Weather’s unwanted guest: Nasty La Niña keeps popping up, confounding climate modellers

Posted: May 29, 2022 by oldbrew in Analysis, climate, Cycles, ENSO, modelling, Natural Variation, predictions, weather
Tags: ,


When observations show modellers ‘the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say should be happening with human-caused climate change’, it’s surely time to revisit their assumptions. Meanwhile, much head-scratching.
– – –
Something weird is up with La Nina, the natural but potent weather event linked to more drought and wildfires in the western United States and more Atlantic hurricanes, says Phys.org.

It’s becoming the nation’s unwanted weather guest and meteorologists said the West’s megadrought won’t go away until La Nina does.

The current double-dip La Nina set a record for strength last month and is forecast to likely be around for a rare but not quite unprecedented third straight winter. And it’s not just this one.

Scientists are noticing that in the past 25 years the world seems to be getting more La Ninas than it used to and that is just the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say should be happening with human-caused climate change.

“They (La Ninas) don’t know when to leave,” said Michelle L’Heureux, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecast office for La Nina and its more famous flip side, El Nino.

An Associated Press statistical analysis of winter La Ninas show that they used to happen about 28% of the time from 1950 to 1999, but in the past 25 winters, they’ve been brewing nearly half the time.

There’s a small chance that this effect could be random, but if the La Nina sticks around this winter, as forecast, that would push the trend over the statistically significant line, which is key in science, said L’Heureux.

Her own analysis shows that La Nina-like conditions are occurring more often in the last 40 years. Other new studies are showing similar patterns.

What’s bothering many scientists is that their go-to climate simulation models that tend to get conditions right over the rest of the globe predict more El Ninos, not La Ninas, and that’s causing contention in the climate community about what to believe, according to Columbia University climate scientist Richard Seager and MIT hurricane scientist Kerry Emanuel.

What Seager and other scientists said is happening is that the eastern equatorial Atlantic is not warming as fast as the western equatorial Atlantic or even the rest of the world with climate change.

And it’s not the amount of warming that matters but the difference between the west and east. The more the difference, the more likely a La Nina, the less the difference, the more likely an El Nino. Scientists speculate it could be related to another natural cycle, called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or it could be caused by human-caused climate change or both.

“At this point we just don’t know,” L’Heureux said. “Scientists are watching and I know, are actively studying. But it’s really important because of regional conditions. We need to get this right.”

Full article here.

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    But the West is in a 22-year megadrought, about the same time period of increasing La Niña frequency.

    ‘Climate change’ or La Niña? 😎

  2. […] Weather’s unwanted guest: Nasty La Niña keeps popping up, confounding climate modellers […]

  3. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:

    What’s bothering many scientists is that their go-to climate simulation models that tend to get conditions right over the rest of the globe predict more El Ninos, not La Ninas, and that’s causing contention in the climate community about what to believe

    Encapsulated in that one sentence is everything wrong with climate religion science. Maybe if data hadn’t been so persecuted for not confirming to the beliefs of Gaia’s devout..?

  4. Gamecock says:

    “‘Climate change’ or La Niña?”

    Why not blame La Niña on climate change ?!?! Are there no climate scientists available to give the sacrament of attribution?

    ‘the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say should be happening with human-caused climate change’

    This is a truly strange thing to say.

    ‘Computer model simulations’ come in good, better and best? Bad, really bad, and just plain crap?

    Why are not the ‘best’ still around?

    And, most superlative, this a confession that ‘computer model simulations’ don’t work. Even the ‘best,’ whatever that means.

  5. tallbloke says:

    “the eastern equatorial Atlantic is not warming as fast as the western equatorial Atlantic”

    Hmmm. Upwelling of cold bottom waters as LOD increases and the ocean piles up against Africa?

  6. oldbrew says:

    Scientists speculate it could be related to another natural cycle

    So natural cycles haven’t been completely written off as irrelevant by climate ‘science’.

  7. Phoenix44 says:

    Yet more bogus statistics. We have a period 1950-99 that is supposedly dominated by climate change yet can be used to define how many La Ninas we “should” have had since then? And what exactly is supposed to have happened in 1999? What changed then?

    It’s all becoming total gibberish.

  8. Curious George says:

    “Climate” has been redefined, just like “free speech” and “marriage”.

