NOAA Cancels La Niña Watch While La Niña Conditions Exist

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

La Niña conditions are typically defined by NOAA as sea surface temperature anomalies less than or equal to -0.5 deg C for the NINO3.4 region of the east/central equatorial Pacific. The NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomaly for the week of August 31, 2016 from NOAA’s Monthly Atmospheric and SST Indices webpage (data here) is -0.7 deg C, well into weak La Niña conditions.

15 Weekly NINO3.4 SSTa

Regardless of the existing (and strengthening) La Niña conditions, NOAA has canceled its La Niña Watch, which had been in effect since April. According to the NOAA ENSO Diagnostic Discussion, updated September 8, the “forecaster consensus” is now favoring ENSO-neutral conditions:

ENSO Alert System Status: Not Active

Synopsis: ENSO-Neutral conditions are slightly favored (between 55-60%) during the upcoming Northern Hemisphere fall and winter 2016-17.

ENSO-Neutral conditions were observed over the past month, although sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were below-average over the east-central equatorial Pacific Ocean (Fig. 1). While the Niño-3.4 and Niño-3 regions remained around -0.5°C for most of the month, Niño-4 and Niño 1+2 were -0.1°C and +0.3°C, respectively, by the end of the month (Fig. 2). Subsurface temperatures across the eastern and central Pacific remained below average (Fig. 3), and negative temperature anomalies remained weak across the western Pacific (Fig. 4). Atmospheric anomalies over the tropical Pacific Ocean largely indicated ENSO-Neutral conditions. The traditional Southern Oscillation index and the equatorial Southern Oscillation index were weakly positive during August. The lower-level winds were near average, while the upper-level winds were anomalously westerly in a small region to the east of the International Date Line. Convection was suppressed over the western and central tropical Pacific, although less suppressed compared to last month (Fig. 5). Overall, the combined ocean and atmosphere system continues to reflect ENSO-Neutral.

The multi-model averages favor borderline Neutral-La Niña conditions (3-month average Niño- 3.4 index less than or equal to -0.5°C) during the Northern Hemisphere fall, continuing into winter (Fig. 6). However, the more recently updated model runs from the North American Multi-Model Ensemble (NMME) more strongly favor ENSO-Neutral (Fig. 7). The forecaster consensus prefers this outcome, which is supported by the lack of significant anomalies in several indicators over the past month (winds, convection, subsurface temperatures). Overall, ENSO-Neutral conditions are slightly favored (between 55-60%) during the upcoming Northern Hemisphere fall and winter 2016-17 (click CPC/IRI consensus forecast for the chance of each outcome for each 3-month period).

We’ll keep an eye on the tropical Pacific in months to come regardless of NOAA’s “forecaster consensus”.

My full sea surface temperature update for August 2016 is here. The Blob (elevated sea surface temperature anomalies in the eastern extratropical North Pacific) appears to be returning (reemerging).

Advertisements

84 thoughts on “NOAA Cancels La Niña Watch While La Niña Conditions Exist

  1. ENSO nuetral condition means, the temperature anomaly must be flat with ups and downs. At present no such scenario is evident but on the contrary the El Nino peak coming down steadily, a La Nina condition similar to 1997/98. Unfortunately science is misused for the selfish gains, There is a strong need to stop such tendencies in scientific institutions.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • I sympathize with your idealistic dream but it is only a dream.
      Soon the spirit of Lysenko will rule all with an iron fist.

  2. From: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Outlooks

    “Outlooks from the eight international climate models surveyed by the Bureau continue to show some mixed projections. There is significant variation between models and a generally wide spread in ensemble members within each model. Three of the surveyed models indicate a late-forming La Niña is likely to develop late during the southern hemisphere spring or during summer, while the other five indicate neutral ENSO conditions are the more likely outcome for the outlook period.
    A late forming La Niña would be unusual but not unprecedented.
    IF A LA NINA DOES FORM, models suggest it will be weak, potentially short-lived, and well below the strength of the significant 2010–12 event.”
    And:
    From: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/september-2016-enso-update-cooling-our-heels
    “Over the last few months, sea surface temperature anomalies (the departure from the long-term average) in the Niño3.4 region have become more negative, which was expected. Currently, the sea surface temperature in the Nino3.4 region is about -0.5° below the long-term average, according to the ERSSTv4 data.
    La Niña threshold! However, the second step of the La Niña conditions decision processis “do you think the SST will stay below the threshold for the next several overlapping seasons?” For now, the answer to this question is “no.””

