No No to el Nino ( till 2012)By Joe Bastardi (from his WeatherBell blog)
I was going to write something about the dreaded back door front and how while it may be 90 at the masters this weekend it may snow in the I-90 corridor in the northeast but then Joe D Aleo sent me this:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/settled-science-masters-vs-masters-vs-hansen-vs-noaa/
knowing it would wave a red flag in front of me and off I go.
The amazing thing is that the high priests of high temps keep claiming co2 is the cause, then admit its not because of the obvious relationship of the enso to global temps! Its simple to see that when the nino comes on, the earth warms, the nina comes on its cool. I don’t understand why they can not, through simple deduction, understand that the warm PDO ( 1978 to 2007) leads to a warming of the globe, especially when there is part of that time the amo is warm) and the cooling will follow when the PDO turns colder, as it is now? In addition we have to remember that a lot of these folks ( NOT Dr. Jeff Masters who is trying to nail the forecast here though he does see different from me on AGW) but some of the non meteorologists in the field, simply don’t understand that its tough to sustain a warm enso in a cold PDO. And that the cold Enso is much more likely. Actually they WILL NOT SEE IT because it means they were wrong about the eternal warmth, the feedback, everything. More preposterous is the supposition that a trace gas needed for life on the planet, a very minor weight in the atmosphere as it is, would influence the ocean, which is far more important in total energy contribution to the planet than the atmosphere, or anything we are putting into the atmosphere. Do the math good friend.. take the weight of the ocean and atmosphere together and the energy implications of the gas and
the liquid and then stack co2 against it.
The only rout bigger than that is a wrestling match between me and Cael Sanderson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cael_Sanderson
not much of a chance either way.
But again, aren’t you admitting that the first leg of my triple crown of cooling ( oceanic cycles) is the main driver.
Lets just look at this folks. First the Multivariate enso index, which is
Wolters baby, shows the warmth from the late 70s till recently:
Warm PDO, ( then AMO) what do you think the result is. But look there is more! At 600 mb, which is a good measuring point for the troposphere we are near record cold, the most recent coldest in 2008 and way the heck under where we were. The blue line is last year, the red this year, the yellow 08 , the orange average the purple is the record low:
Now why would Hansen want the super nino, which he has been in a habit of forecasting since the 97-98 one? Well, let’s look at the ocean temps:
In this case, the red line is 08, the yellow last year, and you can see we are in the middle of the pack, biased low. But the amazing thing about the nino forecast is THE PROOF OF MY POINT THAT IT IS THE OCEANS, since we can see the warmth that developed as the nino roared on last year, and the cool that has responded this year to the cooling. What is interesting is how close we have been to 2008 at 600mb, when we are a bit less cool in the ocean. So here is what you have to believe.. Yes it is the oceans but their actions are being caused by a trace gas essential for life on the planet.
If you believe that, then when I go into wrestling practice later today, perhaps this is my day to end the 159-0 Gold medalists domination.
I don’t think so.
Now perhaps the NOAA model, which was forecasting a minor warming event a couple of weeks ago is still doing so. Two years ago, I had the nino called in Feb and predicted the non hurricane season. Last year again in Feb with the NINA, 18 STORMS, HOT SUMMER I dont see the hot summer this in the n plains and lakes, I see less storms, more US impact but most importantly to this post, I don’t see an el nino. neutral cool, yes like 08, but I don’t see the nino and I am not a model worshiper. The models are agreeing with me, because I said so before. There is no physical reason, in a cold PDO, to forecast a rapid return of enso warm conditions. Increased volcanic actions in the tropics could play a role, but that along with the sun are wild cards. And by the way, I have already been out publicly saying that the return of a weak to perhaps moderate warm event in 12-13 could lead to winters, because of solar and seismic considerations, that could rival the late 70s. So its not like I don’t see the chance of the warm enso, its just not coming now.
The CFS, the reactionary model, which I call it since it reacts after most should see what is going on, is colder with the bulk of the recent runs colder than the means ( recent runs in blue)
The JMA, and ECMWF, which when they agree with me, really pump me up
as I like their performance better
ecmwf
but they show this is backing off, but no nino.
