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.
So, Bob according to your final (?) error suggestion, you claim that I am “misleading people” no less.
This article is to show possible temperature trends in case of a very powerful La Nina now.
And if this article is “misleading” I guess you mean that the temperature graphics ends up showing significant colder trends than you expect?
And this due to the fact that the La Nina in the example was a multiyear La Nina? And you would have preferred a single year la Nina in the example?
Bob
1) It is not unusual at all that especially strong La ninas run over more than one year, this is the case over 50% for the SOI > 15 La Ninas:
http://wthrman.com/WZ/20101228/SOI3.png
2) I have shown you reason to believe that the present La Nina is not about to end, and this is a widely spread out opinion:
Jan 2011: “Now, almost everyone are in unison that it would be multi-year. The current La Niña is expected to last through the next northern winter and its residual effect to linger on until 2012. “
http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/2011/01/multi-year-monster-la-nina-can-deliver.html
Jan 2011: “Meteorological researchers and scientists around the world are now seized of the possibility of the ‘peaking’ La Nina mutating into a multiple-year event.”
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2011/01/18/stories/2011011851042000.htm
jan 2011:“We’re just starting to hear more interest in that,” says Joel Widenor, director of agriculture for Commodity Weather Group, a consultancy. “More of the models have been starting to show an increasing threat of a multiple year event.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a6cc8730-18f3-11e0-9c12-00144feab49a.html#axzz1CBhwYBBY
So Bob, you have to tell these people that they are misleading people, hurry, Bob, lot to do out there. And remember to tell them that its all “nonsense” too.
3) Nasa and BOM suggest a Super La Nina now that resembles the larget ever recorded La Nina of 1917. 1917 La Nina run over 2 years too, and was very much stronger than the 1999 La Nina, as i showed you the top ten ever recorded SOI averages:
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
So, the 1917 La Nina, that we are predicted to challenge now had SOI avg. 25.0 while the 1998 La Nina had just 11,5 .
And if you accumulate SOI for the 1916-17 period and hold it against SOI for 1998-2000 you will see that the 1917 is still over doublle the effect of the 1999. (ok, this graphic is only july-dec).
So Bob as I have said before: When I chose the 1999 La Nina, it was NOT to “mislead” people. It was to be conservative! Had I used the more relevant 1917 La nina like effect, the temperature trends pn the graphics in the article would have been even colder.
You use a LOT of energy here so this “error” here must really have a big big impact.
Please explain
1) in what way I have “misled” people.
2) how big impact this “severe” error has and why.
Frank Lansner says: “So, Bob according to your final (?) error suggestion, you claim that I am ‘misleading people’ no less.”
I first used the word misleading about your post four days ago, Frank. Others have used the verb mislead in some form about your post also. On the same day, four days ago, I also asked you for links to the “many” official predictions of a multiyear La Nina. And you replied today with a link to a blog and a link to a Hindu Business Line article, and a link to a commodities story at the Financial Times. I guess three constitutes many. If you had provided those links four days ago, you would have clarified that the basis for your post was not an official prediction, but unofficial speculation.
The Hindu Business Line article, dated January 18, 2011, includes a quote from NOAA’s Bill Patzert. The article reads, “’In contrast with the more spectacular but shorter duration El Nino and La Niña events, this multiple-year trend may be part of a decade-long pattern known as the Pacific decadal oscillation,’ Dr Patzert said.”
But that quote is from a JPL webpage dated January 18, 2000. It’s 11 years old:
http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/elninopdo/elnino/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=211
The author quoted from an 11-year-old story to add credibility to his article. And that’s why I asked you for official predictions.
You still haven’t answered the other question I asked four days ago. Here it is again: Also how did you “simulate” the effects of a new multiyear La Niña? Splicing some new wiggles onto the spreadsheet is meaningless without an explanation. Please explain using one dataset.
One last thing: You placed quotes on “misleading people”, and you attributed them to me. While I have used the word misled or misleading on this thread numerous times about your post, I have not used those two words in that order on this webpage. DO NOT attribute something to me that I did not say.
Hi Bob, Thanks for discussing, im working on new article now, and I dont see much scientific gain by continuing discussing here as honestly i think we are meeting a little – i say optimistically.
I interpret your last writing as if I may have misunderstood your intention with the word “misled”, and this is fine with me.
