Guest post by Paul Homewood
In their attempts to disguise the fact that 2012 will likely turn out to be one of the colder years this century, NOAA have made the ludicrous, and frankly dishonest, claim that this year will be the “hottest La Niña” year on record.
But is it a La Niña year?
NOAA’s own Multivariate ENSO Index is shown below.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
And the monthly numbers:-
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
To November, the index averages +0.160, which would be classified as between neutral and weak El Niño. The monthly rankings below also confirm that the index for the year is above average, coming in at 36th out of 63. (The rankings run from 1950-2012). The July ranking of 57 shows that there were only 6 July’s that had a higher MEI.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/rank.html
And did this ENSO transition from negative (La Niña) to positive (El Niño) have any effect on temperature during the year? You betcha!
Take a look at UAH, for instance.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
UAH anomalies hit a low point of –0.13C in Jan/Feb, and then bounced up to 0.34C in October, before sinking back to 0.28C in November as the El Niño fizzled out.
For NOAA to pretend that 2012 was a La Nina year, and then use temperatures, heavily affected by El Niño conditions throughout the summer, to “prove” that it is the hottest La Nina year is not something real scientists do.
For a more realistic comparison, the last 12 month period, when ENSO was pretty neutral, was April 2001-March 2002, when the MEI averaged minus 0.003. The UAH temperature anomaly was 0.157C for that period, and compares with a current figure for the last 12 months of 0.150C. This, of course, suggests little underlying change in global temperature for the last 10 years.
But, it seems , NOAA are more interested in propaganda than the truth.
Espen
Interestingly the NOAA people who put together the MEI Index (presumably not the same ones who wrote the report on temperature!!) say:-
Therefore, we are facing our first ENSO-neutral winter since 2003-04 (2005-06 was an ENSO-neutral winter, but much closer to La Niña, and dipped into La Niña rankings during spring March-April)). Furthermore, every ‘double-dip’ La Niña of the last century has been followed by either one more La Niña winter or a switch to El Niño, so this is even more unusual. It will be a few months before a return to either El Niño or La Niña is possible.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Bob Tisdale says:
December 21, 2012 at 2:10 pm
I wonder if that emphasis is based on the “traditional” recognition of El Niños starting around Christmas time.
With the focus shift from upwelling off South America to the temperature anomaly in middle of nowhere, I suspect a case should be made that the early months of a year are no longer special enough to be included in this sort of classification.
Also, given the time lag between the ENSO state and temperature, perhaps they should include a few months before the calendar year too. Oct-Dec was nearly -1, so that would help their case.
OTOH, Bob says La Niñas aren’t cooling events, at least not like El Niños are warming events. So perhaps we should just throw up our hands in exasperation!
knr says:
December 22, 2012 at 2:23 am
….This is not science, and those that wish to counter this need to realise they cannot do so effectively using scientific arguments. You spend all day pointing out the error in the numbers , but the ‘value’ of message is not there in the first place .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it is not science it is propaganda and it is working beautifully.
I kept hoping Mama Gaia will give the lemmings a great big swat and she appears to be doing so. Unfortunately they just changed their shrieking from “Global Warming, Global Warming, Global Warming…” to ‘Climate Change, Climate Change, Climate Change….”
I just had one very nice church lady at a nativity production trying to explain to me how CO2 can make the temperature go down as well as up. It was all I could do to keep from tearing my hair out. She didn’t begin to have the science or logic background needed to actually understand the logical fallacies in the propaganda she is parroting much less to have a rational discussion.
These are the people the NOAA and Hansen are targeting and unfortunately they are the vast majority of people including our politicians. I even read one comment recently in response to the SOD, that it did not matter whether or not CO2 was harmful we still needed to close down coal plants and use Green Energy.
He will be the first to scream WHEN not IF the rolling blackouts become a normal part of life. Smart Meters are now being installed so utility companies can turn off non-commercial and small business power as needed so the big corporations are not inconvenienced by the lack of adequate power. This is already in the works.
Every one points to Green energy in Texas:
Espen says:
December 22, 2012 at 4:25 am
Model predict a La Nada (term for ENSO neutral) for early next year.
http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/currentinfo/SST_table.html
Last time something similar occurred like this year was back in 1978.