  3. Bob

    I have been analyzing data from the four El Nino regions for some time now. If you want to look at a case of cyclic behavior I can’t come up with better examples.

    I first started looking at only monthly behavior but earlier this year I transitioned from full monthly analysis to a combination of monthly and daily. You will see that in the charts but starting in 2014 I use the daily data.

    I now have daily data up through September 1 and that is what is reflected in the charts.

    I will confine myself to only region 3.4 although I have done this for all four regions.

    https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgP4Rp0IaEOu8KbZtrQ

    For a close-up I furnish this. The use of the daily data after 2014 is clear.

    https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgP4SDGTNN9Yu1p6l-Q

    For just the portion that are the daily data it looks like this. These data were placed in a spreadsheet.

    https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgP4QAXT8xYFt1tCmUw

    It is not on the chart but the correlation coefficient for just this portion is 0.952. You can see that the cyclic fit is suggesting we may soon be on the way up. We shall see.

    The model projections have changed over time. A strong La Nina was at one time indicated.

    https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKh_W7uC5MMEg9QuvjB

    Things have changed but then they have changed in my cyclic analysis too. I have kept track of how projections have changed over time.

    https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgP4T9TuXyqY_mVcOsg

    There is certainly nothing that would rule out further changes but throughout a decline and rise has been indicated since the beginning. Before the year is finished I hope further clarity is added.

  4. I think the official designation for La Nina would be 3 consecutive months or more with -0.5C anomalies or colder.
    #1 This makes any declaration of La Nina (or El Nino on the other side) overdue as it is not official until it has been going on for at least 3 months.
    #2 Most of the recent forecasts I have seen show the anomaly hanging out just about at 0.5C for a couple of months then returning very close to zero, not a steep, long lived drop into Nina territory.
    So yes the conditions exist right now but may not make the 3 month threshold.

    And “global warming” is NOT the cause of a huge Nino not turning into a huge Nina.

    • Global warming, fairies, and unicorns are the cause of EVERYTHING, from acne to zebra infertility. One need only BELIEVE!

    • Kevin,
      NOAA thought it worthwhile reporting. I suspect that is part of the intention to scare the public with reports of high temperatures with little chance of declining. The problem is, if their forecast turns out to be wrong, they will have egg on their face.

      • I think they may be counting on political development to keep their failed forecast from the front pages. Or any pages at all.

      • I suspect that is part of the intention to scare the public with reports of high temperatures with little chance of declining.

        The public pays very little attention to forecasts of ENSO.

        The problem is, if their forecast turns out to be wrong, they will have egg on their face.

        Sure. Which is why they generally try to make as-accurate of forecasts as possible. Most of the public doesn’t care, but farmers and fishermen and some investors do, as ENSO influences their livelihoods.

    • ” farmers and fishermen and some investors do, as ENSO influences their livelihoods.”

      Thanks Windchaser. Sometimes anger, suspicion and sarcasm makes it hard to get real answers.

  5. The problem is the trade winds have yet to pick up. Since they normally don’t start doing this during the NH summer I’m not sure what the NOAA changes are based on. If the models are based on those summer winds then their ability to predict La Nina will not be very good.The issue will be what happens in October and thereafter.

  6. Forecasting models seem to be based more and more on wishful thinking, a hope the data will cooperate and fit the model. Seems to me you could throw darts at a wall chart and make equally accurate predicitions. Toneb’s example seems to back this up—nearly 50/50 split on predictions. There’s not much science in these predictions, or if there is, it is in sore need of updating of theory, model or something.

  7. The predictive capacity of ENSO models is abysmal despite being adjusted to real conditions every month.

    Frankly nothing can be said about the future based on those models. It is possible that temperature anomaly won’t change much for the next 3-4 months, but really nobody knows what is going to happen next winter-spring with ENSO.

