Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
Back in April of this year NOAA added the 2014/15 El Niño to their Oceanic NINO Index (a.k.a. ONI). See the former version of ONI here. Last week, with NOAA’s switch to their new Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature dataset version 4 (ERSST.v4), the 2014/15 El Niño has now disappeared from their list of “official” El Niño and La Niña events. See the present (ERSST.v4) version of ONI here.
But the 2014/15 El Niño isn’t the only ENSO event to have disappeared from ONI with the change to the new ERSST.v4 dataset. The 2005/06 La Niña also dropped off ONI, and so did the 1983/84 La Niña. On the other hand, the 1967/68 La Niña and the 1979/80 El Niño became official ENSO events with the new ERSST.v4 data, where they weren’t qualified with the ERSST.v3b data.
The weaker, short-term El Niño and La Niña events (based on NINO3.4 region surface temperatures) appear and disappear from the NOAA Oceanic NINO Index with each revision and with changes in how anomalies are calculated for ONI. Tables 1 and 2 include the 5 versions of NOAA’s Oceanic NINO Index that have existed over the past decade or so. (Click on them for larger versions.) The ERSST.v3b data with the base years of 1971-2000 for anomalies are included on both tables. The older versions of the Oceanic NINO Index are available through the Wayback Machine archives.
Table 1
# # #
Table 2
On Table 2, you’ll note that there are two Ocean NINO Indices using the ERSST.v3b data. The left-hand ONI uses the base years of 1971-2000 for sea surface temperature anomalies, while the middle (and right-hand, ERSST.v4-based) ONI uses multiple climatologies that shift every 5 years. Yes, that means the anomalies are not referenced to a common base period.
NOAA discusses the reasoning behind this in their Description of Changes to Oceanic NINO Index (ONI) webpage, which was revised for the new ERSST.v4 data. The first two paragraphs there read (my boldface):
Due to a significant warming trend in the Niño-3.4 region since 1950, El Niño and La Niña episodes that are defined by a single fixed 30-year base period (e.g. 1971-2000) are increasingly incorporating longer-term trends that do not reflect interannual ENSO variability. In order to remove this warming trend, CPC is adopting a new strategy to update the base period.
There will be multiple centered 30-year base periods that will be used to define the Oceanic Niño index (as a departure from average or “anomaly”). These 30-year base periods will be used to calculate the anomalies for successive 5-year periods in the historical record…
We discussed the flaw in their assumption that there had been a “significant warming trend in the Niño-3.4 region since 1950” in the June 2012 post Comments on NOAA’s Recent Changes to the Oceanic NINO Index (ONI). In the real world, the “significant warming trend in the Niño-3.4 region since 1950” was a response to the 1976/77 Pacific Climate Shift, not some anthropogenic warming signal. So NOAA deleted the effect of the 1976/77 Pacific shift with the change in how they calculate anomalies for ONI.
CLOSING
The Oceanic NINO Index has been referenced in numerous climate studies. How and if these multiple revisions have impacted those studies is for the authors to determine. Sometimes, even after June 2012 when NOAA revised their method for calculating ONI, authors relied on the older version of the Oceanic NINO Index with the fixed base years of 1971-2000…like Trenberth et al. (2014) Earth’s Energy Imbalance. In other words, even the climate science community appears not to have bought into using multiple base periods for an ENSO index.
And just in case you’re wondering, the 2014/15 El Niño would appear on ONI if NOAA had continued to use 1971-2000 for the base years with the new ERSST.v4 data. Then again, NOAA has switched to the base years of 1981-2010 for many indices, so the 2014/15 El Niño would not exist in ONI with those base years using the new ERSST.v4 data.
The NOAA Oceanic NINO Index is used by some persons when they attempt to make claims about the causes of record-warm surface temperatures. So expect there to be some alarmist nonsense about the absence of an El Niño in the 2014/15 season from the standard sources, including NOAA.
We discussed the reasons for the reported record warm global sea surfaces in the post Did ENSO and the “Monster” Kelvin Wave Contribute to the Record High Global Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014? And as I’ll show in an upcoming post, the 2014/15 El Niño was stronger than most El Niño events during the satellite era if we look at the tropical Pacific as a whole.
