Hansen Predicting a Strong El Nino Developing this Summer

[tacoman25]

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.

A climatologist should know better than that. I have read Hansen going into great detail about ENSO events before, so I'm sure if he said "strong", he meant "strong". There is no logical reason for you to argue otherwise.

[skierinvermont]

Doesn't matter.

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

Sorry perhaps I wasn't clear.. it's OHC for the ENSO regions. It's never gone above +.5 before and had the ONI go below zero. So if we have a Nina or even neutral neg this fall, that would be unprecedented from an OHC perspective. There's a pretty decent sample size too of maybe 12 times the OHC has gone above .5 since 1986.. all leading to +ENSO conditions.

Spring 2008 is close to an exception.. it peaked right at .5 on OHC and the ONI peaked at 0 before going back to weak Nina conditions by winter.

Spring 2008 is also by chance in a -PDO period unlike most of the others which might have made the difference. That's pure speculation though. And even so, 2008 never got to .7.

[BethesdaWX]

I think Hansen is Skier's father, with Skier Taking the Helm at NASA in the near future.

Hansen goes into this stuff all the time, He is predicting a Strong El Nino, just like he was in 2007-08. Its that simple, his knowledge of the Climate system is poor compared to most climate scientists.

[skierinvermont]

A climatologist should know better than that. I have read Hansen going into great detail about ENSO events before, so I'm sure if he said "strong", he meant "strong". There is no logical reason for you to argue otherwise.

He's writing as a self-described "storyteller"... it's not a scientific article... it's very simplified and colorful throughout.

[tacoman25]

Another fact Hansen might want to consider: there have never been two strong Ninos less than 5 years apart.

[tacoman25]

He's writing as a self-described "storyteller"... it's not a scientific article... it's very simplified and colorful throughout.

I don't care what writing style he's using, as long as it's not fiction.

He's a scientist making a scientific prediction. If he's going to say "strong Nino", there is no reason he shouldn't mean a strong Nino.

[BethesdaWX]

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.

I read the entire thing, and he got to most of his conclusions based of Blatant assumption. The Cloud Cover assumption is terrible, laughable, and baseless, there is no Mechanism in which GCC will decrease due to warming... it only works the other way around. Actually, predictions of more Global Precip theoretically would see higher LLGCC.

Pinatubo in 1991 is not having an effect on OHC increase today, AKA.... the rate of increase should be the same....the imbalance won't vanish, but will blip, during a volcanic eruption Like Pinatubo.

But to Match the further Imbalance created by Pinatubo.....the OHC increase should be even Faster! After all, the imbalance created by CO2 would not change, and to match the heat "loss" (in a sense) due to pinatubo, the increase afterwards would be faster to match that.

The only way it wouldn't..... is if senstivity to CO2 has been estimated too high......think about it......

[LakeEffectKing]

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.

Why haven't we "seen" this effect before, with other volcanic eruptions??? We've always accounted for a global temp. decrease for such magnitude eruptions of a couple years.....maybe up to 5 at most. This is the first time I've heard of this hypothesized effect....is this interpreting data in a way to shape an ongoing test of a hypothesis.....??

[nzucker]

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.

People did call this year a strong Niña even though high-end moderate would be a better description, or borderline strong. The highest tri-monthly was -1.4C.

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

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.

Statistics do lie when it's a short time scale. I don't think a sample size since 1988 is very conclusive.

Everyone was justifying low snowfall forecasts here on the fact that NYC has never recorded more than 33.5" in a strong Niña. And then Central Park got 61.9" anyway. The problem is that the atmosphere has been through such a vast amount of cycles with permutations of climate outcomes that man's small list of historical stats just can't suffice. And that was using a 100-year timeframe, not just 20 years.

[BethesdaWX]

People did call this year a strong Niña even though high-end moderate would be a better description, or borderline strong. The highest tri-monthly was -1.4C.

Statistics do lie when it's a short time scale. I don't think a sample size since 1988 is very conclusive.

