year deficit. There have been 3 El Ninos since 2000, and yet global temps. have been drifting lower since then, so it remains to be seen if that trend changes. UAH reported tropical ocean, mid tropo. temperature anomaly of -.05 for June 2009. They reported the same anomaly for June 1979. Evidently the Earth is very good at regulating it’s temperature., IMHO.

Lamont (09:04:23) : “…will you all admit that AGW is correct?”
Say what? Sorry, pal. There was an ice age that ended some 17,000 years ago (date debatable) and Earth has been warming ever since with fits and starts. What has changed?

lamont: your
I’ve heard people make predictions on this blog that El Ninos will never happen again which has pretty convincingly fallen now.
I don’t recall seeing any such predictions. Proof please. But, that said, several studies on paleo-ENSO events, indicate a lessening or even a stoppage of el Nino during warming events.
During the middle of the Holocene, when it was considerably warmer than it is today, Overpeck and Webb (2000) report that data from corals suggest that “interannual ENSO variability, as we now know it, was substantially reduced, or perhaps even absent.”
Overpeck, J. and Webb, R.  2000.  Nonglacial rapid climate events: Past and future.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97: 1335-1338.
These authors say it appears there are fewer and weaker ENSO events during warm periods, and more and stronger ENSO events during cold periods.
Riedinger, M.A., Steinitz-Kannan, M., Last, W.M. and Brenner, M.  2002.  A ~6100 14C yr record of El Niño activity from the Galapagos Islands.  Journal of Paleolimnology 27: 1-7.
The authors compared proxies with their model. In the words of the authors, the model simulations showed “little change in … ENSO, in agreement with proxies.”  They also note that other studies “indicate an ENSO shutdown as recently as ~6000 years ago, a period only slightly warmer than the present.”
Huber, M. and Caballero, R.  2003.  Eocene El Niño: Evidence for robust tropical dynamics in the “Hothouse.”  Science 299: 877-881.
What happens when we simply have a substantially normal El Nino that lasts into next spring and doesn’t “collapse” in late fall? What happens when we beat the 1998 record and the whole “cooling for a decade” argument is no longer valid? What happens when solar cycle 24 heats up and that shows up in the ocean temperature measurements and the whole “flat since 2005″ argument totally collapses? What happens when we set a new record low in arctic sea ice? If all those happen in the next 5 years, will you all admit that AGW is correct?
If all these events occurred, I would, once again, consider AGHG as a primary cause of climate change. I have twice been a doubter, and once a believer, of AGHG as a primary forcing.
The question, is: Would you become a doubter of AGW, if all the questions you posed, returned as a null event? Yes, or no, please.

Can you say El Nino 14 times? The article does.
Do I detect competition between NCDC and NOAA?
NCDC is saying much the opposite, with La Nina making El Nino’s highly improbable.
Competition is good.

Is this typical of El Nino?
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/cgi-tao/cover.cgi?P1=/tao/jsdisplay/plots/gif/sst_wind_anom_5day_ps32.gif&P2=900&P3=456&script=jsdisplay/scripts/biggif_startup.csh
The warm 1.0 and above anomaly areas is being tied off by cooler water to the east to become shaped like a balloon at the right end of the map, the yellow shaded area was the first to drift westward and lose its hold on the eastern edge. It seems to indicate we have some cooler water sneaking into the eastern edge of the Nino region and seems to make it more likely it could be weaker than the ones in 1998 and 2006.

