Global Warming is History.

That 2/11/08 Ocean Anomaly map is amazing. Very strong La Nina. We have seen past La Nina's weaken and then strengthen. For example: the 1999 La Nina strengthened during the winter of 98/99, weakened spring 99, strengthened fall to winter 1999/2000. Could have been affected by the earths annual tilt which changes the solar exposure of the equatorial areas.

Earlier predictive thread on this La Nina.

Except that I don’t see how you could possibly know, I might expect you weren’t kidding.

Thanks. You got it the way it was meant.

>> El Nino years are generally warm years (globally), and La Nina years are generally cool years (globally). <<

So you ARE defining the La Nina strictly on global temperatures, which makes you assertion tautological... and meaningless. La Ninas are *really* based on coldwater upwelling off the shore of Peru and Chile, which then is carried along the surface currents across the Pacific along the equator.

>> Based on the indices, this La Nina is not “mostly dead”. <<

Based on the actual definition of La Nina, not simply “ooh, it’s cold,” the La Nina is beginning to disperse. And yet temperatures are still cooling. Here’s what’s interesting: You’ve been avoiding using ocean SST because they didn’t fit your assertion. Now you use them when they do fit your assertion. But you’re not showing what I’m pointing out in the article as so unusual: the sudden collapse of land temperatures, which heretofore had been warm relative to the SST anomalies, and have sudden become quite cold.

And again, your 2nd batch of charts matches what I’m seeing only in the Peru-Pacific corridor... meaning that this source acknowledges my definition of La Nina. And indeed, I’ll both concede that there has been a La Nina. But here’s the problem: Just like these previous instances, the La Nina region did warm up. But unlike those previous instances, the global SST continued to plummet. Further, the example that best matches the current La Nina didn’t correspond (95-96) with a significant global cooling at all! By *your* definition of a La Nina, there was no La Nina at all! So the phenomenon you show in the 2nd chart demonstrates no relation to the phenomenon we’re currently experiencing... other than (as I’d stated in the original argument) to show (1) there was a La Nina in 2007, and (2) the La Nina is already ending.

Ooopsie.

You’re showing evidence of a cyclic temperature record.

Shame, shame. We can’t have that.

— —

Good summary in the post, but I’d recommend you amend the original posting to show that temp’s rose from 1910-1935 by 6/10 of one degree, fell from 1935-1972 by 1/2 of one degree, rose between 1972 and 1998 by 1/2 of one degree, and have been essentially stable for the past 10 years.

Now in 2007-2008 we may be seeing temps start to drop back in their usual 27 year cycle. Actually, I think that today's ten-year "flat spot" at the top of the previous 27 year 1/2 degree rise, about .30 degrees is from the natural 27-year solar-magnetic shielding cycle, and the rest (about 0.2 degrees) is from the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.

However - Nobody can justify that the measured rise in CO2 is ENTIRELY caused by man - the entire premise of the AGW extremists' argument to destroy the economy and condemn billions to an early death: what has been burned the past 25 years is too little to have caused the CO2 increase we see. Sure, the enviro’s BLAME man for the observed CO2 increase, but they can’t show the numbers of burned carbon to warrant that much of an increase.

So, instead, they inflate their claim by assuming that over 20% of the increase in CO2 is from forest burning. But they aren’t burning, and a stable old growth forest releases as much CO2 fro decomposing plant life as it consumes in fertilizer. Only a newer, faster growing forest “consumes” CO2 on a net basis.

You have some interesting stuff here - thanks for sharing. I have another question. When I was young, old timers in Florida would talk about orange groves existing in the St. Augustine/Jacksonville area. Now it’s Orlando and south. Any insight as to why?

So you ARE defining the La Nina strictly on global temperatures, which makes you assertion tautological... and meaningless. La Ninas are *really* based on coldwater upwelling off the shore of Peru and Chile, which then is carried along the surface currents across the Pacific along the equator.

I know all that, and I'm not defining La Nina based on global temperatures -- I just pointed out that years with a La Nina are generally cool years, globally.

La Ninas are *really* based on coldwater upwelling off the shore of Peru and Chile, which then is carried along the surface currents across the Pacific along the equator.

Well, the upwelling occurs off Peru and Chile all the time. The reversed wind direction allows the thermocline to tilt upward, bringing cooler water to the surface -- which isn't literally upwelling.

Based on the actual definition of La Nina, not simply “ooh, it’s cold,” the La Nina is beginning to disperse.

What is your actual definition of La Nina? This is the accompanying text to the diagram above: "During these events, the easterlies strengthen, colder than average ocean water extends westward to the central Pacific, and the warmer than average sea-surface temperatures in the western Pacific are accompanied by heavier than usual rainfall."

So if there is colder than average water in the central Pacific (which there obviously is), then the La Nina is still ongoing.

But you’re not showing what I’m pointing out in the article as so unusual: the sudden collapse of land temperatures, which heretofore had been warm relative to the SST anomalies, and have sudden become quite cold.

