*EL NINO/LA NINA FORECAST 2010-2011*

[woodstove]

May 16, 2010 8:03:46 GMT glc said:

Thats not very observant of you GLC. If you were in a Pikes Peak road race would you expect a pothole on the upper reaches of the track to lower your vehicle in actual elevation above sealevel as a pothole in the lower reaches of a mountain?

So if something like the Dalton Minimum is comparable to a pothole on a mountain - what is responsible for the mountain?

SUVs?

[icefisher]

May 16, 2010 8:03:46 GMT glc said:

Thats not very observant of you GLC. If you were in a Pikes Peak road race would you expect a pothole on the upper reaches of the track to lower your vehicle in actual elevation above sealevel as a pothole in the lower reaches of a mountain?

So if something like the Dalton Minimum is comparable to a pothole on a mountain - what is responsible for the mountain?

The analogy was not suggesting the Dalton Minimum was a pothole. The analogy explains why one should not assume they can predict another Dalton Minimum will lower temperatures to the same level.

Don't get so carried away with extensions to what is being said like when somebody proves to you CO2 can block IR assuming the world is going to become a miserable place.

As for the mountain . . . .we can eliminate AGW. Thats because the base was laid before industrialization. If AGW has contributed some to its elevation (like a bump in the road?) it appears to be a minor player. Beyond that who knows what makes the the glaciers grow and retreat? I am smart enough to know I don't know.

If I were to bet on a primary cause I would bet on the sun, however, there also is the possibility of no cause. . . .or a combination many things.

Complex systems tend to display chaotic behavior so no cause is a real possibility, though nobody can ever be certain of that so causes will always be speculated upon. . . .especially by persons with extraordinary egos and their minions.

[glc]

May 16, 2010 12:54:20 GMT icefisher said:

May 16, 2010 8:03:46 GMT glc said:

Thats not very observant of you GLC. If you were in a Pikes Peak road race would you expect a pothole on the upper reaches of the track to lower your vehicle in actual elevation above sealevel as a pothole in the lower reaches of a mountain?

So if something like the Dalton Minimum is comparable to a pothole on a mountain - what is responsible for the mountain?

The analogy was not suggesting the Dalton Minimum was a pothole. The analogy explains why one should not assume they can predict another Dalton Minimum will lower temperatures to the same level.

Don't get so carried away with extensions to what is being said like when somebody proves to you CO2 can block IR assuming the world is going to become a miserable place.

As for the mountain . . . .we can eliminate AGW. Thats because the base was laid before industrialization. If AGW has contributed some to its elevation (like a bump in the road?) it appears to be a minor player. Beyond that who knows what makes the the glaciers grow and retreat? I am smart enough to know I don't know.

If I were to bet on a primary cause I would bet on the sun, however, there also is the possibility of no cause. . . .or a combination many things.

Complex systems tend to display chaotic behavior so no cause is a real possibility, though nobody can ever be certain of that so causes will always be speculated upon. . . .especially by persons with extraordinary egos and their minions.

Right - are you saying we don't actually know what causes climate changes. I'm ok with that, btw. It's just that I thought most on this blog thought the sun was the main driver.

[nautonnier]

It is probably more correct to say that most on this blog do not accept that CO₂ is the main, or even _a_ driver of climate change. The AGW hypothesis appears to be more due to political expediency of finding something with which to exert control and something to tax, rather than it is due to science.

Although the source of the heat input to the system is the Sun, the hypothesis that therefore it must be the Sun that directly causes changes in climate is also unproven although efforts are now being made to do so at CERN. There are also many unknown unknowns that are yet to be even guessed at.

[dartman321]

Waving El Nino goodbye....

www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

[twawki]

Nino 3.4 SSTs now in the negatives

bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/05/nino34-sst-anomalies-are-now-negative.html

SOI continues to rise

www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscillationIndex/30DaySOIValues/

Spotless sun and solar flux down in the 60s

Also notice over Australia our high pressure systems are breaking up early this year with a predominance of lows and troughs forming regularly. After years of drought rain to the interior is becoming a lot more regular and inland rivers are being replenished more often.