1978 .779 .895 .953 .18 -.396 -.563 -.412 -.186 -.386 -.019 .198 .398
The difference though was a El Nino with a failed attempt at an La Nina, with La Nada resuming rest of year.
Last time a La Nina at the beginning of the year or ending of the previous year, had a failed El Nino attempt was way back in 1976.
1976 -1.624 -1.396 -1.253 -1.191 -.481 .342 .613 .66 1.027 .952 .482 .556
Jeff Alberts says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Or maybe a “Hey noni noni no nino”
Apologies to the original Elizabethans
Ob-jec-tive (adj)…uninfluenced by emotion, surmise or personal prejudice…
This is the defination most scientists and public would use as an analysis adjective. However, there is the other defination….’something worked toward or striven for; goal’….
Obviously….NOAA is “goal” orientied and Truth is just an obstacle….
It is easy to find evidence of a cooling trend from the poles since La Nina began to become more dominant in recent years.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10784&linkbox=true&position=2
“More Visual Proof Of Global Cooling Since 2007”
Do La Nina’s result in both warmer AND cooler stuff?
La Nina’s come about because of strong trade winds that peel back warm oceanic top layers to mix with and reveal cooler layers of water. The strength and length of such an event means that various sizes of cooled pools of water will begin to migrate to other areas of the ocean, creating changes in weather systems that eventually make their way to shore. Depending on where these systems come ashore, you could experience cooler conditions than when a warm pool of water off-shore interacts with and creates a weather pattern change that is warmer.
Paradoxically, the same trade wind that peels back warm layers of water, also shoves equatorial clouds out of the way of direct sunlight, allowing the full solar infrared heating lamp to penetrate into those equatorial waters, adding infrared energy to deeper top layers of the ocean. So yes, La Nina’s result in both warmer and cooler “stuff”.
The weak La Nina referred to in the NOAA spin would reasonably result in less extensive cooler pools of water riding around on the ocean currents resulting in weaker, smaller, not as cold, “cold” weather pattern systems coming on shore.
The AGWing innuendo they hoped to impart does not have legs when the actual conditions are closely examined.
From the NOAA:
Oceanic Niño Index (ONI)
• The ONI is based on SST departures from average in the Niño 3.4 region, and is a principal measure for monitoring, assessing, and predicting ENSO.
• Defined as the three-month running-mean SST departures in the Niño 3.4 region. Departures are based on a set of improved homogeneous historical SST analyses (Extended Reconstructed SST – ERSST.v3b). The SST reconstruction methodology is described in Smith et al., 2008, J. Climate, vol. 21, 2283-2296.)
• Used to place current events into a historical perspective
• NOAA’s operational definitions of El Niño and La Niña are keyed to the ONI index.
NOAA Operational Definitions for El Niño and La Niña
El Niño: characterized by a positive ONI greater than or equal to +0.5°C.
La Niña: characterized by a negative ONI less than or equal to -0.5°C.
By historical standards, to be classified as a full-fledged El Niño or La Niña episode, these thresholds must be exceeded for a period of at least 5 consecutive overlapping 3-month seasons.
CPC considers El Niño or La Niña conditions to occur when the monthly Niño3.4 OISST departures meet or exceed +/- 0.5°C along with consistent atmospheric features. These anomalies must also be forecasted to persist for 3 consecutive months.
ONI Data:
2000
-1.7
-1.5
-1.1
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.5
-0.6
-0.8
-0.8
2001
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
2002
-0.2
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.3
1.3
2003
1.1
0.8
0.4
0.0
-0.2
-0.1
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
2004
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
2005
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.2
-0.5
-0.8
2006
-0.9
-0.7
-0.5
-0.3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.0
2007
0.7
0.3
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.6
-0.9
-1.1
-1.2
-1.4
2008
-1.5
-1.5
-1.2
-0.9
-0.7
-0.5
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
-0.2
-0.4
-0.7
2009
-0.9
-0.8
-0.6
-0.2
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.0
1.4
1.6
2010
1.6
1.4
1.1
0.7
0.2
-0.3
-0.8
-1.2
-1.4
-1.5
-1.5
-1.5
2011
-1.4
-1.3
-1.0
-0.7
-0.4
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.0
2012
-0.9
-0.7
-0.5
-0.3
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.6
NOAA has nothing over environment Canada. http://ec.gc.ca//meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=0B8D6A90-1
Klaus Wolter,
“Why do I believe that the MEI is better for monitoring ENSO than the SOI or various SST
indices? In brief, the MEI integrates more information than other indices, it reflects
the nature of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system better than either component, and it is
less vulnerable to occasional data glitches in the monthly update cycles. Now, if you are
interested in ENSO impacts in a very specific part of the world, I would suggest that you
obtain other ENSO indices as well and establish which one best fits your needs.