An ERSSTwhile La Nina?
evanm
Definitions, definitions.
Was it not the great climatographer Humpty Dumpty who said –
“A word means what I want it to mean – no more and no less!”
Or am I mixing metaphors?
Auto – in awe of some of the early climatologists and climatographers , like Humpty Dumpty!
Nothing like a data fiddle alteration to gather warming where none exists, or remove warming which could be significant. The Vatican could do well to study BT
Thanks Bob.
If you were given the power to change the past, wouldn’t you make use of it?
Oh global warming
What are we gonna do
The suns so hot
The Thames did freeze
Damn that co2
The suns so hot
The Thames did freeze
The earth is frying to
The poles are a melting
Except that one down south
It got so hot
I froze to death
Looks like we’re really screwed
Oh global warming
What are we gonna do
The suns so hot
The Thames did freeze
Damn that co2
Maybe we should
Pay a tax
And defeat that CO2
Or even pay a sunshine fee
And one on smelly poo
Oh global warming
what are we gonna do
The suns so hot
the Thames did freeze
Damn that co2
It cannot stand. The foundation shifts.
===========
All of these “revisions” of data just confirm what any intelligent person has known all along that the effect of CO2 (man-made or otherwise) has a negligible effect on climate and spending £/$trillions on mitigating AGW is a total waste of money.
Exactly my sentiments. Thank you.
Your name is misspelled. There are two “n” in Mann
Unless you can get a grant to study it, a subsidy to “prevent” it or you can buy votes through pork spending.
Today a court decision in the Netherland ruled in favor of the greenies versus the government, to reduce the CO2 emission the court ruled a 25 % reduction to be achieved in 2020. I assume the government will file an appeal because this is almost impossible to realise because of the costs. It really becomes scary and their behaviour looks if they are on a crusade.
Not a chance. It’s the old get sued and give in. The Danish government will now claim everything they wanted to do, but couldn’t justify to the general public is to comply with a legal court order. The US EPA has been playing this game for years.
Perhaps the Dutch government could take a page out of NOAA’s playbook and simply alter the country’s CO2 emission record. A few tweaks here, fiddle with a few numbers there, and voila! They miraculously achieve a 25% reduction in CO2 emissions without doing a thing…
Haha! This is hilarious! The knock on effect of data fiddling.
Going to give the guys in the “Ministry of Truth” some extra work patching the follow-up “memory holes”
The concept was first popularized by George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, where the Party’s Ministry of Truth systematically re-created all potential historical documents, in effect, re-writing all of history to match the often-changing state propaganda. These changes were complete and undetectable. wiki 1984 & memory holes
Reality by fiat. Just make it on the fly. What’s the point anymore…civilization can’t last as long as reality is baseless…
In our modern age, a con man can’t just move to a different town and run the same old game. He has to switch up the game itself on a regular basis (Nigerian Prince to Fake Roof Repair to Sheriff’s Deputy With A Warrant to…). Same thing in the Climate Con.
Thanks, Bob.
I’m thinking; What will NOAA say when the temperatures drop after the 2014/15 El Niño ends?
Exactly. 2017-2018 will be very interesting.
I suspect that 20th century temperatures will again be adjusted downward to show continued warming.
Correct, Alan McIntire.
While temperatures are doing not much, yesterday’s temps can be adjusted down relative to today almost indefinitely to produce new “record” temperatures. The uncertainties, generally reviled at the IPCC, become mathematically useful when there is either something to hide or something to invent.
And the great thing about El Niños and other indices is that you have more options than adjusting the data: You can adjust the definition.
Is the Dow Jones a better index of the American economy than NASDAQ or other indices? Who knows.
But you do know that a charlatan who wants your money may rapidly switch between them as it suits him, in an attempt to convince you of his superior investment knowledge.
I am reminded of the possibly apocryphal quote often attributed to the economist Keynes
The NOAA keeps the conclusions the same and changes the information.
