ISo here is a  Headline in USA today:

El Niño weather events are about to become more extreme thanks to climate change, study says

Here is the link

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/22/climate-change-trigger-more-extreme-el-nino-weather-events/4057622002/

There is a passage where it was saying that each of the Super El Niño’s  broke world temp records. That is intuitive since the amount of water vapor put into the air by Super El Niño, when spread out all over the globe, leads to the greatest increases where its very cold and dry. This will distort the temperature pattern as you will see below.

The Super El Niño is part of a step-up function in temps, but it’s self regulating as each new pause plateaus higher than the one before and  is not as great with the temperature increase as the atmosphere adapts. This is Le Chateliers Principle, which at last look, has not been proven wrong.

From Wikipedia:

“Le Chatelier’s principle describes the qualitative behavior of systems where there is an externally induced, instantaneous change in one parameter of a system; it states that a behavioral shift occurs in the system so as to oppose (partly cancel) the parameter change.”

Anyway, here is the step-up idea which explains what the researcher was seeing sans CO2 induced random Super El Niño’s.

image.gif

This is from Dr. Roy Spencers site, and I have added my own pause plateau ideas.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

I took a stand forecasting this when the Super El Niño came on, partly to quell some of the Little Ice Age worry that is going on, as we will see below, for whatever reason, there is too much heat in the oceans to allow 1 or 2 low sunspot cycles to send the earths temps into a tailspin. Because of the nature of WV when spread out, and the kind of “warming” it causes where its colder, the forecast was made for a new higher plateau back in 2016.

Now let me be clear, my issue is not with the researcher, but I find it amazing how perfectly natural factors can explain the El Niño’s, and the Super El Niño’s, but the blame naturally turns to man-made global warming.  It is quite difficult to read this since the author either ignores or is unaware of a crucial factor THAT RUNS EXACTLY OPPOSITE THE AGW THEORY!  And it is the DRYING occurring over the tropics in the upper levels, debunking the trapping hot spot idea.

When researching the lack of increase in the Global total ACE index with tropical cyclones, (yet another bust on their part) I found that it could be explained at least in part by the drying taking place over the tropics.  Look at the 11 years ending in 2017 (11 years where there were no Saffir Simpson scale major hits on the US coast, contrary to the hysteria whipped up after 2004, 2005)

image.gif

The air is drying out over this crucial level. That means a couple of things  1) Drier air means storms have to work harder to moisten the atmosphere around them and continue to intensify. Dry air is a great limiter of tropical cyclones, the forecasted increase by the AGW crowd  in tropical cyclones banked on it becoming moister, and in very cold areas (the level here approx 25K)  its always very cold, but the crucial “wet bulb” temperature, the temperature at which air is saturated, can not be going up if it is drying. Hence the lack of the trapping hot spot for one, and second, limitings of storms. So right off the bat, if the people pushing the article had looked at this, they would have seen a natural explanation for the countering of their trapping hot spot and increased tropical cyclone activity. That is not to say the research presented here is invalid, IT IS SAYING THAT THERE ARE 2 SIDES TO THIS ARGUMENT.  However, there is a 3rd reason that should be intuitive, if its drier, there are fewer clouds, if there are fewer clouds, more radiation gets to the surface. Now what happens if there is more radiation getting to the surface? The sea surface will warm relative to what it would if there were more clouds. If we look at the change in SST’s in that same years another shocking fact comes to mind,  IT HAS NOT WARMED IN THE EL NIÑO AREAS DURING THE HEIGHT OF  THEIR SEASONS, WHICH IS WINTER.  This map includes the El Niño of 06-07, 09-10, 14-16 which became a Super El Niño. One would think that with a Super Niño factored in, the evidence would be clear for what this article is claiming but it is not, instead, there is disproportionate warming.

image.gif

You see the arctic much warmer. Now, why would that be? Well let’s circle back to  the late Dr. William Grays benchmark paper on the Meridional Overturning Circulation as the Fatal Flaw in the man-made Global warming idea

http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

I wonder if the authors even know about this. In a nutshell, it says the state of the oceans is a product of large scale natural events that due to the nature of the oceans and their immense heat capacity take a very long time to evolve. The state of the ocean today may be a product of centuries of occurrences, including stochastic events. Is man involved? As a free thinker, I can not absolutely say no, but I can say that the other natural factors have to have to be a larger limiting factor. That should be intuitive, you have to read the paper.  However the explanation for disproportionate warming is there. If the ocean is a slight bit warmer, it means immense amounts of extra water vapor are put into the air.

