Guest post by Frank Lansner
A global temperature stagnation despite warm El Nino year 2010?
After the warm El Nino period 2009-2010, global temperature trends starting 1998 has generally turned positive: 
The period starts out with a strong El Nino in 1998, however a strong La Nina lasting 3 times longer also has a strong effect on temperature trends starting 1998.
Temperature trends from 2002:
Thus removing the 1998 El Nino and 1999-2001 La Nina significantly cools the trends. The overall picture is now temperature stagnation 2002-2010 9 years.
The global warming theory generally suggests heating, but one can say that a period of roughly a decade with no temperature rise might be an expected deviation from the general trend.
However, things get worse for the global warming idea. Problem is that 2010 in the very end of the shown period is in fact a rather warm El Nino year. And still, the trends 2002-2010 are just… flat. Even now after the warm 2010. As if the global warming idea just barely holds on in the months just after a warm 2010.
However, things get even worse for the global warming idea. The powerful La Nina is now showing its strength as we have witnessed temperature dive in the latest months. The NCEP prognoses roughly indicates a further drop of probably more than 0,1 K from dec 2010 to jan 2011. And the La Nina – allthough predticed to weaken during spring time – is by many predicted to match the 1999-2001 La Nina.
IF the present La Nina will resemble the magnitude and effect of the 1999-2001 La Nina, how would this affect the temperature trends from 1998 that already seems to have stagnated for a decade?
A “simulated” La Nina 1999-2001 by just assuming the same temperature flow repeated starting Januar 2011 to get a rough idea. Now suddenly we have a full 16 years period of no warming. In fact we mostly see cooling trends. (If we imagine yet an El Nino to occur thereafter, then after 17 – 18 years, perhaps we will still just have a flat curve??)
And “Uhh Ohh” whats going to happen if we simulate a 1999-2001 La Nina on the graph starting at 2002??
In this view, we see 12 yeas of strongly falling temperature trends.
La Nina is upon us, and that it won’t help the global warming message.
—– * ——
Method used above is basically saying:
“How many years can we go back and still see temperature trend stagnation or trend decline?”
If we want to have an answer to this question, typically the year 1998 or 2002 will be the start year of the new stagnating (or falling) temperature trend.
The classic alarmist argument is then: But we have had 5 year, 7 year and 8 year trends before without the longer warm trend has changed.
This is true, however, these dives in temperatures are almost always connected with the large volcanic eruptions as Lucia from the Blackboard here shows:
So, when we use 1998 or 2002 as start years, and only thereby can read the length of the present stagnating/falling temperature trend, we have to know: This time there are no volcano to blame.
And when the result – for example after the La Nina prognosis shown above – may give us 12-15-18 years of stagnating/falling trends – without the help of volcanoes – then this IS something significant against anything we have seen in the last decades of warming.
And without using start years 1998 or 2002 we cant tell how many years the falling trend this time is. Therefore its perfectly relevant to use 1998 or 2002 as start years.
And as fig 2 here indicates
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/usgcrp-report-global-climate-change.html
the 1998 El Nino may have lifted the whole temperature level (perhaps by warming the Arctic) and in this context, it is definitely relevant to analyse using start point 1998.
There are many ways of defining how the temperature trend is best described, but the idea that we had a level shift in temperature 1998 too makes it relevant to checkout trends after 1998 red dotted line:
– more articles by Frank Lansner
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Speaking of “Unprecedented” Trouble in North Korea:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/01/113_80178.html
North Korea is Mordor run by Gollum….
The food and warmth is to the south…
I just got a Life Magazine from 1963, which was up to that time, considered the coldest year in the century. They showed a weather pattern that we now recognize as a strong La Nina. It snowed significantly in Sicily that year. This was at the time that speculation began about the renewed ice age.
RE:
**R. Gates says:
January 23, 2011 at 6:59 pm
What if, on the other hand, with all the short term effects mentioned, ENSO, solar, PDO, AMO, etc. that somehow the decade of 2010-2019 turns out to be warmer than the decade of 2000-2009? This would certainly be a tell us a lot about the power of the longer term CO2 forcing.