If we get warming from a strong El Nino and/or an active solar cycle 24 how does that support the theory that the recent observed warming was caused by CO2 ?
It would just confirm that the two warming periods that occurred during the 20th Century were most likely caused entirely by solar and oceanic behaviour and that any effect from extra CO2 is at a lower, undefined and possibly insignificant level.
To substantiate AGW theory it needs to be shown that there is indeed a background level of warming independent of much more powerful solar and oceanic influences. Without being able to allocate any warming or cooling trend accurately to individual forcing agents it simply cannot be assumed that CO2 has any effect at all.
Even if it does have a measurable effect all it will do is make natural warming peaks a tiny bit higher and natural cooling troughs a tiny bit shallower and so will be beneficial overall given that cold is worse than heat for all plant and animal life.
Bear in mind that the peaks and troughs in the natural cycles are themselves only short lived phenomena and the effect of extra specifically human sourced CO2 if any is truly insignificant.
One can argue that given enough time and enough emissions the effect could theoretically be significant but that gives us centuries to solve our energy and population problems which means there should be no panicky ill judged responses now.
But as my regular readers know my view is that the air circulation systems shift latitudinally poleward and equatorward to adjust the rate of energy flow from surface to space and thereby maintain global temperature stability for aeons at a time despite disruptions in the energy flow caused by variable solar input to the oceans and air, variable oceanic energy emissions to the air and indeed swings in the power of the greenhouse effect from changes in global humidity and/or CO2 and other lesser GHGs.
If we get a strong El Nino then it will indeed warm the air for a while but it will deplete the oceanic energy store in doing so.
At present solar input is likely to fall short of what is needed for full replacement whereas from 1975 to 2000 the high level of solar input seems to have been enough to continue to increase the oceanic energy store despite the run of strong El Nino events. We are not in that position now.
The temperature of the air around the globe is ultimately at the mercy of solar power which is then rationed to the air at the whim of the oceans. That combination sets a naturally varying equilibrium temperature with changes in the composition of the air of no significance in the face of those solar and oceanic forcings.
Tyndall et al made perfectly correct findings about the effect of different gases in the air but those findings do not appear to translate into a climate effect because of the behaviour over time of the entire climate system which involves sun, OCEANS and air, not just sun and air alone.
Essentially their findings have been misapplied.

Lamont…
All the money grabing and Law projects are based on one little trace gas molecule that is the fundation of life on this planet… CO2.
The concentration of CO2 has been rising constantly since the LIA (it happened to correspond to the industrialisation age). Yet we had regular and cycling cooling and warming cycles during that same period up to today. Nothing seems to show that it is different now. So all of that shows that there is no link between the CO2 concentration and global temperature… even less to that little portion of CO2 from our industrial activities.
It does not matter what you can say about the cause of global climate change… the science clearly and without any reasonable doubt shows us that we are not the cause and that the CO2 in the atmosphere is not the cause.

Bob Tisdale,
As you follow SST quite stringently, what does it say about the overall heat content of the oceans? If the oceans are not retaining more heat than is being released, wouldn’t that eventually lead to an overall cooling trend over land regardless of El Nino? Isn’t OHC the real story?

Attention all skeptics:
Please do not be led down the garden path by arguments that are irrelevant;to illogical conclusions.
Please remember that there are “sufficient conditions”, and “necessary conditions” and scientists have to be able to discriminate between the two.
If for the next ten years the temperature drops another 0.5 degrees, that alone is sufficient to discredit CO2 as responsible for global warming (it would also discredit other anthropogenic influences, like black soot, irrigation, etc. etc). BUT it does not mean that if this does not happen, necessarily CO2 or something else anthropogenic creates the warming.
A condition that is is sufficient does not mean it is also necessary.
If the temperatures go up by 0.5 degrees in the next ten years, the ballpark is open to see what causes it, by positive proof and not conjectures. In my opinion we have to see what has taken us out of the Little Ice Age, to have any handle in the situation.
I agree that it would be good if the temperatures keep dropping, because the whole CO2 mess will be reduced to absurdity.

Chuck L (08:16:53) :
I will go with JB on this as well. He has been far more accurate on evolution of longer term patterns than NOAA has even dreamed of.

Pamela Gray (09:55:22) :
This is not an El Nino folks. It is an El Nino condition ADVISORY and only just barely. The month average has to be .5 or above and then predicted to stay that way for 3 months or longer in order for the condition to stay current. If the prediction holds true, after that it can be called an El Nino condition and not just an ADVISORY. And then after 5 months it can be called an El Nino Event. Or something like that. It is expected that temps right now would continue to be cool (no need to laugh) and warm a bit into possibly an Indian Summer. But that’s it folks. The show will be over come November. IMHO.
—-
Other than the fact of it being short lived, Why just barely ? The atmosphere was clearly tilting + AAM wise up until recently and the weekly readings were +0.9 which is hardly barely. And this peak is no different then any negative weekly peak during this past winter. And everyone, NOAA included, was calling that a La Nina event. So where is the scientific consistency?
Mind you I’m all for using the ONI but I have seen people waver back and forth with what to use. And some like to strongly consider Wolter’s MEI, which was tilted El Nino last month also. And stronger than June 2002, and 2006 .
And can I assume that you feel that this is going to be a no show, or unoffical, since you mentioned that it will be done come November ? If so why ? Because of the models ? I hope not.

