El Niño and La Niña events are the dominant modes of natural climate variability on Earth, which is why the state of the tropical Pacific is continuously monitored. El Niños and La Niñas impact weather patterns globally. As a number of recent papers have argued, the dominance of La Niña events in recent years is responsible for part of the cessation in global surface warming outside of the Arctic, so by inference, those papers are also stating that a string of strong El Niño events were responsible for part of the long-term warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century. There’s nothing new about that; for years we’ve been discussing the naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled processes that drive El Niño events and cause long-term warming of global surface temperatures. If this subject is new to you, see the link at the end of this post for an overview.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) provides the following summary of their ENSO forecasts in their January 30, 2014 El Niño/La Niña Update:
- ENSO conditions are currently neutral (neither El Niño nor La Niña);
- As of mid-January 2014, except for a small possibility for weak and brief La Niña development during the next couple of months, outlooks indicate likely continuation of neutral conditions into the second quarter of 2014;
- Current forecasts indicate approximately equal chances for neutral conditions or the development of a weak El Niño during the third quarter of 2014, reflecting increased chances for development of a weak El Niño.
It appears no one is suggesting that a full-fledged La Niña will form for the 2014/15 season. As of the week centered on February 5th, the sea surface temperature anomalies of the NINO3.4 region of the equatorial Pacific indicated that the tropical Pacific was experiencing La Niña conditions, though not an “official” La Niña. See the monthly sea surface temperature update for January 2014.
What’s your prediction? Please provide links to the variables you monitor. Here’s what I predict.
I predict, if we see El Niño conditions, global warming enthusiasts will cheer, because they have forecast, in turn, that record high global temperatures will accompany the next El Niño. And I predict, if we see La Niña or ENSO-neutral conditions, skeptics will cheer, because global surface temperatures should continue to remain flat. (Other than that, I don’t make predictions.)
The ENSO wrap-up from Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) for February 14, 2014 provides a similar loose forecast. (For those who live north of the equator, keep in mind the BOM is discussing austral seasons.)
And NOAA’s CPC has a similar mix of possible scenarios in their Weekly ENSO Update dated February 10, 2014—though the NCEP’s models are forecasting El Niño conditions starting in April-June 2014. See page 27.
The WMO briefly mentions the problems with ENSO predictions during this part of the year. They write:
It must be noted that model outlooks that span March-May period tend to have particularly lower skill than those made at other times of year. Hence some caution should be exercised when using long range outlooks made at this time for the middle of the year and beyond.
ENSO predictions at this time of year are hampered by a problem called the Spring Prediction Barrier. See the discussion at the IRI website here. But a series of new papers claim to have overcome that hurdle.
The recently published Ludescher et al (2014) Very Early Warning of Next El Niño (paywalled) are predicting El Niño conditions by late 2014. The abstract reads:
The most important driver of climate variability is the El Niño Southern Oscillation, which can trigger disasters in various parts of the globe. Despite its importance, conventional forecasting is still limited to 6 mo ahead. Recently, we developed an approach based on network analysis, which allows projection of an El Niño event about 1 y ahead. Here we show that our method correctly predicted the absence of El Niño events in 2012 and 2013 and now announce that our approach indicated (in September 2013 already) the return of El Niño in late 2014 with a 3-in-4 likelihood. We also discuss the relevance of the next El Niño to the question of global warming and the present hiatus in the global mean surface temperature.
Global warming enthusiasts have already started cheering for an El Niño. See the Michael Slezak article in NewScientist titled El Niño may make 2014 the hottest year on record. And Andrew Freedman of ClimateCentral begins his post Study Sounds ‘El Niño Alarm’ For Late This Year:
A new study shows that there is at least a 76 percent likelihood that an El Niño event will occur later this year, potentially reshaping global weather patterns for a year or more and raising the odds that 2015 will set a record for the warmest year since instrument records began in the late 19th century.
Ludescher et al (2014) appears to be based on Ludescher et al (2013) Improved El Niño forecasting by cooperativity detection (paywalled). We discussed the earlier Ludescher et al paper in the July 2013 post El Niño in the News. I closed that post with:
DID GLOBAL WARMING CAUSE THE EL NIÑOS OR DID EL NIÑOS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING?
Numerous datasets indicate that El Niño events are fueled naturally. Additionally, satellite-era sea surface temperature records indicate that El Niño events are responsible for the warming of sea surface temperatures over the past 31 years, not vice versa as Li et al (2013) have suggested. If this topic is new to you, refer to my illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” [42MB].
Matthew R Marler says: @ur momisugly February 16, 2014 at 3:15 am
I suggest you read: THIS.
