New NOAA forecast suggests current El Niño will fade fast, and be replaced by a strong cooling La Niña this year

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. directs me to this new forecast product from NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL). If it holds, it suggests a big cooling event ahead.

NOAA/ESRL PSD and CU CIRES Forecast in Global Tropics Domain

LIM forecasts of SST anomalies based on November-December-January 2015-2016 initial conditions. Contour interval is 0.3 degrees C. For numerical values click here.

enso-forecast

Source: http://esrl.boulder.noaa.gov/psd/forecasts/sstlim/for4gl.html

He adds:

167 thoughts on “New NOAA forecast suggests current El Niño will fade fast, and be replaced by a strong cooling La Niña this year

  1. New NOAA forecast suggests current El Niño will fade fast, and be replaced by a strong cooling La Niña this year

    Well that is one way to help cover a natural cooling trend.

      • Looks like a lot of colder than normal ocean areas.

        What’s up with that cold blob that seems to be growing that originated in the NW Pacific off the Siberian coast? Cold Alaskan waters coming next winter?

      • When the cooler SST’s in the North Atlantic ocean start reaching areas close to the Arctic sea ice between Greenland and Siberia, sea ice will increase here. The trend over recent months have shown the cool anomaly slowly moving North Eastwards towards this region.

    • CHALLENGE QUESTION – FIRST POSTED 16FEB2016

      WHEN WILL GLOBAL COOLING START?

      I am saying it is not a “Pause”, it is a Plateau, and naturally-caused global cooling will start soon.

      Regards to all, Allan

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/15/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-215/comment-page-1/#comment-2146382

      This post on SC24 is interesting:
      http://notrickszone.com/2016/02/10/solar-report-january-2016-current-solar-cycle-quietest-in-almost-200-years-as-triple-whammy-approaches/#sthash.tRQqXhWz.IVP32gMG.dpbs

      Question: When will global cooling start?

      In 2002 we wrote that global cooling would start by 2020 to 2030.

      We now say global cooling will start before 2020, probably by 2017.

      [Definition: The commencement of global cooling is deemed to start when the Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperature anomaly as measured by UAH satellite data starts to decline below the +0.2C anomaly and the trend then declines further.]
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

      Bragging rights to whoever gets it right.

      Ladies and germs – faites vos jeux!

      • Allan, I as asking for prediction from “skeptics” and here you have provided one, so that is great. However, perhaps you could point us to the prediction you made in 2002?

      • Until the general election last year our minister in charge of destroying working power generation was Ed Davey, who of course was an extreme warmist. When referring to the pause, he actually used the term “plateau”. He obviously hadn’t thought it through….
        Chris

      • In response to your request, Seaice1 – my 2002 article predicting global cooling is reproduced here:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/polar-sea-ice-changes-are-having-a-net-cooling-effect-on-the-climate/#comment-74283

        [excerpt]
        “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

        More predictions of global cooling by others are recorded at:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/polar-sea-ice-changes-are-having-a-net-cooling-effect-on-the-climate/#comment-71845

      • One’s predictive track record is perhaps the best objective measure of one’s technical competence.

        None of the IPCC’s scary predictions of runaway global warming have materialized.

        Based on its negative predictive track record, the IPCC has NO technical credibility.

        Here is my (our) predictive track record.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/25/lindzen-at-sandia-national-labs-climate-models-are-flawed/#comment-1046529

        Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and I published an article in the PEGG in 2002:

        Here is what we predicted a decade [now 14 years] ago:

        Our eight-point Summary* includes a number of predictions that have all materialized in those countries in Western Europe that have adopted the full measure of global warming mania. My country, Canada, was foolish enough to sign the Kyoto Protocol, but then wise enough to ignore it.

        Summary*
        Full article reproduced at
        http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf

        Kyoto has many fatal flaws, any one of which should cause this treaty to be scrapped.

        1. Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.

        2. Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SO2, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.

        3. Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.

        4. Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.

        5. Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.

        6. Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.

        7. Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.

        8. The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.

        [end of excerpt]
        ______

      • Allan, thanks for the responses. It shows great confidence to tighten the prediction as the date approaches. In 2002 it was before 2030, and now in 2016 you predict before 2020. This is what I meant by science in the other thread. Forget the null hypothesis, we have here a competing hypothesis, and we can see which works out closer to the truth.

      • Post Script:

        I hope to be wrong about global cooling, because humanity suffers greatly in a cooling world. The current Excess Winter Mortality Rate equals about 100,000 deaths per year in the USA, up to 50,000 in the UK and several million worldwide, even in warm climates. There is NO significant Excess Summer Mortality Rate.

        A few more thoughts to consider:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/10/the-profiteers-of-climate-doom/comment-page-1/#comment-2143323
        and
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/

        Observations and Conclusions:

        1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record

        2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.