[nautonnier]

There certainly has been a downward change in SST and not only in the ENSO areas.

[sigurdur]

The oceans as a whole have lost a lotttttttt of heat. Of course, this should affect the global temp..........time will tell won't it?

[scpg02]

May 20, 2010 1:34:31 GMT sigurdur said:

The oceans as a whole have lost a lotttttttt of heat. Of course, this should affect the global temp..........time will tell won't it?

They are worried and pushing cap and trade legislation again. They have to get their agenda passed before more of the public wakes up.

[Ratty]

May 20, 2010 1:34:31 GMT sigurdur said:

The oceans as a whole have lost a lotttttttt of heat. Of course, this should affect the global temp..........time will tell won't it?

Does that mean that loss of ocean heat will cause a rise in atmospheric temps?

[poitsplace]

Heh, they caused a rise in atmospheric temperatures back when they were getting rid of heat. Now that the heat's gone...I expect atmospheric temperatures to drop.

[icefisher]

May 20, 2010 8:57:53 GMT poitsplace said:

Heh, they caused a rise in atmospheric temperatures back when they were getting rid of heat. Now that the heat's gone...I expect atmospheric temperatures to drop.

It has been dropping. Hadcrut has a drop of about .9degc/century since 2005 despite this huge El Nino peaking. From 2005 to 2008 it was dropping almost 6degC/century.

Since it seems likely more cooling is on the way one might find the average between 2005 to 2008 and April 2010 which is a bit more than 3degreesC/century or about what it was warming at between 1980 and 1999.

One can't predict when the next major La Nina will occur with the oceanic change being really light on observations with the Modaki condition but when the current cooling hits bottom will be a good time to take restock of the situation. The warmists on this board are banking on a weak cooling to bring their very cautious predictions home, predictions that essentially continues the 15 year lack of warming soon likely to turn into 40 years of cooling made up of 10 years of luke warming and 30 years of robust cooling.

Even Socold, whose fractured model that can't figure an explanation for the first half of the instrument record continues to postulate robust warming won't venture into warming territory with a prediction. Its sort of the thrown hard once mentality. Now they are having trouble getting back up on the horse.

The problem is in using suspended instruments to gauge what the planet is doing. I am figuring there is a good chance of a dozen year lag in the thermometers produced by cloud changes driven by ocean oscillations. Using that as a guage, 12 years from now you will know what the planet is doing today.

I think maybe if the above is true you have an explanation for the screwing with the instrument record with a correct background intuition that warming was not being fully recognized by the current instrument record. It as interesting to see how it was applied almost always to lowering historical numbers demonstrating a lack of confidence in systems they never managed.

And today you see egos taking control looking for any other possible excuse for a lack of performance of predictions so many hung their reputations on.

[socold]

I have a prediction icefisher. But it depends on what solar and ENSO do, which I obviously cannot predict. But I can put the formula up so that it can be computed in future based on what ENSO and sunspot count does.

For each month do the following:

1) Take the sunspot count from solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt
Multiply the value by 0.0015
Take away 0.1
The result is solar contribution in degrees C

2) Take MEI value from 3 months previous from www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/table.html
Multiply it by 0.12
Take away 0.1
The result is ENSO contribution in degrees C

3) Take volcanic forcing from data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/RadF.txt (StratAerosol column)
Multiply it by 0.05
The result is Volcanic contribution in degrees C

4) Work out the warming from the background warming trend.
Take the number of months since Jan 1970, divide by 12. Take the number and work out T:
T = 0.0035x^1.4 (ie 0.0035 multiplied by T to the power of 1.4)
The result (T) is the accumulated warming trend by that month in degrees C

5) Add the result of steps 1,2,3 & 4 together. The result is the predicted HadCRUT3vgl (www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt) anomaly for that month.