I'm not avoiding that; that's why I said that La Nina years are generally cool years, globally! The cool air over the cool waters of the Pacific does move over land, of course. In fact, about a month ago I predicted that this year might not make the top 10 warmest all-time, because this La Nina is persistent. So it's not a "sudden collapse" of land temperatures; it's a cooling due to La Nina during the NH winter. I just grabbed the little thumbnail below; in the upper diagram, the effects of La Nina December-February, there's only one place (the southeast US) that ends up warmer than normal.

And indeed, I’ll both concede that there has been a La Nina. But here’s the problem: Just like these previous instances, the La Nina region did warm up.

It hasn't warmed up yet!!!!!! Look at the SST diagram. La Nina means cooler-than-average SSTs in the central Pacific. That's what's observed. What are you calling the "La Nina region"? Just the South American coast? If so, that's not correct.

Further, the example that best matches the current La Nina didn’t correspond (95-96) with a significant global cooling at all! By *your* definition of a La Nina, there was no La Nina at all!

1995 was a very weak La Nina. This one is considerably stronger. The La Ninas in 1988 and 1999-2000 were also considerably stronger than 1995.

This chart (from What is La Nina? includes the SST anomaly of the current La Nina at the bottom of the chart. Compare to the much lighter blue and smaller distribution in 1995.

other than (as I’d stated in the original argument) to show (1) there was a La Nina in 2007, and (2) the La Nina is already ending.

Here's the global SST anomaly plot for TODAY. More than half the Pacific is colder than normal! Along the Equator, some areas are still 5 degrees C colder than normal! Maybe, a bare maybe, the warmer-than-normal temperatures extending from Ecuador to the Galapagos indicate that the end is beginning, but the La Nina event in the central Pacific is still strong and ongoing.

...the temperature leap we saw in the 1980s and 1990s was due to the elimination of “global dimming” by cleaner air standards

What if a beautifully balanced system can handle and accomomdate slow changes, but not "leaps"? Have we done more harm than good?

He’ll pick Crist for Florida.

I've found a better chart then yours.

>> What if a beautifully balanced system can handle and accomomdate slow changes, but not “leaps”? Have we done more harm than good? <<

Well, the first test is “is that leap unusual”? Since we can find such leaps as recent as 1908-1941, the answer is no. In fact, we find the likelihood that such leaps in numerous historical times to be the same as our ability to discern such leaps. There’s the rebound from the Little Ice Age; there’s the Medieval Warm Spell, there’s the Roman Warm Spell... and so on and so on.

Second test: “If the rate of the leap isn’t unusual; is it’s duration?” That’s what we’re seeing now. The rate of the 1978-2003 leap is very comparable to the 1908-1941 leap. The length is similar, if it actually ended in 2003. Therefore the total size is also very similar. But is it over? Or are we about to experience a massive surge in heating to catch us back up to the 1978-2003 trend line?

Lastly, “Is there any reason to indicate the Earth cannot adapt?” This is why the fact that Al Gore lied about the glacial ice core is so significant. Al Gore showed the charts in such a way that, unaided, CO2 concentrations and temperatures moved together. The fact was that movement in temperature *preceded* movements in CO2 concentrations. That means that reversals in temperature trends were not at all related to reversals in CO2 trends, which is a direct contradiction of Al Gore’s assertions. In turn, that means that there’s zero chance of some positive feedback which goes unchecked by negative feedback.

>> I know all that, and I’m not defining La Nina based on global temperatures — I just pointed out that years with a La Nina are generally cool years, globally. <<

... and you went on as if the scale of La Ninas is correlated to the scale of such cooling... which is where your argument ceased being meaningful.

>> “During these events, the easterlies strengthen, colder than average ocean water extends westward to the central Pacific, and the warmer than average sea-surface temperatures in the western Pacific are accompanied by heavier than usual rainfall.” <<

Yes, “extends” to someplace means it also originates someplace else. If the Pacific is cool, but the origin isn’t, then the condition described by tha statement no longer exists... all you’ve got is cool water in the Pacific. Which we both agree relates to a La Nina (so I’m confused why your bogging us down in this.) My point was that the cooling GLOBALLY intensified, while the La Nina was winding down. Hence there’s other cooling besides the La Nina.

>> It hasn’t warmed up yet!!!!!! Look at the SST diagram. La Nina means cooler-than-average SSTs in the central Pacific. <<

No, it doesn’t. La Nina means cooler than average SSTs extending from the Peruvian/Chilean coast into the central Pacific. the Peruvian/Chilean coast has warmed up. And it’s not the central Pacific which has cooled off so dramatically.

>> Here’s the global SST anomaly plot for TODAY. More than half the Pacific is colder than normal! <<

Yes, and completely unexplained is that most of the Indian Ocean is also colder than normal. Also unexplained is why the subantarctic regions of the entire Earth, and the subartic regions of the Pacific are also colder than normal... and how and why you managed to dig up a map of the Earth which excludes these regions.

