Hansen Predicting a Strong El Nino Developing this Summer

[BethesdaWX]

Jim hansen has openly stated he predicts another Strong El Nino to develop this summer. I'm calling BS on Him, as usual. This shows a clear lack of understanding regarding how the Climate System Regulates itself. We have never Seen a Strong El Nino Develop the summer after a Strong La Nina, especially in the -PDO phase.

He overlooks the +SOI, the -PDO, and the -AAM. He has evenly openly discredited the PDO as an indice.

Lets see if I can Beat Jim Hansen Silly... I'm calling for ENSO to spike into (avged out) weak El Nino territory this Summer for 2-3 months, before falling to Neutral for Next winter.

BethesdaWX vs Jim Hansen.... One a Qualified Climate Scientist, one a High School Graduate.....One an alarmist, and the other an Objective thinker.

http://www.truth-out...ange/1301356800

Sometimes it is interesting to make a bet that looks like it is high risk, but really isn’t. Such a bet can be offered at this point. The NOAA web pages giving weekly ENSO updates predict a return to ENSO–neutral conditions by mid–summer with some models suggesting a modest El Nino to follow. We have been checking these forecasts weekly for the past several years, and have noted that the models almost invariably are biased toward weak changes. Based on subsurface ocean temperatures, the way these have progressed the past several months, and comparisons with development of prior El Niños, we believe that the system is moving toward a strong El Niño starting this summer. It’s not a sure bet, but it is probable.

If Hansen cannot understand the Climate System at such short ranges, well then,I don't know what to say.

OK hansen Defenders, lets hear it

[Ed Lizard]

He has a PhD and studied the climate system of Venus (checked Wiki) before becoming interested in Terrestial climate, he may be wrong on this, and I question the motives of some pushing AGW so hard, suspecting some have less than purely scientific motive, but this seems a strange topic, even if only an internet forum, to challenge the work of Dr. Hansen.

In 1997 Dr. Gray's CSU hurricane forecast busted horribly, does that make all his work unreliable to worthless?

And what happens if Hansen is right and a Nino does come on stronger than expected?

He has some model support...

[nzucker]

Sounds like he's getting desperate to get the temps up

Now I really want to see another mod/strong La Niña!

[Ed Lizard]

Another 18 page thread?

[Snow_Miser]

When Hansen's berzerk model was the only model that showed an Super El Nino for 2007-2008, he predicted around a +2-+2.5. Once again... Joe Bastardi predicted the collapse of the El Nino, and Hansen was wrong again.

[BethesdaWX]

He has a PhD and studied the climate system of Venus (checked Wiki) before becoming interested in Terrestial climate, he may be wrong on this, and I question the motives of some pushing AGW so hard, suspecting some have less than purely scientific motive, but this seems a strange topic, even if only an internet forum, to challenge the work of Dr. Hansen.

In 1997 Dr. Gray's CSU hurricane forecast busted horribly, does that make all his work unreliable to worthless?

And what happens if Hansen is right and a Nino does come on stronger than expected?

He has some model support...

Its a perfect Example of how someone would look at AGW...But this time its ENSO... but its the exact same sense! This is why Hansen is going to Bust, as should "extreme" AGW.

Example 1 ENSO

He is looking at the Subsurface Water, which is indeed warm. Then he Goes directly to ENSO Models, (instead of OBS) and says "in the past, they've been biased too weak, and since subsurface water is warm, we feel a Strong El Nino is on the way".

But he leaves out the Aspects that matter Most! The Earth AAM/total AAM, the -PDO phase, the +SOI, and Past History.

Example 2 AGW.

When forecasting AGW, its the exact same thing, only 1000X more complicated, and predictions are going out 100 years. We understand CO2 and energy Imbalance, CO2, without feedbacks, would yeild +1.2C/doubling. Then you use Climate Models that assume feedbacks to be positive based on time periods millions of yrs ago that no longer have any relevance, and poor understanding of Feedbacks, and those Yet to Be Discovered or that cannot me Measured.