Really, we’ll just have to wait until 2019 is over to draw any conclusions. As it stands right now, 2000-2009 is the warmest decade on record, despite a long and deep solar minimum during the 2007-2009 period on top of a nice La Nina during that same period.**
If 2010-2019 is warmer than 2000-2009, that is all it tells us. The CO2 theory is just that – a Theory or a model. When the CO2 warming is measured, I will agree.
Re 2000-2009 being the warmest decade on record – yes, you can adjust temperatures (GISS) to make any decade warmer or another cooler. I refer you to Watts’ and DAleo’s report discussed last year.
What I want to know is, how is the combination of La Nina, and this weird sun spot cycle, going to affect NA growing season?
you don’t really think facts and numbers matter any more, do you?
Actually, Frank, after the 2010 VEI’s are posted there could easily be ten VEI-4 since May, 2008. The link I posted above leaves out many of the 60-80 eruptions a year for the last decade and a half.
Global Volcanism Program | Volcanoes of the World | Find a Volcano by Eruption Date
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/find_eruptions.cfm
Global Volcanism Program | Volcanoes of the World | Large Holocene Eruptions
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm
Eddie
Bob Tisdale says: at January 23, 2011 at 5:25 pm
> What “coming La Nina,” Frank? NOAA predicts the La Nina will
> only last through spring. And if it’s only going to last until spring,
> that means it is at or near its peak. Refer to the following NOAA
> ENSO update:
> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
> They write on page 30, “La Niña is expected to last well into the
> Northern Hemisphere spring 2011.” That’s as far as they are
> projecting.
You’re confusing 2 separate items…
1) The NOAA ENSO update only goes to spring. That’s as far as their forecast goes.
2) That does *NOT* mean the end of La Nina. Just that they’re not forecasting beyond the spring.
NOAA’s experimental 6-month forecast shows La Nina continuing into October. See PDF-corrected forecast at…
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst/images3/PDFcr_nino34SSTMon.gif
As for who else was predicting a long La Nina, see comment…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/24/snowmageddon-ii-monster-blizzard-to-bomb-new-england/#comment-558623
by yours truly where I point out a 12-year cycle in ENSO. This implies that 1998..2001 is an analogue for 2010..2013
>So much for “predicting the past”; predicting the future provides
> more fun and profit. After dropping into negative territory in the
> 2nd quarter of 1998, Nino3.4 didn’t go positive until the 2nd
> quarter of 2001. Assuming the 12 year pattern holds, Nino3.4
> shouldn’t go positive until the 2nd quarter of 2013. And the next
> major peak will be late 2014.
[there seem to be formatting issues here . . ]
R. Gates 6:59 pm:
“…we’ll just have to wait until 2019 is over to draw any conclusions…”
Good thinking, let’s wait until 2020
Let’s stop all talk of ‘carbon taxes’, ‘cap + trade’ and other similar instruments of gross government intrusion into what’s left of the free market.
Let’s dispense with the IPCC, the myriad of taxpayer funded climate research set-ups, the taxpayer funded jaunts to exotic tropical locations etc., in fact let’s halt all tax-funded ‘climate change’ research except for the only reliable instrumental series viz. UAH/RSS.
R. Gates says:
What if, on the other hand, with all the short term effects mentioned, ENSO, solar, PDO, AMO, etc. that somehow the decade of 2010-2019 turns out to be warmer than the decade of 2000-2009? This would certainly be a tell us a lot about the power of the longer term CO2 forcing.
===============================
OH????
Explain how.
You are as completely biased in your own circular “reasoning” (and I use that word in quotes) as some of the worst actual scientists who come to the same conclusion.
True insanity.
Explain how you intend to demonstrate and show scientifically (hell….why don’t you submit your own feature post) the “power of the longer term CO2 forcing”, R Gates?