        3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.

        4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.

        5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.

        6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.

        7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.

        8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.

        9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.

        10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.

        Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015

    • Roy
      It is a prediction/prognostication/forecast/suggestion.
      From a model.
      It might be right.

      It might be right.

      Auto.
      No Mods, no /sarc there.

  2. Hooray. While El Nino is not a strong indicator of what the summer is going to bring here in my part of NSW, a pronounced La Nina usually means rain at the right times for my bamboo. (Okay, so the 1939 horror year of heat/fire/drought was part of a La Nina flanked by neutral years, but I need to hope. I just want back those grand old days of 2010-11!)

    Some indicators are pretty reliable. For example, if David Jones and the BoM announce a parching El Nino I’ll know to get the gum boots out.

    • Excellent news for NSW.

      I live in California, and a strong La Niña indicates drought, or rather, continued drought, since the “monster” El Niño we just had provided just enough rain to dent, but not break, our current drought.

      Sadly, what we really need to end our drought is climatic warming. Since it’s not happening, we’ll just have to learn to live with less water.

      • A La Nina can lead to heavy winter flooding in the Pacific Northwest, if it occurs close enough to the upcoming solar minimum. I think that this has a very good chance of being a flood winter at the end of this year. We shall see.

      • Perhaps you could persuade Australia to package and send some of those unused desalination plants to the gubernatorial residence in California. International aid and all that! (Only partly in jest).

    • keep your hopes up
      we were out inspecting local flora today
      presently the few gums flowering are dry of nectar and the bees are skinny and struggling to get by on pollen
      BUT
      all( well majority across species) the gums are producing buds
      so..they dont do that if theyre not expecting water to enable them to flower this winter/spring
      if its drying they drop them, or slow down the growth.
      so there IS a good chance we will get decent rains again this year.
      our towns Xmas wish was for rain..dry lake etc.

  3. LIM forecasts are indeed as good as the numerical models (my forecast shows something similar). But on a six month lead they are not on average better; in fact, an average (“ensemble”) of the numerical models will slightly beat the LIM, in a hindmost sense over the past 30 years. FWIW.

  4. Yea, we will wait and see. Yep, it’s probably just coincidence, the sun in a quite stage and an la Nina. If it does get colder, officially, I wonder what kind of spin they can throw on this to keep up the urgency of CAGW. I’m impressed by the sheer number and innovative explanations so far. And the impressive feat of contradicting themselves as if it never happened. .. I know! I know! ” this is to be expected that colder weather could occur, but not so fast….. warming is still continuing” .

    • If global cooling occurs, they will still say it is climate change due to CO2 emissions. If we go into a mini ice age it will still be climate change caused by CO2 emissions.

      • Yes. And that’s because it isn’t climate they want to control. They aren’t interested in climate; it’s merely a means to an end.

        How illustrative the new pope is. He’s a globalwarmist pope who praises Castro. Since Castro forced the entire nation (except its rulers) to live in abject poverty, the pope’s ideas are quite clear.

      • Yeah, Walt. D. that’s what they’ll probably say, They’ll all have seen that crappy move The Day After Tomorrow. And it will fit in well with their belief system.

  5. The naturally occurring variance between a strong El Nino followed by an
    equally strong La Nina, in the Eastern Pacific, will no doubt become another classic.
    The Cryptic Climate Consensus will use the variance, whatever it is, as irrefutable proof that mankind is on the edge of disaster.

  6. Well, if NOAA is predicting it there is only a 30% chance it will actually happen. Sorry all you La Niña fans out there.

  7. The earth has just burped up an awful lot of heat in the form of El Nino and there’s nothing to replace it with, especially given the sun’s lackluster performance of late.

    I’d say we’re in for a big cooling period, maybe even a MLIA (Modern Little Ice Age).

  8. Actually, I’m more interested in what follows La Nina. The 1998 El Nino/La Nina was followed by an upward step change in temperature.

    We could have no change, upward step, or downward step. If the alarmists were discomforted by ‘The Pause’, they would be downright apoplectic about a downward step. Of course, we won’t really know the result for a few years.

    • Interpretting the highly variable record as “step” change is very risly. When that step happens is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone starts drawing step changes but there is never any objective assessment of where the step should go .

      If you want steps , I suggest you look at the stratosphere: steps preceded by bumps:

      One would expect a complementary effect in the troposphere. There is one but because of heat content of the oceans, it is more gradual.

      I would suggest that the rather slow “step” at the end of 20th c. was part of the conseuqnces of the changes to stratospheric chemistry caused by Pinatubo.

      Same for El Chichon.

      The late 20th c. warming was caused by volcanoes.

    • Interpretting the highly variable record as “step” change is very risly. When that step happens is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone starts drawing step changes but there is never any objective assessment of where the step should go .

