Another big La Nina could mean another cold winter for the Northern USA, and another wet flooding summer with potentially nasty cyclones for Eastern Australia (and the rest of the Eastern Pacific nations). La Ninas even affect the Indian Monsoon Season. If only we could predict them accurately.
Frank Lansner on HideTheDecline has noticed that one set of models (NCEP/CFS) is predicting a large La Nina brewing, while most of the others are still forecasting “neutral” conditions. The NCEP/CFS models were more accurate last year. If they are right now, we could be in for a large La Nina. On the other hand, Australia’s Bureau of Met is predicting only that “La Nina remains possible in 2011”.
Guest Post: Frank Lansner
Another Large La Nina Imminent?
For months the NCEP/CFS has been predicting a stronger second La Nina dip. Prior to the last La Nina, the NCEP/CFS was much better at predicting the La Nina — and personally I feel confident with the NCEP/CFS Prediction. It does seem to suggest that a La Nina will be upon us in a very short while. If so, global cooling is likely to shift into a faster gear.
Cooler water is appearing in the Eastern Pacific:
fig 1. A quick look at the Unisys SST shows the beginning of potential La Nina signs.
…
fig2. The blue runs are the newest, the red the oldest. This means that NCEP/CFS is shifting to forecasts of stronger La Ninas. But look at how fast things are moving. Below: The July – August – Sept forecasts are dropping as a La Nina becomes more likely.
…
Fig 3: A look under the Pacific equator reveals more cold from beneath. This cold area does not seem to import cold water from west (as for the last La Nina dip), the cold area just grows bigger, apparently being supplied with cold water from elsewhere.
Franks original post has a few more details on HideThe Decline.
——————————————————————————-
Post Note from Jo
The Australian BOM forecast is very different and decidedly neutral. It will be interesting to see which way this goes.
The Australian BOM August 31, 2011:
Trends over the past fortnight include further cooling of the central Pacific Ocean, persistent positive Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) values and stronger than normal trade winds. However, cloud patterns are currently close to normal, and all indicators remain well short of the strong La Niña conditions evident at the same time last year.“
“It’s worth noting that since 1900, about half of all La Niña events re-emerged in the second year. Further cooling of the central Pacific Ocean coupled with persistent positive SOI values in the next few months would further increase the chance of a La Niña event at the end of 2011.”
The latest SOI figure is only 2.8 (it needs to be above 8 to indicate a La Nina.)
The Sea-Sub surface graph at the BOM site shows the cold water increasing in the Eastern Pacific.
May 2011 (top) - August 2011 (bottom): Cooler water is appearing in the Eastern Pacific
They come & go in cycles, meanwhile the long term temperature trend remains.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.gif
10
“It’s a travesty that we can’t account for reality, at the moment … but we’re working on it. The PR company assures us that reality will be restored once they have adjusted the global cooling data, and no public pronouncements are expected regarding any cooling publicity via the MSM “.
10
The long term NATURAL temperature trend remains Blimey…. you keep forgetting that “natural” bit…The modern warming trend starts before any significant anthropogenic CO2 sources.
10
la Nina is back, NOAA says so.
James Hansen predicted in March this year that a strong El Nino is likely this Summer,’It’s not a sure bet, but it’s probable.’
‘Let it be, Jim, it’s dead!’
20
Dear Joanne, thanks for the interseting graphics, which speak for themselves.
Just one point: 2010 was used by the warmists as another proof for AGW, by omitting
to mention el Nino (this was a “regular global warming temp.-increase”).
Now, la Nina sets in: Instead of recognizing global cooling, the warmists
maintain that global warming is continuing fiercely…. but where is the
missing heat…? As they say, the heat, this time, hides from our detection, how
awful of the heat….. somewhere in the ocean, but your wonderful graphs do not
show any of the hiding places…. to bad….. the heat is afraid to appear in
public, not willing to prove warmist models….the heat is terrible….
10
“Blimey” is the GETUP Traitor assigned to spread BS on this thread…..
(Can you do better than a simple attack?) CTS
10
This century, Blimey?
10
Blimey:
“They come & go in cycles, meanwhile the long term temperature trend remains.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.gif
”
True.
http://notrickszone.com/2010/09/23/own-weather-records-contradict-germanys-weather-service-director/
It’s as warm as in 1800.
What has a period of 210 years? 17 Jovian years equal 201.65 Earthly years.
10
1. Check out NOAA’s take at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/08/its-official-noaa%e2%80%99s-climate-prediction-center-says-la-nina-is-back/
2. Keep an eye on the SST Anomoly at
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
10
Thanks, Frank, for the information.
Instead of trying to understand reality, government scientists have been trained since ~1971 to hide experimental uncertainty and to try to find some way to attribute climate changes to predictions of seriously flawed climate models.
Hiding uncertainty shows an unwillingness by world leaders and government scientists to admit they are powerless over Nature (Cause and Effect, Coincidence, God).
That false pride seems to be the root of many of society’s problems today.
The worldwide sense of impending doom may not be relieved unless we find a peaceful way to end false pride and restore:
– Integrity to government science, and
– Control over government by citizens.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
10
Spring SNOW in Northern New South Wales….
http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/971096/10
No global warming there !!
10
OT – Interesting article in The Age:
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/majority-report-why-consensus-is-all-the-rage-20110910-1k3cj.html#ixzz1XaVM9lDj
10
What is this – a moderate article on hysterical Nova’s site – where’s the scepticism guys. Surely this La Nina climate science comes from the same stable – particularly in Australia.
I reckon La Nina is a global conspiracy to reallocate the global rainfall from first world to 3rd world.
Did you know La Nina is caused by quantum cosmic waves interacting with undersea volcanoes – I read it on the internet so it must be right.
Of course Blimey is right – anyone who thinks there is no long term centennial trend fails data analysis 101. But that’s what denialism is all about isn’t it?
11
On the other thread the comment was made that :
“”The models are more accurate when accounting for the known radiative force of GHGs.””
I totally agree with that comment by Blimey.
This is because any model is going to give better results when more real time factors are included.
There are many factors in Global Warming Science and each factor has its own range of error which leads to a need for the use of a Modeling Technique known as the black box.
This involves isolating many smaller or less relevant effects to a black box, which is effectively a collection of effects whose sum will be an unknown but constant value during experimental measurements but which is always acknowledged as a controlled series of variables.
The effects under investigation are then varied or data collected from nature is examined and useable results can be obtained for very complex systems with this method.
There are limits to this technique however and Climate Scientists have developed a new technique to replace the black box. The primary problem with this is that the model and reality can give correlations which are extremely high and this is not useful in Climate Science so additional techniques are required in that field.
Climate Scientists have made use of a small lidded cardboard box whose dimensions are approx 450mm by 350mm by 400 mm which has the colour of a standard manilla folder, a dull yellow/brown.
During all Climate Science work all small or even inconvenient effects, such as water vapour being the primary “GHG”, which would normally go to the black box, are placed in this receptacle.
For security reasons mainly to do with funding,it is cleared daily; the contents reduced by vacuum packing and posted to the IPCC head office at the UN Building in New York.
Here they are carefully locked in a safe where neither real scientist or the public can get at them.
The resulting Climate Modeling done for the CAGW proponents can then be used for the true purpose for which it was intended; to deceive the public and give politicians something else to whip us with.
I hope this clears up some of the Scientific issues surrounding Climate Science, which is not really a science but a politically useful amalgam of law, politics and philosophy.