Everyone was justifying low snowfall forecasts here on the fact that NYC has never recorded more than 33.5" in a strong Niña. And then Central Park got 61.9" anyway. The problem is that the atmosphere has been through such a vast amount of cycles with permutations of climate outcomes that man's small list of historical stats just can't suffice. And that was using a 100-year timeframe, not just 20 years.

They called it strong because the MEI was strong... a better measurement rather than the ONI in a sense.

Thus Hansen would need either a Strong ONI or a Strong MEI... or Both.

[skierinvermont]

I read the entire thing, and he got to most of his conclusions based of Blatant assumption. The Cloud Cover assumption is terrible, laughable, and baseless, there is no Mechanism in which GCC will decrease due to warming... it only works the other way around. Actually, predictions of more Global Precip theoretically would see higher LLGCC.

Pinatubo in 1991 is not having an effect on OHC increase today, AKA.... the rate of increase should be the same....the imbalance won't vanish, but will blip, during a volcanic eruption Like Pinatubo.

But to Match the further Imbalance created by Pinatubo.....the OHC increase should be even Faster! After all, the imbalance created by CO2 would not change, and to match the heat "loss" (in a sense) due to pinatubo, the increase afterwards would be faster to match that.

The only way it wouldn't..... is if senstivity to CO2 has been estimated too high......think about it......

What he is saying is that OHC rose very fast from 1995-2002 because the oceans had to play catch up after the volcano effect subsided. It's slowed down since 2002 because we're no longer playing catch up.

He's basically actually saying the same thing you just said... OHC increased really fast 1995-2002 to play catch up. Now it has slowed down. That's all he is saying.

(OHC has also slowed down because of several other factors he lists including solar minimum and a slower CO2 concentration growth rate)

[nzucker]

What he is saying is that OHC rose very fast from 1995-2002 because the oceans had to play catch up after the volcano effect subsided. It's slowed down since 2002 because we're no longer playing catch up.

He's basically actually saying the same thing you just said... OHC increased really fast 1995-2002 to play catch up. Now it has slowed down. That's all he is saying.

(OHC has also slowed down because of several other factors he lists including solar minimum and a slower CO2 concentration growth rate)

Sounds like he's reaching again to explain the slow-down in warming.

"Well it rose really fast during the 90s because of the post-Pinatubo climate, so this is just a normal slow down."

'Well global temperatures rose a lot during the previous 30 years, so this current plateau is natural and not out of line with IPCC/NASA estimates and predictions."

What Hansen has got to realize is that the Earth isn't warming as fast as expected by most experts....it's not like we're set to play "catch up" later in the decade as the AMO turns negative and we get deeper into a Dalton-like minimum, or as if the current plateau is just a reaction to the strong warming in the 90s (since the estimated CO2 forcing+feedbacks should still produce .2-.3C/decade regardless of what happened back then). I'm sick of all these excuses...Hansen should just fess up along with the rest of the Hadley Center/NASA and come out publicly saying "Hey global warming is still happening, but it's more like .1C/decade right now on our current global temperature sources, not the extreme stuff we thought." No need to hope for strong El Niños when they aren't likely just to get the temperature trend back within IPCC 95% confidence intervals, no need to use prior events to confound the current state of non-warming.

[BethesdaWX]

What he is saying is that OHC rose very fast from 1995-2002 because the oceans had to play catch up after the volcano effect subsided. It's slowed down since 2002 because we're no longer playing catch up.

He's basically actually saying the same thing you just said... OHC increased really fast 1995-2002 to play catch up. Now it has slowed down. That's all he is saying.

(OHC has also slowed down because of several other factors he lists including solar minimum and a slower CO2 concentration growth rate)

How far back does OHC data go? (Satellite only).

[BethesdaWX]

Sounds like he's reaching again to explain the slow-down in warming.

"Well it rose really fast during the 90s because of the post-Pinatubo climate, so this is just a normal slow down."

'Well global temperatures rose a lot during the previous 30 years, so this current plateau is natural and not out of line with IPCC/NASA estimates and predictions."

