The NCEP/NCAR dsaily record showed what happened. There was a sharp descent through the month, seeming to bottom out at the end. May has recovered somewhat, but is likely to also be much cooler than March, and is so far behind the April average..
I showed last month the year-to-date plot, compared with other warm years, noting that the year so far was ahead of the 2016 average, as shown by the red curve and horizontal line. Now YTD 2017 is right on the 2016 average. May will probably bring it below. Record prospects for 2017 now depend a lot on renewed El Nino activity. Here is the current YTD plot:
As usual, I will compare the GISS and previous TempLS plots below the jump. As with TempLS, there were fewer big features - lingering warmth in Siberia/Arctic, some cold in Antarctic.
Here is GISS
And here is the TempLS spherical harmonics plot
JIASO April PDO index: 1.12, up from .74. Is a 2017 NH burn about to commence?
ReplyDeletethe equator is already hot
May could be the first month of 2017 to be warmer than the corresponding month from 2016. June will have a lower bar to beat though.
ReplyDeleteFollow my twitter thread (@whut) on the assertion that the majority ENSO changes are driven by wind bursts. I argued that ENSO can also cause wind, which means that the causal direction is not firmly established. I asked about cross-correlations that might show the lead or lag between the factors, but did not get a response.
ReplyDeleteThis is the head-scratcher: QBO (wind) follows the lunar Draconic cycle. Chandler wobble (angular momentum) follows the Draconic cycle. ENSO (sloshing) follows the Draconic cycle.
To them, this all appears to be a coincidence and any agreement is due to overfitting, as any cycle can be crow-barred into agreeing with any other cycle. Yet, apparently their massive GCMs are not prone to overfitting because the wind is uncertain, just as Curry says.
This will take a while to unwind.
whut,
DeleteNobody is talking of QBO as wind bursts, they are surface winds, as told many month ago, El-Nino is a dynamical response with negativ and positive Feedback-Loops. Wind-Burst which can cause kelvin waves is well known and simple physics and you can watch their impact in upper ocean heat content.
There a so much Papers about it, you should read them and beeing less confident in your own work, because as i read you comments, i think you had lost your "open mind"
I never said that QBO was wind bursts. It's obviously a persistent jet stream of order 0. The issue is that no one has ever taken Laplace's tidal equations and simplified them for the equatorial latitude.
Deletehttp://contextearth.com/2016/09/23/compact-qbo-derviation/
"El-Nino is a dynamical response with negativ and positive Feedback-Loops. Wind-Burst which can cause kelvin waves is well known and simple physics and you can watch their impact in upper ocean heat content. "
Anybody can make those kinds of statements. What causes the wind bursts? Is that like spontaneous combustion? It's laughable that a wind burst can cause a strong El Nino which will then cause world-wide disruption with far stronger winds that caused the original El Nino. Positive feedback does not operate within a vacuum. There has to be some external mechanism that forces it.
The fact of the matter is that the ENSO behavior is likely a deterministic process, and one that is based on just a couple of factors. People do not understand that the Mathieu delay differential can describe quite complex phenomena with a astonishingly low number of dependent variables. Most think that ENSO will require dozens of Fourier factors to model, based on what they are comfortable with. And so they automatically assert that any model is the result of over-fitting. But with essentially one periodic factor one can fit QBO reasonably and with two, you can fit ENSO.
I don't have to follow the other work on the topic. What they have to do is try to reject this model.
" It's laughable that a wind burst can cause a strong El Nino(..)"
ReplyDeleteI see you dont know anything about atmosphere/ocean-interactions and you have no intention to learn about it, therefore it make no sense to talk about this topic with someone who dont know anything and want to know nothing about it.
No, its just that we are not gullible like Trump followers who will believe in magical action-at-a-distance explanations.
DeleteCan you explain what causes the wind bursts? Who knows, perhaps it is the same forcing mechanism that I am proposing. Consider also, is it possible that this forcing will cause a wind burst at the same time it is causing an angular impulse to the oceanic volume? Maybe. But without any kind of intellectual curiosity you won't come up with anything new.
Remember, the current consensus is that ENSO is unpredictable, mostly based on what a single scientist, Lorenz, asserted years ago. Every model after that was developed to not sway from that assertion. Thus, an unpredictable wind is as good a rationalization as anything else to provide a mechanism to support Lorenz's butterfly.
"Christian May 20, 2017 at 3:46 AM
Delete"I see you dont know anything about atmosphere/ocean-interactions and you have no intention to learn about it, therefore it make no sense to talk about this topic with someone who dont know anything and want to know nothing about it."