I think we here underestimate the enormity of their assignment. To continually show a warming Earth takes great skill and tremendous dedication.
And an increasingly large amount of fiddling.
… with all the diligence of the Tobacco Institute
“And an increasingly large amount of fiddling.”
Agreed, but if your assignment is to show warming, what other methods are there?
Fiddling while Rome burns.
=======
Very nice, Ian, thank you.
Will the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) change too?
http://www.oarval.org/ts4Jun2015OptAV.png
From http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Notice the up and down slope in the red, with sudden injections of blue. When the ocean top is warm we are losing heat from the oceans but the atmosphere warms up. When the ocean top is cold, we are gaining heat in the oceans but the atmosphere is cold. What went up (with lots of opportunities to recharge) is now going down as the heat is emptying out of the oceans. The first half was characterized by adding heat to the ocean depths. The second half is characterized by disgorging that heat. This second half decreasing discharge of ocean heat (indicated by red) beginning after the peak that occurred prior to 1985, makes sense when you look at the few opportunities Earth’s intrinsic regimes have given the Sun to suddenly recharge the oceans (indicated by blue).
Here is my take:
1. We are running out of heat to disgorge during El Nino conditions. As well, what little shape we see in that graph is sinusoidal leading me to consider this (understanding I can see only one possibly complete cycle) to be a natural weather pattern variation cycle of at least 60 years. If this repeats, I would describe it as slow ups and then downs in a warm regime punctuated by sudden and precipitous falls into extreme cold snaps lasting for 2 to 5 years. I can imagine the medieval warm period looking like this, meaning that this sinusoidal may be part of an even longer warm regime.
2. If that is the case, changing the base years will make it more difficult to see long-term cycles such as this one in the MEI.
3. Given the thermodynamic properties of ocean discharge of stored heat (that does not turn on a dime) and ocean clear-sky recharging (which does turn on a dime), the physics would lead me to consider we are about to repeat the MEI pattern you see in the chart beginning in 1950.
Well…if I may, along the tropical sections of the ocean, when the sun is up, the oceans are *always* gaining heat and when the sun goes down, they are *always* loosing heat…modulated by any local cloud cover, of course…especially at night.
The larger modulator of surface water temps, especially in the eastern side of the oceans (Atlantic as well as Pacific) where the surface heat is shallow, are the trade winds. When they blow normal-to-strong E/W, surface water is pushed along to the west & colder water wells up from below which overcomes any SW solar radiation which tries to warm it (La Nina). However, when the trades weaken, stop or even, reverse, the surface currents weaken or stop which stops the cold upwelling which allows the solar SW energy to raise the water temperatures (El Nino). When the trades return back toward normal, the water temps respond.
The point is, in the tropics, the SW energy from the sun is nearly a constant every day – El Nino or La Nina. The winds dictate how the water temps respond.
You make a common mistake. Whether the surface is a cooler mixed layer or a warmer unmixed layer, the Sun’s output will penetrate. The difference is that during El Nino, clouds along the El Nino area reflect quite a bit of solar radiance away. Under La Nina conditions the skies are generally clear except along the western equatorial Pacific. The following link has a graphic demonstrating the extent of rain producing clouds (which would also be highly reflective of incoming solar insolation) during El Nino which are entirely gone during La Nina.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/enso.description.html
Andres Valencia says: “Will the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) change too?”
I believe the MEI relies on the ICOADS data, not NOAA’s ERSST.
My take on this
is sort of, I think what happens is more warm water vapor is transported poleward, much at least in the north over land, this shows up in surface temperatures, but they also show that over night there’s more cooling than the day before.
I found that this difference in day warming to nightly cooling (Day to day min temp difference) when inverted
Is a pretty good match to RSS even though RSS includes oceans as well as surface temps
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2015_v6.png
What this says to me is that RSS is detecting the rate of cooling as it travels through the troposphere.
should really be:
but they also show that over night there’s more cooling than warming the day before.
Thanks for that info Bob. I hope they all consider a longer “climate” base.
This is not the only time they have played around with the EL Nino. If you remember they made this statement when claiming that 2014 annual temperature was the highest ever .
