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
No matter what we say the future of the CAGW movement depends upon warming. If we have another 5 or more years without warming or if it even cools the funds for climate research will die out and attention will shift to other areas.
The PDO is predicted to be negative for the next 10 to 20 years which will say “Hasta la vista baby” to the CAGW dogma.
Here is the big picture:
We have records of the PDO since 1900.
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/img/pdo_latest.jpeg
A positive PDO means more El Nino’s than La Nina’s and a negative PDO means the opposite.
From 1940 to about 1978 the PDO was negative and it cooled. The chicken littles wrote Newsweek about global cooling.
From 1978 to 1998 the PDO was positive and it warmed at a rate of 1.2 ° C per century.
From 1998 to present the PDO has been both positive and negative and the temperature went sideways. If you look at the graph you can pick out cold years which were caused by El Nino’s.
Here is a handy chart of El Nino’s and La Nina’s from 1950 to present by months .
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
Pull it into Excel and graph it and it mirrors the PDO.
Bob, I seek to answer the most relevant and interesting questions.
This time you have focussed on some detail where you then claim to have found an error:
In the article wanted to illustrate the step lift in temperatures 1998. So I wrote
“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:”
And showed the picture:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/Glotem/fig6.jpg
Then you write an analysis of how wrong is it to use some of the different trend types that happens to appear in that image. The end of your “analysis” goes:
***
And if they can’t hindcast, what good are they for implying a forecast? None:
http://i52.tinypic.com/10wuyb7.jpg
I would strongly suggest that you stop using poly trends to imply future changes in temperature.
***
So you criticize some std. available excel trend types not used in the article and I don’t remember to have ever used, and then you “strongly suggest that I stop using poly trends to imply future changes in temperature.”
So you somehow managed to think that I used those to “imply future changes..”.
( LOL: some reader actually read this and thought you did a good job..)
Its not that you cant ever point some detail out that might have been better in some other way by me in my writings. With your effort it would be strange otherwise.
The problem is all the fatamorgana errors you keep claiming out of the blue or just with miniscule impact on the topic in question. They are far to many.
R. Gates: “Your analysis is interesting, but we’ll certainly have to wait for the full decade of 2010-2019 to see what how the true longer term trend is affected.”
No, every year we will learn more and more. I suspect we will know all we need to know within the next two years. Remember the AGW conjecture is like a compound interest. It should be building on itself. Also note, the claim is that AGW overpowers all other forcings. Hence, a flat or cooling climate each year lowers the probability that the conjecture is correct.
I suspect what we have seen over the last 12-13 years already tells us AGW is a bit player among stronger natural variations. Some people just take a little longer to be convinced.
Bob, to Baa Humbug you write:
***
If Frank had started the post with “What if…” or “Suppose the current La Nina lasted another two years…”
***
The article was named:
“Will global warming survive a strong La Nina?”
And the La Nina in the article part was introduced:
“IF the present La Nina will resemble the magnitude and effect of the 1999-2001 La Nina, how would this affect the temperature trends ”
Bob, get some sleep 🙂
netdr2 says:
“No matter what we say the future of the CAGW movement depends upon warming. If we have another 5 or more years without warming or if it even cools the funds for climate research will die out and attention will shift to other areas.”
This is very true. I have NO way of guestimating what exactly the next La Nina will look like. Will it be superior to all other La Ninas as some suggests, i dont know, but it is very relevant to be aware what the consequences of a strong LaNina will be.
At Sweet Jo Novas we started to point this out in april 2010:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/the-la-nina-shark-rises-to-bite/
There is both the scientific dimension and a political dimension as to what consequences even longer period of no-warming in trends will result in.
K.R. Frank
A poster above asked why 1998 to 2010 temps were record highs while the sun was headed downwards. This is because of the thermal inertia of the oceans and the bottom up transfer of heat to the atmosphere. Ice core solar proxy temperature reconstructions suggest a twenty year lag between solar changes and global temperature changes. While ENSO changes are bottom up changes with relatively short time lags it is becoming clear that the NAO is a top down climate driver caused by UV, ozone changes in the stratosphere due to a changing sun.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008/fulltext
I predict this La Nina is just the beginning of a decades long decline in global temps.
This is the first La Nina that begins twenty years past the beginning of the current solar decline. Today UAH ch 5 temps are 1.12 degrees f below this time last year.
Ten years from now activists will be promoting the burning of coal to warm up the earth.
