Hi Brett. What I find interesting in comparing the images, is what looks like larger areas of warmer water in both the North Atlantic, near New Foundland and in the North Pacific, near the Aluetians. Is that anything to be concerned about? Or, is it considered normal since the sun is starting to shine more on the Northern Hemisphere?

Reply: Those are areas that have above normal sst, not actually warm water. Anyway, those areas have been there for a while now and I am not too concerned about it, but fishermen might be.

The La Nina started with cold waters off the west coast of South America, which have now been replaced by warm waters - so it does appear that the La Nina is going to fade.

The interesting thing I see in these maps is that the Atlantic has cooled dramatically since last year, and continues to cool.

A few months ago, much of the Atlantic was 2-4 degrees above normal, and now almost all of it is within 0.5 degrees of "normal." This will hopefully cool down the global warming hysteria in Europe.

What do the models say if they are initialized at some other point, say, Jan 07? Do thay predict what really happend?

It looks like that blob of anomalously warm water I mentioned on December 31 actually did connect with the west coast of South America and get shunted northward. Beginner's luck, I guess!

Possibly, or at least for this season. It should be noted that in the weekly ENSO update at least 1/2 of both the statistical and dynamic models are predicting La Nina to continue well into the summer and fall. It should be further noted that the historical La Ninas achieving this magnitude all lasted at least two seasons, typically with a rise (weakening) in summer/fall followed by renewed strengthening the following winter.

Also of interest is the fact that we are presently approaching the solar cycle minimum, with the greatest number of spotless days observed in decades, and the next cycle not likely to begin before this summer, and perhaps not until sometime in 2009. Coincidence ??? Perhaps, but if the next cycle (24) is as weak or weaker than forecast, the next ten years will truly tell the tale of AGW.

ive seen some comments on other blogs relating to the significant rainfall weve experienced in california this year contrary to whats normal during la nina conditions-looking back to the beginning or our rainfall season which is july 1
i believe jul/aug/sep/oct/nov/dec and feb so far have displayed la nina conditions with the dominance of the subtropical high. in january we experienced a major storm followed by three
occluded lows that drifted slowly down the west coast and thankfully gave us the rainfall and snowpack we badly needed to restock our reservoirs-thank you mother nature for aberrations
will la nina disappear and el nina reappear quickly enough to blow the tops off the hurricanes this year-i also noticed above normal water off africa but cooler water across the atlantc-hope this means low intensity storms again

Hi Guys,

Brett did you notice that the east coast of South America has cooled dramatically even though it is the middle of summer there and you expect the SST to increase is summer. Also the Indian Ocean and the area around New Zealand has cooled. All in the southern hemisphere during summer and the SSTs are cooling.

Reply: Jim, Keep in mind these are anomalies, not actual water temps.

Loub,
The presence of an eastward translating Madden-Jullian Oscillation across the Western Pacific may have contributed to the increased precip for the West Coast. Another thing to look at is the interaction of a cooling Pacific and a warm Atlantic. This winter saw a fairly intesne upper level baroclinic zone over the North Pacific. This baroclinicty was most probably the result of the large temp differences between the North Pacific and North Atlantic.

Another thing to watch as we come out of the La Nina cycle is the strength of the next El Nino. If it is weak and short lived, and the North Pacific remains abnormally cool, the indications that the PDO is transitioning to negative are fairly good.

I wonder how this spring's severe weather season will shape up? If the Pacific continues to send strong short-wave troughs across the Rockies and into the Southern Plains, this could be a busy storm season. Currently Marfa Texas is 70 degrees with a dewpoint of 18. The dryline is already setting up.

Didn't know there was another Brian posting here, so I'll use Brian D.

For MEI comparison and discussion go here:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/mei.html

SST anomaly map:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/sst/sst.anom.gif

Brett, this map uses a base period of 1982-1996. What base period is used for the maps you posted?
I think they go back to the mid 90s.

I got this map from here:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/ENSO/enso.current.html

I think, what often with these La Nina events, is that they slowly weaken over about 6 months, and then around September/October can be expected to start re-stregnthening again, with another episode through autumn and winter of 08/09. The Final end to this La Nina period may not be until summer 2009, I would think?

La Ninas almost always weaken as we approach spring. This is nothing new.

The La Nina should still be strong enough to give us a very severe weather season, unfortunately.

Reply: Sadly, I agree.