      If you want steps , I suggest you look at the stratosphere: steps preceded by bumps:

      One would expect a complementary effect in the troposphere. There is one but because of heat content of the oceans, it is more gradual.

      I would suggest that the rather slow “step” at the end of 20th c. was part of the conseuqnces of the changes to stratospheric chemistry caused by Mt. Pinatubo.

      Same for El Chichon eruption .

      The late 20th c. warming was caused by volcanoes.

    • There will be no step upwards. We are entering a global cooling cycle since all cycles are caused by the sun and can be tracked via observing sun spot activity.

      • A testable hypothesis! Get with the program dude, that’s not how we do climate science. Remember – everything that can possibly happen has to be blamed on ‘climate change’. /sarc

      • CommieBob -By and large the skeptics do not make predictions. It is refreshing to see one here. Although it is not very specific about when temperatures will reduce, by how much and for how long, so exactly how testable it is is debatable.

      • seaice: scientist and other educated folks who know that they are dealing with inadequate data and limited understanding of a system are less prone to making predictions.

    • Fact is that if the alarmist claims were correct there should be no La Nina. Temps should not dip but continue to rise according to their hypothesis. But as has been demonstrated time and again, it is impossible to falsify that hypothesis. What we see now is the beginning of the excuses for why the steady increase in temperatures are not expected to happen. The problem they have is that they are claiming the cooling will result from natural variation thus diminishing or negating AGW while always before they have been saying that natural variation could not possibly be responsible for the warming.

      Expect a lot of hype when the Atlantic hurricane season picks up as it has been known to do during La Nina years. That is what I expect to be their new “evidence” of AGW during the early part of the cooler years to come.

      • ” if the alarmist claims were correct there should be no La Nina.” Rubbish. Show me some evidence that climate scientists say there should not be La Nina.

  9. Only an our or two ago the MetOffice’s BBC weather man was listing hottest years, months and Januaries…
    Oh well, all good things sooner or later come to an end. Warmth is good, cold is bad.

    • DMI removed their historical method for measuring sea ice extent

      It wasn’t giving the results that the models predicted so they changed the way they measure/report it. Climate science always seems to be “improving” their data when it shows the wrong results. Quite the scientific method.

      • As NOAA say the arctic is cooking, DMI remove their record breaking sea ice plot.

        Coincidence.

        I’d say Goddard is the main reason DMI kicked that plot, just a suspicion

      • Climate science always seems to be “improving” their data when it shows the wrong results.

        Two can play that game. It gets more interesting when one of them is actually producing correct results. (That would be Anthony’s team.)

        Quite the scientific method.

        I like to think there is method to our madness.

      • This happened just a few days ago.

        Earlier this week, I looked at the DMI site, the plot was up and running and showing 2015/16 as having the greatest ice extent these past 10 years.

        One should not overlook the 1990 IPCC Report that showed how little ice there was (in relative terms) in the early 1970s. There is today more ice than there was in 1974. See the attached plot, on which one need to splice the 1990 to 2015 data, but look at how negative the ice anomaly was in 1974. You do not often see that plot these days, as the IPCC likes to show data only as from 1979 after the recovery that took during the 1970s.

      • They also changed the 2015 plot for this image. I have a screen shot of the graph from mid December which I would share if I knew how to upload it here. To me it looks like a smoking gun that this graph was not only discontinued, but the very inconvenient 2015 plot was also removed to cover up their bias.

      • Who in their wildest imaginings would have seen that as even a remote possibility? Fancy that, Earth has a say in these things. What an inconveniently un-anthropogenic thing to be doing.

    • Time will tell, but right now it is at an all time low for the time of year. September will be interesting.

      • Saying it is at an all time low is misleading at best.

        The southern oceans have ben cooling for a couple of decades. For most of the past four years global SI has been at or above the mean. That it is currently low is not due to some sudden onslaught of CO2. Many factors besides air T play into global sea ice.

        The 30 percent costal masked (for accuracy) DMI arctic graphic is at a record high, well above any recent year. So we have more ocean with at least 30 percent ice, and less with only 15 percent ice. Hum? If a portion of the record denser 30 percent sea ice were to move from the 30 percent area, into the 15 % ice area, then there would be a great deal more 15 percent ice, likely showing an increase instead of the current decrease. (The ice is there, it is just more dense then normal in the 30 percent pus area, and thinner in the 15 percent area)

        I have not looked into the current Antarctica decline. It is not Southern ocean T that is for certain. Perhaps it is storm and ocean current related. At any rate Antarctica has recently set records for greater ice extent, and there is no correlation to CO2.

