So far in 2017, in the Moyhu NCEP/NCAR index, January to March were very warm, but April was a lot cooler. May recovered a little, rising from 0.34 to 0.4°C, on the 1994-2013 anomaly base. This is still warm by historic standards, ahead of all annual averages before 2016, but it diminishes the likelihood that 2017 will be warmer than 2016.
There were few notable patterns of hot and cold - cold in central Russia and US, but warm in western US, etc. The Arctic was fairly neutral, which may explain the fairly slow melting of the ice..
Update - UAH lower troposphere V6 ;rose considerably, from 0.27°C to 0.45°C in May.
AI Lions and Renewable Straw
3 hours ago
Posts
On UAH v. 6.0, the SSTs on the equator are warm all the way around... a situation typical of El
ReplyDeleteNiño.
Have to ponder this ENSO analysis:
ReplyDeletehttp://contextearth.com/2017/06/03/enso-forcing-validation-via-lod-data/
This ENSO year is equivalent to the first time somebody aligned tidal cycles with the lunar cycles.
They went ... what? ... oh, yeah, that makes sense!
But that was like hundreds and hundreds years ago.
So the current big news is that someone made another experimental finding regarding gravitational waves
https://www.wired.com/2017/06/physicists-find-another-gravitational-wave-prove-einstein-right/
That's some sensitive equipment isolating an exceedingly miniscule signal!
Yet it seems awfully difficult for anyone to appreciate that gravitational forces of a much larger magnitude can have a significant effect right in our own backyard. How did that happen?
Well, for one you can explain it because most scientists and engineers don't understand the limitations of Fourier analysis on non-linear DiffEq's
http://contextearth.com/2017/06/02/enso-and-fourier-analysis/
All this bunk on ENSO teleconnections by climate deniers such as Curry and Tsonis is just that. It's easy to say that one behavior is teleconnected with another when in fact both behaviors have a common cause. But they don't seem to understand that there is a strong likelihood of a common cause.
Yea, I know, it's all due to wind bursts :)
The current ENSO forecasts have generally backed off on the probability of an El Niño event starting in 2017. They once indicated an El Niño could start as early as June-July. Presumably they pick up their crumbs after each failure to predict and try to improve their models. My point was that despite no El Niño, the goofy UAH series spikes... why? I'm guessing it's equatorial evaporation as the planet's ocean surfaces are warm all the way around the equator, a situation that cannot exist unless the eastern Pacific is in an El Niño configuration. Water standing still on the surface with little EB upwelling... El Niño-like quantities of evaporation? So WUWT Walter's prediction for May GISS is .93 ℃, which is an El Niño type anomaly...very hot. It would put the to-date 2017 anomaly just slightly below 2016's record. Relative to early months, June is starting out cool.
DeleteLooks like the red 13-month running average line on Spencer's UAH6 plot is going to flatten in the 0.3 to 0.35 range as it starts lapping lower values from summer 2016. That will leave UAH6 higher now than before the 15/16 nino and in a more pronounced fashion than after the 1998 or 2010 ninos. Yet, interestingly, the UAH6 spike for the 15/16 nino, as depicted by the 13-month running average between mid-2015 and end-2016, will be weaker than 1998 or even 2010. Perhaps due to the current plus PDO conditions.
DeleteChubbs
BEST l/o is running higher than the other datasets. April was only 0.01 C below the 2016 average, and the year to date average 2017 including April is 1.03 C, 0.09 C above 2016.
DeleteBEST is the most comprehensive surface dataset, so what does this tell us...?
I can probably apply a prediction of El Nino vs La Nina with the model, but if the model is only 80% reliable, then what happens if that 20% error occurs on the next prediction? Not so good when we live in such a black and white society that can't appreciate shades of gray.
DeleteYet it's also highly likely that the model will improve as more people get involved in its maturation. The last post I linked on comparing the model ENSO forcing against the LOD variability measure is is about as far from coincidence as one can get. That kind of "out-of-band" agreement on such a complex waveform never occurs unless the fundamental mechanism is correct.
Whut:
DeleteThe western equatorial Pacific is conspicuously warm because of prevailing east-to-west winds, so why are you incredulous that a weakening of these winds could cause the eastern Pacific to warm up?
Probably said this before, but no one can separate wind as a causative agent from the premise that wind and ENSO correlate due to a separate external forcing. In other words, whatever is setting the wind in motion is also causing ENSO to slosh.
DeleteI have already shown that both ENSO (water) and QBO (wind) are driven by a common external forcing due to the lunar Draconic tidal cycle. But the reason these two don't match exactly is because ENSO also responds to the Anomalistic forcing, which impacts the compressional sloshing of liquids, but not the nodal torque on the upper atmosphere wind.