What Hansen has got to realize is that the Earth isn't warming as fast as expected by most experts....it's not like we're set to play "catch up" later in the decade as the AMO turns negative and we get deeper into a Dalton-like minimum, or as if the current plateau is just a reaction to the strong warming in the 90s (since the estimated CO2 forcing+feedbacks should still produce .2-.3C/decade regardless of what happened back then). I'm sick of all these excuses...Hansen should just fess up along with the rest of the Hadley Center/NASA and come out publicly saying "Hey global warming is still happening, but it's more like .1C/decade right now on our current global temperature sources, not the extreme stuff we thought." No need to hope for strong El Niños when they aren't likely just to get the temperature trend back within IPCC 95% confidence intervals, no need to use prior events to confound the current state of non-warming.

Nate, what do you think the Climate's Co2 sensitivity is? I have a feeling we'll see another revising downward of the CO2 sensitivity within 5-10 yrs.

As for me,

Before Applying CO2 into the Equation, I look at what the climate system should be doing based on natural effects alone.... Then plot in CO2. Based on natural impacts alone, we should have warmed steadily until 2004-05 or so, Flat-Lining from 2005 until 2009, then begin cooling in 2010.

There is very minimal almost no CO2 contribution needed to get to todays temperature anomaly, I'm confident the IPCC is going to be in some serious trouble beginning around 2020.

Why do I say this?

1) I agree with the IPCC actually. I believe that small Changes in TSI (energy directly) into the Earth's system will have very little effect on the global temperature. However, (the IPCC agrees with me in a sense too!!!), Solar Activity Mechanisms & their effects on the feedback system within the Climate system are a seperate and unclear issue (yes, the IPCC states this in AR4 ), and the mechanisms themselves virtually unknown, other than the fact that measurements in several aspects correlate well to global temperatures, that I've seen... but cannot be the only reason.

-Based on this, we would not expect to see any Significant changes YET. Actually, satellite measurements taken reveal that Visible Light (SW) coming into the atmosphere has increased during this Minimum... although there is no evidence that the Sun Behaves this way constantly. So I use past history as a reference, and its pretty obvious that it doesn't.

2) Same goes for the PDO phase. The PDO may.....slightly... have an effect on Global Temps, but its the feedbacks within the Weather Patterns/Cloud Cover over decades that it likely has an Impact on.... that would do the brunt of the work.

3) Based on past History, the PDO went Cold again in 1946. The Northwest Passage had opened up during that timeframe in the late 1940's, and the Arctic Sea Ice was in terrible Shape Into the Mid 1950's, althogh Supposedly not as bad as todays. That makes sense though, for many reasons, but predominately the Earth absorbing Hyper-Activity from the Sun, although the Feedback I look for is Not measurable (GCC).... although again declining precip gives me some confidence.

Really if I went into everything, my response would be 100 pages long. but the Point is, very Little CO2 warming is needed to get to where we are now.

[skierinvermont]

Sounds like he's reaching again to explain the slow-down in warming.

"Well it rose really fast during the 90s because of the post-Pinatubo climate, so this is just a normal slow down."

'Well global temperatures rose a lot during the previous 30 years, so this current plateau is natural and not out of line with IPCC/NASA estimates and predictions."

What Hansen has got to realize is that the Earth isn't warming as fast as expected by most experts....it's not like we're set to play "catch up" later in the decade as the AMO turns negative and we get deeper into a Dalton-like minimum, or as if the current plateau is just a reaction to the strong warming in the 90s (since the estimated CO2 forcing+feedbacks should still produce .2-.3C/decade regardless of what happened back then). I'm sick of all these excuses...Hansen should just fess up along with the rest of the Hadley Center/NASA and come out publicly saying "Hey global warming is still happening, but it's more like .1C/decade right now on our current global temperature sources, not the extreme stuff we thought." No need to hope for strong El Niños when they aren't likely just to get the temperature trend back within IPCC 95% confidence intervals, no need to use prior events to confound the current state of non-warming.