    Most people tend to forget (or not know) that El Niño is a feature of a cooling planet, not a warming one. El Niño frequency and strength was very reduced during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, only to increase progressively during the Neoglacial period until peaking during the Little Ice Age and coming down somehow since then. This is quite well established. Those that think that strong and frequent Los Niños are a sign of planetary warming are likely to be wrong, and the opposite is probably true.

      • Second that, also, what is the evidence for the “well established” understanding of El Nino frequency throughout the Holocene?

      • I believe I can. Most of the paleo evidence shows that El Niño increased at the end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum and has been on the rise during the Neoglacial Period until around 1200 years ago. It is now less strong and frequent.

        “ENSO variability was present throughout the Holocene but underwent a steady increase from the mid-Holocene to the present. In the mid-Holocene, extreme warm El Niño events were smaller in amplitude and occurred less frequently … as in the present climate.”

        Clement, Amy C., Richard Seager, and Mark A. Cane. “Suppression of El Niño during the Mid‐Holocene by changes in the Earth’s orbit.” Paleoceanography 15.6 (2000): 731-737.

        “The onset of modern ENSO periodicities is identified by palaeo-ENSO records throughout the tropical Pacific region ~ 5000 years ago, with an abrupt increase in ENSO magnitude ~ 3000 years ago. Individual ENSO events recorded by corals reveal that the precipitation response to El Niño temperature anomalies was subdued in the mid-Holocene. The apparent non-linear onset of ENSO in the late Holocene appears to reflect abruptly enhanced interaction between the Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Intertropical Convergence Zone.”

        Gagan, Michael K., et al. “Post-glacial evolution of the Indo-Pacific warm pool and El Nino-Southern Oscillation.” Quaternary International 118 (2004): 127-143.

        “From about 15,000 to about 7000 calendar years before the present, the periodicity of clastic deposition is greater than or equal to 15 years; thereafter, there is a progressive increase in frequency to periodicities of 2 to 8.5 years. This is the modern El Niño periodicity, which was established about 5000 calendar years before the present.”

        Rodbell, Donald T., et al. “An ~ 15,000-year record of El Niño-driven alluviation in southwestern Ecuador.” Science 283.5401 (1999): 516-520.

        “We find that changes on a timescale of 2–8 years, which we attribute to warm ENSO events, become more frequent over the Holocene until about 1,200 years ago, and then decline towards the present.”

        Moy, Christopher M., et al. “Variability of El Niño/Southern Oscillation activity at millennial timescales during the Holocene epoch.” Nature 420.6912 (2002): 162-165.

        “Paleoclimate records from the tropical Pacific suggest the early to mid-Holocene was a period of reduced El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability, with a transition to modern, increased ENSO frequency occurring some time in the last few thousand years… Maximum Holocene precipitation and inferred ENSO variability occurred between 2000±100 and 1500±70 cal years BP, during the same period that six other independent proxy records suggest higher ENSO frequency and longer, stronger El Niño events.”

        Conroy, Jessica L., et al. “Holocene changes in eastern tropical Pacific climate inferred from a Galápagos lake sediment record.” Quaternary Science Reviews 27.11 (2008): 1166-1180.

        I also made this figure with the data from Moy et al.

    • Javier could be correct since the effect of el Nino and La Nina on global temperatures is, even according to the orthodoxy of Bob Tisdale, opposite to what many assume. El Nino vents heat from the ocean, and the following La Nina is descrived as a “recharge” of heat. The resurgent trade winds of La Nina pump a pulse of el Nino warm water away from the equator to high latitudes, lifting global temperatures as a consequence. The big el Nino-La Nina of 1997-1999 lifted global temperatures by half a degree. This has all been exhaustively described by Bob Tisdale.

      What is significant now is that we are not getting a strong La Nina but a rather weak one. This means no recharge, no poleward pumping. So the excursion of equatorial Pacific warmth will dissipate to space and be lost to the climate system.

