A Weak El Nino Transitioning to La Nada

Reposted from the Cliff Mass Weather Blog

Friday, February 14, 2020

A Weak El Nino Transitioning to La Nada

During the past few months we have moved from near neutral conditions (La Nada) to a weak El Nino (warmer than normal temperatures in the central and eastern tropic Pacific)–providing some insights into the weather later this year.
Looking at the temperatures in the central tropical Pacific (the Nino 3.4 area), the water temperatures have moved from a bit cooler than normal in September to around .5C above normal.  This is a minimal El Nino.

Next, viewing water temperatures in an east-west slice of the Pacific Ocean–from the surface to about 300 meters below the surface– show warmer than normal conditions (red/orange colors).
The trade winds have weakened as well–another marker of El Nino.  This is a very weak, minimal El Nino.  And the strength of the signal is important.

Last month, the NOAA Climate Prediction Center was projecting that this spring we could move into neutral territory (tropical sea surface temps within .5C of normal)– see below

And the January extended forecast from many modeling systems (see below) generally indicates neutral conditions, slightly weighted towards the warm side.  The latest European Center model is similar.

The key point in all this, is that with a weak El Nino grading to neutral (normal, La Nada) conditions in the tropical Pacific, there is no reason to expect conditions in our area to be different from normal. They could be, of course, but the tropical Pacific will not be weighting the atmospheric dice in any direction (something that a strong El Nino or La Nina would do).
What about the BLOB? How is it going?  The latest sea surface temperature anomaly map (difference from normal) shows cool water immediately off the West Coast, but evidence of a weak blob (1-2C above normal) off the coast.   Let’s call it a junior blob…much, much weaker than the one we experienced a few years ago.

sst.daily.anom

Advertisements

53 thoughts on “A Weak El Nino Transitioning to La Nada

  1. The energy to power a strong El Niño has to come from somewhere and once it’s been used up, it’ll take a while to store up again. Might be chilly for a time.

    • Plus, the AMO is into its cool phase.

      I want to stress that if D&E did not smooth their data, the correlation would not have been as high; but as high as it would have been, it would still have been expected. All that smoothing has done here is artificially inflated the confidence D&E have in their results. It does not change the fact that AMO + PDO is well correlated with air temperature. link

      People have been calling for a protracted period of global cooling. After its been cooling for a decade or so, the population will notice and that could finally put paid to CAGW. Then I would like to see some fraudsters go to jail.

      • Here’s a chart of the AMO:

        https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/tsgcos.corr_.81.159.104.45.247.15.34.31.png

        It’s profile strongly resembles the profile of the U.S. surface temperature chart Hansen 1999:

        https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uhcnh2.gif

        Both charts show the warmth of the 1930’s and the cold of the 1970’s, unlike the bastardized Modern-era Hockey Stick chart below which downplays both the warmth of the 1930’s and the cold of the 1970’s in a fraudulent effort to make the temperature record conform to CO2 production.

        The first two charts represent the *real* surface temperature profile of the Earth whereas the last chart represents the Big Lie perpetrated by CAGW advocates.

        Bogus, Bastardized Modern-era Hockey Stick chart:

        https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Reference-Figure-1.png

          • Yes, chart 3 does look completely different, Joe. That’s the point I was trying to make. Chart 3 is a bastardization of charts 1 and 2. Chart 3 shows we are experiencing the warmest temperatures in human history. Charts 1 and 2 show that it was just as warm in the recent past and we are not experiencing unprecedented warming. CAGW needs unprecedented warming, thus, the Data Manipulators changed the chart to show unprecedented warming. And it’s a Big Lie.

            All regional temperature charts have basically the same temperature profile as the AMO and the U.S. temperature charts, i.e., it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today. They all resemble each other, more or less. None of them resemble the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart. The Hockey Stick chart is the outliar. It’s a political document.