Well if you read the article I believe he is saying exactly what you are suggesting. The earth isn't gaining heat quite as fast as previously thought overall and he's suggesting this may be because aerosol forcing is greater than previously thought. I'd have to re-read it to double check.

He's not reaching at all... he's using accepted physics to show how much of an effect the solar minimum has had, how much of an effect the slower rate of CO2 increase has had, etc.

And he's exactly correct.. OHC rose rapidly 1995-2002 due to the rebound from Pinatubo.

You assume he's using Pinatubo as an excuse for the slower warming which he is not. Perhaps if you read instead of making assumptions...

The solar minimum and the slower rise of CO2 does explain some of the slow down in OHC. One must also consider that the 1995-2002 period was exceptionally fast due to Pinatubo. That's what he's saying.

It's a nuanced complicated and thoughtful paper.. and you are making false assumptions based on a couple sentences. Which is pretty much your modus operandi in this sub-forum.

[skierinvermont]

How far back does OHC data go? (Satellite only).

Satellites aren't the best way to measure OHC. The best way is through ARGO or through sea level rise as a proxy.

[BethesdaWX]

Satellites aren't the best way to measure OHC. The best way is through ARGO or through sea level rise as a proxy.

Sea level rise by Satellites as a proxy, yes I know, But do satellite OHC OBS exist anyhow?

I know satellites have surface SST measurements, but do not know of any Satellite OHC data. The Satellite beam would have a harder time penetrating deep enough

[skierinvermont]

Sea level rise by Satellites as a proxy, yes I know, But do satellite OHC OBS exist anyhow?

I know satellites have surface SST measurements, but do not know of any Satellite OHC data. The Satellite beam would have a harder time penetrating deep enough

You can't penetrate it to measure OHC directly. You have to use sea level rise measured via satellite (satellite altimetry) or the surface (tide gauges).

[BethesdaWX]

You can't penetrate it to measure OHC directly. You have to use sea level rise measured via satellite (satellite altimetry) or the surface (tide gauges).

Well that sucks.

Was hoping you could build a satellite using the Skier TM index or what-not.........Oh well (hehe just messin).

[nzucker]

Well if you read the article I believe he is saying exactly what you are suggesting. The earth isn't gaining heat quite as fast as previously thought overall and he's suggesting this may be because aerosol forcing is greater than previously thought. I'd have to re-read it to double check.

He's not reaching at all... he's using accepted physics to show how much of an effect the solar minimum has had, how much of an effect the slower rate of CO2 increase has had, etc.

And he's exactly correct.. OHC rose rapidly 1995-2002 due to the rebound from Pinatubo.

You assume he's using Pinatubo as an excuse for the slower warming which he is not. Perhaps if you read instead of making assumptions...

The solar minimum and the slower rise of CO2 does explain some of the slow down in OHC. One must also consider that the 1995-2002 period was exceptionally fast due to Pinatubo. That's what he's saying.

It's a nuanced complicated and thoughtful paper.. and you are making false assumptions based on a couple sentences. Which is pretty much your modus operandi in this sub-forum.

I skimmed the article, doesn't look too exciting honestly. But why focus on aerosols when he should be concentrating more on the PDO, solar variation, etc? As well as the fact that most estimates of carbon sensitivity have gone down in recent years, even in peer-reviewed studies. Instead of trying to link OHC plateau to more anthropogenic forcings, why not just acknowledge that the climate is more complex than originally thought, that CO2 is going to be less of a warming factor than thought, and that the models probably don't have the sophistication necessary to figure out the correct temperature trend in the long-term? In the start of the paper, which I did read, he still brings up the main point that the changes we've seen in recent years have to be anthropogenic. I think he'd be better served talking about the +PDO, 150 year Grand Maximum, lags from the high solar plateau. It just seems he's always trying to tie everything in to the CO2...