But I know you won’t be that foolish because it will be sunk at the starting gate.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I laugh when I read that El Nino and La Nina are short term effects.
When the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) is persistently below 8, we call it an El Nino. It affects global climate, especially Australia and South America.
When the SOI is persistently above 8, we call it La Nina. It affects global climate, especially Australia and South America.
When the SOI is between +8 and -8, we call it Neutral. It affects global climate, especially Australia and South America.
So, can somebody tell me when DOESN’T the SOI affect climate? or put another way, is there a period when the SOI doesn’t exist?
The SOI ALWAYS affects climate, therefore it is a PERMANENT feature of the planetary climate, NOT a temporary one at all.
Night time is only temporary as well, it’s just that it’s been happening for 4.5 billion years.
Bob, you write
“NOAA predicts the La Nina will only last through spring. ”
Which matches what i wrote:
“The powerful La Nina is now showing its strength as we have witnessed temperature dive in the latest months. The NCEP prognoses roughly indicates a further drop of probably more than 0,1 K from dec 2010 to jan 2011. And the La Nina – allthough predticed to weaken during spring time …”
Its a little different what the pronoses say, as you must be aware, but it is “consensus” that by summer timer the La Nina has weakened. However we are talking about temperatures, and the temperature effect – as you know – appears typically 3 months or similar After Enso peaks. Therefore the peak of La Nina in temperature might first show up this summer.
But Bob, its not ME who suggests this La Nina will be extraordinary, im not the “wizzard” at all, do not claim to be. I just say “IF these La Nina claims are true (why not?) THEN this will add years to the length of the temperature stagnation/deline period”.
If yo dont find that thought interesting, fine with me.
Our ability to predict precise temperature prognoses the next 3 years is poor, so your digging in methodic etc. apeears not relevant. I just tell the true message: Any large La Nina effect after these years of stagnating temperature will make warming wait for a long time.
I think Baa Humbug puts it well in hes comment above.
K.R. Frank
Perhaps everyone would best be served by calling spades spades and hearts…well, hearts.
If the write-up is intended as speculation, it isn’t analysis based upon facts, but rather guess work based upon what-if scenarios.
I don’t think the write-up was intended to be heavy-duty, factual analysis.
I do think the objection to lack of citations is due to the write-up being somewhat misleading even though well-intentioned (the write-up looks and feels almost factual).
To be clear, I enjoy speculation. Perhaps, being a blog post, we can note the short-comings and accept the less-than-scientific aspects.
Walter Dnes: Hi, Walter, regarding your January 23, 2011 at 9:07 pm reply, the NINO3.4 forecast link you provided…
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst/images3/PDFcr_nino34SSTMon.gif
…is a product of the NOAACFS Forecast of Seasonal Climate Anomalies for Feb 2011 to Oct 2011.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/ensoforecast.shtml
As you noted in your reply, it was experimental, and I will call your attention to the disclaimer on the NOAA webpage, “CAUTION: Seasonal climate anomalies shown here are not the official NCEP seasonal forecast outlooks. The NCEP seasonal forecast outlooks can be found at CPC website. Model based seasonal climate anomalies are one factor based on which NCEP seasonal forecast outlook is issued.”
My original request of Frank at January 23, 2011 at 12:48 pm was, “Please provide links to the web pages of the official government forecast models that predict a repeat of the 1998/99/00/01 La Niña.” Your link doesn’t qualify.
And thanks for the link to your prediction, but one person does not constitute “many”, and I don’t believe you qualify as an official government forecast.
Regards
It’s such a simple point, but one that remarkably continues to elude a lot of people:
Global temperature trends over 5, 8, 10 or 12 years are meaningless. Short term variations dominate over these timescales.
Now what is the problem with that simple statement, that makes it so hard to grasp? How long will it be until the next absurd post here that tries to draw absurd conclusions from a few years of temperature data? Or says that because it was cold somewhere in the word last week, then global warming isn’t happening?
Alex Baker says:
“… but rather guess work based upon what-if scenarios.”