“Other than that, I don’t make predictions.”
All I’ve been watching is WUWT’s ENSO Meter, therefore I see no reason whatever to expect El Nino.
Matthew R Marler says:
February 16, 2014 at 3:15 am
“We do not have detailed information on the natural variability absent that increased CO2; we have a perfectly reasonable, yet incomplete and inaccurate, prima facie case that increased CO2 should lead to increased heat accumulation somewhere in the system.”
We also have millions and millions of years of data that show CO2 rises after, not before, temperatures Warm. It has always been late to the party, getting there as the Heat starts to recede. If CO2 caused temperatures to rise once it was released, then temperatures would have never gone down; they would be forever rising throughout history. (that is, temp rise would release CO2 would produce temp rise would release more CO2… and on and on. And remember too, CO2 levels on the planet have been as high as 7,500ppm before.)
“Was the increase in global mean temp from about 1975 to about 1995 greater than it would have been without CO2? I doubt it, but why would anyone claim certainty one way or another?”
We could just compare two periods that are well documented
http://oi57.tinypic.com/av1rev.jpg
One of those two warming periods happened when CO2 levels were at what the IPCC calls the ideal baseline (280-300ppm) and one of them was done with CO2 levels over 340PPM (their danger zone). Can you tell the difference between the two?
“did the Warming from ’75 to ’95 contribute to the unusually large el Nino of 1997-1998? … I think that the bulk of the evidence and dynamical modeling theory and experience that I have referred to above gives the answer “maybe”.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soi.svg
So the two large El Ninos of 82/83 & 87/98 were caused by CO2, but the other equal to even larger El Nino events were just natural?
Plus (like with CO2) temperatures rise after El Ninos, not the other way around. You can even see this
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1934/to:1982/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982/to:1998/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1934/to:1982/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998
…so when the strong El Nino period started, temperatures we no larger then they had been back in the pre-‘dangerous levels of CO2’ age. Temperatures only rose during the large El Nino period, then flattened out again.
Besides, I’ll pay you money if you can show that correlation here
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/PDO1000yr.svg/800px-PDO1000yr.svg.png
The pre-starting point for that graph is the WMP, the middle section is the period we call the LIA, and the end point is the modern warming period where temperatures have yet to get back to where they were during that MWP.
The problem I have with the warmer water and air=more clouds=more reflectance negative feedback is scale. While this negative feedback must work at some level, cloud reflectance is only about 25% of the energy budget.
Clouds are water. People don’t seem to have their arms around the scale of the energy flux between the ocean and water in the atmosphere. It equals 100% of the budget. So we have 100% coming in as TSI, 100% going out (assuming equilibrium), and 100% cycling in the photon food fight between the surface and the atmosphere.
If you increase clouds 10%, you will increase reflectance by 2.5%, but you will amplify the food fight 10%. Increasing clouds should have the net effect of warming the lower atmosphere.
Gymnosperm, reduce the area of concern to the equatorial belt and then recalculate.
I am so happy that there has not recently been an el Nino or an impending el Nino in the next few months. My wife and I are scheduled on a Galapagos cruise in May. El Nino events are very hard on the ocean dependent life in the Galapagos. El Nino events in the Galapagos spell famine for fish, seals, birds, and sea iguanas. That would be a depressing sight.
I expect our trip will be a beautiful adventure with la Nina or neutral conditions.
An El Niño following a lesser amount of recharge simply means that oceans will continue to lose heat over time. We may be seeing the beginning of a series of descending steps in land temps.
gymnosperm: Increasing clouds should have the net effect of warming the lower atmosphere.
It depends on the timing and location of the increased cloud cover. Increased daytime cloudiness in the summer tropics probably produces net cooling; increased night time cloudiness in the winter temperate zones probably produces net warming. What the effects of increased atmospheric CO2 would be can’t be calculated on present knowledge.
Regular readers will know of Willis Eschenbach’s “thermostat hypothesis” according to which the Earth probably can not warm overall much more (e.g. probably less than 1 K in the mean, and perhaps within +/- 0.1 of 0) no matter how much extra C02 there is (I don’t think he has committed himself to a numeric estimate, but I think these figures are fair interpretations of his hypothesis.) I think that there is a good chance he is correct, though I prefer “self organizing system” or “intrinsic dynamics” to “thermostat”. What mystifies me is the certainty of some people. .
Pamela Gray says:
February 16, 2014 at 12:41 pm
“An El Niño following a lesser amount of recharge simply means that oceans will continue to lose heat over time. We may be seeing the beginning of a series of descending steps in land temps.”
