Global Warming Predictions

[tacoman25]

Well technically the Nina certainly did influence the second half of the year... the second half was .2C cooler than the first half and we fell nearly .4C from start to finish. Years like 2005 didn't see such a drop off. It's certainly a bit slanted to not mention we started off with a strong Nino though. But remember the context of the statement was the ranking of years, and in terms of setting records, it's more ideal to have a full year Nino than one which subsides into Nina.

And he's right about solar and the importance of decadal trends.

Not really. Very few strong Ninos persist through a full year. Look at 1973, 1983, 1998...all very strong Ninos that quickly subsided those years (just like 2010), but the warming inertia from the Nino was enough to carry temps quite high for the period. The strength of the Nino is the most important factor, and 2009-10 was easily the strongest El Nino since 1997-98.

[skierinvermont]

Not really. Very few strong Ninos persist through a full year. Look at 1973, 1983, 1998...all very strong Ninos that quickly subsided those years (just like 2010), but the warming inertia from the Nino was enough to carry temps quite high for the period. The strength of the Nino is the most important factor, and 2009-10 was easily the strongest El Nino since 1997-98.

I think 2005 was more ideal ENSO-wise for record temperatures than 2010. Which I think was the point Hansen was making, although his phrasing was slanted/incomplete.

Even 02, 03, and 07 were comparable to or warmer than 2010 in terms of the ENSO effect. 03 peaked nearly as high but then remained neutral-positive the remainder of the year. '10 peaked a bit higher but then crashed much lower by early summer.

[nzucker]

I think 2005 was more ideal ENSO-wise for record temperatures than 2010. Which I think was the point Hansen was making, although his phrasing was slanted/incomplete.

2010 was a Niño year in terms of temperatures, everyone knows that.

You're just making excuses for Hansen's deliberate ploy saying "look how hot we are when the Earth should be cool." Give the defense a rest, we know the guy is a liar.

[skierinvermont]

2010 was a Niño year in terms of temperatures, everyone knows that.

Not as much of a Nino year as 05 or 03, and perhaps not as much as 02 or 07 either. Which is why it is somewhat surprising how warm 2010 was, as Hansen said.

Temps really crashed the second half of 2010.

[nzucker]

Not as much of a Nino year as 05 or 03, and perhaps not as much as 02 or 07 either. Which is why it is somewhat surprising how warm 2010 was, as Hansen said.

Temps really crashed the second half of 2010.

It's the strength of the Niño that makes the biggest difference.

[skierinvermont]

It's the strength of the Niño that makes the biggest difference.

No, it's both. Temps clearly crashed the second half of 2010. Years which remain +ENSO the whole year even if at lower levels tend to be warmer. Such as 2005.

[LakeEffectKing]

Well like I said, it's a bit slanted. But remember the context of the statement was what creates a record year.. and in that context a full year Nino is better than one which heads into Nina.

A bit slanted??? As Will pointed out...his off the record comments are extremely subjective.....then (when he goes "on the record" publishing papers or conducting official business) we are supposed to believe the guy has some incredible ability to turn on his objectiveness because he has his "climate hat" on???

The dude has been arrested twice....all for "a just cause".....and yet the many shills out there (who have lost all abilities to characterizer their own objectiveness) blindly gaze into his science (which more often than not includes many many various data interpretations....as data often comes in a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle with 9,990 pieces missing) and say...."peer-reviewed!!! ....Must be fact!"

Don't lose whatever objectivity you had Skier.......challange your OWN beliefs!!

[tacoman25]

No 3-4F in the U.S. by the 2010s is much higher than his paper which looks to be about 2F (so error ranged 1.5-2.5F). I've read his 1988 testimony and it seems to be a pretty straightforward statement of what was known and what wasn't known. I don't see any evidence of sensationalism, and the predictions were pretty mainstream both for then and by current standards. He does have a tendency to be a bit more extreme, and to make colorful comments to the press.

There are certainly examples of this without using newspaper clippings on his 1986 testimony which just don't make any sense.

He presented in the midst of a hot/dry summer, allowed a senator to open the windows in the room the night before so that the A/C wouldn't work and it would be unusually hot for his testimony, focused on AGW leading to increasing drought (with an ongoing drought happening for much of the U.S that summer....even though AGW is supposed to be equally dangerous for flooding and increased precipitation), showed a graph that ended in Jan-May 1988 - which was of course a big spike thanks to a strong/multi-year Nino up to that point, etc.