      • Perhaps both just vary and it is no big deal either way.
        If it all melts, hooray, because now less of the planet is frozen and useless on a perennial basis.
        If not, oh well, good thing few people live up there.
        The more things change, the more they stay the same…same as it ever was.

      • Because the area with 30 percent sea ice has increased to a record!!. The ice is more compacted, so the 15% graphic does not represent the actual amount of ice. There is less ocean with 15 % ice, but more ocean with 30 percent.

      • Can you provide the 30% link? DMI are no longer producing that graph because they did not believe it represented the area properly.

        The 30% and 15% extent estimates are about where exactly you draw the line in a mixed ice/water system. Most of the extent will be 100% ice, but at the edge, we have to decide exactly where ice becomes water. One system uses 15%, the other uses 30%. If a pixel exceeds this threshold it is considered as ice covered. However, this is not the only difference between the 30% and 15% graphs. The 30% graph underestimates the extent because of the way it deals with coastal areas. The explanation DMI used to have on the graph is no longer there since they have discontinued the graph.

  10. The CAGW crowd will update the same excuse they’ve been using for flat temperatures after 1998. “If you say it’s cooling you’re cherry picking because 2015 was an el Nino year”. Repeat until the *next* big el Nino.

    • Sort of, warming is all man, cooling is natural variability of a larger order than man made warming.

      But there can be no natural warming of a larger order than man made warming ;)

    • In the absence of warming, this El Nino should not lead to warmer temperatures than the last one. But it has.

      • Not true, unless you are measuring global T by one month. The El Nino 18 years ago warmed the troposphere more then the current, and the 12 month mean was considerably warmer. The surface record is FUBAR.

      • Agreed David.
        Anyone making pronouncements based on massively altered, homogenized and completely untrustworthy surface data is just being a knucklehead…to be polite about it.

  11. The question is whether the sun has been quiet enough for long enough to increase global cloudiness via more wavy jet stream tracks so as to reduce solar energy into the oceans enough to skew the system towards La Nina cooling events in preference to El Nino warming events.

    I expect a downward step in global temperatures from the coming La Nina but it may be a bit early due to the recent peak of solar cycle 24 such that the downward step may occur after the next La Nina instead.

    One starts with a guess and then one should check it out against observational data. That is how science advances.

    • Solar activity is just one variable in a field of many. However I do think that solar is dominant. You can have other influencing factors in the short and interim time frames, In longer term time frames the solar activity dominates. Also, the decline and the relationship to climate as a whole may not be linear, but a derivative of a function. One sure way to verify this is to have the sun go quite for 100 years. I’m not sure I’d want to see the result.

  12. i will wait and see.
    NOAA is not high on my “trusted source of information” list just now.
    What will their forecast be next week?
    I am fascinated by the “unprecedented warming” of the high arctic.
    Does anyone know how this is measured?

  13. I really WANT to believe that El Nino will yield to La Nina soon, but given the source of this report, you may forgive me for having my doubts.

    • Take a look at the Unisys Weather ( like bright colors) SST anomalies. Neutral and blue are not so slowly overtaking the chart in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and had you been looking everyday you would have seen the warm colors fade at the Pacific hot spot and the el niño regions.

    • when you look at the El nino page on the National weather service site then you already see a large cold kelvin wave in preparation. it’s thus very likely (say around 80% chance) that a La nina will develop.

  14. It will be interesting to see how this compares to 1998 and following. The 1998 event was a very strong peak from a low base line. It happened very rapidly. The currect event has been building since 2011 from a much higher base level, so is a lesser magnitude event.

    All those saying this year was as strong as the 1998 El Nino are doing nothing but look at high spot temperature and falsely concluding it is “stronger” if it gets to beat a monthly max somewhere.

    1998 happened well down the fall to solar minimum. This one was near max SSN.

    Very different events. I would not expect the drop to be as sharp as the post ’98 La Nina.

  15. So NOAA attempted to magic el nino out of the picture when going with land only temps

    Now they will trumpet La Nina cooling to assure us CAGW is on track and this is just an isolated event not related.

  16. Remember that the alarmists claimed that 2015 was the warmest year ever, but only 10% of the warming was caused by El Nino. The other 90% was man-made. If and when a major La Nina strikes, guess what? The cooling will be assigned as 100% due to natural events. At least they will be right half the time.

    • Lets not forget, it was land only, cos apparently people don’t live in the sea..

      But land is only 30% of the surface of the earth, and half of that has no data (more than half) and much of the covered land is estimated.

      So, they claimed it with approx 15%(10% + 5% estimated) and adjusted it to hell.

      This is scientific fraud on an epic scale

    • The warmists don’t understand

      NOAA went with land only

      So 30% of the earth, but.. only half of that (less than half) has measurement data.
      of that 15% of the land we have measurement for, what a good 5%+ is estimated?

      Then it is adjusted to bits.