In the past, feedbacks have been positive to changes in the Solar Activity, Yes, as has been said "the climate system has to be positive feedback because of this".... ummm, No.

What if it wasn't temperature causing the positive feedback in that timeframe, but a feedback from the Sun to dropping GCC, thus enhancing Ocean absorbtion of energy causing temperature rise? The Feedbacks within the climate system are Not Necessarily positive to Energy Imbalance from Within, because the flow of energy isn't the same, and it is supposedly a different causative mechanism. And it isn't necessarily temperature that causes a Global Cloud Cover feedback...this goes for alot of other feedbacks as well. Not to mention the energy cycle of the Earth is also poorly understood, and it has never been thought that Cloud Cover Changes & Multi-Century Ocean Equilibrium to the Solar Cycle could be Causing the Warming, when it could be a large part of it.

I question him because in order to predict AGW, you need to understand the Climate Systems Inter-mechanism/sensitivities, more so than the properties of Co2, which are quite basic.

Since forecasting climate is 100X harder than forecasting ENSO, if he cannot forecast ENSO, he cannot forecast Climate IMO.

In the past, he has shown inability to do both.

[BethesdaWX]

Sounds like he's getting desperate to get the temps up

Now I really want to see another mod/strong La Niña!

I have noticed Clearly Hansen's demeanor has changed in the past few years when it comes to explaining forecasts ideas.

He recently said that the reason warming has slowed since 2002 is because of Mt. Pinatubo...... .......Ummm, Yeah, somethings not right here. That was in 1991.

It is no surprise to finding what is going on.....

[aslkahuna]

Precious little model support in my estimation as there's a lot of scatter (which my son-who's working on his PhD in Climatology says is usual this time of year) while the average of all the dynamic and statistical models barely make it to neutral ENSO. A strong +ENSO would make a lot of ATL hurricane fans unhappy and would make for a poor monsoon here which we don't need.

Steve

[skierinvermont]

As I pointed out in the other thread on the main forum, there has never been a moderate or strong Nino that formed following a JFM ONI lower than -.9C. We had a JFM of -1.2. Of the 9 cases where the JFM ONI was below -.9, there was one weak Nino and the rest were neutral or Nina.

On the other hand, when basin OHC goes above +.5 it is usually followed by a Nino event, and occasionally neutral-positive, but never an ONI less than zero.

Currently OHC is at +.6-.7 which is unusual following a strong 1st year Nina, so we appear to be in unchartered territory.

Looking only at ONI, from a statistical standpoint, I lean towards neutral-neg or weak Nina, but when factoring in OHC I might say neutral-positive.

Hansen could be on to something with the OHC, although I wouldn't go all-in on a mod or strong Nino yet. If the OHC reaches +1, odds increase substantially.

[okie333]

As I pointed out in the other thread on the main forum, there has never been a moderate or strong Nino that formed following a JFM ONI lower than -.9C. We had a JFM of -1.2. Of the 9 cases where the JFM ONI was below -.9, there was one weak Nino and the rest were neutral or Nina.

On the other hand, when basin OHC goes above +.5 it is usually followed by a Nino event, and occasionally neutral-positive, but never an ONI less than zero.

Currently OHC is at +.6-.7 which is unusual following a strong 1st year Nina, so we appear to be in unchartered territory.

Looking only at ONI, from a statistical standpoint, I lean towards neutral-neg or weak Nina, but when factoring in OHC I might say neutral-positive.

Hansen could be on to something with the OHC, although I wouldn't go all-in on a mod or strong Nino yet. If the OHC reaches +1, odds increase substantially.

Have been thinking weak Niño for a very long time now... still not changing my thoughts.

[BethesdaWX]

Have been thinking weak Niño for a very long time now... still not changing my thoughts.

Sounds reasonable.

WIth Hansen, its Always "to the extreme", why not be safe and say Mod Nino?

If he's right, I'll happily bite my tongue so hard it will bleed.

[skierinvermont]

Sounds reasonable.

WIth Hansen, its Always "to the extreme", why not be safe and say Mod Nino?

