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

Florida must wait/more comments on ENSO

Expand Messages
  • pawnfart
    No TS right away for the E. GOM because this CME at best just caused an E Pac storm and as a result increased shear near Jamaca even as the SOI is no longer
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 8, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      No TS right away for the E. GOM because this CME at best just caused
      an E Pac storm and as a result increased shear near Jamaca even as
      the SOI is no longer negitive:

      http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/MIATCPEP2.html

      Go here to see the second storm, Boris.

      http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/e_pacific/2002/index.html

      Note its monsoonal features and course north of the first E. Pac
      storm. I think of this like back EMF, for you EEs out there.

      ++++++++++


      http://psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov:8080/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html

      Take a look please at 3/4/97 anomaly chart compared and contrasted
      with the new one out for 6/7. It is worth the time. This is only a
      few months before a 500 year El Nino. Ocean temperatures in general
      were colder then. Why? Because the flaring cycle had just bottomed
      out and Mt. Pinatubo had released huge SOx emissions into the air,
      dropping phase change temperatures of cirrus clouds. Then the flaring
      was increasing with the solar cycle and the SOx was washing out of
      the air, and actually became part of the sulfur reducing ocean
      biosphere.

      The flaring distributed cirrus clouds without respect to ocean
      currents, and some of this resulted in storms near equatorial
      Americas, and Gaia feedback electrical insulation, and fingers of
      warm anomalies, within those few months, were extending from the
      equatorial American coasts.

      So how did the Southern Oceans respond by SSTs (Sea Surface Temps)
      then? Around the Southern Ocean, with a colder ocean the induction
      against cirrus, as the circumpolar moves west to east, was not as
      good--so cirrus heated up the Southern Ocean and SSTs became,
      counterintuitively, warm anomaly. Furthermore, it was cold in the
      oceans in general so that no state sized glaciers were braking off--
      also resulting in warm anomalies. And the sun was starting to kick it
      with the flaring and biological material from SOx added to the ocean
      was responding as well.

      Compare to the anomalies today--they are cold anomaly and state sized
      bergs have been breaking off. What gives? Warmer oceans. That means,
      electrically, induction will be strong and because this particular
      current, the circumpolar, is west to east, it means cold anomalies.
      It has been cold anomaly there for MONTHS. There, some of the
      strongest sustained winds on earth occur, making it an almost
      certainty that with these warm oceans the Southern Ocean will
      continue to have cold surface ocean temps. These cold SSTs move
      around the gyre in the Southern Pacific and bring a much greater
      probability of La Nina. Indeed, historically FOUR MONTHS before El
      Nino the Southern Ocean is warm anomaly.

      The additional electrical feature that I am going to compare and
      contrast between now and 3/4/97 is also not intuitive. That is,
      during the spring of 1997 when rains did visit the equatorial
      American Pacific shoreline and Gaia feedback those fingers of warm
      anomalies you see, there was a triangle of cold SSTs mid-Pacific.
      What is interesting about that? Well, when those cold anomalies moved
      in the normal gyre movements (La Nada) soon those cold anomalies
      where in the W. Pac. And they have a very peculiar impact
      electrically. When they move over the gyres where the Coriolis turn
      brings a directional change from east to west (enhancement) to west
      to east (cirrus decreases), cold oceans bring WARM SSTS downflow!
      Hence, as the gyre moved these cold anomalies, probably traced back
      to low flaring and Mt Pinatubo (and/or other cyclic aspects), to the
      W. Pacific they became makers of downflow warm anomalies--right into
      the path of a budding potential El Nino. When you combined this with
      what was occurring in the Southern Oceans, as well as the biosphere
      along the equatrial coast--along, I might add, with the November 1997
      diversion of the Yangtze, which would have further cooled the W. Pac,
      ya got the bomb!

      In marked contrast, today we have a very warm ocean in general. We
      have a Southern Ocean, in contrast, with predictibly cold anomaly
      SSTs and melting glacial ice there. This is constantly churning cold
      anomalies into the gyres to be moved to the Eastern tropical Pacific.
      The Yangtze is starting to recover and SSTs in the W. Pac are VERY
      warm. That brings stronger induction patterns gyred around in the
      Pacific, west to east, against cirrus, and further brings cold
      anomalies. Further, while there are these short periods of warm
      anomalies and rain associated with the flaring we have had, 2003 is
      well to the down slope of flaring and Gaia has a tendency to rain
      itself out.

      In short, there is NO chance of El Nino this winter. None.
    • fredwx
      From the Autralian Meteorolgy site: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#current They are saying ... if we only consider the SOI and search the data base for
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 9, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        From the Autralian Meteorolgy site:
        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#current

        They are saying ..."if we only consider the SOI and search the data
        base for years with similar trends to the current year, 7 of the best
        10 matches were El Niño years and 3 weren't.".....

        I wonder which 3 years they are talking about? It would be
        interesting to compare them to the current situation.