“This is the first time since 1990 the high temperature record was broken in the absence of El Niño conditions at any time during the year in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean, as indicated by NOAA’s CPC Oceanic Niño Index. This phenomenon generally tends to increase global temperatures around the globe, yet conditions remained neutral in this region during the entire year and the globe reached record warmth despite this.”
This statement was completely false as an El Nino started in October of 2014 and has now lasted for 7 months . Now they have again removed even this latest El Nino
It looks like EL Ninos are in or out whenever it suits their global warming alarmist agenda.
I agree, it’s about hiding the El Niño and claiming its antroproghenic?
The GW they hope for.
First the “Pause”, now the El Nino. One would almost think they have an agenda.
That renown scientific journal, Bloomberg News, currently has a series of “interactive” graphs in a feature article which prove beyond all doubt that that the warming since 1850 is entirely due to increasing CO2 levels.
If anyone wants me, I’ll be in the back shed making my white flag.
Just staple a pair of your whitest (cleanest) underwear to a broom handle. No need to go to shed.
I will never surrender. Too damned Irish to hoist a white flag.
And another inconvenience:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/sst/sst.anom.month.gif
By talking of “datasets” when addressing results of an interpretation of raw observational data (like the NOAA’s ONI), we are not helping the public to understand the difference between observations and someone’s interpretation of it. Were the politicians to realize that their policies are based on interpretations rather than observations, they might actually spend some time questioning the reliability of the interpretations that they are asked to rely on.
PETHEFIN
Good point . These interpretation can then be modified at the will of the interpreter and if he only has global warming glasses on , they will make sure that only global warming continues as by their political bosses publically proclaim.
What a farce.
“it is still impossible, for various reasons, that any theoretical system should (can) ever be conclusively falsified. For it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. (Karl R. Popper in The logic of scientific discovery.)
One day temperatures will have been adjusted so much that there will be a little ice age in the 1960s. Of course what I believe (IMHO) is that they are trying to accomplish the change the trend of the late 20th century so it seems that it was steeper than the trend between 1850 onwards and of course create more record high temperatures.
Yes, Man.
This will have to go away:
http://www.oarval.org/gtc_feb2015av.gif
The ENSO is the most important weather phenomenon on the planet.
Because of its importance to many regional climates and consequently the global average, its very long history of actual measurements from ship traffic, its tie-in with the long measured SOI, its impact on fish populations next to Peru, the adjusters had previously left the ENSO numbers alone. You can’t turn a La Niña into an El Niño because weather history shows us it was a La Niña. The temperature changes alone at +/- 2.5C made it very hard to hide or reverse anyway.
Consequently, the ENSO does not show any trend in its measurements since 1856 because it hasn’t been adjusted. There is NO global warming in the central Pacific for more than 150 years.
But that practise is now over and it will be no time at all before someone says the number of adjusted El Ninos is increasing.
Global temperatures reconstructions based on the ENSO will also start to lose correlation.
Being the most important weather phenomenon on the planet means nothing to them, as if they don’t actually care.
The entire climate science community should repudiate these adjustments and ask for changes to be made at the NCDC leadership.
The problem goes much higher than NCDC leadership. The lies, half-truths, and Gruber-esque deceptions are now flowing fire-hose like from the White House on down through all the politicized agency and department heads. It is a full onslaught of Information Warfare spewing propaganda lies from all these agencies to support the radical agenda of our liar president. Tom Karl is just one of many SES liars working for this effort. Think Lois Lerner when you think of Tom Karl at NCDC. Same kind of deceit, different agency. The mantra that the Obama Regime has imparted on all these agency/department heads is, “If you aren’t lying, you aren’t trying.”
It is now quite apparent that no data from these institutions like NASA and NOAA should be even considered unless they have been subjected to an independent external audit process, as is the case with financial reports issue by corporations. Fiddling scientific data is like corporations fiddling their financial data, a process known as fraud.
It’s the new, improved scientific method; if the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.
…or the definition of “The Scientific Method”.