70
This also means more trouble for the Horn of Africa… IPCC was predicting more rain for that region, but they will get more droughts:
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/09/cape-verde-is-now-green.html
Ecotretas
10
Ooops. The correct link would have been:
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/09/horngate.html
Ecotretas
10
@1 Blimey
If you zoom in close enough to any graph it will look spikey.
Zoom out a bit and it will show barely a wiggle.
Im surprised the warmists havent started showing the graph in .01 incriments. WOW! The fun they could have with that!
20
Damian Allen @10
Hold on now. . .
Snow? In spring?
Thats climate change.
10
Day/night, summer/winter, el nino/la nina, … Milankovitch.
Can you please advise exactly what goes in where the elipses are, and the likely past, current and future trends of each cycle you care to add. Then we can simply add all these together and compare how well it forecasts the late 19th and entire 20th century, as well as how well it matches things like Vostok temperature reconstructions and so on, and you will be able to show the anthropogenic contribution our industrial revolution has made.
Then all you need to do is to show your best and worse case estimates of what the cost of that extra warmth is, you best and worse case estimates of what the benefits of the extra warming are (there will always be winners and losers, so no fair just showing costs and hiding benefits), and your best and worst case estimates of what the cost of your proposed mitigation/adaptation strategies are (if mitigation, please also show best and worse case estimates of how much temperature change will be prevented). Once we have all that, then we can make a fully informed decision as to whether or not we think it is worth the price – you see, fully informed consent has always produced better outcomes for individuals, societies and the environment, as well as being implemented better and faster, than any imposed solution ever has, so if you believe there is a real problem that needs to be addressed, make your case!
Oh, and by the way – your results will also be compared to the known benefits of fossil fuel burning as a source of energy. You know, all those little things like the massive increase in life expectancy over the 20th century, the concomitant improvement in health over that extended lifetime, the massive improvement in lifestyle – things like, you know, reducing pollution, creating wildlife refuges and national parks, having refrigeration for food and medicines, not having to use a washing board and manual labour to wash your clothes and dishes, mobile phones and the internet, cheap transport that allows you access to non-local food so you don’t starve when local crops fail – all those things that you no doubt feel bad about and donate money for when you see them happening in Africa and other places. All these and more are only possible because of the cheap, abundant energy that is available because of fossil fuels.
Of course, you will also need to realise that according to the IPCC, the path with the best outcomes in terms of both reducing GHG emissions and relieving the most poverty and deprivation of people in the world involves the same growth patterns evinced in the record of the 20th century being extended to those poor people currently living in the “3rd world”. Check for yourself if you don’t believe me.
20
AM @ 12
Please provide ONE peer reviewed article that PROVES AGW.
The onus is on the warmists to prove their hypothesis – funny how after all the $BILLIONS not ONE has been able to do so.
Here’s your opportunity AM – stand up – prove it to all and show your obvious superiority to all of us and the world’s scientific community.
FOOL!!!
Cheers,
BTW – Blimey @ 1 – same challenge applies to you!!
10
Always good to see a post by Frank Lansner.
10
I’ve commented a number of times at WUWT and RealScience since around May about the chances of a new La Nina.
The key was to watch the Nino 3.4 SSTs which ALWAYS swings in January and July.
My comments were that if Nino 3.4 swung back to negative territory by mid July, we would have another la Nina. That’s what happened.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
As far as the strength and extent of this La Nina is concerned, we need to watch the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) currently sitting on +2.1. It has been consistently positive since April last year and reached close to record levels of mid 20s in September 2010 and April 2011.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/soi30.png
If the SOI starts to climb past the teens, the cold waters observed in the mid to eastern Pacific will be pushed west towards the Australian and Papua New Guinea coasts and this time may even break into the Indian Ocean. Watch out for some very heavy rains along the East Coast accompanying a strong La Nina.
The last strong La Nina of 2010-11 pushed some very warm waters to the Australian east coast. The waters are not as warm this time so I don’t expect strong Cyclones a la Yasi, though more numerous weaker ones may develop.
In any case, a wet and green Central Australia over which the westerlies blow, and a developing La Nina over which the easterly trade winds blow means a cool wet summer for the East Coast. The dams will overfill, too bad Tim Flannery, you flunk again.
As for extent, the current La Nina conditions will prevail until January. Again, we will need to watch the Nino 3.4 SSTs to see if it will swing up towards El Nino or switch back to a La Nina. I expect a weak El Nino, warming Western pacific waters, and some strong weather along the QLD and Northern NSW coasts late next year.
10
Strange that in the NOAA statement they say La Nina is a natural process and then in the next paragraph refer to “extreme” weather events. If one is natural it should follow that consequences should also be natural rather than extreme. I guess they want you to think that AGW effects La Nina to create extreme weather. We already “know” that El Nino is the result of AGW.
Gillard and Brown will be trying hard to sell a useless tax to cool the world while the NH has another COLD winter and we will have our “more frequent and more severe droughts” interrupted by another WET summer. Lake Eyre could stay full for another year. How nice would that be?
10
BTW moderators could I have my old avatar back? My previous email is dead, defunct, mort and like the parrot unlikely to rise again.
[And so is your old avatar. Anyway, I like your new one; it looks like you have a…errrr…..a queer eye.] mod oggi
[Lawrie – the gravatars are autogenerated – unless you set your own. We have no control. But if you want to, just cut n’ paste your old gravatar at this site. Then it will always be yours. JN].
10
With the sun refusing to awaken, and a double dip La Nina, an acceleration in the decline of all things global warming is assured.
I am looking forward to the new excuses and fudge factors from the TEAM. Satellite and Argo data will need serious correction factors [ tortured] to keep the scam alive.
With so many talented people now looking over their shoulders, the end is nigh. The IPCC new report when released this time will be shreaded if not real science, we are waiting.
10
Blimey:
September 11th, 2011 at 12:40 am
ENSO may come and go in cycles (duh!) but its effects can last a few years.
The “long term” you mention is only since the early 80’s.
Very strong El Nino pushed Ts to a higher level in 1982-3
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi1977-1984.gif
Further compounded by the El Ninos of 86-7 and 91-2
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi1985-1992.gif
And the El Nino of 93-4 before the Super El Nino of 1998 pushing Ts to yet a higher level.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi1993-2000.gif
However since then, El Ninos stranglehold has been broken in the 2000s (as Inigo Jones predicted way back in the 1950s)
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi2000-2007.gif
and La Ninas are starting to take hold again, just like in the 1950s-70s
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi.gif
The long term trend you talk about (have been suckered into by activists like Jimmy “handcuffs” Hansen) is not a smooth gradual increase as you’d expect from the smooth gradual increase in atmospheric CO2, but STEPWISE increases caused by persistent and strong El Ninos during the 80s and 90s.
Climate? It’s all about the heat engine of this blue/green planet, THE TROPICS STOOOOPID.
10
I’m not sure why Andrew Marven @ 12 would apologise for being a “hysteric” but there is absolutely no need to Andrew; we understand, we really do, at least within 95% confidence limits, which as any statistically minded person knows is not being very confident at all.
So maybe you are a hysteric, I guess we’ll never know.
And in the end we have to ask “does it really matter”, of course it does, we are caring people on this blog and are concerned for everyone not just those of us who are sane.
[fixed] ED
10
J.H. says:
You keep forgetting to name the NATURAL source of radiative forcing and you keep forgetting to explain why the known radiative property of GHGs suddenly disappear.
10
The Antarctic sea ice growing 1% a Decade
This would have to come into any future La Nina Modelling.
Would love to see Satellite Imagery on the Antarctic sea ice,
Anyone with a good link?
10
DirkH says:
A few cities is not the same as a global value, but hey it’s funny what you find in your own link …
This pic shows … http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/c231945837.gif … cooling till about the 1900’s then warming.