OMG the end of the world
BTW, how is the Met Office’s prediction for the British heatwave coming along? It’s bloody cold and raining all week.

Bill Illis:
My last check showed the Southern Oscillation index is currently very slightly positive. This, in fact, does not point to an El Nino at all, but to neutral conditions. Now, I am perfectly willing to accept that an El Nino -weak or otherwise – is in the offing, but how can NOAA say it has arrived without a very negative SOI? Isn’t the pressure gradient across the South Pacific (and the resulting trade wind fluctuations) the very essence of an El Nino, or has thinking about that feature of ENSO changed in the 10 years I have spent away from global climate science?
see, e.g.:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

Looking at the TAO there may be other signs that do not bode well for even a moderate El Nino event
The eastern subsurface warm pocket is not as warm this year as this date last year, and last year was not an El Nino year
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/jsdisplay/plots/gif/Dep_Sec_EQ_5d_anom_comp.gif
The warm pocket in the 20C Depth is also not quite as strong, 2009 shows a smaller and cooler warm pocket that’s farther from the edge.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/jsdisplay/plots/gif/iso20_iso20_anom_5day_comp.gif
There’s plenty other plots on that site too but these relating to SST’s stick out as they compare against last year. Look at them and see if you can guess where things are going to go.

“NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun”
Well, well I learn something new everyday. I didn’t know that everything “from depths of the ocean TO THE SURFACE OF THE SUN” was part of the Earth’s environment. I stand corrected.

By the way, Lamont, I think you’ll get to see all those things; continued cooling while the sun gets more active and all. Tsonis et al showed that the coupling and uncoupling of natural cycles, particularly the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, best explain the temperature graph for the last century. And we’ve just entered the cooling phase of the PDO. So, yes, I expect you’ll see continued cooling for the next few years, no matter what the sun does, and despite the interjection of some Los Ninos. This natural cycle theory makes far more sense than the great climate models, based on the incorrrect assumption that water vapor is a large positive feedback to minimal CO2 forcing.
And please clue me in to how the sun directs climate; I’m dying for the answer.
========================================

Does anyone remember last Fall, under similar conditions, when Mary was arguing that we weren’t in a La Nina yet, and I kept flinging the predictions of a La Nina through midsummer ’09 in her face, from the aggregate consensus of a number of model runs. Does anyone have that prediction for the next six-twelve months? It was dead right last time.
=====================================

Lamont: If all those happen in the next 5 years, will you all admit that AGW is correct?
No, Lamont, I will simply observe that the climate has had another unremarkable short term change. Why should I assume that this is ‘proof’ of any particular theoretical cause?

Lamont…
It can be very scary to face reality and realise that the vision of the world imposed by politiciens is a fantasy. You see, politiciens (like Al Gore) live in their own world, with their own truths. Their goal is to change to world to fit their universe. The problem is, it seems, we lack that fantasy island vision… we are mear mortals living in reality. This reality tells me that CO2 is good and indispensable to life.

With respect to todays ‘pinata,’ I suggest we apply the time-honored KISS principle thus: “Hey, Lamont. Thought ‘all those things’ were supposed to have happened in the last five years?”

DR: You asked, “As you follow SST quite stringently, what does it say about the overall heat content of the oceans?”
Though SST is a component of OHC, they are two entirely different beasts. A significant El Nino will cause a major rise in SST, even cause a lingering upward step change in some oceans, but for that same El Nino, the drop on OHC appears to be minor. But it’s tough to tell since no two OHC datasets are similar.
You asked, “If the oceans are not retaining more heat than is being released, wouldn’t that eventually lead to an overall cooling trend over land regardless of El Nino?”
Let me ask a question in return. Why aren’t the oceans retaining more heat than is being released? A change in cloud cover? A change in aerosols, dust from the Sahara? So, whatever is causing the plateau in OHC should also be impacting land surface temperature. And with respect to El Ninos, regardless of the direction of the trend in global surface temperature, or land surface temperature, or TLT, an El Nino will cause a temporary rise in those variables. If enough subsurface heat from the Pacific Warm Pool was released during the El Nino, then global SST, LST, and TLT would remain elevated while it’s being radiated into space.
You asked, “Isn’t OHC the real story?”
The real story in what terms? The four most recent OHC reconstructions (Ishii and Kimoto, Domingues et al, Levitus et al, Wijffels et al) are extremely different in terms of year-to-year variations. The only things even remotely similar are the direction of decadal trends. That is, they all have negative trends from 1955 to ~1969, then increasing trends from ~1969 to present. IMO, OHC has little value as a dataset because of the differences. In other words, there is no OHC real story.