At first I was surprised that NOAA would disappear the 2014-2015 El Nino since it has played a central theme in all the alarmist literature this year.
Then the light went off! Of course! The main natural variability explanation for any warming has been removed… just in time for the lead-up to the United Nations Climate Summit in Paris this December.
Now, the alarmist community can say all the warming is due to human-factors alone!
Agree, it’s about hiding the El Niño. And claiming the GW they hope for is Man made.
A good example of the “progressive Enlightenment liberalism”. Ref 2. The Plan http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/3/3/299/pdf
BILL Illis
“The entire climate science community should repudiate these adjustments and ask for changes to be made at the NCDC leadership.”
I agree with you, Bill . Unfortunately in US , those who should care about all this constant climate data manipulation and should stop it , namely the government agencies in charge of NOAA and all the officials right up to the President have all become global warming alarmists themselves , The Congress is the only hope and seriously cutting the NOAA annual budget maybe the only way to curtail this ” global warming only” nonsense. I understand that some hearings have started . Does anyone have any updates on this ?
The science community in US seem to turn a deaf ear to all the bad global warming science and data manipulation. They get their money from the government, so they remain silent . It is a bad scene here. The climate of US has been cooling for almost a decade or two . It is still cooling as indicated by the last two brutal winters and it is likely to continue so for decades but the agency in charge climate data only reports and projects global warming.
Does this “recalibration” have anything to do with the Bloomberg hype yesterday?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-23/el-nino-seen-strengthening-as-pacific-warms-just-like-it-s-1997
J
the Bloomberg news clip that you referred to illustrates the problem that NOAA has created . The rest of the world including Australia India and WOM sees an El Nino while NOAA denies it .
Here is part of the Bloomberg news clip
“While the India Meteorological Department forecast the El Nino would curb monsoon rainfall to 88 percent of average this year, there’s been a better-than-expected start to the season that nourishes crops across the country. Rains since June 1 have been 23 percent above-average, the department said Tuesday.
The majority of models suggest the Pacific will continue to warm in the coming months, possibly reaching strong El Nino levels, the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization said on June 15. Outlooks at this time aren’t as accurate as ones in the second half, and more-confident estimates of the event’s strength will be available after mid-year, it said.
“It is unlikely that the current event will dissipate in the near future, and hence impacts are likely to be apparent for at least the next three to six months,” the WMO said. “Events typically decay in the first quarter of the year following their formation.”
With each new model runs, the models weaken El Nino more than previous model runs. The current El Nino may very well be peaking now. The chances for a “Super” El Nino seem to be dimming. Joe Bastardi talks about this on his Saturday Weather Bell broadcasts.
Herkimer: the Bloomberg news clip that you referred to illustrates the problem that NOAA has created . The rest of the world including Australia India and WOM sees an El Nino while NOAA denies it .
No one is denying that the excursion of the ENSO is far from “neutral”; the only disagreement is about the abstract definitional border between “El Nino” and “almost El Nino”. Your posts at 9:51 and 10:09 of June 23 clarify the situation.
Thanks, J. You will have to excuse Bloomberg, they are still reading the previous page.
Now, everything must change to preserve the status quo (or make it worse).
I hope people know what to do.
They have been trying to connect these pesky ENSO intrusions into their theory of CO2 causes everything. Now, they are adjusting the temps to drown them out and have it all CAGW. If this is okay with the pot of gold scientists, then we have to rely on Congress. Man, I’m nervous about that. This may have become one of those things too big to fail. When the Demos hand over to the Repubs they will be handing over an economy in tatters and a formula for raising a lot of tax money. Don’t think for a moment that the Demos haven’t built this into their long term strategy. They are all politicians after all. Try to imagine a Repub campaign calling for an austerity budget to get into power with huge cuts in spending and foregoing a ready made Demo tax regime. There is going to have to be an almost impossibly responsible, strong and charismatic president (not to be easily found these days of amorality, disregard for the constitution and the celebrity factor) to come along with a strong dose of medicine. He has to be resolute and prepared to be hated to right the ship – a tall order for today’s go-with-the-flow softies. Please Jeb, for your country, don’t run.
