*EL NINO/LA NINA FORECAST 2010-2011*

[glc]

Jan 28, 2010 14:06:17 GMT aj1983 said:

glc: most people in the US seem to think that the US IS
the whole world, so by using this definition, they are right.

Absolutely. It's just that I thought a visionary such as astromet would have a wider perspective on things.

[AstroMet]

Jan 28, 2010 10:16:48 GMT glc said:

This gem from Astromet

It may be one of the warmest years because of El Nino's effect on the Earth's atmosphere, but the warmest decade still was the 1930s, and the warmest year was 1934.

While astromet appears to look to the sun and the planets to explain the weather on earth he seems remarkably US orientated when considering the weather effects.

1934 may have been the warmest year in the US, it was most certainly not the warmest year in the rest of the world. Also the recent decade (2000-2009) was considerably warmer than the 1930s - even in the US.

This leads me on to his 36 year warm/cold phases. Astromet seems to have latched on to the fact that there was warming in the early 20th century and some cooling in the middle part. This is true. However this does not mean that the middle part was cooler than the early part. It wasn't. Temperatures in the early part of the 20th century started from a low base. The so-called cooling in the 1944-1980 period (Astromet's 36 year period) did not cause temperatures to fall anywhere near those in the the early 1900s.

Clearly something else is in play here and no amount of jiggery-pokery with planetary orbits or whatever can explain it. There are cycles but ther is also an underlying warming trend.

Well, I am a American astromet, so naturally, my primary focus for my clients and the public would be the U.S. However, I have, and continue to forecast for other parts of the world, so what is your point?

I don't know what you mean about "jiggery-pokery" with planetary orbits. I am not familiar with that term when it comes to the methods of astronomical forecasting.

The 1930s was warmer than average in much of the world, not just the United States. In fact, you will find "climate models" that have been "adjusted" to reflect this warming, except when it challenges the false contention that the 1990s were the warmest ever, ever, ever, that is, according to the IPCC, and their Climategate scientists.

The general period, say, between 1908-1944 was a very interesting cycle of warmer than average, stormy, and drier-than-normal climate conditions.

The peak of this cycle was in the 1930s, and continued into the early 1940s. By the mid-to-late 1940s, there were increasing signs of frequencies of anomalous cold events which the world experienced during the highly variable, stormy, wet, and colder-than-normal climate of 1944-1980. Those years studies, papers, and talks of a new ice age were quite common during the late 1960s and in the 1970s.

The current climate data clearly shows that seasonal data was removed from climate models to reflect more warming int he 1990s. It is as if the period from 1944 to 1980 never happened, and that they were more concerned with beating out the warmest years recorded in the 1930s.

If you look at the recorded temperatures of the 1930s you will easily discover that it was indeed a mixture of very warm, drier than normal, and a blasting climate, with fierce dirt storms raging across the Great Plains, Midwestern and southern U.S.

1934 State Data Temps - z.about.com/d/weather/1/0/Y/0/-/-/01-12-1934Statewidetrank-pg.gif

It is well known (at least to me) that 1934 was a very hot year. Records were broken and hundreds of people in the states of Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas died from the extreme temperatures.

There were three (3) straight record drought years in the U.S. in the 1930s (1934-35-36) with record high temperatures and blasts of dirt storms. One region saw a temperature of 120F in 1936.

Drought Index July 1934 - z.about.com/d/weather/1/0/X/0/-/-/phd193407_pg.gif

The 1930s were indeed the warmest decade for the U.S. For more on the climate of the decade, see - www.ccccok.org/museum/dustbowl.html

As for the climate models from say, the last 15 years, they have always been suspect to me as being faulty, and possibly tampered with as well to reflect ideology - not the raw data.

Climategate shows us what happened of course, and we know that climate and weather data has been excluded, "bodged" or tampered to meet the needs of trying to prove anthropogenic warming; which has never been done.

[neilhamp]

Hmm! I have just checked out the NoAA site at www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/

The MEI about half way down the page shows 2009/10 compared to previous "weak-to-moderate" El Nino's. It is looking very like the extended El Nino of 57-58. This isn't quite Astromet's prediction but it would yield a warm year for 2010. We can only wait and see!