And don't forget that the seasonal cycle is also an external agent that can impact ENSO and the wind at the same time! The seasonal cycle is critical to magnifying the tidal forces at a specific time of the year.
And whatever is causing ENSO to slosh is also causing the angular rotation speed of the earth to vary. The two forcing agents are perfectly in unison according to this http://contextearth.com/2017/06/03/enso-forcing-validation-via-lod-data/
This covers both the Draconic and Anomalistic cycle and is the final nail.
This is the mathematical model for the two, and note how independent the two measures are:
http://imageshack.com/a/img922/3205/316qNL.png
The June 6 BoM update has one model, BoM leaning to negative neutral as the year unfolds, and the rest leaning to positive neutral/El Niño. NASA versus the Aussies...
Delete@whut
DeleteThe prevailing east-to-west winds (trade winds) I mentioned are at the surface. Why do you bring up QBO?
And the western equatorial Pacific is almost always warmer than the eastern, El Niño or not.
I bring up QBO because it is an equatorial behavior, much like ENSO is one. If you look at the measure of AAM (atmospheric angular momentum) which is essentially how fast the earth's atmosphere spins relative to its rotation rate (average wind speed in other words), it highly correlates with ENSO. Actually, you can barely tell an ENSO time-series apart from an AAM time-series. Why is that? Because ENSO will create dipoles with a huge spatial pressure differential...And what causes wind? A pressure differential. And thus you get the chicken and the egg.
DeleteWe are trying to figure out what causes these equatorial cycles and from what I discovered, it will take an enormous amount of effort to disprove that the lunisolar doesn't contribute significantly to the forcing. The quantitative agreement over the span of hundreds of years is much too convincing to be able to reject the lunisolar hypothesis easily.
@whut
DeleteIf your lunisolar model is correct it will be a really big deal. Not just for predicting ENSO cycles, but for weather prediction in general. Good luck!
@whut
DeleteI have a problem with ENSO cycles being described as a back and forth "sloshing". It's true that during an El Niño, some of the very warm water from the western Pacific appears to slosh eastward, but then this anomalous warmth is lost to the atmosphere or other parts of the ocean. There doesn't seem to be any westward sloshing.
Sloshing is a precise technical term in the fluid and hydrodynamics literature. Like tides, it is more of a vertical motion than horizontal. The reason to invoke sloshing at all is it brings in the Mathieu equation and delay differential formalism, which provides the nonlinear properties needed to simulate the erratic time series. So even though the ENSO forcing is only comprised of a couple of fundamental frequencies, the response is a wide spectrum of cycles:
Deletehttp://contextearth.com/2017/06/02/enso-and-fourier-analysis/
I have problems with anything that sloshes in only one direction, because that violates conservation of momentum. If water did pile up on one side and didn't release back, I believe the earth's rotation would have to change its speed. That is not observed, and in fact follows the lunar forcing cycle. And that of course, according to my model, drives ENSO as well.
What I have read is that during ENSO neutral and La Niña conditions the surface of the Eastern Pacific is persistently peeled and blown to the west where it accumulates in a large mound of water... said to be as much as a meter higher than its surrounding ocean surfaces.
DeleteYou know that when tides go in and out there is typically a wind that blows along with it,
Deleteblowing onshore with a rising tide and away from shore with an ebbing tide.
Do you think some of the earliest observers thought the wind was causing the tide?
Like JCH said, it seems logical that neutral or La Niña conditions are the result of normal to strong trade winds, piling up warm water in the west. It also makes sense that a sudden weakening or reversal of these winds could trigger an eastward sloshing event, eventually losing energy and dissipating as it moves across the ocean towards the Nino region. A westward sloshing is not necessary to explain La Niña's.
DeleteCould @whut's lunisolar model be an unseen driver behind all this?
That's the issue. The popular consensus simply asserts that wind is the main driver in spite of never being able to pin down what stimulates the wind in the first place.
DeleteThe Curry's and Tsonis's of climate science eat this kind of stuff up because it supports their uncertainty monster of natural temperature variation. It essentially keeps us from making progress in long term predictions in climate.
If there is the least bit of evidence that lunisolar forcing controls behaviors such as ENSO ad QBO, there needs to be a boatload of people getting to work on it, if for nothing else to neutralize the bat-crap craziness of Curry and Tsonis.
And so with the more than compelling evidence that I have presented, it should be a wakeup call to get started. Bizarre, but the GCM's do not even include lunar forcing. No wonder they don't see it in the simulation results if it's not parameterized in the inputs.