Maybe we should call it “Enano Nino”
http://pichicola.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/enano.jpg

Brian 12:46:46
Heh, you got my little joke. Apologies to Sasha Pope.
===============================

Ray (13:09:26) :
Maybe we should call it “Enano Nino”
Thanks Ray!!!
Get it out of my head!

John Galt (11:37:24) :” It’s like winning the lottery. The odds are 50/50.”
Say what?

Jeff Id (09:47:00) : “It’s been a strangely cool summer so far in Chicago area. I for one will welcome the warm weather – winter sucks.”
NW Indiana here, and I can vouch for that statement. I’ve only had my AC on maybe five times this year so far. And last winter, I could store food on my enclosed front porch instead of running the freezer. Been pretty good to my energy bills, I’d say. And I didn’t adopt a single green change in my life. It wasn’t quite as pronounced, but last spring was a bit slow in coming. A very rainy and muggy summer, though!
Anyway, I rather like the cooler summer season, myself.

If this is the El Nino, can you imagine what the next La Nina is going to be like? Keep in mind folks, they’re not predicting an El Nino, they’re saying we’ve been in one. And yet the June sattelite temperature anomaly ~ 0!

Have you noticed that the PDO is also RED ?…I think that´s too much…no joke.

The most recent similar period that had an El Nino during a cool PDO and cool AMO was the 1965-1966 event.[ also just after a 1964 solar minimum]. The El Nino was a moderate one that lasted for about 11months[june -april . The annual PDO continued cool and declined from [-0.31] in 1965 to [-0.46] in 1966. It warmed the winters slightly but US ANNUAL CONTIGUOUS TEMPERATURE ANOAMALY[GISS] actually went down from [-0.11C] in 1965 to [-0.25C ] in 1966 .Global temperature anomaly [Crutem3] basically was the same [1965 was[- 0.216 C] and 1966 was [-0.147 C] The annual AMO had just gone negative in 1964 [ just like now in 2009] . IT went up from [-0.145 ] to [+0.018] and then continued negative in 1967. Canadian Annual temperature anomalies warmed slightly from [-0.6C ] to [-0.2C]. Canadian winters had below normal temperatures both years but 1966 was slightly warmer than 1966 [but still quite cold .] If things develop similar as then , this El Nino may not be a significant event and the cool pattern may continue since it seems to be the prevailing natural cycle.

matt v. (14:41:47) :
So, what you’re saying that it is cycling and that has been seen before… I agree. In fact, all the “old” people I know all see this as a natural and repeating cycles. Nothing to get excited over. Deja Vu.

matt v. 14:41:47
Thanks, matt. You da man.
=================

pyromancer76 (14:53:09) :
“… transport of water from the north (partnership with Canada?) to the south…”
This is already happening. We send good water at a very low price to south of the boarder and the south sells it back to us in bottles but at a much higher price… very profitable operations.

I agree that the situation is assymetric. If things cool down for the next 10 years, AGW is done. If things warm up for the next 10 years, AGW becomes more likely but is not established.
What would convince me is if the warmists made bona fide “fingerprint” predictions. For example if they predict drought in Australia; increased rainfall in California; and so forth. And then all of those predictions came true.
They would have to be bona fide predictions though. It doesn’t count if they make predictions after the fact. It doesn’t count either if different warmists make conflicting predictions. The predictions should be “consensus” predictions.
But I doubt that the warmists will ever lock themselves in to a position like that. It’s telling that they act just like TV psychics by limiting themselves to vague, difficult-to-falsify predictions full of weasel words.

I predict that in a years time it’ll be NH summer 2010 and RealClimate will still have dozens of visitors every week.