Also, this thread was originally about El Niño, and I see Hansen's projection as just being another wishcast for more warming than actually occurring. It's so sick, the guy is dedicated to saving the planet but at the same time continually needs to emphasize more warming than is actually occurring...by having the highest temperature dataset with GISS, dubious extrapolations over the Arctic and Africa, talk of NYC being underwater in 30 years. It's like he wants the disaster to happen to corroborate his life's work, instead of just being a scientist and accepting what the trend is/is not. That's why I claim Hansen is NOT a scientist, but an activist, and the two don't mix in this case. There's clearly a conflict of interest in a guy who is an extreme climate activist that is also forecasting ENSO and publishing dubious global temperature datasets.

[BethesdaWX]

I skimmed the article, doesn't look too exciting honestly. But why focus on aerosols when he should be concentrating more on the PDO, solar variation, etc? As well as the fact that most estimates of carbon sensitivity have gone down in recent years, even in peer-reviewed studies. Instead of trying to link OHC plateau to more anthropogenic forcings, why not just acknowledge that the climate is more complex than originally thought, that CO2 is going to be less of a warming factor than thought, and that the models probably don't have the sophistication necessary to figure out the correct temperature trend in the long-term? In the start of the paper, which I did read, he still brings up the main point that the changes we've seen in recent years have to be anthropogenic. I think he'd be better served talking about the +PDO, 150 year Grand Maximum, lags from the high solar plateau. It just seems he's always trying to tie everything in to the CO2...

Also, this thread was originally about El Niño, and I see Hansen's projection as just being another wishcast for more warming than actually occurring. It's so sick, the guy is dedicated to saving the planet but at the same time continually needs to emphasize more warming than is actually occurring...by having the highest temperature dataset with GISS, dubious extrapolations over the Arctic and Africa, talk of NYC being underwater in 30 years. It's like he wants the disaster to happen to corroborate his life's work, instead of just being a scientist and accepting what the trend is/is not. That's why I claim Hansen is NOT a scientist, but an activist, and the two don't mix in this case. There's clearly a conflict of interest in a guy who is an extreme climate activist that is also forecasting ENSO and publishing dubious global temperature datasets.

The only way AGW works is if Human Causation accounts for any/all significant changes in climate, and natural changes are small outside of the Orbital Cycles & Volcanoes... yeah LOL, definitely not true

Do I have to post the Volstok/Greenland Ice core?

[tacoman25]

Another factor arguing against significant Nino development is the high SOI. When a Nino is starting to develop, the SOI almost always makes a downward turn. Look at 2009, for example.

[skierinvermont]

I skimmed the article, doesn't look too exciting honestly. But why focus on aerosols when he should be concentrating more on the PDO, solar variation, etc? As well as the fact that most estimates of carbon sensitivity have gone down in recent years, even in peer-reviewed studies. Instead of trying to link OHC plateau to more anthropogenic forcings, why not just acknowledge that the climate is more complex than originally thought, that CO2 is going to be less of a warming factor than thought, and that the models probably don't have the sophistication necessary to figure out the correct temperature trend in the long-term? In the start of the paper, which I did read, he still brings up the main point that the changes we've seen in recent years have to be anthropogenic. I think he'd be better served talking about the +PDO, 150 year Grand Maximum, lags from the high solar plateau. It just seems he's always trying to tie everything in to the CO2...

Also, this thread was originally about El Niño, and I see Hansen's projection as just being another wishcast for more warming than actually occurring. It's so sick, the guy is dedicated to saving the planet but at the same time continually needs to emphasize more warming than is actually occurring...by having the highest temperature dataset with GISS, dubious extrapolations over the Arctic and Africa, talk of NYC being underwater in 30 years. It's like he wants the disaster to happen to corroborate his life's work, instead of just being a scientist and accepting what the trend is/is not. That's why I claim Hansen is NOT a scientist, but an activist, and the two don't mix in this case. There's clearly a conflict of interest in a guy who is an extreme climate activist that is also forecasting ENSO and publishing dubious global temperature datasets.

This is blatantly false. GISS shows less long-term warming than HadCRUT, STAR, Raobcore, Rich, Fu, V&G and probably several other estimates I am forgetting. It shows less warming than all of these for the 30-yr period and for the 100-yr period when available.