10
I must apologise for 25
That should have been 95% confidence level.
10
Blimey: 326
September 11th, 2011 at 9:47 am
No need to name the natural sources of “radiative forcing” Blimey. In the end, we get nothing but radiation from our lovely sun, it’s all radiative forcing. It’s just that, because billions have been spent trying to perpetuate a UN scam, idiot climatologists haven’t learned enough about the Sun and the clouds and the ocean oscillations.
As soon as THEY do, we’ll all have an answer. BUT DON’T EXPECT SOME AMATEUR PART TIME BLOGGERS TO DO WHAT WOULD TAKE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND THOUSANDS OF MAN HOURS TO ACHIEVE. That would be a tad unrealistic wouldn’t you say you moron?
Regards the much vaunted, infamous, oft quoted by lemming types (such as yourself) radiative properties of GHGs……hmmmmm how shall I put it????
Blimey have you ever taken a piss out the side of an ocean liner whilst travelling in the middle of the Pacific? The polluting effect of your piss on the Pacific is the same as the Greenhouse effect of a trace gas which expands and rises at the touch of a poofteenth of a degree of warmth.
Hey Blimey, don’t use a CO2 fire extinguisher if your house is on fire, YOU MIGHT DOUBLE THE INTENSE HEAT WITH ALL THAT RADIATIVE FORCING AND BURN YOUR NEIGHBOURS HOUSE DOWN AS WELL……FEEDBACKS YOU KNOW 😉
lol what a gullible lemming.
10
This is a long piece by Walter Starck but I believe it is worth the read. It is both on and off topic re this post.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/09/neglected-truths-of-climate-change
An opinion piece that covers most of what distresses all of us about this insane obsession we are being forced to participate in 🙂
10
mobilly1 at Comment 27, (and also everyone else as well)
there’s an absolutely great Antarctic site at this following link:
Antarctic Connection – Antarctic Weather
Besides giving everything you always wanted to know, there is an answer to your question.
At the left down close to the bottom of the screen, there is an ‘Information’ box with further links.
The bottom tab is ‘Other Links’.
Take that link, and then you’ll see a page of further links.
Under the title ‘Official Organisations’, the top one there is AMRC Real Time Data.
Take that link and there’s a further page of links as well, one of them being ‘Satellite Imagery and Composites’.
Again, there are further links at that page.
Why I haven’t just linked into the exact site, is that there is just so much wonderful information at that whole site, so I have just linked into the main Home Page there, and that way you can save that page to your favourites, because there is more information there than you can look at in just one cursory visit.
Amazing site all over.
Tony.
10
Thanks Tony
10
Mary F Johnston: #15
Nice one, Mary. You had my hackles rising there for a minute, and my tail is still a bit bushy. I might have to have a lie down for a nap to fully recover.
30
I get the impression people think the Antarctic is just a big lump of ice and if it melts the penguins and polar bears will have no where to live.
10
Hey listen, while we’re on the subject of links to weather sites, I’m going to take a leap of faith here, because some of you might think all of this is just mumbo jumbo, and has little to do with real Science, so you need to bear with me for an explanation.
The site is as follows:
Hayden Walker – Long Term Weather
Hayden is the son of Lennox Walker.
I first heard of Lennox in my early days training in the Air Force when I was at Forest Hill near Wagga Wagga.
We had to get up at ‘Sparrers’ and the only radio station in those days was AM radio, and it was 2WG. Being in a huge Country area, every morning they had the Farm Report from Elders Smith Goldsborough Mort, broadcast early as the farmers were all off to work on their farms early, so that was all we got on early morning radio.
2 days a week, they would have the long range weather report from Lennox Walker. It was amazing how much faith was placed on his reports, and how accurate they were.
In fact, some farm machinery sales outlets lived and died by his reports, because if he predicted a poor weather season, farmers would not purchase new equipment.
Even though considered by some to be ‘Mumbo Jumbo’ Walker had incredibly detailed records for most of Australia. Those records dated back from his records to Inigo Jones before him, and then back even further to Clem Wragge, records going back to the mid/late 1800’s.
Lennox has long since retired and he passed away in 2000, but now his son is carrying on the work.
The link I provided above is to Hayden’s page of links, the main page of his site. You can navigate back by just pressing the ‘prev’ tab mid screen.
At that page of links are links to weather satellites etc, and also a wonderful Live Earth Cam site
The following link from that link page details some of the history of LRWF and short bios of the 4 people mentioned here.
Walker’s Weather History
Tony.
10
Polar bears in Antarctica.
Gotta love that comment.
Tony.
10
Maybe the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has something to do with it? Just sayin’…as a lay person, the following is a list of questions rather than an informed opinion…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg
We might have recently shifted from a positive PDO which seems to have favoured El Nino conditions for the last 30 or so years to the negative PDO phase which now favours La Ninas going forward until 2040. The PDO and ENSO are not the same thing nor do does the PDO drive ENSO cycle but they are interconnected…
The implications are for the world’s climate and the politics that distort the climate debate could be immense.
1. For Australia it could mean a return to 30-years of generally fewer (shorter) droughts and increased rainfall, more like the 1960’s and 70’s.
So much for the Murray-Darling going dry or the knee-jerk Greens who force multi-billion dollars to be wasted on desalination plants, while refusing to build flood prevention and catchment reservoirs on rivers that “will never flow to the sea again.” Idiots, like Tim Flannery, will go down in history as, well, craven idiots.
2. For the American Southwest it could mean generally more droughty conditions threatening the overstretched water supplies of Arizona, Texas and New Mexico due to their recent growth in population in a desert climate, which has been anomalously wet for decades.
Although a PDO shift isn’t climate change, it could dramatically change the climate in places like Central Texas which has trebled its population during the last positive phase of the PDO while building the infrastructure of entire communities such as Bastrop and Austin based on plentiful rainfall and almost zero risk of wildfire. To these people “climate change” will indeed seem a very real and painful phenomena.
3. However on a global scale, a negative PDO shift to favouring La Nina-like or neutral ENSO conditions also favours lower global temperatures trends.
http://i34.tinypic.com/6sgbif.jpg
Therefore, although shifting PDO has no connexion with AGW the mere fact that global temperatures are now likely to be held down by a negative (cooling) PDO shift could do more to demolish the Green politics of CAGW demagoguery then all the empirical evidence in the world.
4. Because the La Nina pattern should mean warmer SST along the coast of China, I wonder if it means the particulate pollution from China’s industrial growth will tend to be washed out of the atmosphere sooner as it blows eastward than when conditions generally favour El Nino conditions? Could this also favour a tilt towards global cooling?
(Note, PDO seems to have two meanings. (?) The “classical” meaning seems to be short-term El Nino like conditions in the northeast Pacific (?) while I have used it to “refer to the decadal and multidecadal SST variability in the Pacific as a whole.”)
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/an-introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-3/
10
Starck’s puff piece is typical pretentious [snip] rubbish. So in first paragraph – we have a confounding diurnal variation with long-term change. Indeed SST changes of the magnitude mentioned cause planetary wide disruption of rainfall patterns. Something called ENSO. His comment borders on ridiculous. Then we have the ye olde ruse of quoting some regional change in Greenland while summarily ignoring megadroughts affecting large areas in other continents. What selective indulgence. Why read further ?
Starck is a well known reef science [snip] and Quadrant a mecca for the disaffected loopy rightists.
BTW Warcroft – I can see we’re dealing with high IQs here – the Antarctic does not have polar bears. Sheesh !