Actually this map/graph ENSO/PDO
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/#comparison
shows a relationship between the warming and cooling since 1998 to now, and before.
A look at the COLA site http://wxmaps.org/pix/clim.html
shows constant abnormal cooling (checked over recent months) at higher altitudes (andes, himalayas ect) suggesting Lower tropospheric cooling and confirmed by UAH data, thus solar?

Also looks like SH is now on way up again (way too early and still is anomalous high so if trend continues expect a posssible way above normal ice extent and thickness this SH winter/spring.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
NH seems to be staying at last year's levels (just so I does not get accused of cherry picking) LOL

I'll bet my nickle the La Nina fades to -0.5 or so, and then re-strengthens in the fall. This is based on the state of the AMO, and the analogs shown for La Ninas back in the 1950's at the site:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

However what I'm most curious about is the blind spot the model is showing it has. If you look at the chart from the time Brett last posted on this subject, it seems clear we were promiced a "Super La Nina," just as we were promiced a "Super El Nino" before that.

Reply: I do not recall anyone "promising" a super la nina. Let's just say some predicted it. Promising something like that is very bold and the science is just not there yet to do that in my opinion. I predict stuff every day, but I do not promise it. I have learned that from earlier promises to my daughter that there would be a snow day and then finding out there was indeed school. Brett

The model seems to understand that both La Nina's and El Nino's in some ways perpetuate the conditions which created them in the first place. (The water temps created pressure gradients which create winds which push currents which create water temps.)

What the model doesn't seem to grasp is what triggers the end of one event and the start of another. In simplistic terms, the La Nina piles up warm water over by Australia, and, given a chance, that warm water comes sloshing back east via the counter-current, creating El Nino situations. However what gives it the chance to do this? What is the trigger? The model quite obviously doesn't know.

Most of what I've read focuses on the atmosphere and winds. Even those focused on thermohaline circulation are focused on winds which changes in thermohaline circulation might cause.

I myself wonder if the trigger might be something as simple as the Peru Current. When it is strong it feeds cold water up into a La Nina, and when it weakens El Nino warmth comes sloshing back eastward.

As huge currents go, the Peru Current is not that big, however injected into the Peru Current is an amazing upwelling which nourishes the richest fishing grounds in the world. What triggers that upwelling, and where does it come from?

It comes from no where. It is the ocean's example of immaculate conception. If you don't believe me, try to find a map of thermohaline circulation that shows even a small branch ending off the west coast of South America.

At this point my skeptical side kicks in. I find it hard to believe that the world's richest upwelling isn't in some way connected to our world's system of deep-sea conveyer belts.

Considering our models obviously have a blind spot, perhaps it is time to send some young scientists down to the coast of Peru and Chili to gather data. (Sea sickness only lasts a couple days, and, once it is past, being out on a boat makes a great change from computer screens.) (And you can bring a computer out on a boat, if you want.)

Even if the field work was done in some other spot, I prefer spending millions of taxpayer dollars gathering actual data. Building new computors and endlessly tweaking the models doesn't seem to be paying off.

Hi Brett,

As we approach the end of the NOAA winter (December-February), a good topic of discussion would be to compare NOAA Climate Prediction Center predictions vs. actual results. Here is a particularly entertaining one where they predicted hot spots over Arizona and Minnesota for that time period.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/archives/long_lead/gifs/2007/200707temp.gif

I guess that they weren't expecting nine foot deep snow in southern Arizona.
http://www.sunriseskipark.com/dskireport.shtml
http://www.azfamily.com/news/homepagetopstory/stories/KTVKLNews20080205_sunrise-park-resort-closed.9129c738.html

These flawed models are the sole driving force behind the claimed "consensus." Without these models, no one would think twice about climate change or even consider the possibility that climate variability is outside of normal bounds.

PH, I will consider that. Thank you.

Check out the four month long Arctic ice trend (June-September) which prompted a whole cottage industry of Arctic Armageddon papers and news stories.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

Not too many stories though about how the slope and magnitude of the recovery since October has been greater than the decline. It is amazing how the press has managed to avoid mention of record Antarctic ice, record northern hemisphere snowfall, Arctic ice recovery, and steadily declining global temperatures over the last few years.

They did manage to pump out a lot of completely fabricated stories though about declining western snowpack, Penguins and Polar Bears suffering from the heat, the 2007 "record hurricane season." Our US and world government leaders told us about "devastation" in Greenland and Antarctica.

This is all starting to look a bit too Orwellian for my comfort zone.