The extrapolations over the arctic are not dubious and you know this. As I've posted multiple times, UAH approximately corroborates GISS's arctic extrapolations. This is more blatant manipulation and lying on your part. You should be ashamed.

[BethesdaWX]

This is blatantly false. GISS shows less long-term warming than HadCRUT, STAR, Raobcore, Rich, Fu, V&G and probably several other estimates I am forgetting. It shows less warming than all of these for the 30-yr period and for the 100-yr period when available.

The extrapolations over the arctic are not dubious and you know this. As I've posted multiple times, UAH approximately corroborates GISS's arctic extrapolations. This is more blatant manipulation and lying on your part. You should be ashamed.

This is Blatantly False. GISS shows more long term term Warming Than NCDC (which is better), RSS, UAH, and STAR, over the past 32 years.

I too am not a HADCRUT Fan, but get your facts straight. At Least use NCDC data, which does include the Arctic.

[skierinvermont]

This is Blatantly False. GISS shows more long term term Warming Than NCDC (which is better), RSS, UAH, and STAR, over the past 32 years.

I too am not a HADCRUT Fan, but get your facts straight. At Least use NCDC data, which does include the Arctic.

I didn't say it warmed faster than any of those, except STAR, which you are wrong about. STAR shows much more warming than GISS.

[BethesdaWX]

I didn't say it warmed faster than any of those, except STAR, which you are wrong about. STAR shows much more warming than GISS.

Why don't you use NCDC? NASA even admitted that NCDC is higher quality data than theirs, and I'll link this if you'd like.

[skierinvermont]

Why don't you use NCDC? NASA even admitted that NCDC is higher quality data than theirs, and I'll link this if you'd like.

go ahead

it's always fun when you link things because usually it says the exact opposite of what you thought it said (like falsely claiming Hansen used Pinatubo to explain flatline temps).

[BethesdaWX]

go ahead

it's always fun when you link things because usually it says the exact opposite of what you thought it said (like falsely claiming Hansen used Pinatubo to explain flatline temps).

Its always fun to see you go into Denial. Hansen said Pinatubo was causing a delayed rebound effect after 2002, when Pinatubo has nothing to do with the flatlining, we should return to the average incline.

Either way, here you go.

NASA GISS openly Admits NCDC's to be better than Theirs.

http://pajamasmedia....-Better0001.pdf

My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC's data for the US means and Phil Jones' data for the global means.

We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data in the 70's and early 80's since nobody else was doing that job at the time. Now we happily combine NCDC's and Hadley Center's data to get what we need to evaluate our model results. For that purpose, what we do is more than accurate enough. But we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.

Sincerely,

Reto

[skierinvermont]

Its always fun to see you go into Denial. Hansen said Pinatubo was causing a delayed rebound effect after 2002, when Pinatubo has nothing to do with the flatlining, we should return to the average incline.

Either way, here you go.

NASA GISS openly Admits NCDC's to be better than Theirs.

http://pajamasmedia....-Better0001.pdf

My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC's data for the US means and Phil Jones' data for the global means.

We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data in the 70's and early 80's since nobody else was doing that job at the time. Now we happily combine NCDC's and Hadley Center's data to get what we need to evaluate our model results. For that purpose, what we do is more than accurate enough. But we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.

Sincerely,

Reto

This was said by a subordinate named "Reto." Hansen corrected the subordinate in a follow-up email to the reporter. What Hansen said is a fair and accurate description of the situation. Each of the different sources has different strengths and weaknesses and one cannot be cited as an authority over the other. HadCRUT's glaring weakness is that it leaves much of the arctic blank.

[BethesdaWX]

This was said by a subordinate named "Reto." Hansen corrected the subordinate in a follow-up email to the reporter. What Hansen said is a fair and accurate description of the situation. Each of the different sources has different strengths and weaknesses and one cannot be cited as an authority over the other. HadCRUT's glaring weakness is that it leaves much of the arctic blank.

Hansen actually re-affirmed it dude, there is no debate here! Phil Jones says the Same thing.

Basic fact is that NASA GISS is lower quality than NCDC, which is what you should be using.