Unfortunelty AGW cannot be falisfied, forecasts are always revised by “tweaking the models” to match that which has been observed. Previous forcasts of no snow in the UK, ever lasting drought in Australia etc… and turned upside down when the revserse happens – anything bad is AGW, whether warming or cooling, it will be our fault, if its not co2 now, it will be aerosols tommorow causing global dimming etc… it is not a hypothesis that can be tested, it is a belief, a holy truth that we must accept or be persecuted as non-beleivers
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20101202b.html
“Although La Niña has stabilised, it is still expected to affect global temperature through the coming year. This effect is small compared to the total accrued global warming to date, but it does mean that 2011 is unlikely to be a record year according to the Met Office prediction based on the three main datasets. Nevertheless an anomaly of 0.44 °C is still likely — with the range very likely to be between 0.28 °C and 0.60 °C. The middle of this range would place 2011 among the top 10 warmest years on the record.”
Stump said:
“Unfortunately AGW cannot be falsified ”
How this works is that the AGW scientists will quickly jump on board with the solar driver concept. They will maintain that there is co2 forcing but it is now being swamped by the solar which was previously underestimated. Lockwood in the paper I referred to above was a solar sceptic but has now jumped on board. He still only accepts that the sun is affecting the northern hemisphere. The negative NAO, harsh European winters and unexpected solar decline has changed everything. The climate industry is driven by a herd mentality and nobody wants to be left at the station.
Mr. Tisdale, are you in love with Mr. Lansner?
Sigmund
richcar, thanks for your input , you write: “The climate industry is driven by a herd mentality and nobody wants to be left at the station.”
Wow if this circus ends soon, sounds too good to be true…. ?
K.R. Frank
Frank lanser said:
“richcar, thanks for your input , you write: “The climate industry is driven by a herd mentality and nobody wants to be left at the station.”
Wow if this circus ends soon, sounds too good to be true…. ?”
Even arch AGW cultist Michael Mann was on NPR a few days ago talking about the Roman warm period and how it was driven by the sun.
Frank Lansner: Regarding your January 24, 2011 at 9:27 am and January 24, 2011 at 9:49 am replies to me, you still have not answered the very basic questions I asked you about this post. The first relevant thing I asked in my January 23, 2011 at 12:48 pm comment 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.” I repeated the request in my January 23, 2011 at 5:10 pm comment.
Since you have avoided these requests, I will assume you know of no official forecasts or predictions for a multiyear La Niña and that your statement in the post (“And the La Nina – allthough predticed to weaken during spring time – is by many predicted to match the 1999-2001 La Niña.”) is fiction and that the “many” predictions do not exist.
The second very relevant question I asked was, “Also how did you ‘simulate’ the effects of a new multiyear La Niña?” The reason I asked, it appears that all you did for your “simulated 1999-2001 La Nina” was to cut and paste the data from 1999-2001 to the future period of 2011 to 2013, without considering the relationships of the former and present NINO3.4 SST anomalies and the respective global temperature anomalies. In other words, you gave little thought to this and labeled it “simulated” to give it credibility.
You replied, “The article was named: ‘Will global warming survive a strong La Nina?’”
It’s already a strong La Niña, and global warming has survived, or haven’t you noticed to proclamations of record temperatures for 2010?
In an earlier January 23, 2011 at 11:23 pm comment you replied, “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’.”
But the point was, there are no “La Niña claims”. You fabricated this.
You ended that comment with, “I think Baa Humbug puts it well in hes comment above.”
Baa Humbug used the word “conjecture” three times in one of his earlier comments.
Like your past posts, you misled your readers and misrepresented what you presented. Here you misled them with a fabrication about “many” predictions of a multiyear La Niña, and you misrepresented a simple cut and paste of data as a “simulation”.
And for some reason, you become upset when I call your posts nonsense.
Bob, you write : ” you still have not answered the very basic questions”
So, your “analysis” that I answered to January 24, 2011 at 9:27 am
and your main comment to Bab Humbug I answered to January 24, 2011 at 9:49 am
was not important? Please just write important things when you demand me to use time on all your comments.
You then write: “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”
If you want that information of this kind the net is open for you to search. As I wrote in the article (and repeated): “IF the present La Nina will resemble the magnitude and effect of the 1999-2001 La Nina, how would this affect the temperature trends ”
So theres not some ridiculous detail here you can shoot down, sadly.
As I have repeated also, there is no way we can no for sure how the NASA and BOM predicted extraordinary large La Nina will run from hereof, and I have written that I could just as well have pasted the very strong 1988-89 La Nina, and outcome would be similar: A prolonging of the non-warming trends. So your intense focus that I pasted in one La Nina and not the other is irrelevant.
Bob, If I had concluded “Oh, and as I expect a 1999 magnitude and type La Nina, then the slope of UAH for the next 17 years would be -0,02736 K /decade” or something QUANTITATIVE precise, then your protests would appear more relevant.