      So the bottom line, NOAA went with 10% of actual measurement data to make their claim, the rest was junk

      • If the land area had showed cooling then that would have been thrown out and global temperature would have been stated as an increase. CAGW seems to think that we are still confined to a little village somewhere and have no idea what’s happening in the rest of the world. That’s why when it’s cold where you are it’s weather and it’s always warming climate in some far off remote place you’ve never heard, for the uneducated. Fortunately for CAGW nobody on here can read or write do advanced math or had demanding careers in science. (sarc)

    • Mark I was curious about that. Is FTOP suggesting above that DMI has changed their method of calculation of ice extent in order to comply with the “lowest evah!”? That would be a story on a par with NOAA/NASA data tampering that is currently being investigated in the Senate.

    • The low extent should not be a surprise as surface winds on both outlets of the Arctic Ocean favored sea ice removal from the Arctic. That process started back in late October, and remained the main pattern ever since with only occasional let up in the wind pattern. Day 312 on the Cryosphere Arctic graph is where that process can first be noted. That is a big part of what happened to the sea ice.

    • The one shown here is the “15% extent” graph, which the DMI have been saying for ages is the best for showing “true” extant. They were showing the 30% graph for a while, with a warning that it underestimated extent because of the coastal masks, and that it would soon be withdrawn. It has now been discontinued. As to why you thought the DMI was showing record gain, that is an interesting question. My guess is that you have remembered the 30% graph and ignored the 15% graph.

  17. For the third straight year, there will have been no ‘monster,’ or ‘super’ or ‘major’ El Nino, as I have forecasted and consistently repeated over and over again.

    Solar year 2016 will see more extremes of weather, in that we will see warmer than normal, and colder than normal temperature variations, as well as continued drought in California, as the transition from solar-forced global warming to solar-forced global cooling.

    Then, in late 2016, we will see those cooler waters increase, but it will not be a La Nina.

    Rather, it is simply the effect of the near-quiescent Sun and modulation of the planets.

    Still, what NOAA and most climate centers will do is to interpret the cooling as La Nina, just like they’ve been doing with the warming being interpreted as El Nino.

    Over 2016, what will happen in the Pacific is that their models will indicate a cooling of sea surface temperatures and lower trop T.

    What is already happening in winter 2016, is that upper ocean heat anomalies should fall; however, as we approach the vernal equinox there will be still talk of El Nino, but the problem with that (other than there is NO El Nino this year) is that equatorial waters generally warm at the vernal equinox, and that confuses the computer models of those trying to forecast an ENSO.

    As many of you know, I have been forecasting the coming of global cooling for well over a decade to begin officially in 2017. We are nearing that time. This will be a mini ice age we are entering.

    Just as we head into the next decade, there will be a moderately strong El Nino in mid-2009 to 2020.

    That will be followed by a deep and strong La Nina in 2020-2021 that will be made worse by the quiescent Sun and the new climate regime of global cooling I have forecasted is just ahead.

    When it will be evident that global cooling is here, many who pushed the lie of ‘man-made global warming’ will attempt to say it is climate change due to CO2 emissions.

    Then, as we head into the mini ice age I forecasted for the 2020s, 2030s and 2040s, some of the AGW crowd will likely say that this ‘climate change’ was caused by by CO2 emissions.

    Of course, that is total bullshit, but again, the laws of physics, when it comes to the true climate will serve a dish of revenge to AGW propagandists and paid-off climate scientists and their media lackeys. It will be climate dish – served COLD.

    Theodore White, astrometeorologist.Sci

    • I cannot load that web site. Matter of fact, every G search turns up nothing. Metabunk said to look at you FUZZY forecasts, but no such luck. URL’s that work available? Thanks

    • If 1 hurricane hits the US this year, it will be not only be the worst ever but a 100% increase. What you fail to realize is that no matter what, CAGW will find a way of spinning it, adjusting the temperature, ( it’s a wonder that the 1950’s weren’t an ice age) and generally redefining science to fit global warming. Too many people and organizations are riding this tiger’s back . Getting off is going to be quite the problem. They know if they get off they’ll be lunch.

    • “As many of you know, I have been forecasting the coming of global cooling for well over a decade to begin officially in 2017”
      Just to clarify, you are saying that 2017 will be cooler than 2016. That is quite likely under the El Nino model also.
      You say that 2017 will be the start of cooling, so we should see a trend of reducing temperatures after this. By what year do you think it should be apparent whether or not this is happening?

      • Yes I do. It will be apparent by 2019-2020, when we have the next ENSO, and just into solar cycle #25 that the new climate regime of global cooling is underway.

        However, we’ve been cooling down for years and the extremes of weather events have while we’ve been in climate transition has proven that out.