No one, including me – and I voted for them. expected the Tories to win the last UK election , after 5 years of austerity that had been criticised as inhumane and savage by every newspaper, the BBC , all the church leaders and millionaire celebrities .
What we had forgotten was that nearly every poll taken during those 5 years had shown a small but significant majority for , basically, a continuation of austerity wrt benefits and welfare until the country had reached some financial stability, although of course such poll results were quickly smothered by the likes of the BBC.
Perhaps the same might be true of the US if the voters there are made aware of the 15trillion debt and the paying out of 500billion USD in interest each year . They may not be too enthusiastic to add to that annual tax the extra 100 billion demanded by the UN in climate change mitigation costs.
Jeb Bush simply has zero chance of getting the necessary delegates to win the Republican nomination. He would do himself a huge favor to sit it out. Jeb’s positions on immigration, common core, and climate change put him more as a moderate Democrat.
I am fiscally conservative (I don’t think we need federal programs to control our bathroom habits), socially liberal (In your bedroom is your business and you shouldn’t be penalized for it), personally democratic (as in family planning and all that) and a strong supporter of public schools as well as common core. Jeb Bush is pretty close to that.
Climate ‘science’ is all about tormenting data. This endless shifting of data, ‘refining’ it, redesigning it, redefining what words means, this reminds me of Alice in Wonderland.
This mania to control the narrative is irritating and dangerous. Trust is collapsing as events don’t match theory. Right now, we are still in a transition from warming to cooling. So the weather vacillates as energy begins to drain from the oceans and a few last blasts of high energy from the sun (one swiped us this week) fool people into thinking we still are in a warming cycle.
If, according to solar scientists, the sun is going into a quiet phase, this means definite cooling like so many times before. We must prepare for this and the opposite is happening.
They have to lied and cheated with the data because they are completely wrong at the base of their beliefs. (faith in science?)
It is simple. CO2 does not warm earth at all. On net it cools, but even then H2O is much, much more important. CO2 is a bit player and it does not even do what they think. So — frack it, let us cheat!
George Orwell’s 1984 nails pretty much all of the behavior we are seeing.
“Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.”
― George Orwell, 1984
I am reminded of the old Stalinist method of eradicating any official from History once he falls out of favor. We are doing the same with climate data. Except for people’s memory, the history of past weather events are being expunged.
Why don’t they use a much longer mean for comparison, say: 1900-2010?
Yes. 120 years.
Try telling anyone from Texas that there was no El Nino.
Is gone. See direction of the wind.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/national/satellite?play=1
academics can come up with all the fancy definitions of el nino they like. the simple fact is whether a real el nino is occurring will be decided by the fish and the fishermen who target them. this is how the el nino was discovered in the first place.
Anchovies, anyone?
Latest from AUSTRALIA
Niño consolidates
Issued on 23 June 2015 | Product Code IDCKGEWW00
The 2015 El Niño continues to strengthen. Central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean sea surface temperature indices are more than 1 °C above average for the sixth consecutive week. International climate models surveyed by the Bureau of Meteorology indicate further consolidation is likely. El Niño events typically strengthen during the second half of the year, reaching full strength during late spring or early summer. It is not possible at this stage to determine how strong this El Niño will be.
This must be very embarrassing for NOAA who deny that an El NINO has been existing for some time now.. No one believes their science anymore.
Another example of the persistent alteration of past records to achieve non-scientific goals.
This is part of the trickle down effect in action.
Who will know of this change 5 years from now?
Here is what the WMO or WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION says about the existence of the 2014/15 EL NINO that NOAA denies it exists
News
15 June 2015
Current Situation and Outlook
The tropical Pacific atmosphere and ocean are currently at moderate El Niño levels. The majority of international El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) climate models suggest that tropical Pacific temperatures are likely to continue warming, and possibly reach strong El Niño levels, in the coming months. However, model outlooks made at this time are not as accurate as those made during the second half of the year, and hence more confident estimates of event strength will be available after mid-year. National Meteorological and Hydrological Services and other agencies will continue to monitor the conditions over the tropical Pacific for further El Niño development and will assess the most likely local impacts.