[Andrew. You really should read the comment guidelines. You wouldn’t be trying to leverage some debating capital off the holocaust where millions of human beings -many who disagreed with the consensus of the time – were murdered now, would you? If you try and throw around the d words again you will find yourself in the spam can.] yoda
10
Baa Humbug says:
As is clear in my original post, ENSO has a huge effect on surface temps, but that works in both ways La Ninas cool, El Ninos warm. The cycle neither adds or removes energy from our system, it’s just movement of the heat.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.gif
10
“Andrew Marven” do try and think for once in your life!
You might even come to enjoy it !
10
Blimey @ 26
The Natural radiative forcing would be the sun….. The mechanism of climate effects would be as per the validation of Svendsmark’s theory and its confirmation via the CERN and the Cloud chamber experiment…. Also Spencer and Braswell’s paper: On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance
Good enough fer ya?
(Now be careful with the handwaving and hyperventilatin’ you’ll butterfly effect a cyclone into existance somewhere…. well, according to you dopey mob anyway ;-)..)
10
TonyfromOZ: #37
Gotta go somewhere for their holidays. That is why the penguins are turning up in New Zealand. Typical of any pacific island – the tourists turn up for the season, and the locals decamp to NZ.
10
Baa Humbug @32
I always associate that term “radiative forcing” with scientific illiterates, politicians and lay people so was a bit miffed that you should get in before me to point that out.
That last para was hilarious.
20
Blimey @42
What a quote: “” Jimmy “handcuffs” Hansen “”
Love it.
Keep up the good work B.
10
Andrew Marven #41
What an interesting comment.
I was fascinated at how adroit you were at applying smear, innuendo, and insult, whilst expertly avoiding anything that could be misconstrued as fact.
You should be writing press releases for the ALP … or perhaps you are? How is Julia holding up under the strain “Andy”? I notice she is wearing more makeup these days – always a sign of stress.
If she survives, the next two years are going to seem like a lifetime. Rather you than me, mate.
Oh, while we are corresponding, it is not a good idea to use the “D” word on this site. Our hostess doesn’t like it, and it has been known to get people banned. Polite is as polite does.
10
Andrew Marven
“”the Antarctic does not have polar bears””
You’re wrong there Andrew..
They are white so they are invisible against the snow.
You should go there in the summer when all the ice and snow has melted, then they stand out real well.
10
Blimey…… How’s those Mannian Climate Teleconnections going? Also known as, “The hockey stick” and other pucking rubbish…. Does the rain in Maine still continue to fall in Spain?…. And does a wolf peeing on a pine tree on the Yamal Pennisular in Siberia 200 years ago, still effect the Climate in Auckland today?….. 🙂
10
JH @ 50
Very important issues.
Why doesn’t the climate change community give these problems more time.
10
Rereke Whakaaro:
Sorry for any disturbance of the force field there,
Thanks.
10
Andrew Marven:
Feel free to continue spewing rubbish because it only weakens your position, but if you expect to drop the D word frequently you will get hit with the ban hammer.
Just so you know.
[Oh No no no no… Bulldust, we don’t ban people from using “denier” — we do something much much more painful — we ask them to justify it or apologize, and they can’t do either. I think I’ve only permanently blocked 1 or 2 people. All the rest are just in indefinite moderation until they grow up. — JN]
10
MaryFJohnstonn @ 51
I’m sure some government funded Climate change speeeecalist has been given the appropraite funding for it though.
You can’t let one of them AGW reasons getting by.
Say YES to an election now !!
10
Mary!
Nyuk nyuk nyuk!
Don’t you be facetious now.
Antarctic Mean Summer Temperature Minus 5 to Minus 31C.
So the Ice will never melt, unless around the edges only, if that.
Some of the Ice is 4.7 Kilometres thick, just on 2 miles of ice.
Tony.
10
Andrew Marvin @ 41
“BTW Warcroft – I can see we’re dealing with high IQs here – the Antarctic does not have polar bears. Sheesh !”
The intellectual level here will rise considerably if you left but please stay your welcome to learn a bit, if you mind your manners.
Say YES to an election now !!
10
TonyfromOz: #55
Oh, so not as thick as Blimey, then …
10
Blimey @42:
True, el nino/ la ninas just move heat around, including into the atmosphere, which leads to variations in tropospheric temperature which can be measured fairly accurately by satellites and balloons and much less accurately by surface thermometers. The source of the radiative forcing is of course the sun, supplying energy equally to ocean and land (depending on cloudy or clear skies at the time). Because the tropical ocean is vastly greater in area than tropical land, cloudiness affects energy GAIN of the oceans and thus the whole system. The different rates of energy LOSS (again modulated by cloudiness)to the atmosphere and space, of ocean and land gives rise to daily and seasonal weather, and in the longer term, the ENSO cycles. That’s a very simplified explanation. Didn’t mention CO2 did I?
10
MaryFJohnston @ 51……
Yes, indeed they are and it is a pity that they don’t.
…But of course the Climate Change Community is not doing science, it is doing politics. So we can’t expect too much from them. Ultimately they will be relegated to the dustbin of history, while the real scientists engage with some very interesting questions and do some real science now that the murk of political interference is beginning to clear…. albeit slowly.
The new Solar Dynamics Observatory is giving all sorts of new insights and throws up even more questions…. It’s probably a good time to be a real scientist at the moment. The political sham artists of Catastrophic AGW can’t do science… So as the funding becomes harder to obtain…. they’ll fall by the wayside….. no doubt, still furiously polishing their philosopher stones and teleconnecting Science with arcane alchemy…;-)
10
Blimey @ 42 bleats:
“As is clear in my original post, ENSO has a huge effect on surface temps, but that works in both ways La Ninas cool, El Ninos warm. The cycle neither adds or removes energy from our system, it’s just movement of the heat.”
Wrong ewe are! Go to the back of the faithful flock.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/08/introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-1.html
The very definition of weather and climate is ultimately about the thermodynamics of moving the heat from the sun back to outer space, no matter how circuitous the route.
Blimey shows symptoms of atypical scrapie…shear him and then put him down, boys.
10
J.H> #59
They also serve, who only sit and “do politics”.
It depends on which side of the “debate” you are on, and which piper calls the tune. Some get paid for being creative and economical with the truth, in order to meet a political agenda. Others get paid for exposing the lies, and mounting counter arguments; but they are also serving a political agenda, it is just less obvious.
We are all in a propaganda war; and in the heat of battle, survival is the only imperative. The foot-soldiers may win, or they may loose, but the politicians always win. The only question is which set of politicians? It has ever been thus.
10
Ah but did you notice that CO2 followed the sea surface temperatures down.
SSTs click here.The SSTs turned and began to go down before the CO2 did.
CO2 click here.
10
Andrew Marven bleats:
LOL.
Now that what I call a Monty Python comment. It doesn’t make any sense. Heck, it’s not even suppose to make sense. It’s off topic, non sequitur ranting, wild-eyes rolling in the back of the wether’s scrapie infected skull, nostrils flared, twitching and convulsing in self-righteous outrage.
In fact, Marven’s hoot, or would be hoot, if he wasn’t a living symptom of the intellectual impairment that has infected a good number of the flock.
Shear im and put him down, boys. He ain’t even safe to boil up for dog chow.
10
Fair enough Jo… having said that, ban hammer, indefinite moderation, tomato … tomato … yeah, doesn’t work as well in text.
I am thinking, what with the CO2 legislation coming to Parliament next week, I should put some effort into drafting a letter to my local MP (Smith), explaining that the legislation is broken, does not address the issue it purports to, and I will be doing my little bit to ensure he does not get elected next time around, despite having had my vote (once) in the past.