Let me again be clear. Dr Masters has a site that has done well because he is good at what he does, so its Michigan vs PSU, met on met, honest disagreement ( I have no PHD in meteo though, just a Bachelors). But though I disagree with Dr Masters on AGW, this is an honest forecast disagreement. I do think Dr. Hansen, an outstanding astronomer, is
forecasting this like a couple of the others without looking at the same thing Jeff and I are looking at.. Jeff’s ideas seem measured and taking into account things I see, but I have the other reasons listed.
Hiding behind all this though its the admission that the enso drives global temps, and the implication for AGW has to then be that co2 emissions are causing the large scale cyclical changes in the ocean, which I just do not believe can be true, given what I know about gasses, liquids, and the fact that temps are a measure of energy and the composition and density of the measured gas or liquid increases as the amount of water vapor increases, or in the case of the oceans, a saturated body! But there is no malice intended here.
Actually it gives me hope that I can walk into that wrestling room at PSU and go after Cael:
A round robin with him and that bear is just what a 55 year old wrestling
wanted to be needs.
ciao for now
It’s flat smokey. Both UAH and HadCRUT are essentially flat since 2002 (and of course RSS http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2002/plot/rss/from:2002/trend)
My point is not which side of the zero the trend insignificant falls.
My point is that given the ENSO decline since 2002, the solar decline since 2002 and the PDO decline since 2002, we should have quite a decline. Not flat. Unless something else is producing quite a warming effect and so is masking the decline.
Today I recognize again, how fair the discussion goes back and forth.
What a great place to be … and learn.
Onion2: There has been a consistent warming trend independent of cyclical behaviour for centuries now, long-term temperature records such as the CET show it clearly.
Unfortunately that also shows that CO2 is responsible for bugger all of the current warming. Unless you wish to reason that the previous trend stopped, and was replaced by a CO2 driven trend?
The PDO/AMO are a more important driver of climate than the underlying centuries-long warming trend because they have a far greater impact on the intensity of extreme events. Focusing on the global temperature anomaly (which has no physical basis) is foolish.
Global warming theory depends on strong water vapour feedbacks.
Well, it turns out the ENSO controls global water vapour levels and the ENSO has no trend (up or down) over time so this most important part of theory is not working as predicted. [More decline in water vapour can be expected in the next month or two before stabilizing and then going up in the fall].
All the global warming studies which try to say water vapour levels are increasing (including the last IPCC report and those by Dessler) have taken advantage of the trends that the ENSO leaves in water vapour levels (start at La Nina dips and stop at El Nino peaks and viola, increasing water vapour).
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/1916/ensovstcwv1948mar11.png
If an El Nino develops into 2010, there will be less precipitation and warmer temperatures. What this means for crop production is that the summer will be pretty good although there will be drought going into the fall months. Production will be high overall (growing conditions will be okay and harvesting conditions will be very good. Prices will come down). Then the year after, drought conditions will take hold and production will be down.
onion2,
Thanx for your parameter-free speculation. However, the natural warming of the planet since the LIA isn’t a problem. In fact, it is a net benefit. More is better.
You’re still stuck on the misguided belief that a warmer, more pleasant world is bad. It isn’t. It’s all good.
Bob Tisdale says:
April 5, 2011 at 5:34 pm
R. Gates says: “For the long-term CO2 forcing is something seen over many decades, and solar cycles and ENSO events can clearly be seen in the temperature record over the past several decades.”
Unfortunately for your hypothesis, there’s no evidence that your “long-term CO2 forcing” has any impact on Sea Surface Temperature or Ocean Heat Content.
___
Bob, you know as well as I do that that SST’s and OHC are very different metrics, with one having ENSO variability while OHC has indeed increased over the past three decades, (though not enough to account for poor Dr. Trenberth’s missing heat!), while the deeper ocean (from what little measurements we do have) also is showing signs of warming. See:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100920_oceanwarming.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110127141659.htm
I highly respect your expertise, but I must disagree with you on this point.
so smokey as far as you are concerned the science is settled? that we know for 100% certainty that a 2C warmer world will be much better? No shadow of any doubt in your mind? Personally I dont think we have anything to compare 2C warmer with to know what will happen!
