The potential for the massive El Niño to transition into La Niña later in the year is one of the hottest topics in commodities markets right now. The short question-and-answer session would look like this: Are we headed for La Niña toward the end of 2016? Looks that way. Will it be a big one? Not sure.
A La Niña environment has already begun to develop. Cooler waters are building beneath the surface in the Pacific Ocean and El Niño-supporting trade winds have lessened. But sea surface temperatures, or SSTs, in the defining region of the Pacific remain very warm, so we are still amid a strong El Niño event.
It is helpful to look for historical instances in which El Niño turned into La Niña through the course of a year. This has occurred only a handful of times since 1982, but there are enough similarities among these analogs that we can use them to inform this year’s likely outcome.
Selected analog years suggest that huge dropoffs of SST anomalies into negative, La Niña-defining territory are likely to take place between April and July. These analogs also suggest that when the SST anomalies cross into negative territory later than June, a weaker La Niña event is likely to follow.
Full story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Can’t wait for Bill Nye to dawn a fur bow tie and tell the brain dead media TV correspondences that
global cooling is the new big scary . Their reasoned response would go something like ….ah, OK Bill that makes sense are we getting a scoop here ?
Remember now …it isn’t global warming or climate change you need to repeat it is global cooling . Got it ?
How about Global Ice Armageddon Bill ? Well OK, that is rather catchy , but that won’t happen for at least 3 years until AL Gore’s prediction of an ice free Arctic comes true . Oh don’t be silly Bill we have that all figured out . Ladies and gentlemen there you have it, Bill Nye ,mechanical engineer , has updated
us on what is new in science . Would someone please turn up the heat in here .
Bill Nye is an embarrassment to competent mechanical engineers.
For NH cooling the things l will watching out for are,
(a) a increase in high pressure forming in the NE Pacific.
(b) long lens shaped highs forming over Greenland/northern europe during the summer. Forces the jet stream to flow zonal over the Atlantic. Plus more blocking during the winter months.
(c) More large areas of low pressure forming over northern Russia. As this can lead to wide spread cooling over NE europe/NW Russia both during the summer and the winter.
Because if this sort of weather pattern set up lasts long enough. Then the western world can be hit hard by climate cooling. The Gulf Stream will be of little help.
El Niño produced no global warming – that is to say, excess heat did not suddenly arrive to create the El Niño heating effect. The effect is a release of energy already here from the ocean to the atmosphere. That is net neutral. Once the energy was in the atmosphere it became a candidate to leave the earth system. That makes it net negative because energy is leaving the system at a greater rate. La Niña is not a cooling event – it is the transfer of energy from the atmosphere and direct solar energy to the oceans – again a net neutral exchange because it is a component of a cycle akin the life and death of a tree in the carbon cycle. Until somebody can show the La Niña/El Niño cycle is anything but a simple sine wave of energy coming and going for how long only God knows, we should stop worrying about its effect on climate. It waxes and wanes.
You mean like this? Okee dokee. Nothing to worry about.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.420.2030&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Ocean warming air is the first step in chilling.
I live in Malaysia, I can tell you, it’s already cooling down here and this is the hot season.
My understanding is all previous recorded temperatures have been adjusted to be cooler, so the chances of seeing and record cooling is slim to none. It will only appear as another pause in a warming planet, and pauses are easy to explain away with record warm months.
If the sun is indeed taking a nap, then most of the heat replacement might have to come from geological processes, it seems to me. How does the geological record of today, (presumed or measured?) compare to previous records? The IPCC et al, ignore the role of the Sun and geological processes in their mantra to demonize carbon dioxide – blaming it for everything from Hurricanes to Trump, it seems. I am so sick of the blatant media lies, wearing the sheepskin of opinion and censorship (to not cover a story is to censor it, IMO). They pick up comment from an unknown blogger or some twit on tweeter and run a headline – as if how some idiot on social networking has any inside knowledge that they didn’t find in a rolled up piece of paper in their mothers’ basements?
How many times must it be posted that the amount of W/m2 difference there is between a spotted sun at peak cycle, to a quiet sun at trough is not sufficient to rise above weather noise and long term intrinsic cycle noise, before you people stop posting such an uneducated statement about a napping sun???? Even if the sun stays spotless for decades. If you had even a basic understanding of the ways that TSI is affected by spots versus not spots, you would not make such a silly comment about heat replacement.
I and others have posted and posted and posted about this it seems, to no avail. Belief trumps observable data, sometimes even by all the people for a short while. No wonder President Lincoln was depressed much of the time.
Pam, Apparently you feel so strongly that TSI should be the factor, that you reject any further consideration of sunspots. Like it or not, with appropriate scale/proxy factor the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies provides a 97% match to planet energy change since before 1900. Of course it is a proxy. Likely mechanism is solar magnetic field associated with sunspots modulates galactic cosmic rays which modulate low altitude clouds. Tiny changes to low altitude clouds have the observed effect on average global temperature. Sensitivity to low altitude clouds is indicated by the crude thermal analysis presented in Ref. 12 of http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com
Who are the real ‘owners’ of the state of ‘belief’ wrt solar influence on temperatures?
Quoting the usual small change in number in TSI at TOA as your main argument is a dead giveaway you’re lost in your own state of ‘belief’.
Higher TSI since the solar minimum was responsible for the 2015 El Nino that started less than a month after the SC24 TSI peak in February 2015?