  9. brianrlcatt says:

    I continue to offer the suggestion that there is only one clear and present way the cold waters rising from the deep ocean around the Galapagos can get warmer during El Nino, which is the fundamental source of the ocean warming as I understand the mechanism, and vice versa for La Nina, and that is a change in geothermal heat from magma emissions at this very active tectonic hot spot. The cyclicity can be caused by a change in planetary solid tides, which constantly move the tectonic skin on the surface. Is there a cyclic driver for this? Turns out there is one I had missed. The eccentricity of the lunar orbit that changes the solid tidal movements throughout Earth’s internal structure, which in total is seen as 55 cm per day vertical at the equator, but Twerks in 3 dimensions. The Lunar component of this eccentricity has a maximum every 18.6 years. There are other cycles. The last two El Nino’s were 18.6 years apart. But the earlier events were not overtly on time. THat may be the effect of combined cycles, as with the same effect seen in the changing pattern of ice age cycles, which are primarily a combination of the interfering gravitational effects of the three main MIlankovitch p orbital cycles, 100Ka, 41Ka and 23Ka. These Lunar cycles are shorter, but the m Moon has the largest gravitational effect on the Earth due to its orbiting the Earth, not the Sun, and its proximity to Earth (The Sun’s gravitational force is much greater than the moons,, even at 1A distance, but the centripetal force of gravity is balanced by centrifugal force. THe only force balancing the gravitational fprce of the Moon on the Earth is the Earth moving, not just the oecans, the whole visco elastic body moves – more at maximum eccetricity) . Just sayin’

  10. oldbrew says:

    Phoenix44 says: And what exactly is supposed to have happened in 1999? What changed then?
    . . .
    The modern warm period hit a peak in 1998…

    The 1997–1998 El Niño was regarded as one of the most powerful El Niño–Southern Oscillation events in recorded history, resulting in widespread droughts, flooding and other natural disasters across the globe. It caused an estimated 16% of the world’s reef systems to die, and temporarily warmed air temperature by 1.5 °C, compared to the usual increase of 0.25 °C associated with El Niño events.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997%E2%80%9398_El_Ni%C3%B1o_event

    ‘It caused an estimated 16% of the world’s reef systems to die’
    *Appear* to die might be more correct.

  11. brianrlcatt says:

    “What Seager and other scientists said is happening is that the eastern equatorial Atlantic is not warming as fast as the western equatorial Atlantic or even the rest of the world with climate change”

    Do they mean Pacific? Just a detail, I know…..

  12. pochas94 says:

    Until the models include a line by line analysis of the solar spectrum as they individually affect climate, as their intensity changes with the Schwabe, Gleissburg, deVries and even longer cycles, the Charade will continue.

  13. Hasbeen says:

    Nasty for some, but LaNina usually clears our drought in Oz. A bit too well perhaps this year.

  14. Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. says:

    This is a manifestation of a deep confusion in current climate science (which BTW is full of misconceptions): El Nino and La Nina are caused by changes in cloud cover, not by heat coming from the ocean. This is clearly evident in a global data series of Surface Solar Radiation (SSR) produced by a recent study:

    Yuan et al (2021). Global Trends in Downward Surface Solar Radiation from Spatial Interpolated Ground Observations during 1961–2019. J. Climate https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/34/23/JCLI-D-21-0165.1.xml?tab_body=fulltext-display

    I will soon have a blog article here about the implications of this new SSR dataset for the evolution of global surface temperature since 1960.

    The reason for the observed higher frequency of La Nina events is the increase of cloud albedo. We are moving toward a major cooling period, which is totally outside of the ability of modern climate models to simulate, since they are based on a fundamentally flawed climate theory.

    I think it will be the onset of a cooler climate over the next 50 years that will eventually force society to wake up to the fact that CO2 has never been a driver of Earth’s climate, and that the entire World has been fooled for decades to accept a radicicolous 19th-Century hypothesis based on conjectures and only supported by a corrupt academic & political Elite!

  15. Gamecock says:

    ‘I will soon have a blog article here about the implications of this new SSR dataset for the evolution of global surface temperature since 1960.’

    I look forward to your report.

    However, any ‘global surface temperature’ data before 1979 will be considered junk.

  16. Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. says:

    The new Surface Solar Radiation data set by Yuan et al. (2021) suggests that the global temperature record prior to 1980 has been severely manipulated to make it fit a preconceived CO2-climate narrative…

  17. Ned is likely to be right about cloud cover. The Hunga Tonga volcanic action sent lots of fine particles into the air which circled the globe. Some in Australia have related the rain and floods in Queensland to the Hunga Tonga volcano and to the clouds formed over the east of the dividing range. At the same time it appears that the atmospheric pressure at Darwin has been low giving rise to positive SOI (an indication of La Nina). I do not think conditions in the Atlantic have anything to do with El Nino and La NIna conditions which are associated with the Pacific.