If he's right, I'll happily bite my tongue so hard it will bleed.

Well it's not a scientific article so perhaps he didn't want to go into the technical definitions distinguishing a weak from a mod from a strong. He could just be oversimplifying and using the term "strong" in the colloquial sense not the official technical definition. If it ends up being a mod event I'd say his idea wasn't half bad since the official prediction is still neutral-negative.

[nzucker]

Well it's not a scientific article so perhaps he didn't want to go into the technical definitions distinguishing a weak from a mod from a strong. He could just be oversimplifying and using the term "strong" in the colloquial sense not the official technical definition. If it ends up being a mod event I'd say his idea wasn't half bad since the official prediction is still neutral-negative.

I think a weak Niño seems like a better forecast now though if you're on the subsurface/OHC train.

Strong is definitely a bold forecast. There's a lot of reasons I don't think Niño is favored, but I'd most certainly be shocked to see a strong Niño given that weeklies this winter were in the -1.6C territory; that's an unprecedented jump, and we also just had a strong event two years ago, which is fairly recent given the -PDO/-AAM global cycle.

[Jesse]

Well it's not a scientific article so perhaps he didn't want to go into the technical definitions distinguishing a weak from a mod from a strong. He could just be oversimplifying and using the term "strong" in the colloquial sense not the official technical definition. If it ends up being a mod event I'd say his idea wasn't half bad since the official prediction is still neutral-negative.

Facepalm.

Glad he realizes he can't use techinical language when addressing the plebians. The differences between weak, moderate and strong are a bit high-minded for us simple folk.

"In the colloquial sense". You are an absolute riot dude.

Would it physically harm you to ever admit he might be wrong? I'm a "denier" and even I can admit Anthony Watts is a quack sometimes.

[donsutherland1]

It will be interesting to see how things play out. Dr. Hansen's recent El Niño predictions have been biased too strong. Whether this one will pan out remains to be seen. Certainly, at this time, the more recent ensemble guidance isn't keen on a strong El Niño.

[BethesdaWX]

Well it's not a scientific article so perhaps he didn't want to go into the technical definitions distinguishing a weak from a mod from a strong. He could just be oversimplifying and using the term "strong" in the colloquial sense not the official technical definition. If it ends up being a mod event I'd say his idea wasn't half bad since the official prediction is still neutral-negative.

He said "Another Strong El Nino"... Starting in the Summer Trimonthlies. Hansen's model is Listed on the NOAA ENSO ensembles. Its so bad, they even say "This model is not recommended for forecasting, but for experimental purposes", and I'll Link/quote that if you wish

Hansen's 2007-08 bust was epic, calling for a +2C Nino. Umm, yeah. Also he said that the reason for the Flatlining Global Temps in the past Decade is due to Mt. Pinatubo....

Come on, you gotta laugh at that!

[Clifford]

Might as well roll the dice.

1&2 --> El Niño

3&4 --> La Niña

5&6 --> Neutral

Then make a fancy model to explain it.

Certainly the easterly indices Niño 1.2 and Niño 3 have weakened significantly recently.

There also seems to be lacking a wave-like feature right down the equator that is common with La Niña cycles.

However, I'm still holding out for strengthening La Niña conditions during the southern hemisphere winter/spring. As mentioned earlier, multi-year La Niña cycles often waning, then reforming, usually follow strong El Niño years like 2010.

[skierinvermont]

Facepalm.

Glad he realizes he can't use techinical language when addressing the plebians. The differences between weak, moderate and strong are a bit high-minded for us simple folk.

"In the colloquial sense". You are an absolute riot dude.

Would it physically harm you to ever admit he might be wrong? I'm a "denier" and even I can admit Anthony Watts is a quack sometimes.

I have frequently seen scientists use the term "strong" in the traditional non-technical sense when describing El Ninos in the public media and refer to technically moderate events as strong. If we get a weak Nino or neutral conditions then he's obviously wrong. If it's officially moderate it's not that bad of a call since the official forecast is still for neutral and mods are often lumped in with the strongs. But if you want to call him an utter failure because the ONI comes in at 1.3 instead of 1.5 go right ahead. I would expect nothing else.

