Bastardi: no return of El Niño til 2012

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

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

118 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
rbateman
April 7, 2011 1:25 pm

John Finn says:
April 7, 2011 at 10:42 am
OK – let’s start from 1940.
The 1940-2010 (71 years) trend is …….. 1.2 deg per century.
Ooops!

Compared to Vostok Ice Core temp. fluctuations
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/Vostok.JPG
1.2 C/Century is not a significant departure from normal variance.
Ooops! is right.

pete
April 7, 2011 4:30 pm

John Finn: And 70 years to 1949 is 1.4 deg per century.
70 years to 1945 is 1.1 degrees.
Oops indeed.

April 7, 2011 5:46 pm

Richard M says:
April 7, 2011 at 5:26 am
“Slacko indicated the PDO controls ENSO while Bob is stating that ENSO controls the PDO.”
I said nothing of the sort. I simply pointed out that Hank Hancock and Bob Tisdale said exactly the same thing, yet Bob claims Hank has got it backwards:
@Hank Hancock says: “El Nino seems to dominate in a positive PDO phase”
Tisdale says: “when El Nino events dominate, the PDO is postitive.”
Both say ENSO is dominant, and they give the same phase indications of PDO with respect to Nino/Nina. So what is Bob Tisdale saying Hank got reversed? That’s all I’m asking.

FergalR
April 7, 2011 8:43 pm

Slacko;
Hank noticed that “El Nino seems to dominate in a positive PDO phase”
Bob disagreed, saying “when El Nino events dominate, the PDO is postitive.”
Bob is saying that El Ninos make the PDO positive, rather than a positive PDO causing more El Ninos. The cause/effect relationship is reversed.
Meanwhile, Dr. Wolter’s new MEI report is out with little change from last month:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/

Werner Brozek
April 7, 2011 9:21 pm

“John Finn says:
April 6, 2011 at 3:56 am
Mean UAH Jan-Mar 2011 (LA NINA peak) anomaly is -0.04 deg
Mean UAH Jan-Mar 1987 (EL NINO peak) anomaly is -0.02 deg
I think Joe should take a closer look at the data. ”
These are very interesting observations! After verifying what you said and giving it some serious thought, I would explain them this way. See page 21 of
http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
As can be seen, temperatures go in rough 60 year sine wave cycles. And 1987 was lower down on the sine wave relative to the black line than 2011. As a result, the net effect of a La Nina on a higher part of the sine wave has about the same temperature anomaly as an El Nino on a lower part. Make sense?

John Finn
April 8, 2011 2:02 am

pete says:
April 7, 2011 at 4:30 pm
John Finn: And 70 years to 1949 is 1.4 deg per century.
70 years to 1945 is 1.1 degrees.

You are still using trends that end in (and predominantly cover) the 20th century. Thus reinforcing my original point that the 20th century trend is completely different from earlier centuries. Another key point you have ‘forgot’ to mention in your analysis is that in response to Richard M, who accused me of cherry picking start and end dates, I used a start date in a ‘warm’ period and an end date in a ‘warm’ period. You, on the other hand, chose a start date in a ‘cool’ period and an end date in a ‘warm’ period.
I think that’s what Richard M meant by cherry picking.

John Finn
April 8, 2011 2:11 am

rbateman says:
April 7, 2011 at 1:25 pm

John Finn says:
April 7, 2011 at 10:42 am
OK – let’s start from 1940.
The 1940-2010 (71 years) trend is …….. 1.2 deg per century.
Ooops!


Compared to Vostok Ice Core temp. fluctuations
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/Vostok.JPG
1.2 C/Century is not a significant departure from normal variance.
Ooops! is right.

It is significant when you consider that both the start and end dates are in recognised ‘warm’ periods. I can check but, as far as I remember, 1940 was not part of any ice age (Little or otherwise).