Good to see someone who gives credit to ENSO. My book (What Warming?) gives you a full understanding of how ENSO works and it has nothing to do with the PDO. ENSO is a climate oscillation involving the trade winds, the equatorial currents, and the equatorial countercurrent. The trade winds push the equatorial currents across the ocean and the water gets warmed on the way. At the west end their flow is blocked by New Guinea and the Philippines and warm water piles up. This is the origin of the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, the warmest water in the world. Some of it leaks out into the Indian Ocean through gaps between the islands but the bulk returns east along the equatorial countercurrent and splashes ashore in South America. Physically, this flow takes the form of an El Nino wave, visible on satellite views as a Kelvin wave. The Nino 3.4 region is located smack in the middle of this equatorial countercurrent and watches the El Nino waves go by. The lag time between Nino 3.4 and overt manifestations of El Nino is due to the fact that Nino 3.4 sees it before it has hit the coast. El Nino flow is intermittent because wave resonance is involved. If you blow across the end of a glass tube you elicit a resonant tone whose frequency depends upon the dimensions of the tube. Trade winds are the equivalent of blowing across the end of a tube and the ocean answers with its own resonant tone – one wave every four-five years. This has been going on since the Panamanian Seaway closed and will likely outlast the human race. When the El Nino wave hits the coast its water spreads out in both directions about 15 degrees or more. Exposure of this large area of warm water warms the air above it, warm air rises and stops the trade winds, not the other way around. Prevailing winds then carry it over the continent, it mixes with global circulation, and an El Nino has started. There is enough heat involved in this to raise global temperature by half a degree Celsius each time an El Nino wave arrives.But every wave that runs ashore must also pull back. When the El Nino wave retreats sea surface drops in its wake by half a meter or more, cold water from below wells up, and a La Nina has started. As much as the El Nino raised global temperature the La Nina that follows will lower it. This global heat exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere is very precise as can be seen from a sequence of ENSO oscillation displayed in the satellite record of the eighties and nineties. The global mean temperature stays the same and the ENSO contribution to warming is zero. It is that simple. But due to the long transit time things can happen that distort the basic pattern. The most obvious interruption of ENSO oscillations was in 1998 when a super El Nino that was not part of it appeared. Its origin was probably a storm surge that deposited a large amount of warm water at the start of the equatorial countercurrent near New Guinea. In its aftermath global temperature rose by a third of a degree Celsius and then stabilized for the next six years. This, and not some greenhouse effect is the origin of the very warm first decade of our century. This period ended with a La Nina in 2008 which re-introduced the oscillatory climate which the super El Nino had temporarily disrupted. It was followed by the El Nino of 2010 and we are now half way through the next La Nina that followed it. Expect these oscillations and not a temperature rise to be in our future. I notice also that Hansen whose 1988 climate predictions featured a monotonic rise of temperature out to 2019 has now started talking about temperature fluctuations without using the word El Nino in his latest temperature article in Reviews of Geophysics [RG 4004/2010 RG000345]. Must have secretly read my book but does not want to admit it.
James Sexton says:
April 5, 2011 at 4:06 pm
But, I don’t want winters like we had in the 70s!!!!! Can’t we find something that actually warms the planet?
——————————————————-
Unfortunately, in that regard, it appears that we have found “The Little Molecule that Couldn’t”.
It’s been a good, albeit expensive stepping stone to finding a potential solution to humanity’s upcoming and inevitable life killer.
Gates, one of the predictions of the global warming science is that sea levels will increase because warming seas expand….
If, as you say, OHC has increased and you say there is evidence that the deep ocean is also warming…..
Why are sea levels falling?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/sea-level-may-drop-in-2010/
Given the relative densities, masses, and specific heats of ocean and atmosphere, the oceans have about 1100 times the thermal mass of the atmosphere. Monitoring air temperatures and claiming they can show a net global warming effect is stupidity, lunacy, or malice.
But, how can we trust the “authorities”, they made the wrong call on Arctic ice in 2008. They predicted an ice free summer arctic in 2013. We know now that is sheer nonsense! But do they care?, they will move on to the next thing. Completely ridiculous to have predicted an ice free summer arctic in 2013.
Bastardi is baaaaack.