Seriously: I’d probably find 100 similar, global maps on Google. All of which show ranges similar to 80N to 80S. You manage to dig up one which fails to show data which contradicts your point. I can’t find you credible if you continue to cherry pick data.

Here's the first pic that showed up on my google search for such pics. Notice the massive regions of exceptional cooling which are unexplained by El Nino?

Isn’t “Crist” Spanish for Christ as in Sangre de Cristos (Blood of Christ?)

That’s another reason that McCain would pick Crist....he’s Hispanic. That would help not only in Florida, but also across America.

It would also offset the “woman/black” thing going on with Hillary/Obama.

Is Crist a conservative? Does anyone know?

Crist is in many ways, the guy who made McCain inevitable.

Charlie Crist is Greek.

Too bad.

You need to be a little more detailed in Step 2.

I'm replying to both of your posts at once.

and you went on as if the scale of La Ninas is correlated to the scale of such cooling.

It is!

La Nina events: 1950-51, 1955-56 (strong), 1956-57 (weak), 1964-65, 1970-71, 1971-72 (weak), 1973-74 (strong), 1974-75 (weak), 1975-76 (strong), 1988-89 (strong), 1998-99*, 2000-01

* I've always heard 1998-99 was strong, but the table doesn't show this (El Niño & La Niña Years: A Consensus List) The two cold dips that doen't correlate with La Nina years are 1983-84, when El Chichon erupted, and 1992-1994, after Pinatubo.

Yes, “extends” to someplace means it also originates someplace else. If the Pacific is cool, but the origin isn’t, then the condition described by tha statement no longer exists... all you’ve got is cool water in the Pacific.

There is always cold water near Peru/Ecuador due to the Peruvian upwelling. La Nina years will extend this cold pattern westward. It's not an origination, it's a state.

You might find this of interest:

Review the Causes and Consquences of Cold Events

My point was that the cooling GLOBALLY intensified, while the La Nina was winding down. Hence there’s other cooling besides the La Nina.

And your point is wrong. La Nina has not wound done significantly. (Your own temp map shows this -- the strong Pacific equatorial cold anomalies are pure La Nina). It started in October 2007! So the cooling effect started to be felt subsequent to then, and this influence is still occurring.

La Nina means cooler than average SSTs extending from the Peruvian/Chilean coast into the central Pacific. the Peruvian/Chilean coast has warmed up.

The latter observation might be a signal that the La Nina conditions are starting to subside. The La Nina condition in the central Pacific is still present and strong.

Yes, and completely unexplained is that most of the Indian Ocean is also colder than normal. Also unexplained is why the subantarctic regions of the entire Earth, and the subartic regions of the Pacific are also colder than normal... and how and why you managed to dig up a map of the Earth which excludes these regions.

Google this: SST anomalies (separate words, not in quotes). Not images, on the Web. Click the first link you see. That's how I "dug it up" and "cherry-picked".

Now... one of the things you'll find at the link above is this paragraph:

"Kiladis then discussed what he considered to be among the more robust La Niña teleconnections. These included a tendency for wetter than normal conditions, with a risk for flooding, in southern Africa and the monsoon regions of India, Indonesia, and northern Australia, and drier than normal conditions, sometimes leading to drought, over eastern Africa, the western equatorial Indian Ocean, southern South America, and the southern Plains and southeastern portions of the U.S.. In general, tropical surface temperatures tend to be below normal, with robust signals even as far away from the tropical Pacific as Africa. The most pronounced extratropical temperature signals during La Niña are seen over North America, where there is a pronounced tendency for colder than normal conditions over Alaska, western Canada, and the central Plains of midwestern Canada and the northern United States, and warmer than normal tendencies over the southeastern United States."

I suggested before that the La Nina cooling in the Pacific is influencing the tropical Indian Ocean, and this is supported by the influence maps. So I wouldn't say it's unexplained. Reading the above, if Alaska is a lot colder than normal, might it not be expected that the Gulf of Alaska is colder than normal, too?

Not every cold anomaly is directly linkable to La Nina. But with an event this widespread, it will influence a substantial portion of the Earth. I'm not making this up -- it's supported by researchers and meteorologists examining the phenomenon.

Seriously: I’d probably find 100 similar, global maps on Google. All of which show ranges similar to 80N to 80S. You manage to dig up one which fails to show data which contradicts your point. I can’t find you credible if you continue to cherry pick data.

I showed above how I found this. The assertion of "cherry-picking" is unwarranted. I thought it was pretty interesting to get TODAY's anomaly map.

I realized that I chose "Global" instead of "Full Global" from that site. Below is "Full Global" for today, February 14, 2008.

The cold anomalies in the Southern Ocean are intriguing. It's currently summer down there; it looks strange that there are warm anomalies north of 50 S and cold anomalies south of that latitude.