K.R. Frank
Frank Lansner: The reason why the method you used to splice the 1999-2001 data into 2011-2013 doesn’t work becomes obvious in the following:
http://i55.tinypic.com/285atj.jpg
All anyone has to do is include the 1998 data to show that you hid the incline.
Bob, i dont know if its my non-Enlish-Speaking background, but you write
“You hid the incline”.. sounds as if i actively should have hadhidden something??
This post was not about: “Lets make a smooth transition on a graph to a New la Nina..!”
This post was about: “What happends to trends if we insert some big La Nina now?”
And in this – the relevant – context, moving the inserted 1999 La Nina a month or 2 to the side obviously has no or very little impact on what this article is about: The long term trends resulting from a strong La Nina dive.
In fact cutting of the jan or jan-feb makes the trends fo even colder.
So again, you do some effort so show something that has zero relevanse for the subject in this writing. And then as earlier you come up with your repeatedly dramatic conclusions, this time “Frank, you hid the incline” which is complete nonsence.
I pasted in a La Nina to see effect on long term trends, not to fiddle with an irrelevant smooth transistion.
My advise Bob:
Choose one or two issues if they are really there, and focus on these.
This way I as the author have a much better chance not to overlook anything and this will give me a fair chance to answer things.
Check if someone has predicted multiyear La Nina now before claiming that they havent.
Check if someone has predicted a super La Nina now before claiming that they havent.
Check if the incline thing you show has any chance of affecting anything significantly before concluding anything.
Check that i have actually used poly-trends to predict aything before claiming that i have.
etcetcetcetc.
And most important before telling anyone that Frank has “misled” Frank has “hidden” Frank ” there are no ‘La Niña claims’. You fabricated this.” you have to be very very sure that you have a solid foundation, because your tone is very harsh and unkind.
K.R. Frank
Frank Lansner says: “This post was about: ‘What happends to trends if we insert some big La Nina now?'”
But YOU can’t simulate a big La Nina unless you have accounted for the rise in global temperature between the 1999 and now.
You wrote, “And in this – the relevant – context, moving the inserted 1999 La Nina a month or 2 to the side obviously has no or very little impact on what this article is about: The long term trends resulting from a strong La Nina dive.”
You didn’t move the 1999 La Nina a few months. You moved it 12 years. And to account for the difference you don’t need to shift it from month-to-month, you have to shift it up.
I just showed you the impact:
http://i55.tinypic.com/285atj.jpg
You would have to shift that dataset up 0.07 deg C during 2011-2013 before you did your trend analysis. That’s the error in that part of YOUR post.
You wrote, “My advise Bob:
“Choose one or two issues if they are really there, and focus on these.”
I did focus on those two issues, Frank. For four days, I repeatedly asked you for links to official predictions of a multiyear La Nina, and I repeatedly asked you to explain how you simulated the multiyear La Nina in 2011-2013. And each time I asked, you changed the subject. It took four days for you to show that there are no official projections of a multiyear La Nina, and it took five days for you to admit that all you did to simulate the 2011-2013 La Nina was cut and paste the 1999-2001 data. Your “simulation” did nothing to account for the rise in global temperatures from 1999 to 2011…
http://i55.tinypic.com/285atj.jpg
…and this is something you would have to do if you were being honest with your readers.
Bob, you write:
“But YOU can’t simulate a big La Nina unless you have accounted for the rise in global temperature between the 1999 and now. “
Due to this and several other reasons indeed we can’t predict how the next years temperatures will be with some precision. First of all of course because we don’t know how the La Nina will be, and yes the underlying trends in temperatures counts too etc. etc. and ocean currents you name it!
This is why it make no sense at all to do what you do making some details-fiddling when splicing the La Nina part onto 2010 or any other detail-fiddling you might suggest here.
Then you write: “. For four days, I repeatedly asked you for links to official predictions of a multiyear La Nina”
Use http://www.google.com , Key in “multi year La Nina” and then comes on first side a hand full of relevant links and you would not need to bring that subject up in the first place. At least, no need to wait 4 days.
You write: “You didn’t move the 1999 La Nina a few months. You moved it 12 years.”
You misunderstand. I was talking about If the insertion of the 1999 was moved a month or two from where I put it.
You write: “each time I asked, you changed the subject.”