[AstroMet]

Jan 28, 2010 22:00:05 GMT neilhamp said:

Hmm! I have just checked out the NoAA site at www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/

The MEI about half way down the page shows 2009/10 compared to previous "weak-to-moderate" El Nino's. It is looking very like the extended El Nino of 57-58. This isn't quite Astromet's prediction but it would yield a warm year for 2010. We can only wait and see!

The conventional climate models could not forecast ENSO, so, we need to be wary of depending on these same models to forecast how long, or what strength the El Nino compares against.

The year has just started, and we've got the entire solar year, plus some, to go.

[gfw]

(First two paragraphs mostly directed to Ted (Astromet))

First up, if you believe that the instrumental temperature record is being significantly altered to show a warming trend that doesn't exist, then you are believing in an impossible conspiracy. The history of scientific fraud has been the history of single researchers or very small groups. See the list of significant known cases at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct (aside: I note that the cold fusion pair are not on the list - I guess people think it was sloppiness rather than misconduct). Science is too competitive for such frauds to stand very long. (The record is probably Piltdown Man, but the 40 years that one stood for contained both world wars - certainly one couldn't get away with that crap now. For example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor which was debunked on arrival.)

Ok, so either you believe that average global temperatures are now on the order of 0.6C higher than in the late 70s, or you believe in a collusion between thousands of scientists, any one of whom could become a celebrity with a Nobel prize just by demonstrating proof that the temperature record had been faked.

Moving on. It's well known that the LIA coincided with a period of lower solar output, and generally higher than average volcanism. It appears likely that the effect was magnified in Europe by natural variations in the gulf stream and AMO. The rise in temps to the middle of the 20th century can be almost entirely explained by a reversal of the LIA. The sun got warmer again, and their was less significant volcanism. There may well have been some small anthropogenic effects, but not significant compared to the natural changes (*). Then, post WWII, northern hemisphere industrialization really took off (yeah, even more than necessary to fight WWII in the first place). We burned lots of fossil fuels in a hurry, releasing both CO2 and sulfates. In the short term, sulfates cool more than CO2 warms. So the northern hemisphere temperature dropped from there into the 1970s, while the southern hemisphere was hardly affected. See www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen09_fig1.jpg
Then we realized all those sulfates were coming down as acid rain and we cleaned up a lot of those emissions. CO2, building up over time, finally started to outmuscle the other effects (**)

(*) There is one anthropogenic factor specific to the 1930s in the USA. Unwise agricultural practices contributed to the dust bowl. Black clouds of dust blew across much of the country, and fields were bare of vegetation. Both effects lower albedo.

(**) Not to ignore black carbon, aka soot. It's also in the mix there.

When the best GCMs are run using the known and best estimate historical forcings (solar, volcanoes, industrial emissions, etc.) from the 1800s to today, they do a remarkably good job of reproducing the temperature history (and the temperatures are an output, not used for "fitting").

[magellan]

Jan 29, 2010 0:29:17 GMT gfw said:

(First two paragraphs mostly directed to Ted (Astromet))

First up, if you believe that the instrumental temperature record is being significantly altered to show a warming trend that doesn't exist, then you are believing in an impossible conspiracy. The history of scientific fraud has been the history of single researchers or very small groups. See the list of significant known cases at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct (aside: I note that the cold fusion pair are not on the list - I guess people think it was sloppiness rather than misconduct). Science is too competitive for such frauds to stand very long. (The record is probably Piltdown Man, but the 40 years that one stood for contained both world wars - certainly one couldn't get away with that crap now. For example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor which was debunked on arrival.)

Ok, so either you believe that average global temperatures are now on the order of 0.6C higher than in the late 70s, or you believe in a collusion between thousands of scientists, any one of whom could become a celebrity with a Nobel prize just by demonstrating proof that the temperature record had been faked.