        Global cooling, will certainly be apparent by the next La Nina, which I forecast will be here by late 2020 and into 2021.

      • Astrometeorologists are ‘astronomic’ forecasters of climate and weather.

        And no, ‘tea cups’ are not used.

        I use variable mathematics.

        Next time, try a much more intelligent question and quit with the Gooberville act Simon.

        Thanks.

  18. It is all part of climate change and is the fault of CO2, deniers… What ever happens just strengthens the thesis of AGW. It can’t possibly be wrong after all a huge plurality of scientists agree with it.

  19. Hmmm…. I wonder if they are trying to prove that they can at least forecast this.

    However, since they are continually moving the 30-year average uses for the anomaly baseline, I wonder….

  20. In one of the earlier post, I noted the fact that every El Nino peak, there will be dips before and after the peak. The current dip will be in 2016; but some of the articles presented here made forecasts saying that 2016 will be still warmer.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  21. I’m not gonna lie. I really hope there’s a strong La Nina followed by and either years of cooling or extension of the “Pause”.

    I hope this for no reason other than I enjoy watching the alarmists squirm when they are proven wrong.

    • The brutality of global cooling I would wish on no one. We know about the mass deaths of the Little Ice Age and in the Americas, this hammered the natives hard especially in the Southwest and California, for example. It was terribly cold in Europe, too. My own ancestors came to the New World during the Little Ice Age and settled in Albany, NY, where it was quite brutally cold. Brrr.

      • Yes I know. Should I feel guilty for hoping for global cooling? Maybe so. Here’s the problem: The warmists in charge of NOAA. GISS, etc are adjusting the data upwards and trying their best to discredit the non-biased satellite data. So just an extension of the pause may not be enough to disprove CAGW theory in the eyes of policy makers. What we really need, for the madness to end, is global cooling. Otherwise I’m afraid we’ll all spend the rest of our lives being saddled with ever increasing carbon taxes, bad politics, and having to hear endless hand-waving about how we are destroying the planet.

      • Yes, JSG, this is a question over which I’ve agonized for years. Pretty clearly, only cooling will quell the madness, and probably only fairly dramatic cooling. But that may mean that the recovery from the LIA is over, and then we’ll have big problems.

        If only we’d stuck to science we’d probably have a pretty good idea by now of what to expect. As it is, this extraordinary popular delusion of catastrophe has only damaged and hampered us.
        ====================

      • Worse perhaps, than all of the taxes, which are of course economy crushing and brutal, may be the massive killing of birds which will result if the build-out of wind turbines proceeds as the lunatics have planned.
        Extinct birds will get no second chance.

  22. If NOAA is right, this El Niño will end up being shorter than the “Great” El Niño of 1997-1998. As Mark mentioned previously, the current El Niño started out higher than the Great El Niño and has not risen as much. Also the Great El Niño was warmest in the far eastern tropical Pacific, whereas the current El Niño has been warmer in the central tropical Pacific. The Great El Niño also had somewhat of a double peak with a secondary peak in February 1998. The way temperatures have been dropping in the tropical Pacific, it does not look like the current El Niño will have a major secondary peak. Below is a comparison of NOAA’s Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) for the current and Great El Niño events:

    And here is the RSS TLT anomaly comparison:

    So even though the current El Niño seems to be in decline, the TLT anomalies may continue to rise for another month or two before they fall.

  23. If a strong cooling La Niña does occur, will they report temperatures as they are? Or will they adjust the temperature record upward to compensate so they don’t have to explain the lack of warming? I fear they’ll do the latter because they can always correct the data in a few years when they need to cool the past to make the present appear warmer. They’ve gotten away with it so far, so why wouldn’t they continue down that road?

    • It is irrelevant Louis, this is Climate-Change, this is what we predicted. I hope you can see that now. T is a parameter and twiddling parameters is gangs of fun.

      Your Supreme Overlord

  24. The Russians have basically said “The only significant warming trend we have witnessed here is in the GISS and NOAA adjusted data.” I hope Putin will call on one his ministers to publicly display the Epic Scientific Fraud the NOAA warmists are perpetrating by showing the raw temp data versus the “smoothed” fantasy “data”. He is one person with the balls and platform to call out the Rats in our (western) esteemed institutions. With anti-Obama rhetoric in Russia reaching a fevered pitch, he could stoke the fire. Poster spotted in Moscow yesterday featuring O’s face finishing a cigarette (or joint?) “Smoking kills more people than Obama. Please don’t smoke.”

  25. Two comments on this prediction

    “Experimental NOAA/ESRL PSD and CU CIRES Forecast in Global Tropics Domain” — note “experimental”. It is not the NOAA forecast.

    Over the years there have been many attempts to make models that forecast through the “spring barrier”. I suggest caution until there is evidence that this can do so.