I have no way knowing which of all your subjects is the important ones. I have done a large effort answering all (!) so just in the future cut it down to one or two, this would help all aspects of the dialog. As I said, it is much easier to miss something when you shoot in all directions and I have to resolve one misunderstanding after the other. So in the future: please only few but solid subjects.
Then after I have mentioned your sad unkind and harsh tone, you now suggest that im not honest.
I have shown simply and roughly that some kind of strong super La Nina now will significantly prolong period of no warming. I did so without using the impact of a super La Nina like 1917 so I have certainly not exaggerated things, you should be aware.
K.R. Frank
Frank Lansner says: “Due to this and several other reasons indeed we can’t predict how the next years temperatures will be with some precision. First of all of course because we don’t know how the La Nina will be, and yes the underlying trends in temperatures counts too etc. etc. and ocean currents you name it!”
This is not relevant to the subjects being discussed.
You wrote, “This is why it make no sense at all to do what you do making some details-fiddling when splicing the La Nina part onto 2010 or any other detail-fiddling you might suggest here.”
It is not detail fiddling. It is presenting the data properly. WHY is your website named HideTheDecline, Frank? Because scientists misrepresented the data. And what do you do? YOU misrepresent data.
You replied, “Use http://www.google.com , Key in “multi year La Nina” and then comes on first side a hand full of relevant links and you would not need to bring that subject up in the first place. At least, no need to wait 4 days.”
I did that the first time you suggested it and I told you there were no official predictions of a multiyear La Nina, Frank. I keep telling you that but you continue repeat the same answer. I looked for one, Frank. There aren’t any.
You wrote, “You misunderstand. I was talking about If the insertion of the 1999 was moved a month or two from where I put it.”
I explained why this was the wrong thing to do already. Why are you explaining what you meant?
You replied, “I have no way knowing which of all your subjects is the important ones.”
I asked you two questions at the beginning of this thread. You refused to answer them. I repeated those questions. You refused to answer them. You are the one who changed subjects. It was you who created the confusion in an attempt to mask your errors.
Bob: ” there were no official predictions of a multiyear La Nina, Frank”.
So these quotes:
************************
Jan 2011: “Now, almost everyone are in unison that it would be multi-year. The current La Niña is expected to last through the next northern winter and its residual effect to linger on until 2012. “
http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/2011/01/multi-year-monster-la-nina-can-deliver.html
Jan 2011: “Meteorological researchers and scientists around the world are now seized of the possibility of the ‘peaking’ La Nina mutating into a multiple-year event.”
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2011/01/18/stories/2011011851042000.htm
jan 2011:“We’re just starting to hear more interest in that,” says Joel Widenor, director of agriculture for Commodity Weather Group, a consultancy. “More of the models have been starting to show an increasing threat of a multiple year event.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a6cc8730-18f3-11e0-9c12-00144feab49a.html#axzz1CBhwYBBY
***********************
Does not make it relevant to make the graphs with the modest multi year La Nina 1999 or?
Even though ONE brief look at the La Ninas shows that it is the NORMAL situation that large La Ninas are multiyear. Still we should have chosen a single year?????
And by the way, you suggestes that I adjusted the level of te inserted 1999 La Nina up, because you say that the global temperatures has gotten warmer in the last decade. If you demand of me that I adjust for some smaller change in global temperatures, then i would like to know how much warmer you believe it has become in the last decade?
Do you believe that your suggestion of temperature rise would be generally accepted by for example the sceptics at WUWT? Or are you saying that before any one can make an illustration of a modest La Nina inserted we first have to debate how much warming there has been in the last decade? If any?
K.R. Frank
Frank Lansner: You quoted me, “there were no official predictions of a multiyear La Nina, Frank”, and your reply does not provide official predictions. You’ve linked and quoted a couple of posts from blogs and newspapers. They are not official predictions.
Good bye, Frank.
LOL, Bob, you come a week after the dialog ended and goes “Goodbye Frank” ….. !
And your timing is even better. I showed you very valid opinions from proffessors etc that we should expect La Nina, and then the day before your late comment we have once again-again confirmed:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/04/noaa-enso-expert-odds-for-a-two-year-la-nina-event-remain-well-above-50/
If there are “official” opinions that the present La Nina will be single year, could you yourself present these?
-> Multi year La Ninas are the NORMAL for strong La Ninas.
-> We have a strong La Nina now.
Therefore a blind demand of me using a single year La nina is truly bizarre.