For instance, in Australia, Darwin sea level pressure and/or the SOI may be more appropriate
than the MEI. My claim here is that the MEI does a better job than other indices for the
overall monitoring of the ENSO phenomenon, including, for instance, world-wide correlations
with surface temperatures and rainfall.”
For March 2012 we have MEI -0.41 and ONI at -0.5 so it seems a tough call. Based on MEI not an La NIna for the start of the year and ONI it is only just. Although the first 3 months do seem not an ideal situation when the rest of the year suddenly changes very quickly.
Reminder below how close the first 3 months were to La NIna threshold with a massive change very quick later during the year.
1997 -.487 -.607 -.253 .493 1.119 2.307 2.756 3.001 3 2.358 2.518 2.32
Illustrates that the first 3 months sometimes have little bearing on the remainder of the year.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1996/to:1998
Thanks to Bob Tisdale Dec 21, 2:10 pm for confirming that according to NOAA’s established definition this will be the warmest La Nina year on record.
Can someone please replace the above scrolling nightmare with:
2000= -1.7, -1.5, -1.1, -0.9, -0.8, -0.7, -0.6, -0.5, -0.5, -0.6, -0.8, -0.8
2001= -0.7, -0.6, -0.5, -0.3, -0.2, -0.1, 0.0, 0.0, -0.1, -0.2, -0.2, -0.3
2002= -0.2, 0.0, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9, 1.2, 1.3, 1.3
2003= 1.1, 0.8, 0.4, 0.0, -0.2, -0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.4, 0.4, 0.4, 0.3
2004= 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.7, 0.7, 0.7 0.7
2005= 0.6, 0.4, 0.3, 0.3, 0.3, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, 0.0, -0.2, -0.5, -0.8
2006= -0.9, -0.7, -0.5, -0.3, 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.8, 1.0, 1.0
2007= 0.7, 0.3, -0.1, -0.2, -0.3, -0.3, -0.3, -0.6, -0.9, -1.1, -1.2, -1.4
2008= -1.5, -1.5, -1.2, -0.9, -0.7, -0.5, -0.3, -0.2, -0.1, -0.2, -0.4, -0.7
2009= -0.9, -0.8, -0.6, -0.2, 0.1, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 1.0, 1.4, 1.6,
2010= 1.6, 1.4, 1.1, 0.7, 0.2, -0.3, -0.8, -1.2, -1.4, -1.5, -1.5, -1.5,
2011= -1.4, -1.3, -1.0, -0.7, -0.4, -0.2, -0.2, -0.3, -0.6, -0.8, -1.0, -1.0
2012= -0.9, -0.7, -0.5, -0.3, -0.1, 0.0, 0.1, 0.3, 0.4, 0.6,
Mac the Knife says:
December 21, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Count your blessing, Y’All !!
Russia is gripped in truly brutal winter conditions….
____________________________
That is why my husband and I moved from NH/MA to NC. I got sick of the -35C (-30F) when Mother Nature decided to flex her muscles.
michael sweet says:
December 22, 2012 at 11:26 am
“Thanks to Bob Tisdale Dec 21, 2:10 pm for confirming that according to NOAA’s established definition this will be the warmest La Nina year on record.”
If your going to use ONI it is still not the warmest on record, 2006 La Nina was warmer so far.
2006 and La NIna sounds weird done it?