        • edi malinaric February 16, 2020 at 10:39 am

          ” It’s profile ” should be ” Its profile “.

          edi malinaricv,

          ” It’s profile ”, ” Its profile “: profile is for ev’ry-one !

      • Joe D’Aleo coincidentally has a blog on Weatherbell (paywall) this morning on the AMO turning colder. The stratospheric polar vortex tightened up and has stayed over the Arctic since Christmas resulting in a very cold polar region. The winter sea ice has responded by adding back 1 million sq km. Both Alaska and Greenland have been brutally cold this winter.

        His point was the late Bill Gray’s research indicated the North Atlantic should start to flip cold around 2020 and it would trend colder for the next 30 years, then warm. The bad news is much colder northern hemisphere temperatures. The good news.. fewer hurricanes.

        He had some nice graphs but I can’t link them. You can see though at present the North Atlantic is colder than normal. https://vortex.plymouth.edu/mapwall/ssta.png

        • Bill Gray’s Al Gore should burn in hell for what he did to him. Back to earth Al Gore got rich playing the fraud game. He should go to jail, in a sane would that would happen, yet we are not in a sane world. Never have been, the left murdered 100,000,000 plus people in the twenty century and yet they are still thinking their polices work and trying to take us back to those times. As Ron White puts it “you can’t fix stupid.”

        • “oe D’Aleo coincidentally has a blog on Weatherbell (paywall) this morning on the AMO turning colder. The stratospheric polar vortex tightened up and has stayed over the Arctic since Christmas resulting in a very cold polar region.”

          I guess that accounts for the mild winter we have had here in the U.S., although the states along the Canadian border are getting periodic blasts of arctic air, but not too bad considering previous years.

          We have the subtropical jet stream blowing west to east over the central U.S. which also accounts for our warm winter, but I suppose that is to be expected if the polar jet stream is being limited from pushing south.

        • rbabcock,

          “The bad news is much colder northern hemisphere temperatures. The good news.. fewer hurricanes.”

          / –> The much colder northern hemisphere temperatures ate the hurricanes.

  2. at point 5 positive it sucked for us Aussies getting our easterly rains
    that small drop toward neutral and were starting to get the very late cyclones..or at least RAIN;-)
    and the IOD reverting has also saved our butts up nth and sweeping down and across from the west
    so I have to admit to being relieved happy and being a lot less stressed with water in the tanks again
    La Ninas are good for Australia!

  3. Excerpted from article:

    The key point in all this, is that with a weak El Nino grading to neutral (normal, La Nada) conditions in the tropical Pacific, there is no reason to expect conditions in our area to be different from normal. They could be, of course, but the tropical Pacific will not be weighting the atmospheric dice in any direction (something that a strong El Nino or La Nina would do).

    Iffen said …. “atmospheric dice” ….. is in reference to “atmospheric CO2 ppm”, ….. then I agree 100%.

    A strong El Nino will cause an increase in the yearly average outgassing of CO2 from the ocean surface waters, …….. whereas a strong La Nina will cause a decrease in the yearly average outgassing of CO2 from the ocean surface waters,

    Said increase/decrease will be reflected in the Mauna Loa CO2 data, like the 1979-2019 data shows:

    year mth “Max” _ yearly increase ____ mth “Min” ppm
    1979 _ 6 _ 339.20 …. + ….. El Niño ___ 9 … 333.93
    1980 _ 5 _ 341.47 …. +2.27 _________ 10 … 336.05
    1981 _ 5 _ 343.01 …. +1.54 __________ 9 …. 336.92
    1982 _ 5 _ 344.67 …. +1.66 El Niño __ 9 … 338.32 El Chichón volcano
    1983 _ 5 _ 345.96 …. +1.29 _________ 9 … 340.17
    1984 _ 5 _ 347.55 …. +1.59 __________ 9 … 341.35
    1985 _ 5 _ 348.92 …. +1.37 _________ 10 … 343.08
    1986 _ 5 _ 350.53 …. +1.61 _________ 10 … 344.47
    1987 _ 5 _ 352.14 …. +1.61 __________ 9 … 346.52
    1988 _ 5 _ 354.18 …. +2.04 __________ 9 … 349.03
    1989 _ 5 _ 355.89 …. +1.71 La Nina __ 9 … 350.02
    1990 _ 5 _ 357.29 …. +1.40 __________ 9 … 351.28
    1991 _ 5 _ 359.09 …. +1.80 __________ 9 … 352.30
    1992 _ 5 _ 359.55 …. +0.46 El Niño __ 9 … 352.93 Pinatubo volcano
    1993 _ 5 _ 360.19 …. +0.64 __________ 9 … 354.10
    1994 _ 5 _ 361.68 …. +1.49 __________ 9 … 355.63
    1995 _ 5 _ 363.77 …. +2.09 _________ 10 … 357.97
    1996 _ 5 _ 365.16 …. +1.39 _________ 10 … 359.54
    1997 _ 5 _ 366.69 …. +1.53 __________ 9 … 360.31
    1998 _ 5 _ 369.49 …. +2.80 El Niño __ 9 … 364.01
    1999 _ 4 _ 370.96 …. +1.47 La Nina ___ 9 … 364.94
    2000 _ 4 _ 371.82 …. +0.86 La Nina ___ 9 … 366.91
    2001 _ 5 _ 373.82 …. +2.00 __________ 9 … 368.16
    2002 _ 5 _ 375.65 …. +1.83 _________ 10 … 370.51
    2003 _ 5 _ 378.50 …. +2.85 _________ 10 … 373.10
    2004 _ 5 _ 380.63 …. +2.13 __________ 9 … 374.11
    2005 _ 5 _ 382.47 …. +1.84 __________ 9 … 376.66
    2006 _ 5 _ 384.98 …. +2.51 __________ 9 … 378.92
    2007 _ 5 _ 386.58 …. +1.60 __________ 9 … 380.90
    2008 _ 5 _ 388.50 …. +1.92 La Nina _ 10 … 382.99
    2009 _ 5 _ 390.19 …. +1.65 _________ 10 … 384.39
    2010 _ 5 _ 393.04 …. +2.85 El Niño __ 9 … 386.83
    2011 _ 5 _ 394.21 …. +1.17 La Nina _ 10 … 388.96
    2012 _ 5 _ 396.78 …. +2.58 _________ 10 … 391.01
    2013 _ 5 _ 399.76 …. +2.98 __________ 9 … 393.51
    2014 _ 5 _ 401.88 …. +2.12 __________ 9 … 395.35
    2015 _ 5 _ 403.94 …. +2.06 __________ 9 … 397.63
    2016 _ 5 _ 407.70 …. +3.76 El Niño __ 9 … 401.03
    2017 _ 5 _ 409.65 …. +1.95 __________ 9 … 403.38
    2018 _ 5 _ 411.24 …. +1.59 __________9 … 405.51
    2019 _ 5 _ 414.66 …. +3.42 __________9 … 408.50

    • If the decrease in natural CO2 off gassing due to ocean surface temperatures is noted, will the resulting change in the natural vs man made CO2 ratio be reported accurately as a drop in natural contribution or hyped as ‘we are more responsible than ever’?

      • will the resulting change in the natural vs man made CO2 ratio be reported accurately

        Jean Parisot, …… anthropogenic (man made) CO2 emissions has never been reported accurately simply because they really don’t have a clue how much the emissions are as a result of human activities.

        Besides the fact that it is estimated that the world’s termite population emits 10 times more than humans do. And that doesn’t include the microbial decomposition emissions.

        And none of the so called “experts” ever bother to attempt calculating …….. how much CO2 is removed from the atmosphere via raindrops falling to the earth’s surface.

        Jean Parisot, …… most every “junk” and many other science claim related to atmospheric CO2 quantities and CO2 causing AGW ….. are “rooted” in Keeling’s Mauna Loa Record. Without the MLR, the so called “experts” would be stuttering among themselves.