John Finn
April 8, 2011 2:39 am

Werner Brozek says:
April 7, 2011 at 9:21 pm

…. As a result, the net effect of a La Nina on a higher part of the sine wave has about the same temperature anomaly as an El Nino on a lower part. Make sense?
Hmmm. I feel yours may be a bit of a circular argument. The key features of of warm/cool phases of the PDO are more El Nino and less La Nina events in the warm phase and the reverse in the cold phase. Yuo seem to be saying that because there are more El Ninos then La Ninas will be warmer and as El Ninos increase La Ninas will be come warmer than previous El Ninos. The problem I have with this is that during an El Nino event the earth’s oceans actually loses heat to the atmosphere (see the LT spike).
Anyway the next 10 years or so should tell us one way or the other. The current temperature ‘plateau’ is far from a decisive swing towards cooling and if, as some say we are now in the ‘cool’ phase, then we can expect a significant ramp up in temperatures further down the line.

April 8, 2011 3:36 am

John Finn says:
“You are still using trends that end in (and predominantly cover) the 20th century. Thus reinforcing my original point that the 20th century trend is completely different from earlier centuries.”
That’s completely wrong; the current trend is nothing unusual, and it is no different from numerous past trends over the Holocene. The extremely *mild* and natural 0.7°C rise since the 1800’s is both welcome and continuing. A return to the LIA would be devastating.
There is no empirical evidence showing any harm from the increase in the minor trace gas CO2. In fact, the rise has been entirely beneficial.
Given these facts, everyone in science and engineering would in normal times agree that CO2 is both harmless and beneficial. But the “carbon” scare is fed with many $billions every year, and scientists are paid to misrepresent the truth, or they simply keep silent in fear of losing their next raise, their next promotion, or even their job.
Only in the highly politicized world of double-think climate “science” would people improbably conclude, with zero evidence of any global damage from CO2 – and with increased agricultural productivity rising in line with the added CO2 – that more CO2 is somehow bad. The people who belive that are not using the scientific method, they are simply captive to their evidence-free belief systems dictating their emotions. And as we know, fear is a powerful emotion. Even verifiably baseless fear.

John Finn
April 8, 2011 11:29 am

Smokey says:
April 8, 2011 at 3:36 am

You haven’t followed the discussion. We were referring to the CET record.
Only in the highly politicized world of double-think climate “science” would people improbably conclude, with zero evidence of any global damage from CO2 – …..
I haven’t mentioned “global damage from CO2”. I’m not sure why you have.

R. Gates
April 8, 2011 11:45 am

rbateman says:
April 7, 2011 at 1:15 pm
R. Gates says:
April 7, 2011 at 7:15 am
I am not confused as to what purposes the GCMs are used for. The MET Office, NOAA and others have fumbled repeatedly by allowing climate model prediction outputs to bias their long-range forecasts. This is big egg on thier faces, and they should have known better than to insert untested forcings into thier forecast.
They put forth a test case, and it failed. Wrong venue for experimentation.
Not just once, but three times, ruling out the prospect of an isolated/outlier event.
Reputations are damaged.
How should they have handled experimental forecasts?
Take a look at volcanic and seismic geoscience. They have been careful not to spoil thier credibility. Reputations are intact and growing.
______
Much could probably be learned by climate scientists in looking at the uncertainty in volcanic and seismic geoscience. They all deal with system displaying deterministic chaos and it’s quite possible that their levels of uncertainty are similar. But make no mistake…when a geologist says an eruption is “likely” he surely can’t tell you the exact time it will occur, and so so, when a collection of GCM’s say an ice-free summer arctic is likely by the end of this century…both are dealing with probabilties and large “event windows”.

April 8, 2011 12:01 pm

John Finn says:
“I haven’t mentioned ‘global damage from CO2’. I’m not sure why you have.”
Because that is the central question in the entire debate! If CO2 is harmless, we should immediately stop wasting any more tax money on it, and spend the money on worthwhile areas of science instead.

