159 replies to this topic

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks Ice, parental duties dragged me off!

As I read it it suggested that the 0.1% variance in solar output did indeed slowly impact things giving 'faux' Nina/Nino type conditions with solar max leading to more Equatorial cloud,less heat ,Nina like conditions.

Strangely this seems a little 'bums upards' to the way the 'coolists' would have things with a maunder min leading to lots of faux Nino's due to less evaporation across equatorial waters and hence less cloud leading to warming.........I wonder how they will field that one?

The other question it begs is if this minuscule input is leading to measurable change in climate........how big an input is mans and how much ,over time, is this impacting climate????

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 18 July 2009 - 09:09 .

[Solar Sausage]

Hi Ian and Ice,

Having read it once myself, I agree; it did imply what you guys suggest. But having seen the 'coolist' responses, I went and read it again (you know, just in case I read it upside-down or something? ) And, guess what? It still implies what you guys suggest...

The next twelve months could be interesting?

[Captain_Bobski]

I've just read the article (three times, just to make sure) and there seem to be some misconceptions on this thread about it.

Iceberg: "Well it says that an El Nino is more likely just after a solar minimum"

No it doesn't - it says that El Nino is more likely just after a solar maximum. It says that at the peak of solar activity there appears to be a tendency towards La Nina, giving way to El Nino up to 2 years later before returning to neutral conditions about a year later. So basically it is saying that there is an effect similar to ENSO during a 3-year period around solar maximum.

In fact, the article makes no mention of solar minimum whatsoever (the word "minimum" isn't used in the article once - I checked that too ).

So there are some misreadings and leaps of logic in what is being said on this thread.

Furthermore, the study is based on analyses using computer models. It actually says in the 3rd paragraph, "The next step is to confirm or dispute these intriguing model results with observational data analyses and targeted new observations."

Sounds like it's far from proven to me, so why don't we wait and see what happens before reading things into it.

Just to clarify one final time, there is absolutely no suggestion that a deep solar minimum (Maunder-style) would lead to increased El Nino activity. At all.



CB

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm afraid I read through the article and reached the same conclusions as Captain Bobski. I can't see any references to "minimum" either!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Thundery wintry showers, on 18 Jul 2009, 10:39 PM, said:

I'm afraid I read through the article and reached the same conclusions as Captain Bobski. I can't see any references to "minimum" either!

Becuase there is NO REFERENCE to minimum. I didn't write what Capn B wrote because I wanted folk to look at it again and digest it properly. After a solar max there is 2 year lag before Nino. Now bearing in mind Schwabe solar cycles are approx 11yrs it takes 5 1/2 yrs to reach one and same to reach minimum..so Nino will happen 2-3 yrs BEFORE a minimum.
Sorry Warmists read properly. This is why AGW is so hotly contested because warmists completely skew thing to FIT THEIR BILL.
READ! READ! READ!

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

So you guys are saying that the converse of what is suggested at solar max (and the years closely following this) does not occur? Though I've read through a number of times I cannot find were this is made specific.

What you are suggesting to us all is that you cannot give credence to the notion that when solar energy is at the low end of the 0.1% variance there is less evaporation, less cloud formation and so greater heating at the oceans surface around the equatorial Pacific(the faux Nino)? Can you explain to us all why this should be?

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 19 July 2009 - 13:36 .

[Captain_Bobski]

Gray-Wolf, on 19 Jul 2009, 02:36 PM, said:

So you guys are saying that the converse of what is suggested at solar max (and the years closely following this) does not occur? Though I've read through a number of times I cannot find were this is made specific.

What you are suggesting to us all is that you cannot give credence to the notion that when solar energy is at the low end of the 0.1% variance there is less evaporation, less cloud formation and so greater heating at the oceans surface around the equatorial Pacific(the faux Nino)? Can you explain to us all why this should be?

I'm going to do a bit more digging and see if I can find the actual research paper, but for now I would like to highlight a couple of passages from the sciencedaily report:

"research...shows that maximum solar activity and its aftermath have impacts on Earth that resemble La Niña and El Niño events in the tropical Pacific Ocean."

"We have fleshed out the effects of a new mechanism to understand what happens in the tropical Pacific when there is a maximum of solar activity," says NCAR scientist Gerald Meehl, the paper's lead author.

The fact that it is explicitly stated that this new mechanism is related to maximum solar activity suggests that there is no suggestion of a similar effect being attributed to solar minimum. It's that simple.

More later...

CB



Here's a link to the abstract in the latest Journal of Climate:

http://ams.allenpres...F2009JCLI2619.1

I haven't yet found a free-access copy of the full article. I'll keep looking.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

[quote name='Gray-Wolf' date='19 July 2009 - 14:36 ' timestamp='1248010571' post='1567715']
So you guys are saying that the converse of what is suggested at solar max (and the years closely following this) does not occur?



No we are saying exactly that and what the article says. the 2-3 years following Solar Max are not solar minimum GW, this research according to that article has no suggestion or link to solar minimum....its quite plain really. Look you, Ice etc read into it wrong, accept it as there is no great issue, the report is very interesting and relevant....let's move on.

BFTP

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST, 20 July 2009 - 09:28 .

[Gray-Wolf]

Are you not interested ,BFTP, that such a small 'push' can have such a measurable impact over time? Does this not highlight the fact that our own (mankinds) 'little push', over 150yrs, may accrue into a BIG shove on climate?