  4. From the article: What about the BLOB? How is it going? The latest sea surface temperature anomaly map (difference from normal) shows cool water immediately off the West Coast, but evidence of a weak blob (1-2C above normal) off the coast. Let’s call it a junior blob…much, much weaker than the one we experienced a few years ago.”

    Is this high pressure system (marked) “the Blob”?

    https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-105.64,41.93,595/loc=-134.195,30.881

    • This would seem to be the most coherent explanation. A high pressure ridge offshore in the north Pacific that would receive more incoming solar insolation would warm up the SST 1-2 C enough to call it the ‘Blob’. Part of the natural ENSO cycle.

      Of course, calling it the blob reminds me of the horror movie called The Blob which was a 1958 American science fiction-horror film. This all fits the alarmist narrative like global heating…climate emergency. I was terrified as a kid watching that movie, and still suffer to this very day, well sort of, but more my weight now feeling like a blob. And this is what the alarmists are doing now, is terrorizing the kids about the imminent climate emergency bringing the world to its knees. And the kidz are believing it, hence the traction that Greta and her manipulators get.

      • “Of course, calling it the blob reminds me of the horror movie called The Blob which was a 1958 American science fiction-horror film.”

        I loved that movie when I was a kid! It was scary the first time.

        Calling this high pressure system “the Blob” probably is an effort to frighten people.

        The last Blob that formed previous to this one, raised the temperature of the ocean beneath it several degrees higher than surrounding areas, but the raised temperatures only went down a few meters deep which would eliminate any undersea heating as a cause.

        High pressure systems that sit for a long time over one place cause the temperatures to rise underneath them and the longer they sit there, the higher the temperatures get. That’s what happened during the Dust Bowl days of the 1930’s, in the U.S., and the same thing can happen over the oceans.

        California has had extended droughts in the past lasting decades at a time, so must have had persistent high pressure systems driving this process. Many of them probably sitting right off shore.

  5. If the current long range weather models are correct it looks like the central and eastern US is in for some stormy and probably down south some violent weather towards the end of this month and well into March. Anyway, it sure seems this winter is nowhere near done with us.

  6. We have had a very good winter this year in my neck of the woods (Oklahoma). Temperatures have been moderate and not much snow.

    This holds true for most of the United States except for the northern tier or states which are getting periodic pulses of arctic air coming down into their area.

    In other years we would get arctic air excursions all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico. Not this year. Thank the Good Lord! 🙂

    • I’m not saying your prediction is all wrong, but the reason for it could be, and there is more explanation for what’s in your article. The lunar synchronicities are fascinating and are very likely a player in tidal movements that might affect upwelling rates and circulation changes that spread tropical OHC outward faster.

      The West Pacific Trade Index as you intimated does follow the solar cycle influence on the ocean via absorbed solar energy that converts to ocean heat content, driving SST up, OLR down, with the trade winds following.

      Monthly TSI for four cycles was cross-correlated with 18 different climate indices in Fig. 11 linked below. The R values weren’t particularly high, but the solar cycle TSI influence on equatorial OHC is clear, with the ENSO indices keying off Eq. OHC. Consider the -72 month as the start of the solar cycle. After the low point La Nina, there was typically a six-year rise in Eq. OHC, ie accumulation:

      https://i.postimg.cc/g2b5rQzD/AGU-Fig11.jpg

      The R values of many Fig. 11 plots would be of higher significance if instead of just using TSI for the CCs as I did there if the TSI function used in lieu of TSI was the detrended sum of the TSI anomaly above/below 1361.25 W/m^2 as shown in the thick red line of Fig. 13e-g linked further down, which is the ocean warming TSI threshold I empirically derived in 2014/15, because that TSI function accounts for the ongoing accumulation of OHC from ASR at deeper depths that upwells slowly, affecting the surface temperature but lagging TSI.