When the leading authorities suggests an extraordinary La Nina now:
******************
NASA:
http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/current-la-nina-could-be-strongest-ever-recorded-0987/
“current la nina could be strongest ever recorded” Jan 2011
or
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
“One of the strongest La Niña events on record ” 19 Jan 2011.
**********************
– then its not strange at all that we say: “What if this is true?”.
K.R. Frank
Stevo says:
“Global temperature trends over 5, 8, 10 or 12 years are meaningless. Short term variations dominate over these timescales.”
Stevo, any kind of strong La Nina now – as predicted by NASA and BOM – may very well extent the period of lacking warming significantly longer than the intervals 5-12 years that you for some reasen refer to. Thats the point. Please use correct numbers.
Chris Hanley said:
“Good thinking, let’s wait until 2020
Let’s stop all talk of ‘carbon taxes’, ‘cap + trade’ and other similar instruments of gross government intrusion into what’s left of the free market.
Let’s dispense with the IPCC, the myriad of taxpayer funded climate research set-ups, the taxpayer funded jaunts to exotic tropical locations etc., in fact let’s halt all tax-funded ‘climate change’ research except for the only reliable instrumental series viz. UAH/RSS.”
Surely the opposite would be a better option? 2020 may be a little late. Shifting to a low carbon economy will create more jobs and a cleaner future. If CO2 is indeed a problem (and you said you don’t know) then don’t you think it’s a little risky waiting until 2020?
‘Free market’ is also a little disingenuous don’ t you think? We have subsidies supporting half our agriculture, industry, interventions to save the banking system and bent politicians pandering to the whim of corporations. If we stopped government intervention, the system would collapse in minutes.
Hi Mac!
You write: “If CO2 is indeed a problem (and you said you don’t know) then don’t you think it’s a little risky waiting until 2020?”
Mac, your point is very central and I respect this angle of things. I am myself supporter of Windmills and any kind of green technology.
So, if the political wishes where simply to do the obvious: Accellerate knowledge of alternative energy forms (even cold fusion), then I think that the general resistance against AGW would be small.
But some politicians go much further than this.
To be truly “green” we simply have top know whats going on, if CO2 is a hasard or not.
Our wealth is limited, and everything we spend money on is a priority.
Believeing that CO2 creates dangerous warming on the planet Earth will lead to use of energy and wealth LESS than optimal if CO2 is not really a concern at all.
Im here because data from the real world does not show any sign of a strong warming danger from CO2, read for example:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
Its NOT green to waste wealth and energy on CO2 if there is not something really backing up on the CO2 hypothesis.
But, Mac, if there was just a tiny case for dangerous CO2 warming, i would be on your team.
In real world, the dangers of cooling – to me – is far more convincing. Therefore, pumping CO2 into the ground etc is HOPELESS in every way.
If you want to “play it safe” : prepare for cooling.
Both cooling and warming suggests more and better energy forms, and thus on this particular area of the debate we agree on.
K.R. Frank
Frank Lasner recognizes that ENSO events cause noise in the data and can pull the trend one way or another.
But, if you remove extreme events at the beginning of the time series, what about those near the end?
The 2008 la Nina was very intense. As it fell in the latter few years of data, it will bias then trend downwards.
This begs the question about choice of criteria. The la Nina following 1998 el Nino was half as intense but twice as long. The 2008 la Nina endured for about as long as the 1997/1998 el Nino, and more intense than the 1999/2000 la Nina. Choices should be distributed evenly or bias will ensue.
I think the effort above is the beginning of a more complete job that could wipe out the ENSO variability completely, revealing any underlying trend. Otherwise, selecting just a few years can amount to cherry-picking, even if not intended. For example, I could pick an intensity level at +/-1.5 on the MEI index, and simply take out the ENSO events centred on that value. This includes 1998 and 2008, but not 1999, 2000 or 2001. (Interestingly, 2010, makes the cut in both signs: el Nino at the beginning of the year, and la Nina towards the end) I now have some sort of system consistently applied. If I then plotted a trend from 1996 to present, I expect there would be a clear warming trend. Same if I plotted from ’97, ’98, ’99, 2000…. as long as the data centred on 2008 were removed, the trend would be warmer. But I’d be asking myself if it was reasonable to omit longer events that didn’t meet my intensity criteria?