But this afternoon I shall be busy distributing a few leaflets >.>
10
Andrew Marven @ 41,
Considering the sweeping and completely unsubstantiated rant that you tried to post, that Starke article must have hit some raw nerves somewhere?
Would you care to explain in a manner that will not cause you to be moderated or edited?
Comments like ‘disaffected loopy rightists’ and others that had to be edited actually explains far more about your thoughts and your thinking capabilities than it does Starke’s.
You certainly didn’t advance an argument that would oppose Starke’s conclusions.
His conclusion was quite sound I believe and had very little to do with right or left or any other type of politics….he was seriously questioning ‘priorities’.
10
@55 Tony from Oz:
Tony if you’re going to put the knife in you may as well twist it a bit.
He was starting to become obnoxious.
10
Sorry to everyone, I shamelessly stirred Blimey up last thread and now he’s spouting again like Etna on steroids.
He asked his patented gotcha question “please present your own models that describe the observed warming”. So I did. The total unfairness of this has sent him off into a greenie rage which is frothingly Goresque in its breadth, depth & height. I hope he will come back down in a day or so without requiring pharmaceutical intervention.
10
“Bruce of Newcastle”,
LOVE YOUR WORK MATE !
10
UK winter weather warning.
http://www.exactaweather.com/Weather_Videos.html
10
Hmmm… Could just be some dissenting opinion there, Bruce.
10
J.H. says:
Yeah, friggen brilliant example!! Unfortunately it was also recently shown to be rubbish.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GL049236.shtml
10
That is a great definition Jo, I’m going to have to use that on the Teamspeak server I moderate. 🙂
10
TonyfromOz says:
So this never happened?
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/calottes-fondent.pdf
10
Andrew Marven @41
re: Polar bears in Antartica. . .
That was the joke I was implying.
10
Siliggy: Yeah I know about that, see my post re that at kenskingdom some time back; I don’t consider CO2 at all significant going in or out.
10
warcroft,
Maybe the poley bears float down there from the artic to get away from the furore around monnetts paper?
That’l be why they haven’t found anymore floaters – They’re trying to sneak away to theantarctic.
Well, it makes more sense than melting polar ice caps due to c02 causing poley bears to drown from exhaustions doesn’t it?
10
Ireland Warned To Brace For Third Severe Winter.
http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/ireland-warned-to-brace-for-third-severe-winter-163829.html
10
Blimey!
Blimey,
That report is now outdated isn’t it?
Hasn’t there already been a reversal of those findings? That is, their predictions about those ice sheets in 2007 did not come to pass.
Also what is the ‘this’ supposed to mean in your comment:
Did you actually check the link from Tony?
Maybe I can make it easier for you?
http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/data/
10
What, no Polar Bears in Antarctica???
But, but, but…I’ve been donating to WWF for over fifteen years to protect the bears in Antarctica! I better check that deed for the bridge I bought in Sydney too.
Funny thing happened yesterday, one of those religious types came to my door preaching the word of the Lord. He raised global warming, twenty minutes later he departed with the good book (Ian Plimer) and a CD of Christopher Monckton.
I wonder if Swan will give me ‘tax free’ status for my charitable work, converting the wayward in society?
10
Hi all, what a nice morning surprice to see this debate 🙂
If you check out the blue, latest 40 runs/graphs, for the CFS/NCEP La Nina prediction for 8 sep in the illustrations above yo will see a cold anomaly for Jan-Feb predicted to -2 K or even less.
Then compare the blue numbers here:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
As you can see, we have to go decades back to see something similar, and no one knows how long this still colder predictions from NCEP/CFS will continue.
I think its amazing that only NCEP/CFS is pointing this out:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/BLANDET/Nina/fig2.jpg
The cooling July to August in ENSO was already best predicted by CFS/NCEP , and Icant help finding it very interesting if so many models here collectively flunks big time!!
K.R Frank
10
Frank Lansner: #80
I like your work Frank, thank you
So many models, so few algorithms [Al Gore rhythms]. From what I can deduce, as a total outsider, all of the so-called consensus is just a manifestation of the numerical methods used. Fourier analysis is still Fourier analysis, however it is implemented, and within the margins of error, will give you the same output for the same input. But if applying Fourier Analysis was the wrong approach in the first place, then you will not get any sort of meaningful answer.
I do so wish that the team would release its data and methods to critical review.
10
Blimey suggests that Spencer and Braswell’s 2011 paper has already been showed to be rubbish.
Unfortunately, it is Blimey himself showing his ignorance. In fact, there is even the possibility that Dressler’s paper may be retracted before it is published.
See the following quote from Spencer’s web site:
I have made several updates as a result of correspondence with Dessler, which will appear underlined, below. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether it was our Remote Sensing paper that should not have passed peer review (as Trenberth has alleged), or Dessler’s paper meant to refute our paper.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-my-initial-comments-on-the-new-dessler-2011-study/
and this cartoon by Josh is amusing:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/10/maths-do-better-josh-118.html
10
Madjak @76
No, the real reason theres no polar bears in Antarctica is they have all drowned.
10
“Also Spencer and Braswell’s paper: On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance
Good enough fer ya?”
There are quite a few credible climate scientists for whom its a good starting point for finding what the alarmists models can’t. Roger Pielke snr is one such climate researcher who incidentally thinks humans have some impact on global warming so his comments don’t carry that partisan weight.
He says this about the above mentioned Spencer and Braswell paper: “I have read the Spencer and Braswell paper in detail, and while I agree that some of the media exposure has been exaggerated and misplaced, the science in their paper appears robust. I certainly can be wrong, but I do not see a fatal flaw in what they did (i.e. an error such that the paper should have been rejected.”
Dessler unlike Spencer, who is an active highly credentialed working climate scientist is an academic who worked in the White House and his history shows the likelihood of his commitment to the alarmist position . Even as a bit of a propagandist for that cause.
Here’s his CV: Andrew Dessler is a professor at Texas A&M University in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences. His research subject areas are climate systems research and climate change POLICY (emphasis mine). He has a BA degree from Rice University and a PhD degree from Harvard University(unconfirmed).
Dessler spent the year 2000 as a senior policy analyst in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. While there, he became aware of that policymakers and the general public often lack an understanding of how science works and how to interpret the conflicting claims in policy debates. Dessler’s focus is on understanding the Earth’s climate; he has also researched stratospheric chemistry.
He has served as an associate editor for the Journal of Geophysical Research, and editor for the American Geophysical Union. Dessler was selected as keynote speaker at a technical conference of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.[1]
Principal policy work
Dessler’s principal policy monograph, The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: a Guide to the Debate, conveys the complexity of the current global climate change.[2] His book details the significance of earth surface temperature change versus troposphere change. In addition he provides insights to the geological time scale of global warming.
wiki
If one is quoting one authority figure against another it seems reasonable to list the credentials of the opponents.
Spencer’s response to Dessler’s above mentioned criticism is here:
“The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: My Initial Comments on the New Dessler 2011 Study”
September 7th, 2011
UPDATE: “I have been contacted by Andy Dessler, who is now examining my calculations, and we are working to resolve a remaining difference there. Also, apparently his paper has not been officially published, and so he says he will change the galley proofs as a result of my blog post; here is his message….”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
10
Beat me to the punch Matthu. What I like about Spencer is his honesty in acknowledging the uncertainties of the science of climate because of the large knowledge gaps. The alarmists keep getting hoisted on their own petard by making climate predictions on the assumption that climate science is a mature discipline with most of the answers. Spencer asks the sort of questions that can only advance the science.