Guys,
Sea surface temperatures fall when cloud intercepts solar radiation and reflects it back into space. Sea surface temperatures rise when there is no cloud to do this. If we want to know what is about to happen we need to look for the trends in cloud cover. Could it be that the troposphere is so cold that we have a lot more cloud than usual? Could it be that cooling in the troposphere is related to the low level of UV raiation at solar minimum. Could it be that this La Nina will be with us until sunspot activity begins to regenerate? La Nina is very commonly experienced at solar minimum and tends to pick up with the disturbed element in solar wind that is related to sunspot activity. When sunspots get cranking we usually see a very strong El Nino of which 1997-8 was a good example.

Brett,

"Promiced" was likely a bad choice of words. Also, as I recall, you made it very clear we should take the models prediction with a grain of salt. Reply; That is true.

"Predicted" would have been a better choice of words, but.....you have to admit "promiced" stirs up more of a reaction.

Hi Patrick,

Don't those long range NOAA predictions change from month to month? I follow the 6-10 day and 8-14 day predictions from CPC and know that those change weekly. They may not be completely accurate, but they do look at the different oscillations and teleconnections and if you read the forecast discussions, you can tell that the forecasters do take a lot of things into account when they make those predictions. Which is why, I believe that the 6-10 and 8-14 day outlooks change weekly. I'm not sure about the longer term predictions.

I like to read the forecast discussions and look at where they get the data from. It is very interesting, constantly changing, but not an exact science. Even Joe Bastardi dis-agrees with those predictions from time to time. Reply: I would say more than that.

Aren't the models that are used to predict future global climate different than those used for long term weather outlooks?

Hi Erl, Makes Sense to me about cloud cover. Since precipitation is usually accompanied by clouds, thought you might find this interesting. http://www.physorg.com/news107453396.html This article was published last August but the research dates back to 2005. With all the wierd Precip events we've been hearing about this winter around the world , I'd say the trend is still on. The scientists in the article are stated as saying that this is a result of a warming climate. In the sense that warmer air causes increased evaporation, this is true. Personally howerver , I think the planet is adjusting itself and the increase in clouds and rain are a result of that adjustment , we're now starting to witness the mechanism that will cool the planet down.

Erl,
Good points, but cloud cover doesn't explain the SST oscillations that we call ENSO or the AMO. There seems to be a lot of missing pieces in the ocean/atmospheric circulation patterns, and I wonder how many of those puzzles are either tied to long term solar variances and/or unknown sub surface ocean currents.

Hi Gary B,

Aren't the models that are used to predict future global climate different than those used for long term weather outlooks?

I don't have any first hand information, but it seems unlikely. They are the "Climate" Prediction Center after all.

Two things to note about CPC long-term forecasts.

1. They always show widespread above normal temperatures - because they have to (in the absence of a large volcanic eruption, asteroid, nuclear winter, etc.) This is due to the fact that CO2 is steadily increasing and they model CO2 as the dominant factor driving "climate change." All of the GCM forecasts used by the IPCC show steadily increasing temperatures - the only thing which varies is the slope.

2. They are wrong at least as often as they are right.

JP,

One missing link I imagine modelers must have a hard time with is: Giving upwelling the weight it deserves.

Consider this: The speed of the Gulf Stream is measured in kilometers per hour, but deep-sea currents are far slower. (It takes 1200 years for water that sinks in the Arctic to reappear in the North Pacific.) Deep-sea currents are measured in meters per hour, but upwelling is slower still, and at times measured in centimeters per hour.

In other words, in the time it takes an upwelling to move a unit of water one centimeter the Gulf Stream may have moved an equal unit of water 100,000 centimeters.

One would conclude upwelling couldn't have much effect, but try telling that to a fisherman of Peru. One day the sea is warm and sterile, without a fish or a bird in sight. Then he senses a coolness to the air, the color of the water changes, there is a bloom of plankton and swiftly millions of anchovies appear. The sky fills with screaming and screeching terns and gulls and big fish torpedo up from the depths.

Not only does the fishman's life change from unemployment to overtime, but the upwelling may be part of a La Nina which changes the weather of the entire cotton-pickin' planet.

And what brought it about? A flow-per-hour involving 1/100,000th the volume of the Gulf Stream's?

Just try programing that into a model. Such a small fraction would be bound to get swallowed up in background noise or margins-of-error.

Of course, it likely takes a lot more energy to lift a unit of water a mile up from the dark, deep-sea depths than it takes to move a unit of water sideways in the Gulf Stream. But that is just one more thing for the poor modelers to figure out.

That is why I feel going out and getting actual data on the ocean would be so helpful. It must be nice for modlers to have actual facts, and not to have to figure out everything.