On official list over the top 4 -5 strongest la Ninas since 1900, the 1999 La Nina does not appear And NASA/BOM believes we will perhaps se a MORE powerfull La Nina than anything seen so far. Therefore my choice of the 1999 La Nina was ment as a conservative choice. If I had found info on the MUCH STRONGER1917 La Nina that we are supposed to beat now and used this in stead, then you would have seen a significant prolonging of temperature stagnation/decline just the same.
Then you write, Bob:
“It’s already a strong La Niña, and global warming has survived, or haven’t you noticed to proclamations of record temperatures for 2010?”
Bob???!!!?! You of ALL people must know that the temperature effect of the La Nina is far most yet to come!!! What are you thinking? Whats driving you to write nonsence beyond words like this? And then you DEMAND that I use my time on your stuff again and again every time I post.
In the future, please focus on one (or two) important issue if you find something, if you will demand that I use time on your things.
Bob then you write:
“But the point was, there are no “La Niña claims”. You fabricated this.”
Wah? Is there a language problem? Do I use a wrong word?
NASA:
http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/current-la-nina-could-be-strongest-ever-recorded-0987/
“current la nina could be strongest ever recorded”13 Jan 2011
BOM
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
“One of the strongest La Niña events on record ” 19 Jan 2011.
What do you mean “I fabricated this” ? ? ?
Bob, I cannot reproduce the strongest La Nina measured from 1917 just like that, In stead I could have picked the very strong 1988-9 La Nina or the not so strong but longer 1999 La Nina.
Bob, what ever kind of strong La Nina Now will result in prolonging of temperature stagnation for years, or even decline. This is a challenge to AGW succes. Is this so hard to accept?
And then you again and again want to drag in my UAH-article, and I seems you still haven understood that YOUR main protest here has flunked TOTALLY, perhaps I have been too kind with you in my comments at hidethedecline.eu so you did not notice.
Frank Lansner: Regarding your January 25, 2011 at 12:10 am reply, you suggested I search the internet in response to my repeated requests for the sources of your claim that there are “many” who predict a multiyear La Nina. Thank you for confirming that you have no source for your claim. Your entire post rests on your statement, “And the La Nina – allthough predticed to weaken during spring time – is by many predicted to match the 1999-2001 La Nina.” Without that statement, there was no reason for you to create your “simulated 1999-2001 La Nina graphs”.
You keep attempting to redirect the conversation to La Nina strength, but that is not the point being discussed. We are discussing your claim that this ENSO event will turn into a La Nina “that many predicted to match the 1999-2001 La Nina.” There are no official predictions to date of a multiyear La Nina comparable to the 1998/99/00/01 La Nina. None exist. Your post has no basis in fact.
And you still have not described how you “simulated” the multiyear La Nina you tacked on to your graph for 2011-13.
Last, you have once again added a link (one that doesn’t work, by the way) to one of my posts. You did this in an effort to strengthen your post. Frank, I have worked hard to establish my credibility. Unfortunately for me, having you include links to my posts does not help me maintain that credibility. I will, therefore, repeat the (22nd January, 2011 at 02:56:40) request I made at your website:
Please do not refer to or link my posts, please do not refer to me by name, and please do not link to or use my graphs in your posts. If you adhere to my request, I will have no need to return to your website and find error with what you’ve written and presented.
Bob, you quote me:
“And the La Nina – allthough predticed to weaken during spring time – is by many predicted to match the 1999-2001 La Nina.”
So the really important thing in this article you say is, that I wrote “is by many predicted to match the 1999..” THIS is then what legimizes your intense writings that my article is “nonsence” etc?
You are aware that the giant La Nina far above all are the 1917 La Nina? And that NASA and BOM suggests that the present La Nina effect might be even larger?
When i wrote “is by many predicted to match the 1999..” , It was because the new La Nina by NASA and BOM should not only match the 1999 La Nina, but the new La Nina should possibly be able to match ALL La Ninas recorded, incl the 1999.
Bob, if your problem is, that I have reffered (allways very possitively!!!!) to your work now and then I will reduce this to a minimum, no problem.
But remember, the UAH-UHI article on Watts to begin with had nothing to do with you. It was yourself who in that context again and again forced me to look at your findings, no one else.
Last remark:
Your protest against my UAHUHI article (besides a lot of small mistakes) was that I had not compared
1) geographically the GISS-UAH difference on land (possibly indicating UHi and more)
to
2) geographically where we should expect UHI on land.
But there are no reliable consensus data for 2) and you have not been able to come up with anything better than your hunch on where to find UHI on land geographically. A hunch that more and more appears to have been flat wrong by the way.