10
Warcroft@83,
“No, the real reason theres no polar bears in Antarctica is because they all drowned.”
Wow, did they get trapped under the massive amounts of ice down there, or maybe they’re just lurking in Trenberths hot spot?
10
Interesting points from the Alaska Climate Research Center and no mention of CO2! And no Blimey, I don’t think even you would describe it as a blogger-science site. Note the dates of warmest years and the sudden step change up in 1976/77.
Decadal Climate Change in Fairbanks
Climatological data of the first decade of the 21st century are now available, and we analyzed the data for Fairbanks. Related to the temperature, the warmest year was 2002 with a mean temperature of 30.3°F, the 7th warmest in our records of more than a century. Higher temperatures were observed during the following years in order of decreasing values: 1926. 1987, 1928, 1993, 1940, and 1981.While the overall trend since 1906 shows warming, the best linear fit of the data points of the last decade displays a fairly strong cooling of 1.8°F. Recent cooling has also been observed in other parts of the world, and some climatologists have attributed this trend to the low solar activity we have experienced over the last few years. Another symptom of this can be seen in the aurora activity, which has decreased over the few last years here in Fairbanks. It is worthwhile to point out that during the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), a time period of very low solar activity, Greenland froze over and the Vikings had to leave, as agricultural activities became more difficult.
Nevertheless, the last decade was on average warm, actually the second warmest decade of the last century; only the 1980’s displayed a higher temperature in Fairbanks. The temperature has varied widely over the last century, 1926 being the warmest year. In 1976/77 a sudden and substantial temperature increase was observed in Alaska, which we attributed to a change in circulation, which is expressed in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The PDO shifted from dominantly negative to dominantly positive values. Since that change, the temperature trend has been fairly flat for Fairbanks.
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/
10
As long range weather forecasters don’t factor in atmospheric CO2 in their forecasts could they be called climate change deniers too?
10
Yes Ken you know I commented on that post of yours and prior to it here. My concern re CO2 is that it could fall lower. Lower than we need it to be for life as we know it to continue. I fear that unless we keep atmosperic CO2 levels up that solar induced global cooling may not be the only factor that may suck it out of the atmosphere. Sure Henrys law will pull a lot down and the increased vegetation it causes itself but these may be a small amount compared to fertilisation of the seas by a volcanic eruption. Katla and Tambora and others are looking like they may give us the overdue big one.
Have a look at these:
Volcano Fuels Massive Phytoplankton Bloom
Little plankton may be able to change the weather, and longer term climate
“More CO2 May Mean More Cooling Cloud Cover”
Note the most important test result to me is obtuse to what they wanted to prove.
I add that all up to plankton blooms eating up CO2 faster as it gets colder. In the process they create clouds that cool it more. So this process would run away with itself until the nutrients or the CO2 run down enough to slow it. It could all happen quickly. Wiki says:
You would hope that the nutrients run low first.
Any warming caused by CO2 is logarithmically reducing. So more CO2 is not going to warm it much but less could cool it a lot and starve us at the same time.
10
Cor blimey, what do yo call long term?
10
Blimey:
September 11th, 2011 at 9:52 am
“DirkH says:
It’s as warm as in 1800.”
“A few cities is not the same as a global value, ”
Unfortunately we don’t have many records going back 300 years; but according to James Hansen, Berlin should represent about a million square km in Europe; extrapolating its anomaly 1200km around; what he does in GISTEMP…
“but hey it’s funny what you find in your own link …
This pic shows … http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/c231945837.gif … cooling till about the 1900′s then warming.”
You understood that correctly; the trough in the middle is also known under the name Little Ice Age; look it up, you might learn something. Of course, the AGW-though-CO2 believers cannot explain why there was cooling from 1800 to 1900; it is not possible under their assumptions, as during that time there was a pretty constant CO2 concentration of 270-290 ppm. They can also not explain why the warming started in 1900 and not in 1950.
You could of course say that it must be natural variation and solar influences, but that would undermine your CO2 alarmism – as the magnitude of this variance is obviously entirely sufficient to explain our recent warming from 1979 to 1998.
10
LOL. Were you trying to help or hinder Tony?
http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/data/iceberg.html
Massive carving
http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/ice_images/icebergs/mcmurdo/DigitalGlobal-McMurdo-Before.png
http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/ice_images/icebergs/mcmurdo/DigitalGlobal-McMurdo-After.png
But hey, you want temps; make it even easier for you. 😉
Casey – January 2011, Mean Max temp of 3.9, every day went above zero.
Davis – January 2011, Mean Max temp of 3.7, every day went above zero.
Mawson – January 2011, Mean Max temp of 2.5, 28/31 days went above zero.
10
Given the range that the forecasts cover and the rate at which they change, what’s the use of them?
Is the plan to make so many ‘predictions’ that one of them probably/possibly/could/maybe/perhaps (have to get all of the weasel-words in to cover my ass) be right and then the ‘scientists’ can crow about being correct and therefore their longer term predictions are also correct.
10
DirkH:
September 11th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
For a bit more accurate timing on the “Little ice age” and to see the obvious cause of the cooling around 1850 have a look at the green chart on this one:
Click here.
Also note the number of large volcanic eruptions around that time:
Tambora 1815 Ve7
Krakatoa 1883 Ve6
Santa MMaria 1902 Ve6
Nova Rupta 1912 Ve6
Then a big long warming quiet period with no Ve6 until 1991 and no more ve7 at all.
Seems a sunspot a day keeps the volcanic ash away!
10
“”Massive carving”” @92
Should that be “calving”?
10
Mary @ 95
No, it should “seasonal calving”.
For reasons best known only to Blimey, he’s posted before and after shots of the seasonal calving of the Erebus Ice Tongue – the extension of the Mt Erebus glacier into McMurdo Sound.
It is seasonal but varies significantly and is due mostly to wave action – IE has bugger-all to do with CAGW – but hey – mere “facts” were never Blimey’s strong point anyway.
If memory serves the biggest recorded Erebus Ice Tongue calving event was around 1940. But since that doesn’t fit Blimey’s pre-conceived notions I guess he’d prefer not to know it.
Ignorance is bliss.
10
Blimey if calving is made worse by global warming. is that 1940 thing more proof of a large “1940s blip”?
10
What the……………..oh i get it yeah you are right before you accept the ENSO cycle and therefore predict it you need to accept the PDO/AMO etc cycle exists but of course to do all this you also need to accept there was a climate more than 30 years ago.
By the way the Bureau of Meteorolgy has been replaced by the Bureau of Mythology, they found the reading of Tarot cards to be more accurate than all of their computers combined.
10
@96 Hi memoryvault:
You are obviously more patient than I am.
I never look up his links and don’t often look up others.
“IE has bugger-all to do with CAGW” — Yep!
As Tony from Oz said yesterday the temps down there are so low there can be no melting.
The basic mechanism is that ice accumulates on the ice shield through precipitation ; the growing weight pushes down on the plastic ice which moves the only way open to it, sideways.
When it reaches a point of No Support (ie off land into water)there is a cantilever effect and it shows its brittle side and Cracks.
Temperature is not a factor, it’s a purely mechanical effect.
It doesn’t melt until it can drift away to warmer areas.
It’s really no fun to keep replying to someone as clueless as the Get Up Army.
I can imagine they find it hard to Get Up in the morning to go to work;; shush don’t mention that word.
10
Mary @ 99
No, not really – most times like you I just ignore it.
But sometimes the crap gets so thick you just gotta get out the shovel.