Whatever is done must be done systematically. The above effort seems a little arbitrary. There is still noise (ENSO events) at other points in the record to consider.
The best thing to do would be to remove ENSO entirely. As it happens, Tamino did that recently. I’d post the link, but I’m not sure that’s allowed.
I’d be very interested to see his work independently audited here, and call on anyone with the skill to do so ( I don’t have it) to replicate and compare.
Alternatively, I encourage on Frank Lasner to apply his choices systematically (which would include cutting 2008 la Nina) and see what the results are. As far as I can make out, his choices is ‘omit the ENSO events at the beginning of the time period so neither effect the trend’ – but that leaves potential for ENSO to bias the trend elsewhere in the time period. The next effort should name the criteria for omitting ENSO data and follow it all the way through the record.
Barry, you write “There is still noise (ENSO events) at other points in the record to consider.”
This is very true and relevant.
A graph where you take out ENSO is sensible.
A graph where you take out volcanoes is sensible.
A graph where you take out solar effect is sensible.
A graph where you considder PDO, AMO, AO NAO to some degree is sensible.
A graph where you considder UHI and siting problems is sensible.
etcetc.
What I’m saying: I agree. And the outcome of these analysis are relevant.
But i think the outcome is VERY much dependent on what scientist make the corrections that are relevant.
Therefore a RAW look at trends is relevant too.
If factors like ENSO, PDO, Sun etc etc does not support the models… then the models were wrong.
Here’s how much just volcanoes disturb things:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/volcanosmoved2_1.gif
Just a move of 2 volcanoes from first half of the satellie years to the second half appears to be possibly half the warming trends…
So, a graph “correctly” adjusted is a subject to many viewpoints allthough the idea is good.
K.R. Frank
Let’s see now….if it gets warmer and we enjoy life more, we will get taxed to death. If it gets colder and many suffer, we still get taxed to death. It’s time for someone to step up and get rid of Hansen for good
my 2 cents
Frank Lansner: Your January 23, 2011 at 11:23 pm reply does not address any of the questions posed to you by me on this thread.
Should I then assume that you cannot answer them?
Baa Humbug says: “This is an essay of interesting conjecture only, not meant for journal publication. No need to get picky about fine details.
Serious scientists need not comment. The rest of us will have fun discussing this WHAT IF conjecture.”
Fine details?
The post was not presented as conjecture. If Frank had started the post with “What if…” or “Suppose the current La Nina lasted another two years…” then I might agree with you, but Frank did not present this as conjecture. Since he has not replied to my repeated requests for links to the “many” official predictions of a multiyear La Nina, can we assume that part of his post was fabricated? He has also failed to reply to my request to explain how he prepared the “simulated 1999-2001 La Nina”. In reality, it appears he expended no more effort than to cut and paste the 1999 to 2001 data into 2011-13, and he makes it appear calculated by using the word “simulated.”
Like his most recent post here at WUWT about UAH and UHI, it’s contrived and misleading.
It’s good to see there are people in Brisbane who are more scientific in their approach to the awful flooding in eastern Australia than others. It’s just a shame those others are complete nincompoops like the chap who is quoted at the end of this article by James Delingpole of the Telegraph:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100072798/what-green-mp-caroline-lucas-should-know-about-liberal-fascism/
What are we to do with people who just don’t listen to reason?
Even the new president of the Royal Society is yet another numpty:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100073116/oh-no-not-another-unbiased-bbc-documentary-about-climate-change/
Trying to find a trend in the last 10-12 years is like trying to find the warming trend into spring from the last 10-12 days.
If it is colder next week than this does that mean the increased energy from the longer day is NOT causing seasonal change?