He was obviously going for the sensationalist approach (capitalizing on the current weather conditions), because he wanted to capture public attention.

[skierinvermont]

A bit slanted??? As Will pointed out...his off the record comments are extremely subjective.....then (when he goes "on the record" publishing papers or conducting official business) we are supposed to believe the guy has some incredible ability to turn on his objectiveness because he has his "climate hat" on???

The dude has been arrested twice....all for "a just cause".....and yet the many shills out there (who have lost all abilities to characterizer their own objectiveness) blindly gaze into his science (which more often than not includes many many various data interpretations....as data often comes in a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle with 9,990 pieces missing) and say...."peer-reviewed!!! ....Must be fact!"

Don't lose whatever objectivity you had Skier.......challange your OWN beliefs!!

I've said dozens of times that I think Hansen is biased, and that I think his predictions are too extreme. I have no desire to defend the man unless he is actually correct.

[tacoman25]

No, it's both. Temps clearly crashed the second half of 2010. Years which remain +ENSO the whole year even if at lower levels tend to be warmer. Such as 2005.

1998 blew all other previous years out of the water (and is still the warmest for every source but GISS), and it had a mod/strong Nina set in for the second half of the year, just like 2010. There is a greater lag for ENSO following a very strong event.

[BethesdaWX]

2010 was a Niño year in terms of temperatures, everyone knows that.

You're just making excuses for Hansen's deliberate ploy saying "look how hot we are when the Earth should be cool." Give the defense a rest, we know the guy is a liar.

I wouldn't call him an all out Liar.....but significantly biased...definitely.

Everyone here agrees Hansen is Significantly Biased except One person...so be it I guess

[skierinvermont]

He presented in the midst of a hot/dry summer, allowed a senator to open the windows in the room the night before so that the A/C wouldn't work and it would be unusually hot for his testimony, focused on AGW leading to increasing drought (with an ongoing drought happening for much of the U.S that summer....even though AGW is supposed to be equally dangerous for flooding and increased precipitation), showed a graph that ended in Jan-May 1988 - which was of course a big spike thanks to a strong/multi-year Nino up to that point, etc.

He was obviously going for the sensationalist approach (capitalizing on the current weather conditions), because he wanted to capture public attention.

That doesn't concern the majority of the testimony. It wasn't understood at the time that there would be more flooding or an intensification of the hydrological cycle. How can you hold him to a standard which didn't exist at the time? It is a straightforward presentation of the model's results for the United States and the world.

[BethesdaWX]

1998 blew all other previous years out of the water (and is still the warmest for every source but GISS), and it had a mod/strong Nina set in for the second half of the year, just like 2010. There is a greater lag for ENSO following a very strong event.

Exactly. It just shows how the media are to blame.....they love the doomsday scenario... "Oh, its a La Nina and the globe hasn't cooled!"

The drop that came was the Fastest/Hardest drop, of that magnitude, ever recorded in the Satellite Era, dropping 0.5C in 4 months, and a total of about 0.7C.

Then the Media starts following the wackos in Russia predicting another Ice age

[skierinvermont]

1998 blew all other previous years out of the water (and is still the warmest for every source but GISS), and it had a mod/strong Nina set in for the second half of the year, just like 2010. There is a greater lag for ENSO following a very strong event.

2010 wasn't anywhere near close to the 1998 event.. it's closer to the infamous 06-07 event than the 1998 event.

[tacoman25]

I think 2005 was more ideal ENSO-wise for record temperatures than 2010. Which I think was the point Hansen was making, although his phrasing was slanted/incomplete.

Even 02, 03, and 07 were comparable to or warmer than 2010 in terms of the ENSO effect. 03 peaked nearly as high but then remained neutral-positive the remainder of the year. '10 peaked a bit higher but then crashed much lower by early summer.

No way. 2005 was certainly warmer thanks to following several +ENSO years and having no -ENSO crash, but a very strong Nino has repeatedly proven to be the best path to a record year, regardless of ENSO changes later in the year. 1983, 1988, 1998, 2010....all record/near record years at the time, despite all going -ENSO second half of the year.

[skierinvermont]

No way. 2005 was certainly warmer thanks to following several +ENSO years and having no -ENSO crash, but a very strong Nino has repeatedly proven to be the best path to a record year, regardless of ENSO changes later in the year. 1983, 1988, 1998, 2010....all record/near record years at the time, despite all going -ENSO second half of the year.