CNN Weather report:
We have an El Ninjo situation now and it’s getting warmer.

matt v. 17:04:52
Yup, I very much agree. Another 20-30 years of cooling from this phase of the PDO will produce crop failures and starvation among the poorest of this earth. If the sun is getting into the act with a new Grand Minimum, the cooling will be holocaustic. We far more likely face a climate catastrophe from not adapting to the cooling that is happening than from not mitigating a global warming that isn’t happening.
===================================

Now why is this an El Nino, and not a PDO shift; what happened to all the Eastern Pacific Blue of the cool PDO ?
What is it that kicks in at 0.5 degrees change; why not 0.45, or 0.55; what is the physical significance that makes it an El Nino at + 0.5, but not at + 0.499
And how does the moon affect it through the three month persistence.
And what means this piece of gobbledegook; “””By historical standards, to be classified as a full-fledged El Niño or La Niña episode,these thresholds must be exceeded for a period of at least 5 consecutive overlapping 3-month seasons. “””
What exactly is “at least 5 consecutive overlapping three month seasons ” ? Does that mean that it ain’t El Nino if it only last a year; I thought the 1998 El Nino only lasted 8 months.
Well now I’m confused; but is PDO still in cooling phase; so where has all the lbue gone ?

The lack of a good NOAA pregnancy test worries me.

I just announced the arrival of one billion dollars to my bank account.
While I was at it, my barber, the guy at the gas station, and I all agreed that we should keep the skies blue and sunny everyday.

“No, I think the AGWiers will say that if things cool down for the next 10 years, its climate variability, but if things warm up in the next 10 months, its definitely Anthropogenic Global Warming and the Human Race is fully responsible.”
I’m not talking about what the AGWers will say. I’m talking about what a reasonable inference would be. Obviously the two things aren’t not necessarily the same.

I printed out the Unisys SST chart from July 5 and compared it to today’s chart:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
The El Nino HAS WEAKENED over the last 5 days.

the season…

Bob Tisdale
Thanks for your reply. My query is related to this paper, which I could not recall in my previous post:
Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf
As the oceans contain more heat in the first few meters than the entire atmosphere, it would seem it is the oceans that regulate surface temperature. A change in cloud cover can account for virtually all changes in OHC regardless of what the sun does. That said, I fail to see how anything but the sun’s direct radiation can account for ocean warming.
I have yet to see a mathematical relationship given to explain how small increases in atmospheric CO2 can raise OHC to even a measurable degree. Where are the thermodynamical physics that explain how a few PPM increase in CO2 can cause oceans to gain heat?
Don’t take the above as a lecture. I’m merely asking questions because as El Nino is related to SST increases, is that heat coming from above or below the surface? If it is welling up from the deep, and the sun is not replenishing that heat, logic dictates land surface temperatures must fall (on average) at some point in the future. If OHC continues to rise, so will surface temperatures.
In other words, as I see it, OHC is the most important metric. Both SST and to a lesser more variable extent, surface temperatures are merely a reflection of deep ocean processes. As is the case with any data set, accuracy and precision are the key. With the ARGO system in place, we should be able to get a better picture of things now that is fully operational. Personally, I don’t have much confidence in the XBT data or SST for that matter. It has been massaged and reanalyzed too many times to be credible IMO.

So what’s the bottom line? Should I book two weeks in Majorca in September or can I stay here in Britain and still enjoy the late summer?
Feel the burn

“”” DR (06:38:09) :
As the oceans contain more heat in the first few meters than the entire atmosphere, it would seem it is the oceans that regulate surface temperature. A change in cloud cover can account for virtually all changes in OHC regardless of what the sun does. That said, I fail to see how anything but the sun’s direct radiation can account for ocean warming.
I have yet to see a mathematical relationship given to explain how small increases in atmospheric CO2 can raise OHC to even a measurable degree. Where are the thermodynamical physics that explain how a few PPM increase in CO2 can cause oceans to gain heat? “””
I can’t say I disagree with you DR; I have been harping on aspects of that relationship, since I started posting at WUWT. There’s a bit more to it. The energy content of the atmosphere is of course peanuts compared to that of the oceans, as you say; but, the mass of the atmosphere is also much less than the mass of the atmosphere; about equal to 10 metres of water in fact, and as a result, small changes in the energy content of the atmosphere can cause a significant change in the temperature of the atmosphere; which is more accurately where we live; but as you say, the effect of that energy change in the atmosphere can have but little change in the ocean energy content, or temperature.
By anybody’s standards, thermal conduction from the atmosphere to the surface, whether land or ocean, has to be a rather minor effect, since the convective transport of warmed air tends to move energy away from the surface to higher altitudes.
The principal remaining influence is the effect of downward long wave infra-red radiation that strikes the surface. This is in addition to the essentially solar spectrum energy that reaches the surface from the sun.
Unl;ike the solar energy, the long wave IR is absorbed in the top ten microns of the ocean, which is 73% of the total surface area; but considerably more of the surface area where the bulk of the solar energy impinges. The prompt result of this surface absorption, is evaporation of these more energetic IR heated surface molecules; and that in turn immediately removes much of the energy contained in that downward IR, which becoems latent heat of evaporation of the surface waters.
So only a fraction of that downward IR radiation is even available to try and influence the temperature of that more massive ocean water body.
Solar energy, on the other hand penetrates deeply into the oceans (tens to hundreds of metres); where it is eventually absorbed by something. Some of it enters the biological food chain; but the majority is eventually thermalized as increased local water temperature. Salt water (>2.47 % salinity) always has a positive temperature coefficient of expansion, and that expansion of warmer water sets up a vertical convection, which eventually brings much of that captured solar energy back to the surface; where it too can be transferred to the atmosphere, by the assortment of surface thermal processes. Of course, turbulence and circulations disturb this one-d image of convection; but they don’t stop its inexorable influence.
It is also instructive to consider the properties of thermal continuum radiation from the atmosphere; as everybody knows gases don’t emit thermal radiation of the black body spectrum type, like solids do. The sun being the center of the Universe has special dispensation from the Pope to emit nearly black body thermal continuum radiation; otherwise we would have no free clean green renewable energy; but that’s another story.
We still believe (some of us) that greenhouse like processes do go on in the atmosphere,and delay the loss of long wave IR emissions from the surface, which results in the surface remaining a tad warmer than it otherwise would be; but the notion that the ephemeral atmsophere can heat the massive oceans, or land masses is a pretty hard story to sell.
George