[skierinvermont]

He said "Another Strong El Nino"... Starting in the Summer Trimonthlies. Hansen's model is Listed on the NOAA ENSO ensembles. Its so bad, they even say "This model is not recommended for forecasting, but for experimental purposes", and I'll Link/quote that if you wish

Hansen's 2007-08 bust was epic, calling for a +2C Nino. Umm, yeah. Also he said that the reason for the Flatlining Global Temps in the past Decade is due to Mt. Pinatubo....

Come on, you gotta laugh at that!

please do link to this description of his enso model, I wasn't he modeled enso

also please link to this quote about pinatubo as you've mentioned this several times and I have not read this before

[BethesdaWX]

please do link to this description of his enso model, I wasn't he modeled enso

also please link to this quote about pinatubo as you've mentioned this several times and I have not read this before

Pinatubo: By Hansen: A recent decrease in ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols

http://www.columbia....alancePaper.pdf

He also fails to account for the climate's sensitivities/uncertainties... this is where predictions have fallen short, and will continue to do so, since we cannot measure reflected visible light from GCC with our IR LW measuring satellites, any "energy imbalance" measurement could run into serious contamination, since we simply don't know how it will manifest.

Going against the basic accepted data from the eruption:

"The aerosol cloud spread rapidly around the globe in about 3 weeks and attained global coverage 1 year after the eruption. The SO

₂

release was sufficient to generate over 25 Mt of sulfate aerosol, and peak local and regional midvisible optical depths of up to 0.4 were recorded. Global values after widespread dispersal and sedimentation of aerosol were about 0.1 to 0.15,

with a residence time of over 2 years

. This large aerosol cloud caused dramatic decreases in the amount of net radiation reaching the Earth’s surface".

So yeah there is no evidence for this, at least not directly.

[Clifford]

Sounds like he's getting desperate to get the temps up

Now I really want to see another mod/strong La Niña!

Whew...

I'm getting tired of daily temperatures 5 or 6°F below normal

Sometimes I just have to jump in the Blazer and drive around the block a few times just to see if it helps!!

[superjames1992]

I hope for another strong El Nino. Last time that happened, I got 19.25" of snow in the winter of 2009-2010 (over 210% of my average snowfall).

[tacoman25]

As I pointed out in the other thread on the main forum, there has never been a moderate or strong Nino that formed following a JFM ONI lower than -.9C. We had a JFM of -1.2. Of the 9 cases where the JFM ONI was below -.9, there was one weak Nino and the rest were neutral or Nina.

On the other hand, when basin OHC goes above +.5 it is usually followed by a Nino event, and occasionally neutral-positive, but never an ONI less than zero.

Currently OHC is at +.6-.7 which is unusual following a strong 1st year Nina, so we appear to be in unchartered territory.

Looking only at ONI, from a statistical standpoint, I lean towards neutral-neg or weak Nina, but when factoring in OHC I might say neutral-positive.

Hansen could be on to something with the OHC, although I wouldn't go all-in on a mod or strong Nino yet. If the OHC reaches +1, odds increase substantially.

But the relationship from ONI to OHC isn't that simple.

[tacoman25]

Well it's not a scientific article so perhaps he didn't want to go into the technical definitions distinguishing a weak from a mod from a strong. He could just be oversimplifying and using the term "strong" in the colloquial sense not the official technical definition. If it ends up being a mod event I'd say his idea wasn't half bad since the official prediction is still neutral-negative.

Really?

[skierinvermont]

Really?

I know this might blow everybody's minds but I have actually heard people use the term strong this way to describe borderline events that weren't technically strong.

[skierinvermont]

But the relationship from ONI to OHC isn't that simple.

Yeah actually it is.. statistics don't lie.

Every time the OHC has gone above .5 there have been at least neutral conditions usually a Nino event. There has never been an ONI <0 following an OHC >.5. We're currently at .7. Sometimes you get neutral-positive conditions but never neutral negative.