      The low points of your 11.2 year La Nina Pattern curve correspond to the lowest part of the solar cycle cumulative energy curve, the thick red line that I just talked about from Fig 13e-g linked below, which occurs in the last year before the new solar cycle’s activity exceeds my TSI threshold level that warms thereafter until TSI falls below the threshold again during the declining phase of the solar cycle, all of which your curve follows, making perfect sense at 11.2 years.

      https://i.postimg.cc/Dyd56phF/AGU-Fig13.jpg

      You are expecting an El Nino this year just as I and a few others but for different reasons. What your pattern misses is the solar cycle onset El Ninos in 1997/98 and 2009/10, and what is coming when sunspot activity resumes and delivers the largest annual increases in TSI of the cycle like in Fig. 13i.

      The Kelvin waves you claim were lunar-driven were actually TSI-driven during the solar maximum, when TSI was higher than my solar-ocean warming threshold of 1361.25 W/m^2 SORCE TSI, and abruptly ended when TSI fell below that red line in mid-March of 2016, commencing a record 2-year cooling period:

      https://i.postimg.cc/kXrsDC3k/AGU-Fig10.jpg

      All figures were from my AGU 2018 Fall Meeting Climate Extremes: Patterns, Mechanisms, and Attribution poster, “Extreme Weather Events and Climate Extremes are Limited by the Duration of Solar Cycle Irradiance Extremes”.

      • We shall see. Last month I forecast the beginning of negative temps for the ENSO regions starting around April/May. In regards to this “… What your pattern misses is the solar cycle onset El Ninos in 1997/98 and 2009/10, …”, I would add that in both cases those El Ninos were preceded by a moderately long La Nina.

        What I see as interesting is that a long La Nina following the end of a solar minimum should cause a nice dip in global temps. So in about 2 months we will find out.

        • The Nino region development this time was different preceding the solar minimum than the last time.

          https://i.postimg.cc/m2DztYNp/Nino-Indexes-Feb-5-2020.jpg

          With or without new and sustained sunspot activity this year Nino4 is still starting the year out high enough like last year to keep La Nina away.

          http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/ssta_c.gif

          The ’97/98 El Nino was fired by new cycle activity averaging about 23 v2 SN in 1997, whereas the SC24 average didn’t get that high until the second year of the cycle, driving the 2009/10 El Nino. While we’ve probably seen the solar minimum late last year, with Jan 2020 at 6.4 SN, the sun hasn’t taken the next step up yet, although is expected to this year.

          I’m also looking for a big La Nina after the cycle onset El Nino, around 2022-23, which would restore the pattern previously established by prior cycles, shown here updated through late 2018, with the La Nina window estimated in Dec 2018 to happen between the arrows from 2020-24, which I have since narrowed down to 2022-23:

          https://i.postimg.cc/vmfFhKMq/1979-2016-Eq-OHC-and-TSI.jpg

          For that to happen two months from now just might be too soon. Someone is gonna be right.

      • Bob, Your posts about the solar influence upon the ENSO cycle are very interesting. You have obviously given this hypothesis a lot of thought.

        Question: If you consider the montage of graphs of the cross-correlation of various indices with the SSN of four solar cycles that are shown in figure 11.

        Correct me if I am wrong but for these correlations to be significant at the P (2 / SQRT(N)) where N is the number of data points in the series.

        You have a value of N = 144 for each cross-correlation so R must be > 0.17.

        This means that the following indices could be marginally significant (let’s exclude the PDO right now for the sake of argument):

        N.B. I assume that all times are measure from six-years after the start of the nominal sunspot cycle.

        Index___________lag__________R
        ______________(months)_______

        OHC___________20___________ 0.21
        MEI____________25___________0.22
        ONI____________25___________0.20
        Nino3.4________28___________0.16 – marginal
        Sea Level_______35__________0.16 – marginal

        West Pac. Winds______-45______0.19
        East_Pac_Winds_______58______0.22

        This result suggests that the build-up of OHC peaks about seven years after solar minimum (i.e. just after the mid-point of the solar cycle. The same is true for the ENSO indices of MEI, ONI and possibly the Nino3.4.