And remember there has never been a natural phenomena on the scale of ENSO that has oscillated like that based on a nondescript random fluctuation like the consensus is claiming. Climate scientists have all these equations such as the Cane-Zebiak model that they have bandied about to try to describe ENSO, but everyone seems half-hearted about testing these since they are squirrely in generating completely different responses for slight parameter variations. What I have created is a related to these kinds of models, but with a much milder non-linear adjustment. It is much more stable and so can optimize quickly to the behavior observed. So, bottomline this model should not be completely unfamiliar to many of the climate scientists -- all I am doing is adding the non-random forcing of the lunar cycles that everyone seems to have neglected. I noticed that only NASA JPL had somebody working on this angle, but their research proposal got rejected and so the work stopped.
Not including the ocean tide, on a scale of 1 to 10, this is how obvious the influence of the monthly lunar gravitational forcing is on the observed behavior:
DeleteLOD variation : 10
Chandler wobble : 10
QBO cycle : 10
ENSO cycle : 10
What's perplexing is that the only one of these that is generally known by geophysicists is the LOD variation. The other ones require a mathematical transform based on physical laws to reveal the underlying cycle. So apparently the obviousness is only apparent when this transform is applied.
That perhaps explains why it has remained hidden for years and why it will remain hidden until someone else with credentials in the discipline starts to acknowledge the applicable physics. And that won't be easy as I mentioned in the previous comment since even when people with credentials inside NASA JPL bring this up in terms of a proposal, it will get rejected.
I have another story. When I submitted a paper on this topic to a physicals journal, I put the name of o one of the top astrophysicists in the USA as a potential reviewer. I have known this guy since high school and he works at JPL as well, as their goto guy for anything to do with launch and planetary orbits. He has an asteroid named after him, for heaven's sakes. I did alert to him that he was a potential reviewer and he responded to me that he wouldn't be of much help because that wasn't his discipline! I understand this perfectly, and in the end it didn't matter because my paper got rejected right away, before it even entered a review cycle.
JHC,
DeleteBest thing is to watch the TAO/TRITON-Programm: https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/cgi-tao/cover.cgi?P1=TAO_EQ_DEP&P2=big&P3=5yr&script=disdel/ani-drupal.csh watch from January 2015, there you can see how a Wind-Burst results in a downwelling kelviwave arround 170E to 160W, in propagation it push down the thermocline as well you see on the other side of pacific there is upwelling process.
The best illustration is that: http://orca.rsmas.miami.edu/~melicie/dmodel1.htm
(the so called delayed oscillator )
Christian,
DeleteThat's what I am using, a delayed differential equation. See this
http://contextearth.com/2017/05/01/the-enso-model-turns-into-a-metrology-tool/
The delay is from the previous year, and will create a limited positive feedback perturbation in the thermocline and thus in the wind as the changing temperature creates a spatial pressure differential above the ocean's surface.
BTW, I don't see any wind bursts on the animation.
whut,
Deletetake this: www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_mar2015/ensodisc.pdf and look also heat content which in response has risen a lot : http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/index/heat_content_index.txt
And, please click link adress, there is it described how a windstress or say burst, result in a kelvinwave and the opposite Rossby wave which is westward propagating. It isnt more to say about, all other you can read by yourself
Labels such as Kelvin or Rossby waves don't mean much to me. When it comes down to it a sine wave is a sine wave. ENSO is a standing wave phenomena that occurs on the equator, and we are trying to determine what forces that standing wave. If it is the wind, then we have to figure out what is stimulating the wind.
DeleteI already solved the wave equation for a Coriolis-nulled waveguide along the equator here. Using this formulation to best fit the bursts of wind that occur via the QBO, it becomes pretty obvious that the Draconic lunar cycles interacting with a seasonal reinforcement is the responsible agent. So what is probably happening is that the lunar forcing is controlling the atmosphere and ocean simultaneously, and that most observers are confused about the causality direction.
Furthermore, any downwelling of the QBO supplementing the gravitational sloshing of the thermocline will act in a reinforcing manner. So I really shouldn't have any problem with attributing some forcing to the wind, just as others need to consider the tidal force acting on the thermocline. The key is the common mode due to the lunar forcing.
I don't even look at the spread in the ENSO forecasts. Since ENSO is clearly a deterministic process, there is no excuse for there to be any range in outcomes other than the researchers having no understanding in the underlying process.
ReplyDeleteFace the fact that ENSO analysis will eventually look like conventional tidal analysis. Consider that there is no spread in predictions for tidal heights and times. Similarly for ENSO, the fundamental cycle will be based on numerical calculations of lunisolar phases and any anomalies will be accounted from that. That will be a huge step up from the primitive approach of people providing a gut feeling of which way ENSO will trend.