      I have been arguing for a couple of years that the el Nino we just had is not really an el Nino in the classic sense. This is the same as calling it an “el Nino Modoki”. In the same was the current developing “la Nina” is also a La Nina modoki. What Modoki means is quite simple. This means that the el Nino-La Nina has not engaged the Bjerknes feedback. The region of bright red warm anomaly is centered in the mid Pacific and does not connect to the coast of Peru, showing that the Peruvian upwelling has not changed much, as it should do in a “true” el Nino-La Nina. The Bjerknes feedback is the reinforcing positive feedback between Peruvian upwelling and the trade winds. (Trade winds strengthen Peruvian upwelling by dragging water westward. Peruvian upwelling cools the east Pacific, increasing the east-west temperature and pressure gradient and thus strengthen the trade winds. Back to start and repeat…)

      This image shows that the cool SST anomaly is in the mid Pacific and weakly connected to the South American coast – so its a La Nina modoki:

      I still have a suspicion that the recent excursion of high temperatures in the Pacific was not really an el Nino at all. Part of it was connected to what was called the “blob” of Pacific warmth which in my view is due to a general slowing down of poleward ocean heat movement which has happened in both the Atlantic (slowing gulf stream) and the Pacific (slowing Pacific gyre.) Also a big contributor to the recent Pacific hot SST anomalies is probably a rather mysterious and opaque behind-the-scenes change to the baseline map of SST used for the Pacific. At a certain moment in 2014 Pacific SST anomalies were looking very blue and cold. There were mutterings of adjustments being needed and all of a sudden everything went back to being reassuringly red and yellow again. And unsurprisingly the following two years – 2015 and 2016 – have been record hottest years providing infinite political capital to warminusts the world over. These temperature records have had at their heart the Pacific anomalies which received a massive behind-the-scenes leg-up in 2014. It probably made the “El Nino” peak, apparently rivalling that of 1998, twice as high as it would otherwise have been.

      I was saying last year that this “almost but not quite” el Nino would be followed by an “almost but not quite” La Nina, and this is what is happening. Saying “Bjerknes” on this site is a bit like saying “Jehovah” in the Life of Brian movie, but I’ll say it anyway – no Bjerknes means no El Nino or La Nina, Just something superficially similar but etiologically different.

    • El Niño puts heat where it can be lost to space, but it also involves albedo changes that increase heat intake. The step-wise increases that persist seem to indicate El Niño represents net heat gain, looking at the short run.

      • As not every strong El Niño shows step warming increase, the step increase may be actually behind the scene warming not due to El Niño. If it was warming due to El Niño the prediction would be that the more and stronger Los Niños the more global warming, yet during the Neoglacial period of the Holocene the opposite is observed.

  8. If temperature anomalies continue to go down without NOAA’s official pronouncement of a La Nina, does that mean it is due to a cooling global climate change? /sarcoff

    • Ren,

      I agree. October (mid-late)will open some currently closed eyes. ENSO, AO, Collapse of Atlantic basin Hurricane formation, cold NH early winter.

  9. The same team that did the non-peer reviewed rapid response to the no-name storm that flooded Louisiana has also attributed this ENSO condition prediction to climate change. Sarc?

    • Which is not surprising since nothing ever happened before 1979. There was no similar flood in 1953, not that any climate scientist can remember. Nor was I-12 built with miles of concrete dividers running east to west that acted as a dam. The water drains north to south in that area.crossing I-12, going south the houses are suddenly built on stilts. Nor was there a build up of housing in Livingston Parish from people leaving Baton Rouge. Oh, you know where that Is? Walker LA where LIGO is because the land is so flat. It’s so flat that both arms of the building that extend out about 2 km are higher at the ends than the middle.

  10. Can anyone say why the BOM monthly subsurface Pacific ocean equatorial temperature anomalies down to 400 meters, has stopped at March 2016:

    Is Australian downsizing of climate scientists responsible? Or another reason?

  11. We’ll keep an eye on the tropical Pacific in months to come regardless of NOAA’s “forecaster consensus”.

    They knew Bob would do it, so they don’t have to.