Dammit, Joe, I cancelled my Accuweather Pro Subscription in protest…then I found out you and D’Aleo (I will call you Joe Squared….watch out) are forming your own long-range company.
Great to hear from you ranting about things ENSO PDO and AMO.
Keep speaking. When you do, I always listen.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Bob Tisdale says:
“Unfortunately for your hypothesis, there’s no evidence that your “long-term CO2 forcing” has any impact on Sea Surface Temperature or Ocean Heat Content.”
R. Gates says:
“I highly respect your expertise, but I must disagree with you on this point.”
========================
Oh really?? Just HOW… R?
Besides the fact that comparing your opinion to Tisdale’s is like comparing apples….to planets [read…both are spheres….but the resemblance ends there]…
You go on with the arrogance to show disagreement with two lame lame LAME references from….ooh who would have guessed: Science Daily and NOAA.
And on top of that they don’t even really specifically support your magical, mystical, unknowable “CO2 forcing” hypothesis on the oceans, that you describe.
Pathetic.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I am just basically a ‘lurker’ here as well as several other similar sites. There seems to be a major player with regards to ocean temps that has not been addressed here or anywhere else that I have seen and that is: the heat created from the movement of the tetonic plates. There is a tremendous amount of heat created and much under the Pacific Ocean. From a simple mind as mine, I have noted that when removing a screw from a board it will get pretty hot, friction anyone? Maybe someone could apply for grants to study using CO2 to grease the joints on the plates to stop global warming.
onion2 says:
April 5, 2011 at 5:36 pm ~~~~~ “and the PDO decline . . . ”
What exactly does that mean? Are you trying to say that a negative PDO index represents colder North Pacific Ocean surface temperatures?
onion2 says:
April 5, 2011 at 6:30 pm
“So smokey as far as you are concerned the science is settled?”
=====================
What science is settled where….huh??….what???
Science is an evolving process…a product of what is found out.
The only person that has ever…EVER said…to my knowledge….that the “science is settled” [interject Tennessee accent]….is that good-for-nothing lamebrain, the former vice president [and extreme embarrassment to humanity]….Mr. Al Gore.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Thanks for straightening me out on that one. I must have been looking at the chart wrong. Also thanks for the links. They’re very helpful to this medical researcher who wants to understand the whole AWG can of worms.
I’m sorry, but I found this article torturous to read. Please request that Joe submit his written work to the correcting eye of a technical editor before it is published here. How embarrassing.
Arno,
Joe D’Aleo connects La Nina’s and El Nino’s to PDO’s. La Nina’s are favored in cold PDO’s and El Nino’s are favored in warm PDO’s.
http://www.weatherbell.com/jd/?p=576
I wish there were more data, especially from the 1860-1900 Warm AMO phase. No one ever seems to mention that 1887 and 1893 are both in the top ten for highest ACE’s ever recorded and that happened well before satellites.
So we’re back to CO2, except for being vital for plant life, does nothing?
Good work Joe. Just wanted to make 2 comments. Looking at the Multivariate ENSO Index, the period from 77 to 98 jumps out as being a warm PDO. But from 98 on the pattern is less clear. Yes, it looks like we may have switched in 2007, but it seems a little early to tell. In contrast to the 77 to 98 period, you can also see that from 1950 to 1977 a cold PDO dominated.
But I also think that the PDO cycles themselves are externally influenced. I find Svensmark’s cosmic ray theories compelling; and I think the correlation between long term temperature trends and the strength of solar cycles is too good to be accidental.
Good luck to you.
Pamela,
The written material is the same as when he does a video report. These pieces may even be transcripts. I’ve read many university student essays and often the message can be found with a bit of effort. Same here.
Pamela: “I’m sorry, but I found this article torturous to read.”
Pamela, our brains have an area called the Wrenicke’s area and another called the Broca’s area. With regard to speech, the Broca’s area is responsible for structure and syntax. The Wrenicke’s area is responsible for meaning. As long as the Wrenicke’s area is functioning well, the Broca’s contribution is just the paint job. Don’t worry too much about the paint job.
Anthony
The above is description a fact in words.
The following is what the data says supporting the above description.
http://bit.ly/hUSDD0
They deny the data, but they call us deniers.
Bizarre.