83 and 98 were much stronger and faded to Nina later than 2010. Had we had an ENSO progression similar to 83 or 98, 2010 would probably have been .05-.1C warmer.

[BethesdaWX]

2010 wasn't anywhere near close to the 1998 event.. it's closer to the infamous 06-07 event than the 1998 event.

Many other factors added significantly to the warming besides ENSO.

The West Based ENSO events have a much higher WP than East based Ones....The "El Nino Modoki" Index is a good measure for the actual Warming Contributed by ENSO

NOTE: The High ENSO in the early/mid 90's was heavily Pinatubo Enhanced.....as the GLAAM increases in response to the Imbalance...so it was more of the Climate systems way of restoring thermal balance.

.

[skierinvermont]

The West Based ENSO events have a much higher WP than East based Ones....The "El Nino Modoki" Index is a good measure for the actual Warming Contributed by ENSO

.

Evidence?

I highly doubt that claim since the EMI was negative in 1998 but the ENSO effect was clearly positive.

"Everybody knows 1998 was a +ENSO year" .. so the EMI is obviously a poor indicator since it was negative in 97-98.

[WeatherRusty]

The global high temperature record will be set the next time a moderate to strong Nino corresponds with the upper half of the solar cycle. That record will be nearly 0.1C warmer than 1998 and clearly unambiguous in all data sets. A new record high could occur before then but it would just barely do so.

[skierinvermont]

Another piece of evidence.. aside from the fact that the 2010 Nino was much weaker (actually more similar to the infamous 06-07 Nino) and faded earlier than 83 or 98, look what happened from 97 to 98 vs what happened from 09 to 10.

From 97 to 98 temps jumped an additional .17C. They were already warm in 97 because of the developing Nino, but they were .17C warmer in 98 because the Nino got so strong that winter and because the Nino was relatively slow to fade over the summer.

In contrast, from 09 to '10 temps jumped a mere .05C. They were already warm in 09 because of the developing Nino, but they only warmed another .05C in '10 because the second half of the year cooled so much due to the developing Nina.

On this basis, one might conclude 2010 would have been .12C (.17-.05=.12) warmer had it followed a similar ENSO progression to 1998. I conservatively estimated .05-.1C.

The Nina clearly had a substantial cooling effect on the latter half of 2010. The second half was .2C cooler than the first half. Overall temps dropped nearly .4C from start to finish. In contrast, the second half of 1998 was only .1C cooler than the first half. And the first half was incredibly warm because the Nino was much stronger than 2010.

[BethesdaWX]

Evidence?

I highly doubt that claim since the EMI was negative in 1998 but the ENSO effect was clearly positive.

"Everybody knows 1998 was a +ENSO year" .. so the EMI is obviously a poor indicator since it was negative in 97-98.

You're denying that N 3.4 & N4 are more influential than N-12 & N3 on the globe? Google it for yourself, its that easy. I was never denying that 1998 was a +ENSO yr.

The Fact that the 2010 El Nino at 1.8C ONI spiked pretty good...was followed up by a Moderate La Nina (ONI) of only 1.4C....that dropped the Temps Cold enough to Out-Do the Spike in Record Time.

The La Nina Dip was even larger than the ENSO spike, and it was a weaker event! Its how the Climate system Balances itself out. ENSO is a way the Climate system Maintains balance.

[skierinvermont]

You're denying that N 3.4 & N4 are more influential than N-12 & N3 on the globe? Google it for yourself, its that easy. I was never denying that 1998 was a +ENSO yr.

The Fact that the 2010 El Nino at 1.8C ONI spiked pretty good...was followed up by a Moderate La Nina (ONI) of only 1.4C....that dropped the Temps Cold enough to Out-Do the Spike in Record Time.

The La Nina Dip was even larger than the ENSO spike, and it was a weaker event! Its how the Climate system Balances itself out. ENSO is a way the Climate system Maintains balance.

No.. I'm not saying that. The ONI is based on Nino 3.4 which is clearly the best indicator of the effect on global temperature. Who said anything about Nino 1&2?

The EMI was negative in 1998... it's obviously a terrible indicator of the effect on global temperatures. Case closed.

[BethesdaWX]

The global high temperature record will be set the next time a moderate to strong Nino corresponds with the upper half of the solar cycle. That record will be nearly 0.1C warmer than 1998 and clearly unambiguous in all data sets. A new record high could occur before then but it would just barely do so.

