El Niño or La Nada for the 2014/15 ENSO Season

Matthew R Marler says:
February 15, 2014 at 2:54 pm
….Your phrase “very little power” is insufficiently precise. The effect of doubling of CO2 is predicted to be about a 0.7% – 1% increase in the baseline mean temperature of 288K. What you call “little power” might be enough to produce some of that warming.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it WAS PROJECTED and that PROJECTION has failed for the last 17 years.
Heck the IPCC even knew their ‘predictions’ were utter crap a decade ago, which is why they changed from ‘predictions’ to using PROJECTIONs and from Global Warming to Climate Change.
The IPCC actually said in the Science Report in TAR:

…in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible…
IPCC 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

Caleb says: @ur momisugly February 15, 2014 at 3:43 pm
….I have never been able to find the slightest evidence of the cold depths being able to turn on and turn off a sort of nozzle of cold water, but for some reason I can’t keep from searching for signs. To imagine the thermohaline circulation is a semi-stagnant flow, without waves and swirls of its own, just goes against my intuition somehow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is why I have been looking at Drake Passage and the strength of the wind driving the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. If you follow the cold water south along the coast of South America you end up at Drake Passage.
If you look at this Sea Surface Temperature map it has a good image of the tongue of cold water from the Antarctic Circumpolar Current just before Drake Passage, headed up the coast of South America to Galapagos.
The Antarctic Circumpolar Current is also called the West Wind Drift because it is wind driven.

Antarctic Circumpolar Current – Response to recent Climate change
The westerlies, the prevailing winds between 30oS and 60oS, in the Southern Hemisphere have been observed to have intensified significantly over the past decades. (2008)
http://austhrutime.com/antarctic_circumpolar_current_response_climate_change.htm

A possible reason reason for changes in the wind.

The polar wind is mainly varying with solar UV flux, since it controls the ionization rate and photoelectron production in the ionosphere. Therefore the polar wind is sometimes referred to as photothermal outflow (Moore and Horwitz, 2007). The auroral outflows, on the other hand, are enhanced during active times, when the solar wind-ionospheric coupling is strong. Since the solar wind energy input shows larger variability than the solar radiation, the auroral wind is much more variable than the polar wind. Nsumei et al. (2008) have shown that solar illumination controls the plasma density over the polar caps mainly at low altitudes (below 2.5 RE), whereas it is controlled by the geomagnetic activity at higher altitudes (above 4 RE).”
http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:210978/FULLTEXT01

And since someone was asking about differences in salt content:
A salinity map: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycom1-12/navo/globalsssnowcast.gif
New Source Found For Cold, Deep Antarctic Currents
http://www.livescience.com/27390-antarctic-bottom-water-current-found.html

Effect of Drake Passage on the global thermohaline circulation
Abstract
-The Ekman divergence around Antarctica raises a large amount of deep water to the ocean’ surface. The regional Ekman transport moves the up-welled deep water northward out of the circumpolar zone. The divergence and northward surface drift combine, in effect, to remove deep water from the interior of the ocean. This wind-driven removal process is facilitated by a unique dynamic constraint operating in the latitude band containing Drake Passage. Through a simple model sensitivity experiment WC show that the upwelling and removal of deep water in the circumpolar belt may be quantitatively related to the formation of new deep water in the northern North Atlantic. These results show that stronger winds in the south can induct more deep water formation in the north and more deep outflow through the South Atlantic. The fact that winds in the southern hemisphere might influence the formation of deep water in the North Atlantic brings into question long-standing notions about the forces that drive the ocean’ thermohaline s circulation.
http://wind.mit.edu/~jscott/AMOC/toggweiler_samuels_95.pdf

Summer upper-layer Antarctic Circumpolar Current structure and transport in Drake Passage based on ship-born ADCP measurements
It is revealed that the Subantaractic Current mostly consists of two jets. The northern jet is deeper comparing with southern one that generally is narrower and has larger average streamline velocity in the upper 500 m. The Polar current system is also as a rule bimodal. These two jets locate close to each other and often merge. The northern PC jet has a larger velocity amplitude while the southern one strongly varies in vertical direction. It is suggested that the ACC has two regimes – fast and slow switching between that causes predominantly barotropic changes in the upper-layer vertical velocity structure.

…fine, I’ll be the one to address the troll…
James Abbott says:
February 15, 2014 at 4:47 pm
“Arctic sea ice area now record low for date and ice extent outside 2 SDs.”
What the IPCC says: “Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as those in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1930s.” (AR5 Chapter 10)
You seem to be using a naturally recurring cycle as evidence of your supposed man-caused catastrophe.
Beyond that, we pretty much have no idea what the Ice Levels were doing at the time, we did not have the ability to monitor them. (and all your “lowest levels recorded” stuff dates back to the late 70s, at their “highest recorded levels”) We do have this though
“It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr between 1901 and 2010, 2.0 [1.7 to 2.3] mm yr between 1971 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr between 1993 and 2010. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.” (AR5 SPM)
the IPCC seems to feel comfortable in saying the same exact events seen today were seen at the same levels circa 1930, when Nature was 100% in control. Now they claim Man is 100% in control though, and clearly the same exact results being repeated are proof positive Nature has no control this time around…
“NASA GISS January 2014 +0.72 cf 1951-1980 and thats after a warm December and a record warm November.”
And we are still not back to MWP temperatures basically anywhere on the globe
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
So much for “Catastrophic” Warming – this warming hasn’t even gotten us back to a more normal level for the past 10,000 years.
So no sign of the much wished for global cooling there – and solar activity has picked up so no hoped for solar induced Little Ice Age either on the horizon.”
No one is wishing for Global Cooling, In fact, Global Cooling is much, much, much more of a threat to mankind then Warming ever is, was or will be. Warming (and Co2) is good for everything involved!!! Look at the chaos caused by a slight cooling in the 1970s – Governments everywhere were panicking at the failed crop productions and seemingly endless deaths at the hands of cold air and weather events.
To your first line though, remember the same can be said in reverse – absolutely no sign of the Alarmists much wished for (and hilariously mis-predicted) Global Warming anywhere to be found. And that is a much bigger issue. See, your side was already off on their predictions by about 0.4-0.5 Degrees to date; meaning roughly 40% of all of their Man Made Global Warming is missing at this point in time, most of that taking place prior to the PDO flip. Now they are looking at roughly 30 years of La Nina conditions on top of that pitiful failure, and little chance their credibility survives. (hence, it is no longer about “warming” at all anymore; now it is absolutely any and every weather event that takes place that is somehow the cause of CO2. And that is regardless if they predicted the exact opposite merely a few years prior.)