So you strongly demand for me to compare with a dataset not available.
The best we have on where to find UHI is from Steven McIntyre, that UHI is a population growth related size. This also appears from Thomas Karl data.
And then when i do the first digging into this area, the first results only confirm that GISS-UAH difference might be UHI (population growth) related:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/where-should-we-expect-uhi-in-temperature-data-1979-2009-212.php
And im working on a much more detailed writing on this now, so as often seen, these not always pleasant discussions lead to something good.
K.R. Frank
Frank Lansner: Again, you are mistaking strength for length. You fabricated your claim of “many” predictions of a multiyear La Nina event.
Why do you keep trying to change the subject? You do this each time I point out a problem in one of your posts. I understand what that means, and so do the other readers here, Frank.
The 2010 “near record” was caused by careful blindness on GISS’s part to the La Nina which started in about August 2010.
The climate alarmists wanted a near record so bad they could taste it.
UAH saw the effects of the La Nina starting in October
2010 8 0.441
2010 9 0.477
2010 10 0.306
2010 11 0.273
2010 12 0.18
GISS waited until December to see the effects of the La Nina when it was too little and too late to do much cooling.
A 54 S 54 O 63 N 74 D 40
Letting a group with such a stake in CAGW collect and ADJUST the data is a conflict of interest ! Will the fox guard the chickens well ?
Bob , If you postulate that this message of this article is radically changed because the example i used was a medium strength multiyear La Nina and not a SUPER La Nina like 1917, I just dont agree.
Here are the top ten statistics of larger La Ninas, year and average SOI:
1917 25.0
1975 18.6
1910 16.3
1950 16.1
1955 15.8
1973 14.3
1988 13.0
1916 11.9
1938 11.9
1998 11.5
And because the 1998 La Nina was a mulityear La Nina you just out of the blue insists that the 1999 should have had significantly much more cooling effect than the 1917 SUPER la nina.
Can you backup this claim somehow, or is this also just a hunch of yours?
—*—
-And I dont accept that it again-again takes you so many grotesk faulty error claims for you to pinpoint what it “really” is you now believe is an important problem.
– And Bob, I dont have UAH, RSS data for 1917 so I simply cannot show the MOST relevant La Nina on my graph.
The best choice honestly I believe is the 1999, since it afterall had a long duration.
And this idea of yours that the next la nina could not possibly be a multi year, how so? These are not that rare:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
And theres a whole lot of cold water still just under the pacific equator:
http://www.ecmwf.int/products/forecasts/d/charts/ocean/real_time/xzmaps/
A LOT of ammunition of cold water still, so even though the strength of La Nina is predicted to take of to some degree, still no sight i El Nino or definete end of La Nina in sigth stil for quit a while.
I dont know what shape and duration we will see, just that its a biggie, no more no less.
Frank Lansner says in one recent reply: “Bob , If you postulate that this message of this article is radically changed because the example i used was a medium strength multiyear La Nina and not a SUPER La Nina like 1917, I just dont agree.”
This is another failed attempt by you to change the subject. This reply has nothing to do with the subject being discussed.
And in the next comment you added, “And this idea of yours that the next la nina could not possibly be a multi year, how so? These are not that rare.”
I did not say that this La Nina won’t become a multiyear La Nina, and I did not say that it would. I don’t make predictions. DO NOT, (do you understand that?), do not attribute something to me that I have not said. The topic being discussed is what you wrote in the post. It was, “And the La Nina – allthough predticed to weaken during spring time – is by many predicted to match the 1999-2001 La Nina.” There are no official predictions of a multiyear La Niña. [snip] You misled your readers.
Why are you arguing?
Good bye, Frank.
Bob, you write: “This is another failed attempt by you to change the subject.”
The subject is what effect a huge super La Nina would have on tempereature trends and if global warming agenda can survive this.
Your personal subject about if the comming La Nina should be of one type or the other is your own topic. We dont know what type it will be.
You have not even remotely argued that for example the netto effect of the 1917 super La Nina should be significantly smaller than the netto effect of the 1999 La Nina and thus made your subject just a little relevant.
Bob if your intensions here are in fact good and relevant, I will ask you to hereafter use email fel@nnit.com and spare Watts and co.
K.R. Frank
Frank Lansner says: “The subject is what effect a huge super La Nina would have on tempereature trends and if global warming agenda can survive this. ”
There is NO prediction of a “a huge super La Nina”.
Frank Lansner says: “Bob if your intensions here are in fact good and relevant, I will ask you to hereafter use email fel@nnit.com and spare Watts and co”
No. This is the forum you elected. This is where the discussion will remain.