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

Re: Florida must wait/more comments on ENSO

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Jun 9, 2002
    • 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 2 of 4 , Jun 9, 2002
      • 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.