10
MFJ,
You aint seen nothing yet, wait for the analogy that begins with “Imagine a glass full of ice on a really hot day……………”
To all you deniers out there i have seen a massive ice carving……………it was of a poley bear melting in the sun so it does happen just not in the context we are talking about.
10
Crakar @ 101
I have that problem with the ice in my Scotch.
I never realised it had anything to do with global warming – I just thought I wasn’t drinking it fast enough.
Leastways, that’s what I tell the wife.
10
MV,
The standard excuse to the wife for getting drunk in Darwin was that you had to drink your beer quick or it would get warm, maybe you should cut out the global warming man and just add water?
10
Ice Shelf Calving.
….. Archimedes …..
Tony.
10
Crakar @ 103
Dilute good Scotch with water ?????!!!!
BLASPHEMY
.
PS – I am intimately familiar with the need for rapid consumption of beer in Darwin.
On many occasions in that fair city I have saved a six-pack (or two) from the awful fate of premature warming.
10
Ok lets cut out the middle, middle man of global warming and drink our scotch straight.
Re Darwin, we should all do our bit to fight the effects of global warming.
10
Crakar @ 106
The truly great thing about saving stubbies from a fate worse than death in Darwin on a FIFO contract, was not having to explain the humanitarianism of it all to the wife . . . .
who was still in Brisbane.
10
No you are right they just would not understand would they. Mind you i was tempted a few times to leave the stubies bottled in Darwin to suffer the seven circles of hell but my concience got the better of me and drank them anyway.
10
MV, there is water in Scotch right from the distiller.
MV and Crakar24
Simple science would show that it is not the dilution of Scotch that impacts the benefit of consumption. It is the speed of consumption as a ratio of dilution.
I further dilute mine 50:50 then drink twice as fast (by volume).
10
Tony
Archi Medes
He takes over after the crack!
10
MV, Crakar and MFJ,
My Lagavulen tastes better with a splash of water, but definitely NO ice. You know, doing my bit for the environment. Don’t want to have to use power from the “durdy poluters” to make ice!!!
10
Blimey has raised several of the canards of AGW ‘science’ which are used to justify the nostrums of wind and solar and other more destructive ‘solutions’ such as geo-engineering [these people are mad].
The first lie he regurgitates is that there is no natural source of warming; well, as they say, it’s the sun stupid; the CERN experiment, if we had a fair dinkum MSM, would be front page news; and, has been noted elsewhere on the thread, Spencer and Braswell’s various cloud papers, including the latest 2011 effort [which has NOT been refuted by the wretched Dessler] show the dominance of clouds as atmospheric determinants of climate. I have also referred before to David Stockwell’s latest paper on an accumulative solar model which has a remarkable correlation with temperature over ALL time scales; David has now written a long version and a shorter version as he refines the concept;
http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0004v1.pdf
http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0020v1.pdf
David’s model is a complete model as it ‘understands’ clouds, other macro climate factors, particularly the ocean, incorporates lags which are consistent over the various time scales and can incorporate GHG effects which, as Beenstock and Reingewertz found, are limited, instant and not accumulated.
Blimey then parrots the idea that ENSO cannot explain a trend as it is stationary or a balanced cycle. This is completely wrong; ENSO is asymmetrical as Monahan and Dai find:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf
Sun and Yu:
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~sun/doc/Sun_Yu_JCL_2009.pdf
Meehl et al find this asymmetry has a solar basis with a dominant role for clouds:
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/meehl_solar_science_2009.pdf
There are a number of other papers to the same point, including the maligned McLean et al paper.
This graph shows the asymmetry quite clearly and also shows that ENSO is sufficient to explain the temperature increase since 1850:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2702/4503452885_79b5c09c4f_o.jpg
10
Update:
As I have “claimed”, the (10 sep) CFS/NCEP prediction is now -2K for Jan and feb and “still counting”.
In the 1950´es we had a -2,1 K point in a La Nina in one month, else we have to go back to the 1917 super La Nina to see higher values.
K.R. Frank
10
Hi Overseasinsider
Mostly when the politics of CAGW has got me down I’ve had a touch of Cognac – Remy Martin.
Recently tasted White Heather – Special Reserve – and bought a bottle – good stuff.
Agree that ice is left out – just preference to sip a little bit straight.
Each to his own.
10
cohenite says:
Perhaps one day it will appear in a scientific journal instead of vixra.org
Writing a paper isn’t quite the same as having anonymous peers evaluate it.
It falls into the category of “blog-crap-science” until then!
Eh. Odd interpretation you have!
“Non-linear” means that one may not follow the other.
“Asymmetry” means they do not mirror each other.
I quite happily agree.
Neither means the ENSO is responsible for generating the heat that Joanna Nova won’t acknowedge.
You need to do better.
Same problem – you don’t seem to understand the difference between something being asymetrical and being a net source of heat. If the authors’ paper actually were actually suggesting the ocean is the main driver of climate change, you’d think they be a bit more clear about it.
Instead, they suggest the opposite of what you infer. Their conclusion…
cohenite says:
The graph could quite easily show a long term warming trend caused by GHG overlaid with natural cycles and the occasional solar and aerosol disturbances.
Your bias leads you to your conclusion, I’ll let the science guide mine.
10
Mary @ 114
Cruel bastard.
After my little episode in 2007 when my gall bladder parted company with the rest of my insides, beer and spirits (including my beloved 12 year old Chivas Regale) have been verboten.
But I always savored a glass of Remy Martin.
But since the stroke last year even that is denied me.
Now I am reduced to straight, orthodox wine, the only alcohol my system, and my medications, will handle.
Mind you, even that can be fun.
20
[snip inane insult – no substantiation]
10
@ Blimey
“acknowledge” the heat? I thought you said at 42:
So, if ENSO is generating heat that Jo won’t “acknowledge” how can you claim that La Ninas “neither add or removes energy from our system”? You could figure this out if the truth was of any interest to you at all. But the truth is the least of your concerns, right?
So, if it isn’t peer reviewed and published in a journal that is on the Blimey approved list then it is “blog science crap”? Speaking of anonymous, it must be nice to have your fellow conspirators review your work in return for reciprocation? Can you cite one major audit by an outside third party that lends credibility to the IPCC? You are such a gullible fool! Better yet, can you provide any empirical third party evidence to substantiate anything you have written? Quoting the IPCC isn’t empirical third party evidence. Neither is quoting a propaganda site like real science or desmogblog.
10
This video is a good way to celebrate the return of La Nina but before you look remember these now immortal words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xV_N5nLEs0
10
As an outsider to the science, one thing I do notice across the many threads and websites is how the phrase “long term” is defined in various ways according to the field of the author or his or her agenda. For instance, in geological time, 60 years is a laughably short period of time. Also, the time periods selected for making a point seem so arbitrary and always supportive of the author’s position or point. I understand that 30 years is an accepted time period for using the word “climate” but then exceptions to this standard are plentiful if it serves the agenda. For example, a multi-year drought in Texas is held up as evidence of climate change … huh? Seriously? But a series of snowy winters or cold summers is just weather? Strange how there doesn’t seem to be standard rules or protocols. With thess kind of wishy washy rules, no wonder that any scientific position can be held up by such convenient evidence. Cherry picking seems to be the rule and not the exception.
10
and
Time to add a new word…Hysteresis
Sorry if this explanation is too simple. I know that the layman must remain confused for the CO2 warming hoax to work.
Positive feedbacks act on cooling to produce more cooling. So “The cycle neither adds or removes energy from our sysstem” is wrong. Just as the solar warming was enhanced by positive feedbacks so will the cooling parts of the cycle be enhanced by feedbacks but different feedbacks starting from a different point. All the non linearities are now working the other way.