Walking down the steps we walked up previously. Now where did I see a post claiming that before?
If we are entering a cooling phase even an El Nino might not cause a change in the pause.
The odds on an event fall into 2 patterns.
Go with the trend in which case a La Nina is odds on.
Or reversion to mean meaning its pulled away on the underside so now it will have to go back to neutral so odds on to be heading in an El Nino direction.
On the stock market number 1 is the fancy [La Nina].
On the sock market number 2
Matthew and Pamela,
Yes, but reflectance starts the game with a 1/4 disadvantage. Most of the food fight is in the tropics because that is where most of the insolation falls. Nearly half of TSI is IR. The energy curve of this is skewed heavily to the near IR which is the spectral province of H2O.
Clouds reflect in the visible range (we perceive them as white). UV gets scattered a bit but essentially passes through.
Well aware of Willis’ thermoregulatory theory. Paleoclimatologists have known this since the seventies. There seems an upper limit AND a lower limit in the tropics.
Certainty only exists in religion. Scientists can only plug along, minds wide open.
I don’t care what short or longwave IR does to air temps or food fights or land temps on its way to equatorial oceans. What I think is important is the amount of SWIR that recharges equatorial oceans at depth. Under La Nada and Neutral conditions, as well as El Nado and El Nino conditions, we are not getting the full amount of equatorial ocean heating we would normally get because more clouds are present than under full blown La Nina conditions. Meanwhile the oceans are spreading previous SWIR heating all over the globe which then layers up to the surface where it gets belched up onto land surfaces where it dissipates and gets lost to space. If recharge is getting less and less, we will experience those global temperature steps but in a downward fashion. If recharge gets going at full strength again (and soon) with strong La Nina’s, we could indeed find ourselves in another step up.
I just don’t see that happening. The conditions necessary for another strong La Nina just isn’t there. And it is only that condition that could result in continued increasing steps of warming of global land temperatures.
Bill Illis on February 16, 2014 at 5:19 am
The Weekly GODAS data was updated to Feb 12 overnight.Now we are seeing movement towards an El Nino with the warm undercurrent moving farther east, cold water is infiltrating down at 120E to 130E, surface currents have slowed considerably or started moving east in the central Pacific and there is large weakening of the Trade Winds in the central Pacific.
The normal time for an el Nino peak is Dec-Jan due to the annual phase-locking of ENSO. Thus it may now be too late for an al Nino to take hold. However the el-Nino like east Pacific surface warming and weakening of the trades might serve, conversely, to “prime the pump” for an upwelling driven La Nina.
Tisdale says: “And the temperature difference between the marine air and sea surface temperatures (SST MINUS MAT) DECREASES (not increases) during La Niñas, Pippen Kool”
Sorry not to get back to you BT, life and work intervenes. So yes yes, the AVE temps are below sea surface temp. But your nice graph makes my point: during La Niña conditions the average temp relative to the SST is higher than during El Niño conditions. Yes in both cases it is lower, but that is an average and an average has a S.D. So that means that during La Niña conditions the air temp is higher than the SST for more time than in El Niño conditions. Hence, more energy is sucked from the surface in El Niño conditions than in La Niña conditions. Or the the converse, which means that during La Niña conditions the ocean is gaining more energy. Simple logic.
BTW, why did you stop your graph at 2012? When I checked your graphs (using only the eastern pacific) there was this one weird spike in the temperature difference data (between SST and airT) that continues from 2012 to this day, that is outside the range of the entire dataset….except for the spike during the volcanic eruptions of the early 90s.
Sort of weird.
A la nina and it’s already started. First it was all the pacific typhoons, caused by the winds. Then we got the la nina ocean conditions. Now the temperatures for February have dropped 0.5 degrees from January. Yes, I say we get a few more months of la nina conditions. I think there will, finally, be an el nino, but not until next year or so.
I did not mean to comment on this post, but …
Firstly: IRI predictions (http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/currentinfo/technical.html) forecasting to October 2014, the highest probability of normal conditions. By the end of 2014 predicted is similar probability of La Nina and El Nino.
Secondly: solar activity – ENSO. For me the best is here this paper: Influences of the 11-year solar cycle on the tropical atmosphere and oceans, Misios (2012, http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/publikationen/Reports/WEB_BzE_113.pdf). Let me quote a few conclusions from this work: “Many studies indicated an El Niño – like warming, whereas other studies isolated a La Niña – like cooling during solar maxima.” “If solar maxima favor, statistically, La Niña episodes, then El Niño – like warming should be detected in solar minima. Yet, observations do not support this transition.”