Pippen Kool says: @ur momisugly February 15, 2014 at 4:29 pm
…A more plausible way to look at it is that during La Niña the delta T from air to water is high, and more energy than normal ends up going into the water, warming the water in the Pacific and then that warmer water wanders into the Indian Ocean and elsewhere. During El Niño conditions, the delta is small and less energy ends up going into the water and ends up remaining in the air.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it is not at all plausible. You have it backwards. The ocean warm the air.
For dry air the Specific Heat capacity
@ur momisugly 20°C it is 1.005 kJ/kg.K
Thermal conductivity is 0.0257 W/m.K (Air is an insulator)
……
Specific heat water = 4.187 kJ/kgK
@ur momisugly 20°C Thermal Conductivity is 0.598 W/m.K (Water is a good conductor)
Anyone who has been outside in cold weather and gotten sopping wet will tell you this through chattering teeth. First lesson in outdoorsmanship: Wool retains 80% of its insulating value while down turns into a wet, cold soggy mess.
This is what warms the oceans

RichardLH says:
February 15, 2014 at 6:04 pm
….This is one of the ‘out of sight – out of mind’ areas of the planet that moves vast amounts of energy from hot to cold, is subject to long and short term variations, and is almost never discussed except to say that the surface tides are small and therefore tides cannot possibly drive the climate….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Only by people who have never been caught in an under tow.
You might be interested in this article, speaking of ‘out of sight – out of mind’ ‘Lunar lunacy’ areas

…The person most responsible for formal experimentation in this area is Maria Thun, whose research on her farm in Darmstadt, Germany, has been financially supported by a group of biodynamic farmers.
In 1952, Thun developed a method of sowing a fixed number of crop rows over a sidereal month. The term sidereal refers to the position of the moon in relationship to the stars or constellations in the sky behind it. In other words, Maria Thun sowed according to varying phases of the lunar cycle. Once the crop came to maturity, it was weighed and studied, and the results were recorded. Thun’s findings were accumulated over a ten-year period from 1952 to 1962. The crop Thun chose to study initially was potatoes; subsequently she studied not only other root crops but also leaf crops, fruit-bearers and flowers….
The results of Thun’s studies fascinated another experimenter in Germany. Graf repeated her method from 1973 to 1975, this time using many different types of soils, and planting radishes as well as potatoes. Graf discovered that sowing on root days affected positively the growth and production of crops…..
In 1976, Kollerstrom and Muntz, Sussex market gardeners, repeated the experiments of Graf and Thun and gained a 45% increase in yield for crops sown on root days. Conducted over a period of two months, their study did not show that the phase of the moon, waxing or waning, made as much difference as the moon’s placement in the sky at the time of sowing.
The effect of the phases of the moon on seed germination and growth was first studied by L. Kolisko in 1930. Using wheat, Kolisko found that seeds germinated faster and more prolifically when sown at the full moon. The new moon gave him the most unsuccessful results. Later experiments on cress confirmed Kolisko’s findings. Recent studies at Northwestern University, conducted by Professor F. Brown, have shown that, even under equal temperatures, seedlings absorb more water at the full moon than at the new moon. The findings lend credibility to adages that recommend harvesting at full moon. It seems plants have less water content at the new moon phase. Professor Brown went so far as to test plants in a darkened laboratory where they would have no direct access to effects of sun or moon. The plants still responded to the moon phases.
Other experiments have been conducted at Wichita State University and at Tulane University. All have achieved the same results. Experimentation indicates that seeds sown just before or around the full moon have a higher rate and speed of germination than those sown at the new moon because seeds are able to absorb more water at the full moon….
http://www.420magazine.com/forums/cultivation-scientific-data/167178-moon-phases-power-holds-planting.html

Interesting that a couple Universities did validation studies.
Here is one of the studies: Lunar correlated variations in water uptake and germination in 3 species of seeds
More on various studies here

It’s interesting that the people who are attempting to scare everyone about the dire consequences of a warmer earth are the very same ones who want it to happen. That makes me wonder … maybe they’re all on some other planet?

RichardLH says: @ur momisugly February 15, 2014 at 6:20 pm
We know they have cooled the past and warmed the present to get rid of the high temperatures in the 1930-1940s.

From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: 1940s
Date Sun, 27 Srp 2009
Cc: Ben Santer
Phil,
….So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.
I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip… When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistant with this so you can see where I am Coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “Why the blip”.
link

NOAA’s adjustments to USA January temperatures are about 2-3 (degrees F) This is why my high temperature just below freezing became a temperature above freezing and therefore the snow had to be ‘Dissappeared’
GRAPH of adjustments from Steve Goddard which agree with my observation that local temperatures (rural) are adjusted up 2-4F 24 hours later.

@ur momisugly Caleb
“Thanks, fellows. Light bulbs are going off in my head.”
Your brain is shutting down?