Current Enso Conditions

[Gray-Wolf]

Not been keeping up with this very diligently, but looking at the most recent global SST's it is really looking like a El Nino is developing. Indeed most of the NH is above average!

If you recall the back end of the Southern summer they were poking large positive anoms as well. I wonder what could be driving that?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Not been keeping up with this very diligently, but looking at the most recent global SST's it is really looking like a El Nino is developing. Indeed most of the NH is above average!

Yes El Nino kicking in alright but don't know about most of the NH being above average. I suppose its down to which site you use.

http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

I prefer unisys as I think it is higher res.

BFTP

[Iceberg]

Another big increase in the ENSO figures over a single week.

4 = 0.6

3.4 = 0.7

3 = 0.8

1+2 = 0.9

4 = 0.7

3.4 = 0.9

3 = 1.0

1+2 = 0.8

Latest figures are above.

Just to remind us of where we were a month ago.

4 = 0.5

3.4 = 0.5

3 =0.4

1+2 =.3

Back at the end of May.

[StOrM18]

thanks Iceberg but i want ask you

Will begin when the impact of El Nino? How will the impact on the Middle East?

[Iceberg]

El Nino has probably begun, officially it will be May-Jun-Jul but probably won't get called until the autumn.

As to the impact to the middle east sorry I really don't have a Scooby, GP might be able to answer you this, I didn't think the middle east is particularly effected but that is a guess.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/anal...ntent_index.txt

The above shows the upper heat content (top 300m along the equator).

As you can see all of the areas are very high, and 2 of the 3 areas are the warmest anomalies since 2002 and 1997 before that.

With +1C being observed along the Enso region any forming El Nino isn't going anywhere soon and won't suddenly collaspe down. For this reason a moderate i.e +1.2C El Nino and above must now be very likely.

The next question is how strong and how long ?.

An average of all models taken from the IRI site gives El Nino figures 0.5 or above until the rest of the year, however predictions beyond 3-4 months are not the most reliable.

[Iceberg]

I've only got 2 mins, but the latest Apri/May/June figure has risen 0.3 to 0.2. This is the highest for 24 months or so and an El Nino to official start in May/June/July figure is still very much on course.

[Gray-Wolf]

I've only got 2 mins, but the latest Apri/May/June figure has risen 0.3 to 0.2. This is the highest for 24 months or so and an El Nino to official start in May/June/July figure is still very much on course.

Normal or Modoki?

[tundra]

Date: 6 Jul, 2009

Average SOI for last 30 days : -0.63

Average SOI for last 90 days : -0.17

Daily contributor to SOI calculation: 6.96

---------------------------------------------

Monthly Average SOI Values

Apr: 8.04

May: -4.97

Jun: -2.78

Date Tahiti Darwin Daily** 30 day 90 day

Av.SOI Av.SOI

6-Jul-2009 1014.98 1012.90 6.96 -0.63 -0.17

SOI AND ESTIMATE 15 DAYS TO INFLUENCE NORTH AMERICA

16 June 2009 Daily contributor to SOI calculation : 5.97 15DAY=July01st

17 June 2009 Daily contributor to SOI calculation :-9.77 15DAY=July02nd

18 June 2009 Daily contributor to SOIcalculation:-20.46 15DAY=July03rd

19 June 2009 Daily contributor to SOIcalculation:-23.76 15DAY=July04th

20 June 2009 Daily contributor to SOIcalculation:-19.61 15DAY=July05th

21 June 2009 Daily contributor to SOIcalculation:-11.18 15DAY=July06th

22 June 2009 Daily contributor to SOI calculation : 6.61 15DAY=July07th

23 June 2009 Daily contributor to SOI calculation:11.04 15DAY=July08th

24 June 2009 Daily contributor to SOI calculation:12.44 15DAY=July09th

25 June 2009 Daily contributor to SOI calculation:20.53 15DAY=July10th

26 June 2009 Daily contributor to SOI calculation:25.02 15DAY=July11th

27 June 2009 Daily contributor to SOI calculation:31.28 15DAY=July12th

28 June 2009 Daily contributor to SOI calculation:34.87 15DAY=July13th

29 June 2009 Daily contributor to SOI calculation:32.62 15DAY=July14th

30 June 2009 Daily contributor to SOI calculation:21.58 15DAY=July15th

01 July 2009 Daily contributor to SOI calculation :12.62 15DAY=July16th

02 July 2009 Daily contributor to SOI calculation :10.40 15DAY=July17th

03 July 2009 Daily contributor to SOI calculation : 2.95 15DAY=July18th

04 July 2009 Daily contributor to SOI calculation : 1.85 15DAY=July19th

05 July 2009 Daily contributor to SOI calculation : 8.00 15DAY=July20th

06 July 2009 Daily contributor to SOI calculation : 6.96 15DAY=July21st

[chionomaniac]

Has the El Nino levelled off in the last week?

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst.for

[Iceberg]

It does seem to have cooled a bit in 1+2 and stabilised in the rest, a breather maybe after the recent large rises.

[Iceberg]

We now have an official El Nino according to NCEP in a press release.

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_...y/ensodisc.html

"During June 2009, conditions across the equatorial Pacific Ocean transitioned from ENSO-neutral to El Niño conditions. Sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies continued to increase, with the latest weekly departures exceeding +1.0°C along a narrow band in the eastern equatorial Pacific (Fig. 1). All of the weekly SST indices increased steadily during June and now range from +0.6°C to +0.9°C (Fig. 2). Subsurface oceanic heat content anomalies (average temperatures in the upper 300m of the ocean, Fig. 3) also increased as the thermocline continued to deepen (Fig. 4). Consistent with the oceanic evolution, the low-level equatorial trade winds were weaker-than-average across much of the Pacific basin, and convection became increasingly suppressed over Indonesia. This coupling of the ocean and atmosphere indicates the development of El Niño conditions."

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90716113358.htm

Well this doesn't bode too well. It would suggest that this deep solar min will add fuel to the 'naturally forming' Nino'.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90716113358.htm

Well this doesn't bode too well. It would suggest that this deep solar min will add fuel to the 'naturally forming' Nino'.

GW

It doesn't say or suggest that at all. Have another read.

BFTP

[Richie V]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90716113358.htm

Well this doesn't bode too well. It would suggest that this deep solar min will add fuel to the 'naturally forming' Nino'.

?? help me out here, where does it say that

[Iceberg]

Well it says that an El Nino is more likely just after a solar minimum. So if we have this driver for an El Nino on top of other drivers it would suggest that it might be stronger.

There are a few If's there though.

NCEP have confirmed that the pacific oceanic heat content is higher now than at anytime since the 98 El Nino.

IRI give a 70% chance of the El Nino persisting until the begining of next year.

[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 July 18, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

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?

[Admiral_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 :lol: ).

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]

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 July 19, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

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.allenpress.com/perlserv/?reques...F2009JCLI2619.1

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

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

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 July 20, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[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.