Now look at the increase in water vapor near the earth surface  in that same period above:

image.gifNow, remember water vapor has a greater effect, the lower the temperature will lead to more clouds, for instance, more precipitation, which in the very cold areas mean higher temperatures as the wet-bulb temperature comes up. Look at the chart above and notice how smaller increases in the arctic are correlated with higher temperatures .
Their winters, which when factored into the global temp,  really gives it a bias to warmer, even though where most people live there is nothing alarming or unnatural about the increase in this period.

image.gifBingo, it warms most in the arctic. So the relationship is clear, that it is overwhelmingly water vapor (and well it should be, given its large impact on the GHG effect) that this can be traced too. Grays paper, as well as the sinking and drying out over the tropics allowing more incoming solar radiation, is a perfectly natural effect. But wait, there is one more thing to consider. Suppose there is a dampening over the El Niño areas and there was more cloudiness? It would be self-correcting as less incoming radiation would lead to cooling, That the oceans HAVE NOT WARMED mean 2 things, 1) Right off the bat, the premise of this article making a forecast that is running counter to that should be questioned, and yet there is no acknowledgment, 2) Dry William Grays ideas are likely spot on, as he champions the idea of the fact to limit the rise, pointing that none of this has anything to do with co2.

Here is another inconvenient fact, The FREQUENCY of Super El Niño     has been DECREASING as the earth has warmed.

1972-1973, 1982 1983, 1997-1998, 2015-2016. Unless there is some kind of new math at work here, we had 10, 15, then 18. So, 1) the actual trend, which is opposite the forecast would have to reverse, 2) If it did, then so what, we had more frequent Super El Niño when it was colder. However, there is a reason, in addition to what Dr Gray has researched, for why a warmer world would lead to less Super Niño.

If we warm the western Pacific and Indian ocean, it creates a distortion in the global wind oscillation that enhances easterlies in the El Niño areas as pressures are lower than average where its warmer. This, in turn, counters El Niño as its the decrease in the easterlies that cause the warm water to appear so strongly. Combine that with Dr Bill Grays ideas and you get, at the very least, reasons to be skeptical of a forecast that is opposite to what has been going on.

When I write these papers, all I ask is that people see that there are other sides,  The weather teaches you, if you forecast every day, that there is always a counter-argument to what you think that can counter your ideas… This phony climate war as I call it is revealing a lack of tolerance of people who are skeptical and simply question.  It is revealing a dangerous one-sidedness reminiscent of despotic movements that run counter to freedom, except they did not think to use climate as a means. Lysenkoism, for instance, was at the root of much of the old Soviet Unions’ agricultural problems when it was accepted and forced on the people. While it is too early to tell whether a climate Lysenkoism is occurring, it is certainly easy enough to see some of the tactics involved in forcing ideas on people are at work today. Jane Fonda and Sam Waterson recently got arrested at climate protests, do you think for one second they are aware of any countering arguments, or for instance, Dry Grays paper? Do you think climate change warriors are?

There are natural explanations out there we know that can explain much if not all of what we are seeing. After all how did the climate change before without man causing all the problems?

image.gif

How were times warmer than now known as climate optimums?  Given man’s advancement in the fossil fuel era, the warming is coming at just the right time for great leaps forward, as we have been seeing in global quality of life.  One should be skeptical about any idea that does not even acknowledge natural reasons for what we see and a cause where if you are on board there is no turning back. Even if it is man, adaptation and advancement are the major keys, but sometimes I wonder if that is exactly what these people are really against.. the betterment of life for all lucky enough to have it.

Author

  • Joe Bastardi is a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting. He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore — and Others” which you can purchase at the CFACT bookstore.