No it won't, but I have this post saved. I'll be sure to Rub it in too

[skierinvermont]

The global high temperature record will be set the next time a moderate to strong Nino corresponds with the upper half of the solar cycle. That record will be nearly 0.1C warmer than 1998 and clearly unambiguous in all data sets. A new record high could occur before then but it would just barely do so.

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a 1998 type event 2-3 years from now if it was .15-.2C warmer than 1998 on GISS, STAR, Fu, V&G. UAH and RSS I'd expect more like .1-.15C warmer. HadCRUT probably only .05-.1C warmer since it misses the rapid warming in the arctic.

For a 2010 type event, knock off .05-.1C.

[tacoman25]

2010 wasn't anywhere near close to the 1998 event.. it's closer to the infamous 06-07 event than the 1998 event.

You are missing the point. Top-tier El Ninos carry a lot more momentum than weak/moderate Ninos like 2006-07.

Going by ONI, 2010 was the 4th strongest El Nino on record. 1998 was easily stronger than any other Nino. But in terms of overall duration/strength, 2009-10 was not close to 2006-07. In terms of causing an overall SST spike, 2009-10 was definitely closer to 1997-98 than 2006-07.

And more importantly, it was easily the strongest El Nino since 1998.

[BethesdaWX]

No.. I'm not saying that. The ONI is based on Nino 3.4 which is clearly the best indicator of the effect on global temperature. Who said anything about Nino 1&2?

The EMI was negative in 1998... it's obviously a terrible indicator of the effect on global temperatures. Case closed.

?????

This is why you have been owned by everyone on this forum for the past 2 days. I never said to expect temperature to follow the EMI, but to determine the Nino's "power".

The 3.4 anomaly is relative.. 1998 got it's insane N3.4 anom from A scorting Eastern 1/2 (N3 half), but was actually quite Cool in N4. 2010 was much warmer in N4 than 1998, which was actually almost neutral in N4.

The Western ENSO regions have more WP than the Eastern regions by Alot...the 1998 El Nino was heavily Focused in the N1.2 & the N3 regions, and Less so in the N4 & N3.4 (N3 1/2) anomaly.

[tacoman25]

That doesn't concern the majority of the testimony. It wasn't understood at the time that there would be more flooding or an intensification of the hydrological cycle. How can you hold him to a standard which didn't exist at the time? It is a straightforward presentation of the model's results for the United States and the world.

This is not true. Hansen understood the potential impacts on the hydrological cycle at the time of his testimony in 1988. In fact, he made a point the following year in 1989 to focus more on that potential. But in 1988 his focus was on drought...which made sense, since that was on people's mind at the time. Still a sensationalistic and somewhat unscientific approach.

[WeatherRusty]

No it won't, but I have this post saved. I'll be sure to Rub it in too

I have made a definitive prediction. You had better save it and give credit where credit is due!!

Stronger TSI will make the difference when added to the background greenhouse warming trend. Then we will all see how radiative forcing is the heavy weight in moving our climate towards a warmer state.

[skierinvermont]

You are missing the point. Top-tier El Ninos carry a lot more momentum than weak/moderate Ninos like 2006-07.

Going by ONI, 2010 was the 4th strongest El Nino on record. 1998 was easily stronger than any other Nino. But in terms of overall duration/strength, 2009-10 was not close to 2006-07. In terms of causing an overall SST spike, 2009-10 was definitely closer to 1997-98 than 2006-07.

And more importantly, it was easily the strongest El Nino since 1998.

Add up the ONI with a 3 month lag for 2010.. it's closer to 2007 than to 1998. 1998 is in a league of it's own.

In addition, from 1997 to 1998 temps jumped .17C.. from 2009 to 2010 temps only jumped .05C.. indicating Nina clearly had a strong effect on the second half of 2010. Temps fell .2C from first half to second half. In 1998 they only fell .1C from first half to second half.

All of these factors indicate that the ENSO effect in 1998 was at least .05-.1C greater than in 2010.

[tacoman25]

83 and 98 were much stronger and faded to Nina later than 2010. Had we had an ENSO progression similar to 83 or 98, 2010 would probably have been .05-.1C warmer.

Not true!

1998 had its first Nina trimonthly in JJA (June/July/August) at -.5 ONI. 2010 also had its first Nina trimonthly in JJA at -.6 ONI. Both entered -ENSO territory at nearly the same time.