Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

ENSO poorly defined--NOAA calls it off season and predicts "weak" one--comments

Expand Messages
  • pawnfart
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisor y/ Based on the latest seasonally-averaged sea surface temperature (SST) data, a
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 11, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisor
      y/


      "Based on the latest seasonally-averaged sea surface temperature
      (SST) data, a Pacific basin warm episode (El Niño) has now developed.
      The three-month (April-May-June 2002) average SST anomaly for the
      Niño 3.4 region equaled the +0.5°C threshold value that NOAA uses to
      define El Niño. During June 2002 SST anomalies increased to greater
      than +1°C throughout the equatorial Pacific between 170°E and 105°W
      (Fig. 1) and subsurface temperature anomalies increased throughout
      the central and east-central Pacific (Fig. 2)."


      The standard climatological definition of an El Nino has been out
      there for years and it doesn't include region "1" and "2". However, I
      am not sure what meaning there is to the average if it occurs at this
      time of year--as opposed to in the winter.

      I work with words for a living. If words have no meaning, than they
      don't work. I don't get paid, my clients hate me. Life sucks. That's
      why you can't codify law and be done with it--it evolves.

      NOAA can call this a "weak" El Nino by their off season definition,
      but in the context of warming oceans overall and a failure to
      understand the EMF and biological implications, this is going to be a
      great source of confusion and certainly will not contain forecast
      intellegence. Because the defining conditions used by NOAA are
      largely meaningless and less understood. Currently SOI is positive.
      Regions "1" and "2" are cold anomaly. Biologically the S. American
      coast has already seen a rain feedback to its hydrology. Flaring/CMEs
      are on the 11 year downslope.

      But, let's look mechanism and their poor definition. When fair
      weather voltages positive move toward the equatorial E. Pacific, and
      waters are relatively cold, those protons won't be absorbed by the
      oceans as well. Further, if there is a wind or a counter wind, and
      current moving west to east--per Fleming's rule and the earth's EMF,
      along with regionally organized EMF -- there will be induction
      against electrons to the surface, or put another way, more positive
      ions should be exposed. As the currents then move NW along Central
      America and then along the Southern border of Mexico along the
      Pacific Coast, there will further be induction FOR electrons. This is
      furthered by monsoonal winds falling down from the mountains, which
      coriolis will right turn, again, moving from east to west. In short,
      you have a dry stripe and a wet one, cirrus or high cloud depleted
      and cirrus enhanced--the ultimate Doran wave. That Doran wave makes
      tropical storms--and why there is a correlation between TS activity
      and what we more commonly think of as El Nino--not what a technical
      "weak" one is.

      If you have questions about direction of current and cirrus cloud
      behavior, I suggest starting with this paper:

      The recent MIT's Prof. R. S. Lindzen et al AMS article: "Does the
      Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?" is available online. Lindzen's
      paper on iris is available at
      http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-
      0477&volume=082&issue=03&page=0417 for the abstract, and the link
      "print version" leads to a PDF of the full article.

      Prof. Lindzen, who had been meeting with President Bush every week,
      testified in front of Congress last fall about his so called "iris",
      which was published by AMS this spring. Conservatives quickly renamed
      his paper on iris the "heat vent". The logic was that this heat vent
      opened up and let all the hot air out from burning of fossil fuels.
      Even as the correlative data is used in a model by Lindzen that uses
      a negative feedback he describes to reduce overall predicted warming,
      Lindzen's paper is essentially ABOUT a correlative pattern, with HIM
      speculating about causation. I think it is fair to comment that his
      data is selective, his speculation false and misleading, and his data
      supports a theory that ocean currents induct electrical currents that
      enhance cirrus formation and as a corollary methanogens and
      biological cirrus enhancement is a positive feedback. Follow up
      papers by Fu, Hartmann, Wielicki have all failed to look at EMFs (or
      the biosphere's impact on EMFs) by questioning the results of the
      iris data with direction of current and induction principles. These
      follow up papers are written by scientists with outstanding
      atmospheric science credentials, but in reviewing all of their public
      CVs, none of them have EMF or biology educations or trainings. So
      talking to them about DNA of Archae would be like arguing DNA
      evidence to the OJ jury.

      Consider this link to an abstract about measurable induction by ocean
      currents:

      http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/1992/dbs9201.html

      The movement of gyres is a source of even strong electrical current
      induction when the additional EMFs of solar CME, flaring and storm
      strikes are considered by region. These EMFs enhances or not cirrus
      formation and a GHG effect Lindzen's paper references on cirrus. The
      EMFs follow rules of impedance (Z) that follow the most conductive or
      warm waters in the oceans.

      If this mechanism is NOT fully working it is going to take energy
      from surface waters as they move toward the mid Pacific and you may
      see some mid equatorial Pacific warming. But contrary to this NOT
      working, SSTs in the regions admittedly by DEFINITION that DON'T
      count ARE cold anomaly. What this is really saying is that the
      Pacific Ocean in general is warm, not that there is an "El Nino"
      pattern that leads to weather organizing itself in a meaningful
      predictable manner. Further, and perhaps more importantly, the NOAA
      models continue falsely to predict that this will evolve toward an El
      Nino. This is false and is false before their very eyes as indeed the
      cold anomalies in the regions "1" and "2" are set up for Doran waves
      that will send TS cooled SSTs mid Pacific. It is false largely
      because overall dams and climate have changed the pattern--in my view
      toward a Pacific Ocean which won't have "El Ninos" as recorded in
      Equadorian lake bed cores from 12,500 to 7,500 years ago BP when
      Milankovitch insOlation values were much warmer and glacial ice went
      from covering 1/3 of the earth to the present 10%. The main gyre
      issue is critical, because like it has occurred the last few years,
      if the oceans in general warm up, the induction patterns that favor
      cirrus will present warmer SSTs BUT going the other way, from west to
      east, they will counter intuitively COOL SSTs. So warmer oceans in
      general mean COOLER SSTs for currents moving against cirrus! During
      the last Milankovitch warm period--that ended El Nino!

      Finally, this is off season for such a call. We will have the unusual
      situation where the winter was "La Nina", the spring "El Nino", and
      the fall and winter "La Nina". I haven't seen the record keeping on
      this oscillation ever do that. Again, are the words used meaningful,
      especially in the context of new understandings of how clouds and IR
      and albedo balances work by EMFs and biological feedbacks?
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.