    Here is the current ENSO model plume:

    http://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-iri_plume

  26. Frankly, this misinformation and misrepresentation of facts is criminal! How can these people sleep at night?
    As far as I remember a month ago the sea ice graphs showed an average to slightly higher ice coverage on both poles. How the hell do they get away with this. I hope Lamar recalls the panel asap and finds out what is happening but I doubt with the ever ongoing election gong show these days that will not happen! ( Bread and games! It is disgusting!).

    • “As far as I remember a month ago the sea ice graphs showed an average to slightly higher ice coverage on both poles. ” That is because you are remembering the wrong Arctic graph. Arctic sea ice extent has been low for well over a month. Have a look at the WUWT sea ice page.

  27. Historically, abnormally warm El Ninos (like the current one) are followed by abnormally cool La Nina cycles, so it’s logical to assume this cycle will be no different.

    The PDO started its 30-yr cool cycle in 2008, which should add to the coming La Niña cooling effect.

    The AMO 30-yr warm cycle is also winding down, and should switch to its 30-yr cool cycle in about 4 years.

    To add insult to injury, the current solar cycle already peaked and is now the weakest (in its current phase) in about 200 years….

    Because of the lapse rate, RSS/UAH global TLT anomalies will likely continue to rise for a few more months and then start falling from early summer and continue to do so for at least the next 2~3 years…

    The coming La Niña cooling will eventually offset the 2014~16 El Niño spike and the flat/falling global temp trend will extend to 23 years, with the disparity between CAGW projections vs. reality exceeding 3+ standard deviations by around 2020— at the same time the current solar cycle will be at its weakest point, and around when the AMO switches to its 30-yr cool cycle…

    Alarmist will have a lot of explaining to do over the next 4 years… It should be very entertaining and eye-roll inducing to see what excuses and data fiddling they come up with to explain the utter failure of their failed hypothesis.

    • they will switch from CO2 induced warming to CO2 induced cooling… that simple. you know CO2 is the “holy molecule that does even more then a God can do”

      /sarc

  28. It is very interesting to speculate on the earth’s thermostat or, part of it anyhow.

    La Nina, yep there’s one coming, it’s a cyclical fing innit?

    Now that they’ve again “fixed it” doctoring the T data figures upwards, when mama Gaia hits the ‘cold button’ what will be the result………..will they call it a “severe La Nina” and how will anyone be able to tell anyway……oh erm………… yeah, satellite remote sensing, duh?

    What I am still waiting for, is an explanation of how all this oceanic known unknowns, the conveyor, SSTs, disappearing heat – ties in with man made CO₂ emissions – because! Gavin Schmidt et al say it is?

    Wow and wow again.

  29. There is very large Cold Blob moving in the equatorial under-current at 150 metres depth that is the basis of this La Nina forecast. [The equatorial under-current flows to the East, which is opposite to the equatorial surface which flows to the West driven by the Trade Winds. Think of it as one big loop.]

    Equatorial Cross-section, Pacific in the middle pane.

    But the Cold Blob will have to fight its way through a lot of warm water left-over in the eastern Pacific to turn into a La Nina later in the year. It will likely just get moderated and warmed back up by this warm water, just like what happened to the developing 2014 El Nino which fizzled out to nothing as the cold water left over moderated it. This is why there is not just a simple year-to-year switch from El Nino to La Nina back to El Nino. It takes a build-up that can last several years for a good El Nino or La Nina to break out.

    Top 300 metres average temp anomaly.

  30. …If Canada gets any colder, it will no longer be known as ” The Great White North “, it will suddenly be known as ” The Great Northern Popsicle ” and Canadians will start flooding across the border by the millions ! Lucky for me I’m half American !

      • Not true! My wife and I adopted a girl in state care after she turned 18 because there was a lot more red tape had we done it sooner. It turned out to be a good deal with scholarship funding, as they looked at her financial status while in state care, not after she turned 18.

        —-

        At least Ted Cruz has the best understanding of the climate scam of the major candidates.

  31. In south-east Australia we’ve already experienced a cool summer: the second week of February in most years is well into the forties (Celsius) but this year it didn’t rise above the twenties.

  32. I like to zoom out instead of pick comparative analogue years. Why? Because regardless of analogue years informing us of initiation conditions, what might change this time around? Long term patterns can provide information that potentially adjusts our prediction. Looking at trends I am thinking this next La Nina won’t be as strong as those that occurred in the first half of the last century. While there is a difference between these two metrics (ONI versus MEI), they both demonstrate a diminution in La Nina events compared to earlier in the traces.

    http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

    I can also conjecture that it is plausible to think of recharging deficits in light of strong discharging El Nino’s depleting ocean stores of heat.