To date this is how it's looking. Step 1 (solar) is in orange. Step 2 (ENSO) is in purple. Step 3 (volcanic) is in grey). Step 4 (background warming trend) is in green. The blue line is step 5, the result of adding all steps. Red is HadCRUT3.


It doesn't line up perfectly, I wouldn't expect it to because there's more than the above 4 factors at play. But I think those 4 factors are enough to predict most of the pattern. It agrees best over decades or more, rather than in individual years or months.

Since 2005 hadcrut3 shows about 0.04C warming while the blue prediction is about flat:


That's despite the green background trend line showing 0.12C warming in that period. Why is that? How can there be a background warming trend of about 0.2C/decade if temperature is flat since 2005?

The reason the blue line goes flat, despite continued background warming is that both the solar trend (orange) and ENSO (purple) have had negative trends since 2005. In the graph ENSO is contributing 0.08C cooling since 2005 and the solar cycle is contributing 0.04C cooling. In total that's 0.12C cooling which masks the 0.12C warming background trend since 2005.


So the flat temperature since 2005 doesn't mean the background warming trend has stopped. I think this is a reflection that could be true of real life too. In short I think it is a graphic demonstration of why the temperature records are compatible with ongoing background warming. The negative ENSO slope and solar cycle minimum have potentially masked it. With just 5 years since 2005 it's not possible to say with any confidence that the background warming trend has stopped.

[icefisher]

May 20, 2010 21:07:21 GMT socold said:

I have a prediction icefisher. But it depends on what solar and ENSO do, which I obviously cannot predict. But I can put the formula up so that it can be computed in future based on what ENSO and sunspot count does.

For each month do the following:

1) Take the sunspot count from solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt
Multiply the value by 0.0015
Take away 0.1
The result is solar contribution in degrees C

2) Take MEI value from 3 months previous from www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/table.html
Multiply it by 0.12
Take away 0.1
The result is ENSO contribution in degrees C

3) Take volcanic forcing from data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/RadF.txt (StratAerosol column)
Multiply it by 0.05
The result is Volcanic contribution in degrees C

4) Work out the warming from the background warming trend.
Take the number of months since Jan 1970, divide by 12. Take the number and work out T:
T = 0.0035x^1.4 (ie 0.0035 multiplied by T to the power of 1.4)
The result (T) is the accumulated warming trend by that month in degrees C

5) Add the result of steps 1,2,3 & 4 together. The result is the predicted HadCRUT3vgl (www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt) anomaly for that month.

To date this is how it's looking. Step 1 (solar) is in orange. Step 2 (ENSO) is in purple. Step 3 (volcanic) is in grey). Step 4 (background warming trend) is in green. The blue line is step 5, the result of adding all steps. Red is HadCRUT3.


It doesn't line up perfectly, I wouldn't expect it to because there's more than the above 4 factors at play. But I think those 4 factors are enough to predict most of the pattern. It agrees best over decades or more, rather than in individual years or months.

Since 2005 hadcrut3 shows about 0.04C warming while the blue prediction is about flat:


That's despite the green background trend line showing 0.12C warming in that period. Why is that? How can there be a background warming trend of about 0.2C/decade if temperature is flat since 2005?

The reason the blue line goes flat, despite continued background warming is that both the solar trend (orange) and ENSO (purple) have had negative trends since 2005. In the graph ENSO is contributing 0.08C cooling since 2005 and the solar cycle is contributing 0.04C cooling. In total that's 0.12C cooling which masks the 0.12C warming background trend since 2005.


So the flat temperature since 2005 doesn't mean the background warming trend has stopped. I think this is a reflection that could be true of real life too. In short I think it is a graphic demonstration of why the temperature records are compatible with ongoing background warming. The negative ENSO slope and solar cycle minimum have potentially masked it. With just 5 years since 2005 it's not possible to say with any confidence that the background warming trend has stopped.

Only problem I see right off is in your 2nd graph the redline is showing about .045C Hadcrut3 cooling and not .04C warming.

Kind of messes up your math

[socold]

typo, I meant to say 0.04C cooling