Certainly therefore for half of this year, maybe mid-July, we will have conditions similar to La Nina.
We see it well in this figure (http://static.wixstatic.com/media/857cde_d98bf69778e24c65a7a20ff74b77b617.png_srz_p_600_460_75_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_png_srz).
Subsequently we will have a strong El Nino? Probably not.
“I identify a clear relationship between solar signals in temperature and the correlation between the solar cycle and ENSO predictors. Negative correlation is associated with higher temperature solar responses and vice versa. Although the bias induced by the solar cycle – ENSO collinearity is found weak in the coupled simulations, it could adversely affect any single short realization of the model and so it could in the observed record. In other words, the observed record is too short for unambiguous identification of solar signals in the tropical lower stratosphere with multiple linear regression models.”(ibidem)
… unfortunately …
If an El Nino does occur and global average temperatures do not shoot up to match climate model projections then it will be real fun to watch the spin needed to explain that one away.
Robert, I don’t think there has been enough SWIR recharge to then layer up in the calm seas of an El Nino to do much in terms of raising land temperatures. We need solar re-charging of the oceans in order to stay out of cold decades. So in reality, what we need is a strong and long La Nina in order to raise temperatures. The warmers should be cheering that event, not an El Nino event.
I have been searching for cloud data for such a long time. A frustrating venture into access to and limits of data files if there ever was one. Inter-tropical Convergence Zone cloud data is extremely difficult to get. Why?
1. Downloadable cloud fraction Excel files don’t have their columns labeled so I don’t know which set of columns to use to study just the inter-tropical areas.
2. The data sets are SHORT (for example, cloud fraction only goes back to 2002 at the most)! To make them longer there are current efforts afoot to correlate current ship observations (they have used the same format for eons) with current satellite data and have found bias (like DUH!). Meaning that eyeballing clouds is like Mann eyeballing tree rings.
3. Satellites still cannot differentiate very well between cloud depth versus cloud height. Meaning that cirrus clouds may be given equal weighting to thunder heads simply because they are at the same height. But these two cloud types make a HUGE difference in SWIR energy calculations at sea level.
4. When I tried to download the cloud data sets used by research groups putting together cloud data for models, the data file page has “disappeared”.
How in the heck do they hope to model cloud data into climate models when the raw data is so fraught with limits and inconsistencies???? And more important, how can armchair researchers like me hope to make the ivory tower folks toe the line?
Pippen Kool says:
February 16, 2014 at 10:16 pm
“…during La Niña conditions the average temp relative to the SST is higher than during El Niño conditions. Yes in both cases it is lower, but that is an average and an average has a S.D. So that means that during La Niña conditions the air temp is higher than the SST for more time than in El Niño conditions.”
Not true, the observed scientific evidence is shown using buoys in the tropical ocean.
“Results indicate that all terms in the temperature balance contributed to SST variations during different stages of the 1997–98 El Niño and the 1998–99 La Niña.”
http://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=08948755&AN=5856192&h=RJPbvV5xgkULfk2WD4aTbycb5JkaKyfT3puhpQuqcY52jcRbo4XPtsXZfkgu5aBtt0wrCBuy3V8ah0Bykn4xrQ%3d%3d&crl=c
The near surface air temperatures immediately cools down soon as during La NIna conditions form. The near surface air temperatures also immediately warm soon as during El NIno conditions form. Scientific evidence using observed measurements show in the tropics the atmosphere responds to SSTs, not the other way round.
Pamela Gray says:
February 17, 2014 at 9:51 am
“So in reality, what we need is a strong and long La Nina in order to raise temperatures. The warmers should be cheering that event, not an El Nino event.”
While it is true this favors solar energy build up in the tropics due to increased convection. If during this moment less solar energy reaches the ocean surface, then the same length La Nina will raise temperatures less with a future El Nino. This is how ENSO causes a step down in global temperatures. So far we have only seen a step up in global temperatures due to ENSO over the satellite era. That was caused by further declining cloud levels during La NIna events and a reverse will appear to cool global temperatures. Even during El Nino events less cloud cover will slow the loss of cumulative energy to the atmosphere.
I’m praying for El Nino (but not predicting an outcome). Let there be a 1978 redux!
Matt, I am only referring to absorbed energy at depth and then allowed to circulate through the global oceanic current system to later belch up this stored heat onto land. A nice long La Nina that is both long and strong will allow quite a bit more heat to be stored than under sputtering short weak La Nina’s/La Nada’s.
Matt I believe you and I are in agreement. I may have stated mine less clearly.