Moving on. It's well known that the LIA coincided with a period of lower solar output, and generally higher than average volcanism. It appears likely that the effect was magnified in Europe by natural variations in the gulf stream and AMO. The rise in temps to the middle of the 20th century can be almost entirely explained by a reversal of the LIA. The sun got warmer again, and their was less significant volcanism. There may well have been some small anthropogenic effects, but not significant compared to the natural changes (*). Then, post WWII, northern hemisphere industrialization really took off (yeah, even more than necessary to fight WWII in the first place). We burned lots of fossil fuels in a hurry, releasing both CO2 and sulfates. In the short term, sulfates cool more than CO2 warms. So the northern hemisphere temperature dropped from there into the 1970s, while the southern hemisphere was hardly affected. See www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen09_fig1.jpg
Then we realized all those sulfates were coming down as acid rain and we cleaned up a lot of those emissions. CO2, building up over time, finally started to outmuscle the other effects (**)

(*) There is one anthropogenic factor specific to the 1930s in the USA. Unwise agricultural practices contributed to the dust bowl. Black clouds of dust blew across much of the country, and fields were bare of vegetation. Both effects lower albedo.

(**) Not to ignore black carbon, aka soot. It's also in the mix there.

When the best GCMs are run using the known and best estimate historical forcings (solar, volcanoes, industrial emissions, etc.) from the 1800s to today, they do a remarkably good job of reproducing the temperature history (and the temperatures are an output, not used for "fitting").

Ok, so either you believe that average global temperatures are now on the order of 0.6C higher than in the late 70s, or you believe in a collusion between thousands of scientists, any one of whom could become a celebrity with a Nobel prize just by demonstrating proof that the temperature record had been faked.

Actually it is a small group of scientists and bureaucrats controlling the data and dissemination of it.

When the best GCMs are run using the known and best estimate historical forcings (solar, volcanoes, industrial emissions, etc.) from the 1800s to today, they do a remarkably good job of reproducing the temperature history (and the temperatures are an output, not used for "fitting").

Please name the GCM(s). Also, you appear to have omitted historical clouds and precipitation data used in the models. Any reason why?

After insulting a forum member in good standing in another post, you have demonstrated sufficiently who doesn't know what they're talking about.

[AstroMet]

Jan 29, 2010 0:29:17 GMT gfw said:

(First two paragraphs mostly directed to Ted (Astromet))

First up, if you believe that the instrumental temperature record is being significantly altered to show a warming trend that doesn't exist, then you are believing in an impossible conspiracy. The history of scientific fraud has been the history of single researchers or very small groups. See the list of significant known cases at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct (aside: I note that the cold fusion pair are not on the list - I guess people think it was sloppiness rather than misconduct). Science is too competitive for such frauds to stand very long. (The record is probably Piltdown Man, but the 40 years that one stood for contained both world wars - certainly one couldn't get away with that crap now. For example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor which was debunked on arrival.)

Ok, so either you believe that average global temperatures are now on the order of 0.6C higher than in the late 70s, or you believe in a collusion between thousands of scientists, any one of whom could become a celebrity with a Nobel prize just by demonstrating proof that the temperature record had been faked.

Moving on. It's well known that the LIA coincided with a period of lower solar output, and generally higher than average volcanism. It appears likely that the effect was magnified in Europe by natural variations in the gulf stream and AMO. The rise in temps to the middle of the 20th century can be almost entirely explained by a reversal of the LIA. The sun got warmer again, and their was less significant volcanism. There may well have been some small anthropogenic effects, but not significant compared to the natural changes (*). Then, post WWII, northern hemisphere industrialization really took off (yeah, even more than necessary to fight WWII in the first place). We burned lots of fossil fuels in a hurry, releasing both CO2 and sulfates. In the short term, sulfates cool more than CO2 warms. So the northern hemisphere temperature dropped from there into the 1970s, while the southern hemisphere was hardly affected. See www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen09_fig1.jpg
Then we realized all those sulfates were coming down as acid rain and we cleaned up a lot of those emissions. CO2, building up over time, finally started to outmuscle the other effects (**)

(*) There is one anthropogenic factor specific to the 1930s in the USA. Unwise agricultural practices contributed to the dust bowl. Black clouds of dust blew across much of the country, and fields were bare of vegetation. Both effects lower albedo.

(**) Not to ignore black carbon, aka soot. It's also in the mix there.

When the best GCMs are run using the known and best estimate historical forcings (solar, volcanoes, industrial emissions, etc.) from the 1800s to today, they do a remarkably good job of reproducing the temperature history (and the temperatures are an output, not used for "fitting").