Based on first 3 months 2006 was a La NIna year then and 2006 was warmer than 2012 so far. (RSS 2006, 0.23 / 2012, 0.2 (1 to go)
2006 -0.9, -0.7, -0.5, -0.3, 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.8, 1.0, 1.0
2006 v 2012 so far
GISS (0.56 v 0.54)
HADCRUT3 (0.43 v 0.41)
HADCRUT4 (0.49 v 0.45)
UAH (0.19 v 0.16)
All 2012 data doesn’t have December included yet.
michael sweet says:
December 22, 2012 at 11:26 am
“Thanks to Bob Tisdale Dec 21, 2:10 pm for confirming that according to NOAA’s established definition this will be the warmest La Nina year on record.”
Funnily enough, NOAA made a big point in 2010 of stressing
“In 2010 there was a dramatic shift in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which influences global temperature and precipitation patterns — when a moderate-to-strong El Niño transitioned to La Niña conditions by July. At the end of November, La Niña was moderate-to-strong. “<i/I
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html
Funny how they don't seem keen to mention this year's changeover!
Michael Sweet
Or that Jim Hansen told us at the end of 2010
“Even for a near record-breaking year like 2010 the broader context is more important than a single year. “Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña ”
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/
He actually could have said the same about 1998, but did not.
I wonder why?
This whole post is about honesty and transparency from our publically funded scientists. We clearly are not getting it!
michael sweet says:
December 22, 2012 at 11:26 am
Thanks to Bob Tisdale Dec 21, 2:10 pm for confirming that according to NOAA’s established definition this will be the warmest La Nina year on record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And this is a surprise?
I would pay a lot more attention to the cold records being set. That is where the game changer will show since it is warm (not warming)
I think it’s time for a reminder about the nav bar link to Ric Werme’s guide to WUWT where I note how to write HTML that even WordPress can recognize…
G. Karst says:
December 22, 2012 at 11:26 am
Can someone please replace the above columning nightmare with preformatted text? 🙂
michael sweet says: “Thanks to Bob Tisdale Dec 21, 2:10 pm for confirming that according to NOAA’s established definition this will be the warmest La Nina year on record.”
michael, I believe you’re reading too much into my December 21, 2012 at 2:10 pm comment. First, I provided links to how NOAA was defining a La Nina year. And I later noted that it was part of a childish effort. Second, I have no knowledge of NOAA’s December 2012 global temperature anomaly value so I have no way of claiming to know the year-end value. In fact, I didn’t. That’s an assumption you’re making, not me. Third, the key word in your comment is “established”. Many might think a more appropriate word is “contrived”, especially when one considers this would not have been a La Nina year based on the earlier version of ONI:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears_1971-2000_climo.shtml
A March 2012 ONI value of -0.4 would not have been considered La Nina conditions using the period of 1971-2000 as base years, as NOAA had used until earlier this year: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/ersst3b.nino.mth.ascii
So I don’t think “established” is appropriate in this case.
Yup, “contrived” is a much better word.
Bob,
Your link shows clearly that NOAA defined a La Nina year as one where the first three months are in the threshold for La Nina. Since the temperature usually lags the La Nina/Nino switch by about 6 months that seems reasonable. In this thread the opening post attempts to redefine what it means to be a La Nina year. Your link shows the OP is incorrect. Your attempt to spin the established definition is interesting, but does to stand up to close examination. NOAA defined a La Nina year long ago. You cannot change the goalpost set by NOAA years ago.
michael sweet says:
December 22, 2012 at 3:26 pm
The changed version has now created a La Nina in 2006 when there wasn’t one previously. Is it reasonable when the lag between ENSO and global temperatures are about 3 months.
2006 -0.9, -0.7, -0.5, -0.3, 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.8, 1.0, 1.0
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2006/to:2007
The ENSO peak minimum in January 2006 didn’t reach global temperatures until April 2006 and that is 3 months.
Thanks for the instructional reference and the work you put into it. I had forgotten. Your reminder was timely. I will try harder!
Now can you get rid of the multi-page, wheel busting scroll that is in “Information’s” post. GK
G. Karst says:
December 22, 2012 at 4:53 pm
That is beyond my WUWT-fu. If you have a Page Down key, that’s faster than a scroll wheel.
Can someone please tell me what the latest ENSO number is? The reason I ask is that the meter shows 0.0, but the number shows +0.14, while the latest NINO 3.4 SST Anomalies Forecast seems to indicate it is -0.20 now and all forecasts start from there. Thanks!
The MEI gives +0.166 for Oct/Nov.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html