Of course this only goes back to 1988. And as I said before, the surface evolution over the last year is more indicative of neg-neutral or weak Nina. So there are conflicting indicators from a statistical POV.

[BethesdaWX]

Skier,

In case you Missed it

Pinatubo: By Hansen: A recent decrease in ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols

http://www.columbia....alancePaper.pdf

He also fails to account for the climate's sensitivities/uncertainties... this is where predictions have fallen short, and will continue to do so, since we cannot measure reflected visible light from GCC with our IR LW measuring satellites, any "energy imbalance" measurement could run into serious contamination, since we simply don't know how it will manifest.

Going against the basic accepted data from the eruption:

"The aerosol cloud spread rapidly around the globe in about 3 weeks and attained global coverage 1 year after the eruption. The SO

₂

release was sufficient to generate over 25 Mt of sulfate aerosol, and peak local and regional midvisible optical depths of up to 0.4 were recorded. Global values after widespread dispersal and sedimentation of aerosol were about 0.1 to 0.15,

with a residence time of over 2 years

. This large aerosol cloud caused dramatic decreases in the amount of net radiation reaching the Earth’s surface".

So yeah there is no evidence for this, at least not directly.

[BethesdaWX]

I've also resd Hansen's Entire paper, and Laughed Hard at the Ridiculous assumptions made regarding "fast feedbacks", especially Cloud Cover.

There is no Proven, even Hypothesized Mechanism in which Temperature can decrease GCC... other than it correlates....However......there IS a mechanism to which Decreased GCC can affect temperature. Visible light reflected from Clouds Cannot be measured, and increased Imbalances from Such changes in GCC can Contaminate in the LW readings from satellites in any Spectrum, but most likely the ones showing changes will be plagued...

This is why Things like this cannot be assumed, because if it the Sun is responsible for GCC decrease, then that would explain the Flatlining of Temps. The higher OHC from the Solar increase would still have a net warming effect despite a drop in TSI, since the TSI-to-atmosphere cannot be intertwined with Multi Century OHC Equilibrium to the Hyperactivity seen.

Even the The IPCC (AR4) report (The Physical Basis of Climate Change, 2007 [http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html]) states that: “The direct RF [radiative forcing] due to increase in solar irradiance is reduced from the TAR [Third Assessment Report]. The best estimate is +0.12 [Watts per square metre]”.

The problem is that it is not currently understood how this small amount of change in solar irradiance during the solar cycle can influence the earth’s climate IN FEEDBACKS. In addition the 4AR states: “There is more uncertainty regarding the influence of solar forcing. In addition to substantial uncertainty in the timing and amplitude of solar variations on time scales of several decades to centuries, which has increased since the TAR although the estimate of solar forcing has been revised downwards”. In the Technical Summary the IPCC states: “uncertainties remain large because of the lack of direct observations and incomplete understanding of solar variability mechanisms over long time scales”

[skierinvermont]

Skier,

In case you Missed it

So you misquoted him.

You said: "Hansen says Pinatubo is responsible for the flatlining of temps"

what Hansen really said was "OHC increases have slowed due to a rebound effect from Pinatubo"

There is a HUGE difference.

If you read the paper what he is saying is that OHC increased very quickly from 1995-2002 due to the rebound effect from Pinatubo. Now that the rebound effect is over, OHC increases have slowed. He also gives several other reasons why rising OHC has slowed.

And on this, he is 100% correct. It makes perfect sense. But only if you actually quote him correctly and understand what is being said.. ie by actually reading the article.

[tacoman25]

Yeah actually it is.. statistics don't lie.

Every time the OHC has gone above .5 there have been at least neutral conditions usually a Nino event. There has never been an ONI <0 following an OHC >.5. We're currently at .7. Sometimes you get neutral-positive conditions but never neutral negative.

Of course this only goes back to 1988. And as I said before, the surface evolution over the last year is more indicative of neg-neutral or weak Nina. So there are conflicting indicators from a statistical POV.

Doesn't matter.

ONI is just a small part of the ocean. OHC is a much larger measurement.