[Thundery wintry showers]

GW,
I don't think people are saying anything about AGW being a myth or whatever. It is purely the fact that you have insisted that the article says something that simply doesn't follow from the actual article.

[Solar Sausage]

Thundery wintry showers, on 20 July 2009 - 10:51 , said:

GW,
I don't think people are saying anything about AGW being a myth or whatever. It is purely the fact that you have insisted that the article says something that simply doesn't follow from the actual article.

Well, after having read it again, TWS; I can see that I also misread it.

[Iceberg]

A very quick update, I really need to post up some new graphs etc.

The monthly figure for ENSO from NOAA/NCEP has increased to 0.6 from 0.2.

This makes the last 3 month average now officially an EL Nino average being greater than 0.5.
It is also the joint largest increase in the ENSO figure recorded since 1950 which really shows how much warmer has happened in the Pacific.

On a weekly basis the warmer has stopped, whether this is temporary or not remains to be seen, however the model forecasts are that this is pause before further warming this month.

This wave pattern is very much inkeeping with how ENSO works, with Kelvin waves bringing in the warmer seas much as the waves on a beach will progressively get higher, retreat a little, then get higher again.

[chionomaniac]

The latest temperature El Nino soundings to my eye show a slight reduction in temps. I don't know how normal this is during El Ninos but it is certainly worth keeping an eye on.



The forecasts still suggest a moderate to strong El Nino:

http://www.cpc.ncep....ino34SSTMon.gif

But how accurate are these?

I have had a look at previous forecast verification results and the track record isn't great so it is probably a case of waiting and watching to see what occurs.

http://www.cpc.ncep....erif/verif.html

c

[Thundery wintry showers]

My reading of it is that unless there's a dramatic swell in SSTs over the coming months, we're unlikely to see anything on the scale of 1998, and that might in turn help to prevent many global temperature records from being broken.

But I note Iceberg's post above about a possible further rise in SSTs later on.

[Iceberg]

A new Kelvin wave has developed in the pacific in the last week which *could* herald a period of further warming.
SST's have increased in a couple of sectors over the last week and stayed the same in a couple.
Heat content has gone down which is concerning for a prolonged El Nino, and is against my own thoughts.
However there is better agreement amongst the models both stats and dynamic to indicate a moderate strength El Nino lasting until Spring 2010.
NCEP CPC are still expecting this El Nino to strengthen particularly in Sept and Oct.

[Jonathan F.]

It will be interesting to see what the effects are as the trade winds aren't especially favourable for El Nino development at the moment. Will this suppress the expected heating?

SOI has been moderately negative over the past week or so but it's hardly huge Nino territory. And looking at activity over the year so far you would expect some rebound in SOI values. Overall then the picture still looks like developing El Nino being pegged back to weak/possibly moderate due to unfavourable conditions. I'd see a continuation of this as a good sign for the upcoming Winter.

I suppose the bigger question is why such resistance to this El Nino? If we have seen a PDO shift is this a factor? We don't really have too much detail on the development of El Nino during -PDO phases; perhaps this is just the norm.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Its interesting watching this El Nino episode. Cyclically its not due to be a big one and thus far it isn't heading that way. All but gone/diminishing quickly/never really took off come Dec is my call. In other words weak to moderate max then off she goes. I don't think winter will be affected.

BFTP

[Iceberg]

I agree with both of you in that it will be interesting.
I would say that strengthening was never really due to take place until Aug-Oct. But it will be nice to see what happens.

The trade winds have certaintly stopped it from strengthening much over the summer and they would need to weaken over the Autumn.

[Iceberg]

Iceberg, on 25 August 2009 - 10:00 , said:

A new Kelvin wave has developed in the pacific in the last week which *could* herald a period of further warming.
SST's have increased in a couple of sectors over the last week and stayed the same in a couple.
Heat content has gone down which is concerning for a prolonged El Nino, and is against my own thoughts.
However there is better agreement amongst the models both stats and dynamic to indicate a moderate strength El Nino lasting until Spring 2010.
NCEP CPC are still expecting this El Nino to strengthen particularly in Sept and Oct.

Another update, weekly values have all increased this week, in association with the new Kelvin wave which has helped to push up SST's again.
Values are still below the moderate catergory though and we are still in a weak El Nino episode.

Values are expected to increase in Sept and Oct to moderate levels and the environment has become better for further warming. Ocean Heat extent has stabilised and is nolonger falling (it might well increase over the next week).

[Iceberg]

I thought it might be useful to plot the weekly zones from 1990 to show there movements to give a better understanding of what the actual figures mean.

There are two graphs

1 going back to 1990 (useful for historic comparisons)

2 going back to the start of 2009 to see how this current El Nino is doing.

A few quick points The official ENSO figures to judge an El Nino or a La Nina are taken from Zone 3.4
Zone 1+2 is much more variable is really isn't a good judge of what is going to happen.
Zones 3 and 3.4 are much closer in comparison.
Zone 4 tends to be lazy and much more stable, it's current value is actual quite high currently. It shows how unique the last La Nina really was in it's dip in 2007/2008. This was the second lowest La Nina in 20 years across the board and only matched by the 1998/99 event.

Attached Thumbnails

•