  12. To respond to kevinmackay and ptolemy2 above:

    1. The enviroprofiteers (mostly Wind Hu$tler$ and Solar $c@mmer$) in countries such as Australia and the U.S. need sea surface temperatures to be blazing red warm!!!! for now (ballot measures and AGW-friendly politicians up for election this fall (spring, in Australia)). Can’t talk about La Nina, now. Sssh! Bad for business.

    2. Overheard (yes, heh, heh, heh, we were listening in, you goblin scientists) in the

    Super, SUPER, secret NOAA “briefing room”

    BOM Guy: So, there’s your ENSO report, mate. Clearly La Nina. Most likely forecast, cooling as far as the eye can see.

    NOAA Agency Guidance Officer: (spluttering and RED faced) B-b-b-b B! G! This is HORR — er (calm, mint green, mask of neutrality back firmly in place) I mean, this is HARdly the time to be saying that, my dear B.G.. I mean (patronizing little laugh), it is only September 9th —

    BG: 10th

    NAGO: — 10th? Oh, yeah, forgot you adjusted your clocks forward here. Well, it’s the 9th in all the other datasets, I mean clocks, in the world. Anyway, as I was saying, it is still VERY WARM out there. Too soon to say when La Nina will kick in. Best to just put the ENSO report on mute, let’s say, …… “neutral” status, for now. Okay? …… B.G.? …. The “someone just poured water into my beer” look on your face says you either don’t believe me or you don’t understand. You are too bright to not understand. So, you don’t believe me, eh, B.G.?

    BG: This isn’t a matter of BELIEF! This is science. The data says the La Nina is.

    NAGO: The Consensus says it isn’t.

    BG: “The Consensus”? What’s that??

    NAGO: It’s who signs your paycheck.

    BG: Well, the models do say that while it is kinda-sorta La Nina, we don’t know for sure yet, so we’d just better say we’ll ………. get back to you when we know……. after………..?

    NAGO: After we get that climate change package passed.

    BG: …. after November. (heavy sigh)

    NAGO: Did you sigh heavily, BG? I was texting my broker ….. perhaps, it was wake of that oil tanker (damn them (muttering) making more money than me) making a boat rub up against the dock …. DAMN, I hate meeting down here — all this proof of fossil fuel success, ships, creosote, asphalt, people working at good paying jobs ….. Waaaait — one — minute…… Did you see THAT??

    BG: What.

    NAGO: THE SEA LEVEL JUST ROSE — BEFORE OUR VERY EYES! — 6 INCHES, er about FIFTEEN, yeah, that’s better, heh, CENTIMETERS!!!!

    BG: Are we done? Those longshoremen are looking kind of suspicious.

    NAGO: Done? Oh. Sure, yeah. For today. {BG drives off} But, not for long…. Once that cooling has been going for a few more months, heh, heh, it sure IS happening, Bob Tisdale has never been wrong ………. look — out — world — here — we — come: GLOBAL COOLING CAUSED BY FOSSIL FUELS coming to a television screen near you! Hahahahahahahahh (cough, chokes on his own spit).

    • Janice, if your scenario is accurate the scientists know a large La Nina is coming but are prepared to lie bout it. We will see a large La Nina soon and all those scientists will look like complete idiots.

      I don’t get this blog. When a Godzilla El Nino was being talked about there was much discussion here that this was exaggeration. However, when the temperatures rose significantly the reason given here was because of a huge El Nino. The same will happen now. Temperatures will not fall and the reason given here will be that there was no La Nina like there was after the last big El Nino. You need the La Nina to fail to materialise to explain the forthcoming data without acknowledging AGW. Just like you needed the huge El Nino to explain rising temperatures without AGW. Why people here are apparently insisting that there is a La Nina in the absence of evidence is beyond me.

  13. Thank you, Bob Tisdale — for more GREAT analysis. What a gift to the world you are: a true humanitarian in your persevering efforts to get the facts out there.

    How was your first long holiday in YEARS (if I am not mistaken)? I hope that it was wonderful.

    Janice

    • many ocean temp data sets appear to have that problem commiebob. even when different organisations use information from the same satellites apparently. see dmi north sea temps/anomalies compared to noaa.
      like ptolemy above i also wonder about the baselines used . were they adjusted to match the various adjustments that have taken place retrospectively ? they had to have been originally established using the equipment of the day,yet subsequently the numbers produced by that equipment have been adjusted. ie, was the baseline karlized as it should have been ?