  18. oldbrew says:

    Where we are now…

    It seems that the 11-year solar cycle modulates the CP ENSO and, in particular, is associated with more CP El Niño events during the active phase of the cycle and more La Niña events when the solar cycle undergoes a downturn. [bold added]

    Solar influences show up in sea level rise, El Niño events and oceanic climatic cycles 


    [published Dec. 2021]

    Something weird is up with La Nina
    Not really. It’s not rocket science.

  19. tallbloke says:

    I can’t fid them in the media folder at the moment, but I made a set of plots showing clearly that you get 3 ‘el nino’ ENSO spikes in each solar cycle. That holds true all the way from 1876 to now. The big ones tend to occur soon after solar minimum. Occasionally that pattern is disrupted by a big volcano causing a dust and SO2 veil around the planet, which precipitates its own ENSO spike, diminishing the amount of energy left in the Pacific Warm Pool. See for example El Chichon in 1982. The usual big ENSO event following solar minimum was muted in 1987 as a result.

  20. Gamecock says:

    ‘The new Surface Solar Radiation data set by Yuan et al. (2021) suggests that the global temperature record prior to 1980 has been severely manipulated to make it fit a preconceived CO2-climate narrative…’

    Interesting. Thanks.

    My concern is that before the satellite era, Man’s ability to measure temperatures on earth were extremely limited. Vast areas had no measurements at all. Insufficient data to support the idea that we know Global Mean Temperature with any precision.

    Even today, our facilities are inadequate. Satellite temperature measurement doesn’t work from 60S down to the pole, and 60N up to the pole. There are a hundred land based weather stations on Antarctica. Each one represents 55,000 square miles, on average. Depending on their spacing, their effective coverage area may be far greater. The southern ocean has virtually no measurement at all.

    Instrumentation in the Arctic Sea is far more limited than at the southern pole.

    Government agencies report GMT anomalies down to two decimal places. False precision fallacy. Decimal place numbers should be truncated; we simply don’t know to that precision. And that is WITH satellite measurement. Before then, we know nothing, except for “it was warmer,” or “it was colder.” Using math/numbers on it is, again, false precision.

  21. oldbrew says:

    TEN THINGS
    E V E R Y O N E S H O U L D K N O W
    ABOUT CLIMATE MODELS
    Andrew Montford
    With a foreword by Steve Baker MP
    The Global Warming Policy Foundation

    Click to access Montford-Climate-Models-1.pdf

    Steve Baker MP (MSc in computer science) writes:
    Andrew Montford’s paper is therefore timely. It sets out, in an accessible way, some of the issues that afflict climate modelling, giving the public a sense of where we might be going wrong. It is hard to read it without concluding we need to think again, with exceptional care, before accepting computer simulations – of climate, or of anything else – as a guide to good policy.

  22. Gamecock says:

    Correct, oldbrew. Climate science is the pretend science. The idea that we know enough about weather over the entire globe to model it into the future is ridiculous. We have known unknowns, and likely unknown unknowns. Global circulation models are for entertainment purposes only.

  23. oldbrew says:

    I suspect Steve Baker has stronger views about the models than his foreword might suggest.

    ‘where we might be going wrong’ — we?

  24. oldbrew says:

    MAY 31, 2022
    Discovery of a tripole winter precipitation change pattern around the Tibetan Plateau in the late 1990s
    by Chinese Academy of Sciences

    Further dynamical diagnosis and numerical experiment results show that tropical Pacific SST changes can induce strengthened Walker circulation over the Pacific, causing ascending motion anomalies over the Indo-Pacific region.

    https://phys.org/news/2022-05-discovery-tripole-winter-precipitation-pattern.html
    – – –
    Just from the headline, this change is about the time of the switch to more La Niñas.

    From our blog post:
    Scientists are noticing that in the past 25 years the world seems to be getting more La Ninas than it used to and that is just the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say should be happening with human-caused climate change.

    2022 minus 25 = 1997…

    1997–98 El Niño event

    The 1997–1998 El Niño was regarded as one of the most powerful El Niño–Southern Oscillation events in recorded history…
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997%E2%80%9398_El_Ni%C3%B1o_event

  25. Phil Salmon says:

    Good for the anchovies!

  26. oldbrew says:

    Are Earth’s natural climatic patterns changing? An uncharacteristic La Nina may be a sign
    Tuesday 14 June 2022

    The ongoing La Nina may become the longest on record

    https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/are-earth-s-natural-climatic-patterns-changing-an-uncharacteristic-la-nina-may-be-a-sign-83293
    – – –
    Talking up human influences 🙄 — but records don’t go back very far?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s