    • I also question the El Nino biased notion that El Nino oscillations are the one we should be most concerned about. Maybe we need to be measuring La Nina oscillations as the metric of climate disrupting concern. If we can predict an oscillation of La Nina’s, we can better prepare for it. Otherwise we focus on preparing for an oscillation of plenty, which is what El Nino brings with its crop-favoring precipitation.

      Put another way, if we bemoan an unprepared for devastating period of predominate La Nina’s, we have only ourselves to blame for our El Nino lion focus while pretty much ignoring the pride of lionesses that wait to devour us.

      • This plus serious consideration of Powell’s unheeded warnings to the “rain follows the plow” crowd would go a long way to improve quality of life for those of us who live in the Western US.

  33. With all due respect, both Scripps and JAMSTEC have been way ahead of US products on this matter
    http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/elnino/pictures.html
    I have been pushing what Scripps has been saying since fall. as they are way ahead on this

    Why is the science community so into NOAA. Their NCEP models have glaring convective feedback problems that render them useless week 2 and beyond if they are not in agreement with non NCEP consensus. I continue to marvel how how things that are seen in other circles, finally show up on a NOAA site and all of a sudden people snap to attention, The fact is that there is much out there, and SCRIPPS, along with JAMSTEC is far ahead of calling these events than NOAA CFSV2,

    But if you are going to sing the La nina tune, its a remake of the tune Scripps has been singing for several months! And NOAA models are not the best singer anyway

  34. Goldminor, when the multidecadal NAO is negative or going negative I believe it dries the air in the Pacific Northwest. May mitigate your flood thesis.

  35. El Ninito, in spite of some impressive Nino numbers during the Fall, was a squib. At least here in California it was. Time to get your xeriscaping on. We’re going to be doing rationing for the foreseeable future.

  36. The most interesting behavior regarding the worlds oceans are not actually the ENSO, but the AMO and the significant cooling oceans/seas all over the world away from the Tropics. This trend has not occurred previously during a El Nino since the last fairly strong El Nino back in 1972/73. When the ENSO becomes negative with a La Nina in future and these other cooling trends remain, there could even be signs of a step down in global temperatures. Nobody thought a step down in global temperatures could be possible after a strong El Nino, until I described on here a few months ago the signs of this possibility. These signs are starting to look more likely, but also cautious as there is very little research on this. There is also a possibility that the warming from the recent strong El Nino could eventually disrupt the cooling oceans away from the Tropics leading to a weakening of the cooling at least temporary.

  37. The continued upwelling of cold water in the North Atlantic ocean next to the North Atlantic Drift (NAD) is worrying and could be more than just a AMO switch. This recent trend has been cooling the whole North Atlantic ocean surface and spreading further NE cooling the AMOC with it, but remaining strong in intensity at its source. The signs all support a huge swing in Arctic sea ice in the near future and the alarmists will be very worried about this.

    Further possibilities are this cold upwelling is a branch off the deep cold ocean Labrador current and this needs researching immediately. The cold 50-200 m deep ocean temperatures forming in the Tropics between 120E and 120W also show La Nina likely on its way to this planet soon.

  38. Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
    Excellent post and comments by Allan MacRae:

    CHALLENGE QUESTION – FIRST POSTED 16FEB2016

    WHEN WILL GLOBAL COOLING START?

    I am saying it is not a “Pause”, it is a Plateau, and naturally-caused global cooling will start soon.

    Regards to all, Allan

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/15/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-215/comment-page-1/#comment-2146382

    This post on SC24 is interesting:
    http://notrickszone.com/2016/02/10/solar-report-january-2016-current-solar-cycle-quietest-in-almost-200-years-as-triple-whammy-approaches/#sthash.tRQqXhWz.IVP32gMG.dpbs

    Question: When will global cooling start?

    In 2002 we wrote that global cooling would start by 2020 to 2030.

    We now say global cooling will start before 2020, probably by 2017.

    [Definition: The commencement of global cooling is deemed to start when the Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperature anomaly as measured by UAH satellite data starts to decline below the +0.2C anomaly and the trend then declines further.]
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    Bragging rights to whoever gets it right.
    ===========================
    Allan MacRae February 22, 2016 at 2:35 am
    Post Script:

    I hope to be wrong about global cooling, because humanity suffers greatly in a cooling world. The current Excess Winter Mortality Rate equals about 100,000 deaths per year in the USA, up to 50,000 in the UK and several million worldwide, even in warm climates. There is NO significant Excess Summer Mortality Rate.

    A few more thoughts to consider:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/10/the-profiteers-of-climate-doom/comment-page-1/#comment-2143323
    and
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/

    Observations and Conclusions:

    1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record

    2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.

    3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.

    4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.

    5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.

    6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.

    7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.

    8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.

    9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.

    10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.

    Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015

Comments are closed.