        Do these results imply that El Ninos are more likely to occur to about 7-years into the typical solar cycle just after the build-up in OHC has peaked?

        • The following paragraph should read:

          Correct me if I am wrong but for these correlations to be significant at the P P (2 / square_root(N)) where N is the number of data points in the series.

        • Sorry, HTML must be having a problem with the greater than or less than equal to symbol

          Correct me if I am wrong but for these correlations to be significant at the P less than 0.05 level R must have a value greater than (2 / square_root(N)) where N is the number of data points in the series.

        • I think the low R values from using TSI directly can be improved for the ENSO indices by using a TSI function that takes the accumulation effect into account, the red line in Fig. 13e-g, which also defines your 11.2 La Nina Pattern curve.

          Do these results imply that El Ninos are more likely to occur to about 7-years into the typical solar cycle just after the build-up in OHC has peaked?

          Yes, depending on TSI timing and duration which varies with sunspot activity cycle to cycle.

          TSI trended below the threshold at times in mid-2014 putting a damper on the fledging El Nino conditions which returned after TSI rebounded later that year into 2015.

          As long as TSI is above the threshold warming continues right until TSI falls below the threshold, which it did in mid-March 2016, continually increasing the sea surface temperature until the lagged upwelling heat is spent, then the El Nino ends, as it did later in 2016.

        • The low R values over 4 solar cycles using TSI directly is a composite of completely different TSI responses for each cycle, the unique combination of negative vs positive-going TSI contributions from different sunspot cycle evolutions and their effect on solar rotational averages that make it hard to compare in time four separate cycles’ TSI and Nino responses to it.

          The four cycles used for the cross-correlations were of greatly different length except the first two, counting in months, which has an effect on the timing and distribution of El Ninos, weakening the direct TSI correlation:

          SC21 124 (the first ~3 years not included in TSI composite)
          SC22 121
          SC23 145
          SC24 134 (and counting or is it over already?)

    • One can only hope it getting warmer, where I live no, hell no. and I live in Arizona in one of the hottest major city in the world. Oh by the way I came of Minnesota, my home town has a lot of snow, I grew up their in the sixties, the amount of snow there is as much as I have seen in January.

    • We had one of the best summer we hid since I moved here in 2007, it was nice in June about 104 during the day and in the 70 during the nights, July and August did not see anything above 116. My electric bills were not outrages this year. This winter they been running high.

  7. If there is a decrease in natural CO2 emerging from the ocean surface temperatures reduction, it will not be reported as a drop in natural contribution, under any circumstances, it will be the usual ‘We are now more reducing CO2 so try even harder!’ propaganda blaring out That is London to a brick on!

    • If there is a decrease in natural CO2 emerging from the ocean surface temperatures reduction, it will not be reported as a drop in natural contribution, under any circumstances,

      nicholas tesdorf, ……. you got that right.

      It seems like 98% of the “science” community will not recognize or admit that the “temperature” of the Southern Hemisphere ocean surface waters is the “control knob” for atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities.

      They prefer “junk science” claims to factual science investigations.

  8. commieBob February 16, 2020 at 4:58 am

    “After its After it‘s”, after all

    it’ or it‘

    – what’s the new normal.

    It’s raining. Who is “it” – the missing / undefined unknown object.

    Not much saving, this “it’s” for “it is”.

  9. commieBob February 16, 2020 at 4:58 am

    “After its After it‘s”, after all

    it’ or it‘

    – what’s the new normal.

    It’s raining. Who is “it” – the missing / undefined unknown object.

    Not much saving, this “it’s” for “it is”.

    By the way,

    Plus, the AMO is into it’s cool phase. –> Plus, the AMO is in it’s cool phase.

Comments are closed.