“”” evanmjones (18:38:08) :
George E. Smith (18:31:16) :
What you are seeing is a typical El Nino condition. Warm water suppresses the upwelling of cool water off the Peruvian coast which occurs during a neutral condition (with even greater upwelling during a La Nina.
Ninos and Ninas both occur during either positive or negative PDOs. During a negative PDO, it is more likely that there will be “unanswered” La Ninas and El Ninos will be less likely to be intense. But both will occur. “””
Thank you Evan; somehow, I got the impressions, that ninos/ninas affected the ocean temps to the south west of Hawaii, in the Western Pacific; I though that was where the nina that preceeded the most recent switch to cool PDO was located. I always knew that ninos affected the anchovy catch off the coast of Peru though. Got any good science theories as to why the west coast salmon even up to Alaska have gone to hell in a handbasket in the last coupla years; other than human overgrazing, and water thefts from NorCal ?

George, that was a good explanation and I suspect that maybe one of the least understood processes is how all the high energy spectrum from the sun gets dealt with by the Earth. The Earth radiates heat away at much lower frequencies than what it gets but what is the conversion factor and what filters it. What kinds of oscillations and interactions get set up. (There’s a good movie about solar effects on Euronews/Space BTW)
Lamont, you first post about AGW. IN 5 years if we have more data then hopefully we’ll have better models and understanding. And if the story is still pro-CO2 then i’ll feel a bit more confident in saying this could be the cause. However I would also be sad that a beautiful natural non-linear oscillating energy distribution process like ENSO could be reduced to just ‘noise’ over a linear trend, which will be one outcome. Somehow though I think the answer is already staring us in the face, right now. Nature and Earth’s climate is much deeper and elegant than that proposed by the relatively simple CO2 theory. So I’m not a denier, I’m like Pythagoras. I believe numbers rule the universe and that in the deep complexity of numbers you find the truth. CO2 theory is to be blunt, naive and clumsy. Too linear. But then I’ve got five years to gear up for a broken heart if that is the outcome.

George E. Smith (13:52:19) :
George, thanks for the explanation of ocean heat content.
One remark, also discussed many times before but in my opinion worth mentioning.
Last week I watched a documentary about black smokers.
Industry is interested in black smokers because they flush out precious metals and methods are researched to exploit them.
The documentary followed a research team and they stated that they find those smokers in high numbers, especially in those area’s where the continental plates collide. Those smokers release hot water and gases with temperatures of about 400 degree Celsius.
I know the overall effect is limited but it would be interesting to have an idea about the scale the volume and the effect of undersea volcanic activity.
Don’t you think so?

Kum Dollison (12:56:51) :
http://www.agrimoney.com/news/news.php?id=482

NOAA announces the arrival of El Niño
Congratulations Mr and Mrs NOAA – a healthy bouncing boy – Might you be calling him Jason?

George E. Smith (17:55:30)
Nice description. Thank you.