  14. Of course they have. Because that allows for headlines like this one:

    ‘La Niña fizzles, making record warm global temperatures more likely’ (on Yahoo front page, naturally)

    Accompanied by conclusions like this one, obviously intended to minimize the impending winter, which hasn’t even happened yet:

    ‘For climate scientists, what matters is the long-term trend over decades to centuries, making monthly records much less significant compared to the steady increase in temperatures throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. The long-term record shows an unmistakable upward trend in global temperatures, with warming accelerating in the oceans and atmosphere in recent decades.’

    And proclamations like this one:
    ‘Instead, human-caused global warming has been the biggest player in turning up the Earth’s thermostat.’

    All with the appropriate certainties – words like ‘unmistakable’, ‘unprecedented’ – with the subtext of ‘nothing to see here, just trust us, this is not damage control, or milking out the last of the El Nino through the election season under the direct guidance of the Administration. Really.’

    Funny. I didn’t see any prominent skeptic voice quoted. I suspect… just SUSPECT, mind you… that author Andrew Freedman didn’t make an effort to contact anyone. Anthony? Bob? Roy? Anyone? No calls for opinion?

    Sigh. The promotion strides forward unfettered, fully dressed in Emperor’s Clothes, without the slightest blink of shame.

  15. Technically they are correct. La Niña/El Nino is a three month rolling average. But having said that, we sure look look like we are in free fall temperature wise toward La Niña.

    I bet they change their minds ONLY when the technical definition is met. Until then, “move along, nothing to see here”……..

      • ‘Technically correct’ is a very important tool in disinformation campaigns.
        As is “technically incorrect”, or lies.

        It is crazy to say that they will change their minds only when the conditions are met as though this is a bad thing. El Nino / La Nina are somewhat arbitrary. Why not 0.4C or 0.6C? Why not 2.5 months not 3 months? The fact is the conditions required are stated well in advance and agreed. If you want to start your own La Nina watch based on a single month then feel free to do so.

      • Thanks, seaice1 . . I’m starting my own La Nina watch …

        … … …

        … still watching . . it’s not as hard as one might think . . so far ; )

      • ‘Technically correct’ is a very important tool in disinformation campaigns.

        So.. it’s better to make claims that are “technically incorrect”, like Bob’s post?

        Hell, let’s drop the word “technically”.

      • I love how warmists pretend not to understand terms and references.

        ‘Technically correct’ means staying within strict definitions while still shaping a message in a deliberate form while attempting to appear not to do so.

        It’s basically a CYA process to avoid being caught in a out-and-out lie. Phrases like ‘Climate change is real and humans are contributing’, is a true enough statement, but it leaves a lot out, doesn’t it?

        NOAA is not trying to be as ‘accurate as possible’ – it’s naïve or obtuse to suggest so (usually obtuse). The snarky ‘technically incorrect or lies’ comment misses the point (again probably deliberately). The possibility of a La Nina cycle has been bounced around a lot in the press and so it must be discredited, because it suggests a cooling trend that would balance out the heavily publicized El Nino-fueled ‘hottest year ever’ – and this is important to the politicized institutions that are feeding on the Global Warming scare – particularly now, in an election year. This is preemptive damage control. Whether or not a strong La Nina actually manifests is irrelevant to messaging.

        It’s a very easy rule of thumb – warming is exaggerated and cooling is minimized in almost all NOAA press releases. This is reflected in almost every story reported in the mainstream media. It’s deliberate. It’s agenda-driven. And everyone damn well knows it.

  16. The almost constant rain here in north queensland, normally bone dry at this time, indicates to me that la nina is alive & well.

  17. Re: ptolemy2 September 9, 2016 at 8:37 am

    Having a coffee with a mate this morning. His son came in after a morning surf. “Man, the water was cold!” This guy has been surfing all seasons through the last 20 years. They know!! Place? : Raglan, New Zealand

    Very slow spring here, little grass growth, too cold. Where’s those lovely warm spring rains? Still waiting

  18. Bob Tisdale clearly is WUWT’s ENSO expert, and I understand his clear warning here.

    But according to BOM’s ENSO Wrapup
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=SOI
    with its 30 day running mean:

    it becomes visible that ¡Viva La Niña! will take some more time to become really visible.