All I can say about that is there has been so much BS in the field of climate science and meteorology over the past 15 years especially that it isn't any wonder why forecasts beyond 5 days are so pitiful.

There is too much opinion, too many egos, and careerism, cynicsm, and dabbling with raw data that one cannot trust the sources, even if they come from organizations that have received tens of millions in funding, and billions in promised funding to continue the scam.

Most of the conventional meteorologists and climate scientists have taken part in creating dissent because of the malfeasance in meteorology and climate science to the point of having done great damage to the field with their crap, which Climategate clearly shows has happened.

The nickel and diming, the careerism, cheating, the pettiness, the dependence on computer model graphics sold as "products" along with the lies, the shutting out of experienced forecasters, astrophysicists and voices who do not buy into all the above has seriously compromised the fields of meteorology and climatology.

Today, you have students and amateurs in the field who are taught to believe that it isn't possible to forecast long-range when this has been done for hundreds of years, and continues to be done today.

Now, the students and amateurs have to start over, and this continues the extensive damage done to meteorology and climatology.

The result of the lies, and all the BS is that those who depend on accurate climate forecasts will be wholly unprepared for what is coming, and that is global cooling, with all the damage to lives and property that is associated with the colder climate in the decades ahead.

This new decade of the 2010s will prove that all the careerism, cheating, lying, and politics over the years has caused significant damage to the fields of meteorology and climatology because those running these fields have done so much damage with their crap that it will take a miracle to recover in time to actually get back to the work of forecasting accurately enough to be of use - and that is what all this is about.

[aj1983]

Blablablabla.

How's the El Nino doing?


Ps: Astromet, we've had 3 of the coldest winters since 1900 between 1940 - 1945. One of them is known as the infamous "hunger" winter, in which tens of thousands of people died from famine.

www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/lijsten/winter_xtr.html

Two years between 1940-1945 were also in the top 10 of coldest years.

www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/lijsten/jaar_xtr.html

Now compare the amount of years in the top ten warm years between 1930-1945 and 1995 - 2010...

(0-7)

[AstroMet]

Feb 7, 2010 21:02:27 GMT aj1983 said:

Blablablabla.

How's the El Nino doing?

Varying, as all climate conditions do on Earth.

I can't respond to your "blablablabla" since that isn't a language.

[aj1983]

Good. A response on that was not necessary .

Varying. Are we still on track for a strong El Nino year?
We are getting back to colder weather, so your forecast of cold weather until mid February done last month is still going strong.

[AstroMet]

Feb 7, 2010 21:18:17 GMT aj1983 said:

Good. A response on that was not necessary .

Varying. Are we still on track for a strong El Nino year?
We are getting back to colder weather, so your forecast of cold weather until mid February done last month is still going strong.

The winter in the northern hemisphere continues in February, however, a warmer than average spring, and summer is on tap according to my forecast, and yes, this will be a strong El Nino year, as it has just begun.

If you look to the Pacific coast of the U.S., and to South America, you will see that El Nino has been strong with heavy precipitation resulting in flooding and mudslides. This is quite typical of El Nino.

[AstroMet]

Jan 26, 2010 8:57:43 GMT neilhamp said:

You seem very confident about this 2010 El Nino Astromet
I think Joe Bastardi is suggesting it is coming to an end
If it continues into 2010 with renewed vigour it would equal the 1998 super El Nino
If I have understood your comments is that what you are suggesting might happen?

My astronomical calculations which I used to forecast the climate, and this current ENSO continues to show that El Nino will be in force in 2010.

As a long-range forecaster on the climate I continue to maintain that we will enter a 36-year era of global cooling starting about mid-year 2016 which will extend through the 2020s, peak in the mid-2030s to the mid-2040s, and then wane into the early 2050s.

Most of the large MET and Climate organizations have been wholly focused on short-range weather, which is why these organizations fail at medium and long-range weather and climate forecasts. They do not forecast astronomically.

In the long-range, it is critical to understand that time is your friend when preparing for climate change towards global warming, or global cooling.

The major reasons why there are always billions in damage and loss of lives is that populations are unaware of approaching climate changes such as global cooling for instance.

Most of the people involved in climate/weather do not have the experience and skill to forecast long-range, much less seasonally, so it is obvious that over the coming years only long-range specialists will be able to accurately forecast. This is where the resources will go.