I am using essentially the same delayed differential equations that physical oceanographers claim will describe ENSO, augmented with the sloshing formulation favored by hydrodynamics engineers. That's the math -- the observational physics that supports this includes the lunisolar gravitational tidal forces and the biennial period doubling. Keep up with the current research and you will find this is the direction the understanding is trending toward, independent of what I am finding. There is a saying that you need to eat your own dog food, buddy.
http://contextearth.com/2017/05/21/the-lunar-geophysical-connection/
Too bad that climate science insiders like Christian don't like outsiders coming in to their territory and making progress. It's apparently more important that they protect their consensus.
Holy Molly what is your problem? Since you have make clear that you unable to understand how a windburst could cause downwelling development or not want to, its clearly make no sense for me to talk with you. Science is always in flow, therefor people how think there own work is only relevant are a little bit captured in the past.
DeleteSo in the end, to talk with you under this circumstances is lost lifetime
Christian,
DeleteLikely that climate scientists such as Lindzen don't understand the wind as well as they think they do. It's obvious that the QBO wind is driven by the Draconic lunar cycle, as the period matches exactly once the seasonal reinforcement is taken into account.
If you compare the underlying Draconic forcing for both ENSO and QBO, you will find they align. Not a big surprise. So there you go -- a case of wind carrying the same information as the ocean since the base forcing is common.
The only geology class that I took in college was limnology, which is the study of lakes. And having lived in the north, I understand the idea of overturning and how unstable a thermocline is. It's going to overturn whether a wind is there or not. Salt water is not the same but substitute angular momentum shifts for wind to establish a predictable thermocline sloshing mechanism.
Open up your mind, man. It's clear that climate science hasn't advanced at all on this topic, and that they are likely resistant to new ideas. In that link I gave above, I point out the case of one JPL researcher who tried to get funding for a similar line of research. Her idea was not that revolutionary -- that perhaps several climate measures shouldn't be compensating for tidal forces, as these same forces may be causing the interesting variations in the measure! So if you compensate that effect out, you just eliminated a potential mechanism.
Or in other Words that i think you hopefully understand:
ReplyDeleteYou give me to understand, that you rigth all others irrelevant, so ask yourself why should i talk with you about?
Or if you want an example: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/may-2017-enso-update-mayday
DeleteYou told there:
"This results in a cyclic sloshing that alternately exposes warmer and colder water to the surface."
Thats totally wrong, because Nino-Area is in climatology a net heat sink, because of trade winds and the humbold current to the south american continent. That means, the water is sometimes cool and sometimes less cool but its not warmer as from the Insolation would it warm. In other words, a El-Nino is nothing else then a warming near to Insolation equilibrium, because trade winds had weaken, therefor upwelling of cold water below have weaken and the water which is been upwelled becomes warmer by pushing down the thermocline (caused by downwelling kelvin-waves)
So as you see, it have nothing to do with exposes warmer and colder water to the surface. And in the End and as far as i know you, i am wrong, you are correct bla bla bla. So hope we can end this! Thanks!
Christian, The SOI is an oscillating dipole. Do you know what a dipole is?
DeleteGet back to me when you figure it out.
Also, look into why tidal force is considered a confounding variable.
DeleteThere is no possibility of creating a controlled experiment, yet the majority of researchers have failed to eliminate tidal force as a possibility, thus prompting the question as to the validity of the wind conjecture.
@ whut
ReplyDeleteyou tell nothing new, that why its called ENSO :-) And in the End, explaining SOI is not the problem, the problem is to forecast the power of a event and your "Model" is also unable to do it, or please show me the Nino3.4 Temperatur for the last 50y where not only La-Nina-El-Nino is indicated, by also the correct power of the event
Completely wrong response. Any normal scientist would look at the results and indicate that they were not necessarily conflicting with the data. A scientist with any intellectual curiosity might even join in the analysis and provide quantitative arguments, such as providing statistical evidence of how worthy the model is.
DeleteThe reality is that this analysis is much like tidal prediction. The first order of business is to get the timing of the peaks correct. This is analogous to predicting the times of high and low tides. To second order we can get the power of the peaks to match. That may require a different focus, perhaps using a more short-term fit.
@ whut
DeleteIf your model cant do this, its nothing new or better what you can give. There a so many papers with method and models which are able to forecast an event more or less. So since your are talking so strong words, i had thought that your model give something really new. So therefore, you should lower your tone, because you work not really help to the main problem of forecasting the correct power of the events
Christian, Your debunking is so laughably shallow. It should be easy for you to explain away why the solid earth wobbles with the draconic cycle (the Chandler wobble), the equatorial jet stream reverses direction according to the draconic cycle (the QBO), and how ENSO follows the draconic cycle as well.