    A few days ago, this manifestly tired SOI managed to lazily move (for the first time since the last Niña decline in july 2014) above level +7, but immediately dropped down.

    Only a sustained keeping above +7 indicates La Niña conditions.

    MEI is still on the decline, but has not entered the negative level yet.

    And Nick informed us about something similar:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/09/noaa-cancels-la-nina-watch-while-la-nina-conditions-exist/#comment-2296181

    So… wait and see!

    • I like that your comment linked to Nick’s comment. If you scroll down just a bit from his link I did post a comment where I analyzed the Nino region data and managed to find cyclic behavior.

      I apologize to all of you for not being able to put graphs directly in my comments. I can only furnish onedrive links.

      Perhaps, If I only include one link it might entice someone to give the longer comment a look.

      https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgP4QAXT8xYFt1tCmUw

      I am not adverse to critical comments but some feedback is always appreciated.

      I wish I knew how to get pictures in my comments. A picture is worth a thousand words.

      BTW, your ending said watt and see. I could not agree more. I hope that within a month or two of data this might just be made clear.

      • Normally, charplum, it’s quite easy: you see a picture somewhere on the web, click on the right button and then a pulldown menu appears with a field like “copy graphic’s address” or the like. That address you then simply paste into your comment.

        But here is an exception. Your link points to an image stored on Microsoft’s ‘onedrive.live.com’. Right clicking on the mouse gives you nothing; ctrk+click instead on the top menu’s right field (I see it in german; for you may be it is ‘Show original’ or the like).

        You get a new tab with the same image; now rightclicking gives the menu I told above, ans selecting “copy graphic’s address” a link to the image which is exanded inline by WordPress’ software:

        https://yewb1q.bn1302.livefilestore.com/y3prDmzA_YIZT2GJsN7a_15Xb9wKLL8KyjhNuFwKyMSQlcRXhJExoBc3JR_2ONPQsFAusp_Jpwikei7WBncnur4Oe-2ocJaUEmL14f-5KThXjwXvAMkdhS3um8hxCEtzU_QHmew14NQBFksAC9c3H9hCA/nino%2034%2009012016.jpg?psid=1

        In theory, the image now should have appeared above this line.

      • If you go above my comment there is another link to a comment that is very close to my original comment. Scroll down a bit and look for another charplum comment.

        What I have done for all four nino regions is employ Dr. Evans Optimal Fourier Transform (OFT) to initially identify the frequencies involved. I then use those as an input that goes through a Marquardt process that comes up with a fit to the data. It is surprising how good a fit I get.

        Simple visual inspection of the whole record back to the 1850s on nino region data would make you suspect that I can get cycles to match that. Anyway, that is what I have done for all sorts of datasets including all four nino regions, H4, RSS, and UAH.

        I fit the satellite records with a correlation coefficient of about 0.95 and it includes a contribution from CO2.

        I am not a climate scientist but I did spend 35 years solving rotating equipment problems looking at FFTs.

        I am so old I go back to one of the original FFT analyzers, the Nicolet 444 or was it 446.

        On the picture problem, I got so frustrated with this I sent off an email to Microsoft on this. I received a reply saying they would try to get me an answer.

        Because I have solved so many issues by discerning information from data measurements I believe better evaluation of the data we have can give us the answers we all seek on climate change.

        I solved my rotating equipment problems without having a good rotor dynamics model. In fact, I would argue that before you try to construct your model maybe you should spend some time trying to better understand what needs to be in your model. That understanding, at least in my case, came from gaining and understanding of the data.

      • Now to your graph: it is surprising.Where does the projection originate from?
        It looks somewhat like an average of the predictions plotted for several months from april till september.

  19. “Strongly favors,” “slightly favors,” which is it, anyway? This is a shining example of how very unscientific mainstream scientists can be in letting their biases determine conclusions rather than real data from the Earth system.

Comments are closed.