Year 1au TSI
2015 1361.4321
2014 1361.3966
2013 1361.3587
2016 1361.3019
2012 1361.2413
2011 1361.0752
2003 1361.0292
2004 1360.9192
2010 1360.8027
2005 1360.7518
2006 1360.6735
2007 1360.5710
2009 1360.5565
2008 1360.5382
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
The sun is quieting down fast, ahead of the SWPC March “low” F10.7cm prediction value of 97.4 sfu. Yesterday the observed F10.7cm flux was 89, and the March average is now 94.1, and 2016 is at 101.1 sfu, as of yesterday.
The USAF forecast for the next 45 day average of F10.7cm solar radio flux is at 90 sfu. The SWPC ‘predicted’ values for 2016 didn’t even show a result for 90 sfu until December, so the sun is many months ahead of that SWPC prediction now. ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/weekly/Predict.txt, updated monthly.
Name your alternative source for the increase in energy necessary to drive temps up since 2008.
If you don’t have one, then your solar stance is a demonstration of an unswerving “belief” in an evidence, data, and logic-free position – but alas, you aren’t the only one so afflicted.
The failed TOA-based reductionist methods used by warmist climate scientists, will continue to mislead people, such as those ideas used by the IPCC, like neglecting solar variations, or addressing climate “change” (a dynamic thing) with a static energy budget that assumes a constant solar input, when solar energy output actually varies dynamically.
I do credit you Pamela for understanding that the ocean charges and discharges solar heat.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
Dan leaves us the impression that his theory rises above weather noise and other intrinsic factors that produce cloud variations. Don’t buy into it. His mechanism is tiny compared to oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections driven by the Earth’s Coriolis effect. What seeding may occur with cosmic particles is not even a needle in a haystack. It’s more like a wisp of wind that wiggles a leaf of a single tree compared to the jet stream and its ability to move a jet along its path at greater speed than is otherwise usual.
Dan, I would estimate that CO2 has a much greater effect on global temperatures than cosmic particles. And I am not an AGWist.
Getting a compliment from Bob Weber that I understand something is no more dispositive of his acumen on this topic than Chicken Little’s cry of alarm when something fell on his head. Bob has been repeatedly shorn of his uneducated, mathless, unmechanized theories yet continues to spout the same solar wrigglemania nonsense.
“Bob has been repeatedly shorn…” Who did that and when? Be very specific too. You are still wishfully thinking as is Leif Svalgaard that either of you has even come close to successfully refuting what I’ve been saying.
You’re now practically resorting to ad homs, and you didn’t address the issues I brought forth, or provide any counter argument, leading me to think I was right to say this about you:
Your solar stance is a demonstration of an unswerving “belief” in an evidence, data, and logic-free position – but alas, you aren’t the only one so afflicted.
“uneducated, mathless, unmechanized theories yet continues to spout the same solar wrigglemania nonsense”
Uneducated,
I learned of TSI, total solar irradiance, that it comprises all the radiant energy of the sun, and is time-variant.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
mathless,
I computed the annual average TSI and sorted by rank. If you know your numbers Pamela, you can see clearly that the TSI last year was the highest since 2002, 2014 second, and so on, down to the years of the solar minimum 2008/9.
Every year since 2008 had higher and higher TSI, which means the sun produced more energy as time went on until it peaked. That solar variation drove temperatures higher, temperatures that have just peaked, 11 months after the solar TSI peak. [11 is computed by counting the number of months since the TSI peak last February to the HadSST3 Global SST peak in January 2016. – do the math]
unmechanized
The extra solar energy since and above 2008 TSI levels warmed the ocean water at depth and the surface.
wrigglemania
Seeing my wiggles match will change you.
nonsense
The only nonsense is yours. Show me you have more than an attitude.
From where is your alternative energy influence on temperatures that had a chance to overpower and make insignificant the real increase in solar energy output since 2008?
I’m still waiting for your’s and Dr. Svalgaard’s scientific answer(s).
Bob Weber’s proposal is that El Nino’s are driven by solar activity. Bob says it is up to someone else to poke a hole in his argument. That is not the case. It is up to Bob to poke a hole in his own argument. So Bob: Here is a pretty good reconstruction of El Nino events. See what you can find as a correlation with the new stripped-of-mismatched-counting-systems solar record.
Possible El Nino events reconstruction:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luc_Ortlieb/publication/273203998_The_Documented_Historical_Record_of_El_Nino_Events_in_Peru_An_Update_of_the_Quinn_Record_%28Sixteenth_through_Nineteenth_Centuries%29/links/54fb78e60cf20700c5e70d1c.pdf
Current reconstructed solar activity:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1407/1407.3231.pdf
There is a annoying advert on here which is difficult to find and turn of the sound. It keeps on repeating. There has been issues on here before where pesky ads are partly obscuring graphs.
.AdBlock Plus. Nary a peep.
Nobody can say till May-June-July are past.
Pam, If you had looked you might have noticed that the match since before 1900 is 97% with no effect from CO2. Any effect from CO2, volcanoes, aerosols, measurement uncertainty, etc. must find room in the unexplained 3%. The sunspot/low altitude cloud observation is Svensmark’s. The calculation at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com that a change of average cloud altitude of 186 meters would account for the 0.74 K temperature change is mine.
One thing people have to remember is that El Nino events are actually cooling events, if one is looking at the whole climate system. We are getting this constant message from alarmists that the Pause isn’t real if you look at the whole climate system, because ocean warming at depth. But this major El Nino event is actually a huge cooling event, wherein ocean heat is being transferred to the atmosphere on its way to being radiated out into space. It temporarily heats up the atmosphere, but cools the system as a whole. But suddenly there’s no talk of the whole climate system, only the atmosphere, because that’s convenient to the narrative.