DeleteYou can call these coincidences, but good luck with that. It was a long time ago that people without access to computers could figure out that the moon and sun determined tidal frequencies.
whut,
ReplyDeleteI looked at your webpage and saw that your model underestimate the power of both, La-Nina and El-Nino and sometimes it went wrong. So its not better then Models that are published, they all suffer from the same problem, they are unable to forecast the power of each event
Perfection is the enemy of the good. The fact that it doesn't work uniformly and flawlessly could mean that I missed a contributing factor. Yet, the overall timing does not rule out the mechanism. I showed the timing fit was highly selective, able to identify the draconic tide of 27.2122 days to several decimal places and the anomalistic tide of 27.5545 also to several decimal places. Debunking the model should be child's play for you, as you only need to show how it doesn't match the timing. Good luck with that!
DeleteAnd you are being disingenuous when you say that "they are unable to forecast the power of each event". In fact no one has even been able to get the sign or timing of an event more than a few months in advance. So, the reality is that consensus science has no understanding of the behavior at all.
I don't know what your problem is, you certainly don't know English that well, so perhaps you don't even know what you are saying.
The analogy is that I have isolated the 60 Hz signal that is causing the hum in the circuit, whereas you are complaining that I have not produced the amplitude of the factor correctly so should be dismissed. Even a denier such as Lindzen would have issues with that.
" In fact no one has even been able to get the sign or timing of an event more than a few months in advance."
DeleteJa, since you not read other papers on this topic, you cant know that there was papers published with 1 year :-). And its not about debunking, i cant find any really new stuff and you already has shown here, that you are not interested in understanding the underlying physics. And y, i am not a native speaker in english.
"The fact that it doesn't work uniformly and flawlessly could mean that I missed a contributing factor"
No, its because of dynamical responses which isnt a periodic behavior. Or in other words, if you understand the underlying physics, you already would have known in early 2016, that the La-Nina in End 2016 would likly become much less powerfull then the La-Nina in end of 1998.
So what really prevent you for getting a more better model, is your arrogance that you not have to know about dynamical responses such as feedback-loops
Your own arrogance is unbounded. You either have not looked at my model or do not have the capacity to understand it. I do indeed have a feedback loop in the delay differential equation I use. This delay DiffEq is something that has been discussed in the ENSO research community for years. The delay is from the previous year and creates a positive feedback to accenuate a biennial modulation in the effective forcing.
DeleteThis biennial modulation can also be deduced from tidal SLH measurements
http://contextearth.com/2017/05/10/enso-and-tidal-slh-a-biennial-connection/
Combining the biennial feedback with the lunar forcing is the key to matching the dynamical ENSO response. It's not surprising that no one has tried this combination before, as there is a noticeable dearth of intellectual curiosity in this arena. Perhaps with the overwhelming advances in machine learning, AI programs will deduce these patterns before humans will.
Consider also that the lunar connection to earthquake activity has only been seriously advanced in the last year. Significant papers by both Japanese and USGS teams are fascinating reads. The USGS had to update their FAQ to reflect these findings : "Can the position of the moon or the planets affect seismicity?"
https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9827/3354
Christian said:
Delete"Ja, since you not read other papers on this topic, you cant know that there was papers published with 1 year :-)."
LOL, here is a 2-month old paper from the UH ENSO group on delay differential equations that is getting awfully close to what I am doing.
Revisiting ENSO/Indian Ocean Dipole phase relationships
They aren't quite there yet because they are modulating with a one-year cycle instead of a two-year cycle. The one year cycle does not capture the biennial features and is a much weaker harmonic. They also don't yet comprehend the connection between delay differential equations and the Mathieu equation, which defines the underlying hydrodynamics of sloshing.
So why aren't you going after Stuecker, Timmermann, Jin, Chikamoto, Zhang, Wittenberg, Widiasih, and Zhao for their arrogance? Don't they realize that this is all a dead end? LOL I forgot that they are part of the mainstream climate science community.
Guys...
ReplyDelete'Climate science insiders' aren't going to take any notice of people arguing on blogs, because climate science has far to many people arguing on blogs, almost all of whom are not saying anything of any scientific value.
If you want to move the science, there's only one way to do it. Do the work, write it up very carefully, submit it to the highest profile journal you can, and (this is most important) suggest referees who are sufficiently well versed in the field to give a very robust informed critique.