NOAA is now exploring opening a long-range climate center, and this is long overdue, however, it will not be in time to prepare for the era of global cooling that I've forecasted to begin in about 6-7 years.

At this time, there has been too much careerism, ego, and pettiness in meteorology/climate science. This has been a total waste of time because many involved in these areas have been more concerned about looking good and being "right" when the great majority of them cannot forecast a month in advance, much less a year, or a decade in advance, but have many opinions.

However, that is not forecasting.

While most people argue over climate, a few of us are working in the real world of climate change and forecasting. This is where the action always is, and where it always will be. It is essential to prepare for the coming era of global cooling that will dominate in the 2020s, 2030s, and 2040s.

In the meantime, the ENSO state I forecasted several years ago for this current time is now underway, and will rule over this year's climate affecting half the planet.

This will extend though 2010 and into early 2011 with La Nina on the back end of next winter, which arrives later than normal (Feb. 2011) in the northern hemisphere.

[solarstormlover54]

Things don't warm uniformly.
As for El-nino, I predict this Elnino will behave like the 1986-88
El-nino, It will remain above 1 for the entire year with a 2nd peak in November

About climate change in my area
We have not beaten to the records set in the early 20th century.
The records are as follows:
Edmonton: 37.2C(1937)
Red Deer: 36.1C(1941)
Calgary: 36.1C(1919)
Regina: 43.3C(1937)
Winnipeg: 40.6C(1949)

example:
In Calgary, Alberta there was a 14 year long string of hot summers in a row from 1913 to 1926.
The monthly mean highs during this period were around 2-6C above average.
the warmest high was around 28C, the lowest was 24C
Also wasn't' that the last time we had so many spotless days?

The latest ongoing string of hot summers is 4 years from 2006 to present, 2006 and 2007 were the hottest of the bunch and broke records thanks to warm nights

2008 and 2009 had the hottest weather in August and September
2010 is Expected to be the 5th hot summer in a row


Latest modern records that were close:
Edmonton: 35.6C(Aug 18, 2008)
Calgary: 34.3C(Aug 3 2001)
Red Deer: 34.4C(Sept 23 3009)
Regina: 37.4C(July 6 2007)
Winnipeg: 35.9C(Aug 19 2003)

The extreme heat that baked the pacific northwest last summer may show that we have entered a new string of very hot summers along 50N, we will see.

Being at 52N I live at a very dangerous latitude.
My climate becomes arid with severe storms during warm periods, and becomes extremely cold during cool periods. Both are bad for local food production as warm=drought and cool=midsummer frost

[karlox]

I would like to launch a question to anyone that might have an answer:
Is there any co-relation between ENSO index and AO and NAO index? I know they don´t mean or measure same parameters (pressure versus water temp etc), but I wonder if El Niño or La Niña phases correspond somehow to a much more likely positive or negative AO and NAO index. This winter in Northern Hemisphere is clearly marked by continous negative AO and NAO index, and same time El Niño is striking hard... Any relationship? Should it be the other way round? What do historical records show? Please enlighten my ignorance...

[nautonnier]

Feb 14, 2010 0:16:49 GMT karlox said:

I would like to launch a question to anyone that might have an answer:
Is there any co-relation between ENSO index and AO and NAO index? I know they don´t mean or measure same parameters (pressure versus water temp etc), but I wonder if El Niño or La Niña phases correspond somehow to a much more likely positive or negative AO and NAO index. This winter in Northern Hemisphere is clearly marked by continous negative AO and NAO index, and same time El Niño is striking hard... Any relationship? Should it be the other way round? What do historical records show? Please enlighten my ignorance...

There is a relationship as they are mostly driven by the position and strength of the Hadley and Ferrel Cells and the Polar Vortex.

These cells convective cells that move heat from the surface to the tropopause and from the tropics to the poles.



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation

The current state is that these cells have moved toward the equator the Ferrel Cells have been squeezed and the polar vortex is well south - the reason that Spain is as cold as it is.

The air currents at the surface are the trade winds that cause ENSO and the SOI is based on the pressure difference between Darwin and Tahiti - a way of measuring the trade winds.