Editor
April 8, 2011 2:06 pm

Slacko says: “These statements look the same to me. So who’s got it backwards?”
They’re not the same. Hank Hancock’s statement/question implies that the PDO sign is what’s causing the dominance of El Nino or La Nina events. But the PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO.

savethesharks
April 8, 2011 9:51 pm

R. Gates says:
April 7, 2011 at 7:15 am rbateman
“You seem confused as to the function of GCM’s.”
========================
Coming from a person who called a “GCM” an “AGW Model” a few months back [busted!!!] , I would say it is YOU who are confused, R Gates.
Also…taking on somebody with RBateman’s pedigree with your nonsense, is entertaining at most.
Hell…I can pop popcorn….so go right ahead.
Remember: A few months back….you were calling them “AGW Models”.
What are “AGW Models”, R???
Tell me….what are they?
I rest my case.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

April 9, 2011 11:58 am

FergalR says:
April 7, 2011 at 8:43 pm
“Bob is saying that El Ninos make the PDO positive, rather than a positive PDO causing more El Ninos. The cause/effect relationship is reversed.”
Bob Tisdale says:
April 8, 2011 at 2:06 pm
“Hank Hancock … implies that the PDO sign is what’s causing the dominance of El Nino or La Nina events. But the PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO.”
Thanks guys. I have no way of knowing if you’re right, but it does seem this issue is about as clear as mud. (Well, what can you expect from unsettled science?) Take for example the following comments I dragged over here from the thread on “Solar Warming and Ocean Equilibrium” where:
Roy Clark says:
April 7, 2011 at 12:35 pm
“Every few years, the subsurface heat stored in the Pacific ‘pops up’ and gives rise to the characteristic ENSO oscillations.”
Jim Steele says:
April 7, 2011 at 8:40 pm
“Winds in positive PDO favors more El Ninos fewer La Ninas. While negative PDOs favor La Ninas and fewer El Ninos.”
and
“When The PDO went positive in the late 70’s it generated more El Ninos …”
So Jim Steele obviously accepts that La Ninas can take place while the PDO is positive, whereas Bob Tisdale maintains that a La Nina would stipulate negative PDO.
Bob, perhaps you’d like to go over and straighten those guys out while I make some popcorn. 🙂
Then again, I’m wondering if maybe the only difference here is a consideration of the lag time. i.e. If an ENSO phase is short or weak, might it fail to reverse the PDO? I’m not aware of any graph showing how PDO responds to ENSO, or vice versa. Nor is anyone else here, judging by the apparent confusion.

Eve
April 9, 2011 1:54 pm


The population of the planet has tripled in two thirds of my lifespan. In Toronto, urban sprawl has increased ten fold in that time. The extra heat shows up in the higher low temperatures, caused by heating houses close together, dumping waste heat outside in the summer and changes in land usage.

April 10, 2011 2:28 pm

Well Mr Tisdale,
it seems you are the only one here who thinks ENSO drives the PDO. And since you offer no reason for your position, I guess I’ll just have to go along with Joe like everyone else does. So PDO drives ENSO, OK?
@Bastardi: “…the warm PDO … 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”
OK.

John
May 1, 2011 10:25 pm

Question: What are the chances 4 (CO2) molecules in 10,000 air molecules (i.e. same ratio as 400 PPM) significantly influence our climate? (150 years ago it was 3 in 10,000)
Answer: About 4 in 10,000
P.S. If you read the IPCC’s technical report it notes that the Global Warming Potential of CO2 is “1”, “unity”, which happens to be the lowest and the index reference for all trace gases which all together constitute only 1% of the atmospheric total. Oxygen and Nitrogen together make up the other 99%. Again, what are the chances a trace gas (any trace gas) which constitutes 4 one-hundredths of one percent (.04%) of our atmosphere has any significant influence on our climate. “Nil” of course. Is any of this sinking in? AGW is propaganda and that is all it is, and always has been from day one.

1 3 4 5