The CO2 levels fell last month etc.
10
It is heartening to see that some of the scientists are starting to get a better handle of predicting the factors affecting weather. In time, they may even be able to model them, and then start on some decent models for climate (that work). It is a start.
10
Don’t you just love it when hysteresis and the inevitable oscillation that must occur with positive feedbacks with a gain higher than one recombine to drive everthing down during the negative phase of the oscillation Blimey?
Did you enjoy the video? Now ponder for a minute the massive effect on the single most important factor in the radiative imbalance budget…ALBEDO. All that snow that the planet got when you warmists predicted less has reflected a lot of heat away from the planet. Snowpocalapse, snowmaggedon what will we call it this time? This La Nina will cause even more snow and even more heat to be reflected away from the planet. That heat is GONE. It is not lost or missing. It is out of the system GONE!
10
THE SCIENCE — AGAIN
“”The cycle neither adds or removes energy from our system, it’s just movement of the heat””
Yes the real science.
The very fact that heat moves from one place to another requires energy to be lost from that system — the batch of heated air or water loses energy.
Heat rises and transfers energy ever upwards where it meets the vast heat sink that is space.
Energy transferred to space is LOST TO US FOREVER.
Thank god for the sun.
10
Memoryvault: @116
Sounds like you have a lot of good memories anyhow!!
10
The Arctic ice had a low sea surface coverage during the long polar Arctic night. So the darker sea water did radiate more heat out to space( More heat that is not missing but gone). This would be supported by the higher thermal mass of water than the thermal mass of ice. Now that the sun is shining on it the effect of albedo is reduced by the effect of the high angle of the sun to the water meaning a higher reflection from the water up there than at the equator. It all adds up to a greater cooling effect. This can be seen in that the ice has started to grow again already. A short Artic melt season should not be a surprise because the warmists predicted longer melt seasons and are as usual wrong.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
10
Siliggy,@126 as well as more evaporation. I’ve said this many times before: If the ice caps shrink it is not a sign of warming but instead a sign of impending cooling.
10
Recall my post at #22 from 2 days ago which in part said…
Interesting article in todays paper titled “Australia’s summer forecast: Fair chance of disaster.”
Which says in part…
Saunders’ last paragraph is just a guess by him. Though potential cyclones may not be as strong as Yasi, weaker cyclones making landfall in the wrong places at the wrong time may be just as catastrophic as Yasi.
The point is, people living in vulnerable areas (Queensland coast) should prepare for potential natural disaster.
Oh, and Sydney siders and areas like Newcastle should prepare for damaging hailstorms (often more costly than cyclones).
I don’t like the look of the cool waters off the coast of Darwin either. Cyclone Tracey was borne out of cool waters just like the current situation.
10
BLIMEY demonstrates his ignorance and blind faith in a trace gas (which also doesn’t add heat to the ‘system’) with the following quote..
He doesn’t seem to understand what our ‘system’ is.
Blimey, your ‘system’ is the temperature of the near surface atmosphere (where we live) and where the temperature readings are taken by scam artists like James “handcuffs” Hansen.
The surface itself, i.e. the soils and rocks etc, warm and cool very quickly and do not accumulate heat. That’s why inland areas like Alice Springs can experience temperatures of 2DegC in the morning, and upwards of high 30s in the afternoon on the same day. Whereas coastal areas experience a much tighter temperature range. This is because of the effects of the oceans.
So when you say ENSO doesn’t add heat to the ‘system’, you are wrong. ENSO, during it’s El Nino phase, adds heat to the atmosphere (your system) by discharging the accumulated heat in the oceans (heat which cannot and does not accumulate in the soils and rocks).
Your AGW scam started back in the 70s just as a cycle of regular strong and moderate El Ninos frequented ENSO. These cycles last about 35.8 years. The oceans don’t have limitless heat to discharge. After a while (35.8 years with the modern solar cycles) they have no more heat to discharge, so they begin to accumulate heat again (La Nina dominated phase).
The fact that there is an extra hundred or two parts per million of a trace gas like CO2 is neither here nor there, a bit like you pissing into the Pacific Ocean. All that that extra CO2 can do is delay the exit of long wave radiation by a few milliseconds. Radiation travels at the speed of light.
For it to make any difference to near surface temperatures, radiations exit needs to be delayed by many minutes, if not hours.
You’ll need a good calculator to work out how many back and forth absorptions and emissions each molecule of CO2 has to make to delay the exit of radiation by those minutes and hours. Go ahead, try it.
If AGW wasn’t a United Nations beurocrats scam, but a legitimate theory, it would be easy to test. All you’d need to do is check the RAW temperature data of any inland location for the minimums at just before sunrise. If CO2 has delayed the exit of radiation, it should manifest itself by raising the minimum Ts in dry inland areas consistently since the increase in human emissions since about the 1950s.
Go ahead, test it and let us know what you find.
10
Eddy Aruda says:
Er, it’s not, that’s the point. 😉
I know you’re slow to catch on, but perhaps you should think before posting, or at least try to focus on things other than grammatical errors.
We’re well aware some journals are a last resort for science that has failed the peer-review process in other places. But generally, whilst not perfect, the peer-review process is much better than any crap written on a blogger site.
10
Baa Humbug:
No, system encompasses the atmosphere and everything below it.
No, the system contains both the atmosphere and the oceans. Moving heat from one to the other is not a net change of heat to the system. Heat escaping to space, or being capture from space IS a change in the energy budget of our system.
That you get confused on this simple matter does not bode well for the rest of your science.
10
Your theory makes sense and these Nino temps continue to fall:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst.for
10
Blimey responds to my lengthy detailed posts thus…
It is not I who is confused.
Is James “handcuffs” Hansen measuring ‘net change of heat to the system’ when he releases his “hottest year of the hottest decade” meme?
No, he measures near surface temperatures. THE VERY SAME TEMPERATURES WHICH HAS YOUR KNICKERS IN A KNOTT ABOUT A WARMING WORLD.
I explained in my lengthy post how the near surface atmosphere has warmed since the late 70s. the fact that you totally ignored this point tells me you are just not up to it, either willfully, which makes you an activist troll, or inadvertantly, which makes you a dumb fool.
WHICH ARE YOU BLIMEY?
10
El Nino/La Nina is a forty year old Climate Science Fantasy manufactured and expostulated by charlatans and originating from places such as the University of East Anglia in the early 1970s.
The only predictable cycles are ‘Dry Cycles’. The periods between these ‘Dry Cycles’ are naturally relatively ‘Wet’. These ‘Dry Cycles’ are exactly predictable as a result of Solar/Astronomical/Gravitational/Rotational factors, as set out in the book ‘Tomorrow’s Weather'(Alex S Gaddes, 1990.)and named as the’Ratios Principle’. This forecasting mechanism tells us that 2011 will be ‘Wet’, 2012 will be ‘Dry’, 2013-14 will be ‘Wet’ and 2015-2019 will be a five year ‘Dry’. (Earth/Solar Years.)
These ‘Dry Cycles’ travel around the globe (Westerly Drift of Earth’s Magnetic Field.) They may be ameliorated by certain volcanic activity,(ie explosive eruptions in Indonesia, in Australia’s case,)but their arrival and presence are immutable.
The above publication is available in an updated version(including forecasts to 2055,)as a free pdf from [email protected]
10
Can you read, Blimey? Here, again, is what I posted
Take a writing class. Maybe then you could be less vague and write with clarity and conciseness!
Really?
Hey Blimey, I can get you a terrific deal on the Brooklyn Bridge!
10