This only matters for people who are concerned with a “precise” demarcation between El Niño and other “extreme but less extreme” excursion of the ENSO. Understanding, or rather partial understandings, of the heat transfers, mass transfers, and oscillations of the continuous (or rapidly sampled) measures is unaffected. For the idea that El Niño is merely an extreme and not an additional “category”, I cite Henk Dijkstra, “Nonlinear Climate Dynamics”, 2013, Ca,bridge University Press (“source”, not necessarily “authority”, though I would call the book “authoritative”). I recommend the book as a companion to Bob Tisdale’s informative books, such as “Who Turned on the Heat?”.
So if NOAA tells four different versions of the existence or non existence of an El NINO , can you believe anything they say about the existence or non existence of the HIATUS .
NOAA in their article posted at their NATIONAL CLIMATE DATA CENTER entitled The RECENT GLOBAL SURFACE WARMING HIATUS claim that their recent study “refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or hiatus in the rate of global warming in recent years
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/recent-global-surface-warming-hiatus
Yet NOAA’s own records show this to be incorrect. The hiatus is still happening globally on land despite NOAA gyrations to hide it.
• There is clearly very little if any global warming happening since 2005 when it comes to global land area.
• Global land area temperature annual anomalies during the last 10 years show a flat or negative( cooling )trend of -0.02 C / decade according to NOAA own Climate at A Glance data. UAH satellite data confirm this
• Northern Hemisphere land area 12 month temperature anomalies during the last 10 years show a flat or slightly negative or cooling trend -0.05/ C/decade respectively according to NOAA own Climate at A Glance data.
• In North America, Contiguous US annual temperature anomalies show a negative or cooling trend since 2005 at -0.69 F/decade and a cooling trend of -0.48/decade since 1998 according to NOAA own Climate at a Glance data
• A similar pattern appears to be in Canada where 7 out of 11 climate regions show declining annual temperature departures since 1998; one is flat and 3 show warming . In other words 70 % of North American climate regions are not experiencing global warming but cooling.
So how could global warming HIATUS be refuted when it is clearly still happening on most land areas globally or where people live .the last 10 years
BILL Illis
“The entire climate science community should repudiate these adjustments and ask for changes to be made at the NCDC leadership.”
I agree 100% the data coming from this organization is agenda driven.
The wonders of adjustments. The 1982/3 El Niño and the 1983/4 La Niña were the the perfect ENSO climate flip years in Australia. A drastic drought first and then a year of plenty. Obviously I must first suspend disbelief and embrace the “new truth”. Anyone over the age of fifty are “expertly” advised to disregard their own experience.
1. Adjust and Homogenize the data – cool earlier temps
2. Karl study warms the oceans
3. Remove most Nino’s to ensure humans caused any adjusted warming
Science in its finest hour.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology headline “El Niño consolidates. Issued on 23 June 2015.
The 2015 El Niño continues to strengthen.”
Whoops! Hey Gavin and co you have let your Aussie mates down, and they are about as warmist as you get! Could have given them a heads up old boy???
Anthony – Your damn commercials are interfering with reading and writing comments. Are you trying to get rid of your clients?
Arno, try using the Chrome browser with the adblock plus extension (free). I see no ads, but that 10 have been blocked.
Thanks!!!
Yes, this is recent
In Safari, for example, if you scroll down the page to the comments, the page jerks back to the dumb video commercial over and over again. This began about 4 days ago. It is very irritating. This doesn’t happen to me at other sites with video ads.
with the old unadjusted data set one can make predictions about the next ONI turn dates; as there was a clear ~300months +/-5 months relationship. Using this OLD data I am able to predict when ONI will turn over the next 30yrs!!!! within a few months! The NEW data has totally corrupted this predictability as now ONI turns (start, end, peak of el nino’ and la nina’s) have disappeared of the record… instead of trying to learn something about climatic cycles and making reliable predictions that serve society NOAA is pursuing a short term political agenda that serves only a few, and leads to disaster for many.