By writing it up carefully you will demonstrate that you have at least put in the work to be worth listening to. By getting a robust critique, you will probably find a load of holes that need to be filled and thus produce a much better piece of work. Of course you might get an obstructive referee - it happens, I don't know how often, but it hasn't happened to me yet. A large part of my success comes from getting the right referees who would give me a hard but fair time.
And if you do it well, people in the field will pay attention. It may take years, but it can be done.
Kevin,
DeleteYou correct at all and never told i am a 'Climate science insider" the only thing was, he is so overconfident about his work (which isnt published yet), what in my opinion is a sort of arrogance which is not represent any kind of scientifical manner. So, therefor i give up.
" what in my opinion is a sort of arrogance which is not represent any kind of scientifical manner"
DeleteIf that's the worst thing you can say, no one cares.
Bringing up arrogance is a two-edged sword. One person accuses the other person of arrogance, without realizing the arrogance of pretending to understand the other person's mindset. Think about that.
Kevin said:
Delete"'Climate science insiders' aren't going to take any notice of people arguing on blogs, because climate science has far to many people arguing on blogs, almost all of whom are not saying anything of any scientific value."
That's true when you look at some of the pure lunacy on a blog such as Talkshop. I noticed that there is one commenter who is a performance artist on a par with the late Professor Irwin Corey. This guy, Paul Vaughan, writes pure scientific gibberish on that blog and apparently has everyone there convinced that he is some kind of genius.
Example:
"There’s only 1 central limit that balances the integral. This is mathematical proof territory. It’s either you understand this or you don’t. By definition (by equation), decomposition into central limit plus oscillation does not change integral balance.
If you can’t manage to prove this to yourself mathematically, just graph the unwrapped phase of your candidate central limits (if you’re exploring via Polya’s valid guess-and-test problem-solving method) against the unwrapped ephemeris phase. If the 2 don’t match, you know your conceptual understanding of central limit in the context at hand needs adjustment.
We each must take personal responsibility for developing sufficiently deep conceptual understanding of aggregation criteria to have a sensible discussion. It’s ridiculous that people are surprised when a universal geometric constant shows up in balanced integrals of circular (to first order) orbits.
Social intimidation doesn’t nullify geometry’s role in physics.
Everything that goes on at wuwt (and here when we get the occasional intrusion) is based on systematically false assumptions about spatial order and aggregation criteria. It’s a strategically chosen assumption designed to deliberately constrain discussion to an artificial (and thus controllable) framework. The proponents of the strategy do not care about what is realistic. They care about social and political control. They know there aren’t very many people smart enough to identify the false (disguised as implicit) spatial assumptions and identify the paralyzing implications for discourse.
If correction doesn’t come from inside the west, it will come from the east. Western bluffing on this file is a fatal error. The sensible and responsible thing to do is self-correct without further rude delay."
Fortunately the good science/bad science filter has a high selectivity to anybody with experience with real science and so this kind of dreck is easily dismissed. The only unfortunate aspect is that it pollutes Google searches on certain keywords.
Christian seems to think that I am trying to derail consensus science when it comes to ENSO. Actually what I am trying to do is reject the hypothesis that lunisolar tidal forces have any role in stimulating ENSO.
ReplyDeleteThis should be extremely straightforward to do, as many scientists -- including Lindzen -- have stated. All that it requires is to show that the cycle of ENSO does not match the composite cycle of the tides. If these do not match, the two behaviors will not synchronize and the signals will go out of phase. For example, if one wants to eliminate the notion that a strange behavior is caused by a 60 Hz line voltage, all it takes is to show that the signal does not have a 60 Hz component or a harmonic of that.
So I did the experiment to eliminate the lunisolar signals from consideration. I fed a number of different frequencies into the delayed Mathieu differential equation, two at a time and mapped out the correlation coefficients after running a parametric optimization. This is the result:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img922/5296/vUfioS.png
Gol-darn it. The best correlation coefficients mapped to the Draconic and Anomalistic lunar tides, down to several decimal places.
What this says that I can't reject the lunar forcing hypothesis. It still may not mean that it is correct, but I can not eliminate that idea from consideration. With wind as a potential stimulus, not so easy to reject that hypothesis because there is nothing as quantitatively concrete to test against. So it also remains as a contender.
What other climate scientists need to do is to demonstrate how to reject the lunisolar gravitational forcing mechanism for ENSO. I have spent the past couple of years trying and haven't been able to do so. Maybe someone else will have better luck. Perhaps Christian can do it.