        --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
        > No TS right away for the E. GOM because this CME at best just
        caused
        > an E Pac storm and as a result increased shear near Jamaca even as
        > the SOI is no longer negitive:
        >
        > http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/MIATCPEP2.html
        >
        > Go here to see the second storm, Boris.
        >
        > http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/e_pacific/2002/index.html
        >
        > Note its monsoonal features and course north of the first E. Pac
        > storm. I think of this like back EMF, for you EEs out there.
        >
        > ++++++++++
        >
        >
        > http://psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov:8080/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
        >
        > Take a look please at 3/4/97 anomaly chart compared and contrasted
        > with the new one out for 6/7. It is worth the time. This is only a
        > few months before a 500 year El Nino. Ocean temperatures in general
        > were colder then. Why? Because the flaring cycle had just bottomed
        > out and Mt. Pinatubo had released huge SOx emissions into the air,
        > dropping phase change temperatures of cirrus clouds. Then the
        flaring
        > was increasing with the solar cycle and the SOx was washing out of
        > the air, and actually became part of the sulfur reducing ocean
        > biosphere.
        >
        > The flaring distributed cirrus clouds without respect to ocean
        > currents, and some of this resulted in storms near equatorial
        > Americas, and Gaia feedback electrical insulation, and fingers of
        > warm anomalies, within those few months, were extending from the
        > equatorial American coasts.
        >
        > So how did the Southern Oceans respond by SSTs (Sea Surface Temps)
        > then? Around the Southern Ocean, with a colder ocean the induction
        > against cirrus, as the circumpolar moves west to east, was not as
        > good--so cirrus heated up the Southern Ocean and SSTs became,
        > counterintuitively, warm anomaly. Furthermore, it was cold in the
        > oceans in general so that no state sized glaciers were braking off--
        > also resulting in warm anomalies. And the sun was starting to kick
        it
        > with the flaring and biological material from SOx added to the
        ocean
        > was responding as well.
        >
        > Compare to the anomalies today--they are cold anomaly and state
        sized
        > bergs have been breaking off. What gives? Warmer oceans. That
        means,
        > electrically, induction will be strong and because this particular
        > current, the circumpolar, is west to east, it means cold anomalies.
        > It has been cold anomaly there for MONTHS. There, some of the
        > strongest sustained winds on earth occur, making it an almost
        > certainty that with these warm oceans the Southern Ocean will
        > continue to have cold surface ocean temps. These cold SSTs move
        > around the gyre in the Southern Pacific and bring a much greater
        > probability of La Nina. Indeed, historically FOUR MONTHS before El
        > Nino the Southern Ocean is warm anomaly.
        >
        > The additional electrical feature that I am going to compare and
        > contrast between now and 3/4/97 is also not intuitive. That is,
        > during the spring of 1997 when rains did visit the equatorial
        > American Pacific shoreline and Gaia feedback those fingers of warm
        > anomalies you see, there was a triangle of cold SSTs mid-Pacific.
        > What is interesting about that? Well, when those cold anomalies
        moved
        > in the normal gyre movements (La Nada) soon those cold anomalies
        > where in the W. Pac. And they have a very peculiar impact
        > electrically. When they move over the gyres where the Coriolis turn
        > brings a directional change from east to west (enhancement) to west
        > to east (cirrus decreases), cold oceans bring WARM SSTS downflow!
        > Hence, as the gyre moved these cold anomalies, probably traced back
        > to low flaring and Mt Pinatubo (and/or other cyclic aspects), to
        the
        > W. Pacific they became makers of downflow warm anomalies--right
        into
        > the path of a budding potential El Nino. When you combined this
        with
        > what was occurring in the Southern Oceans, as well as the biosphere
        > along the equatrial coast--along, I might add, with the November
        1997
        > diversion of the Yangtze, which would have further cooled the W.
        Pac,
        > ya got the bomb!
        >
        > In marked contrast, today we have a very warm ocean in general. We
        > have a Southern Ocean, in contrast, with predictibly cold anomaly
        > SSTs and melting glacial ice there. This is constantly churning
        cold
        > anomalies into the gyres to be moved to the Eastern tropical
        Pacific.
        > The Yangtze is starting to recover and SSTs in the W. Pac are VERY
        > warm. That brings stronger induction patterns gyred around in the
        > Pacific, west to east, against cirrus, and further brings cold
        > anomalies. Further, while there are these short periods of warm
        > anomalies and rain associated with the flaring we have had, 2003 is
        > well to the down slope of flaring and Gaia has a tendency to rain
        > itself out.
        >
        > In short, there is NO chance of El Nino this winter. None.
      • pawnfart
        Yes but the SST anomalies from the sats only starts mid 96. There is only one ENSO in that. ... best
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 9, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes but the SST anomalies from the sats only starts mid 96. There is
          only one ENSO in that.


          --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., fredwx <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > From the Autralian Meteorolgy site:
          > http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#current
          >
          > They are saying ..."if we only consider the SOI and search the data
          > base for years with similar trends to the current year, 7 of the
          best
          > 10 matches were El Niño years and 3 weren't.".....
          >
          > I wonder which 3 years they are talking about? It would be
          > interesting to compare them to the current situation.
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.