Cooling Planet: NASA Projects Deep La Niña Event, Peak Temperature Deviation Up To -3°C!

[Sunsettommy]

If the models are accurate, I'm curious how the temps would compare to previous La Nina events. Without that information I don't see how this means anything as far as global temperatures rising. Is there an argument that temps will never go down because of global warming?

You are missing the barn here, the postulated warm forcing of atmospheric CO2 remains unchanged, while there are more of it every year, should mean a slight increase in over all warm forcing effect.

But a small regional change of the Eastern Pacific EASILY overwhelms it, that causes pronounced cooling down the road. It has already cooled from the previous 2016 high, when a weak La-Nina showed up, creating a huge .5C drop in a SINGLE year!

It has been cooling over all since 2016, yet you hypocrites call it cherry-picking while you roll around in the mud over warmest monthly or daily events, screaming proof of global warming.

You hypocrites? Who do you think you’re talking to?

I notice you ignored all this over a single word, you must have nothing to answer me with after all.....

You are missing the barn here, the postulated warm forcing of atmospheric CO2 remains unchanged, while there are more of it every year, should mean a slight increase in over all warm forcing effect.

But a small regional change of the Eastern Pacific EASILY overwhelms it, that causes pronounced cooling down the road. It has already cooled from the previous 2016 high, when a weak La-Nina showed up, creating a huge .5C drop in a SINGLE year!

It has been cooling over all since 2016, yet you hypocrites call it cherry-picking while you roll around in the mud over warmest monthly or daily events, screaming proof of global warming.

A small region of the Pacific ocean having large swings in surface temperature causes big warming or big cooling swings in the atmosphere, while the bogeyman doesn't seem able to stop the large mood swings.

So you, ReainDays and Mamooth can't address another failure of the CO2 bogeyman, its ok, Halloween is over.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Thanks for NASA's weather guessimate ... God knows it takes an aerospace engineer to forecast weather ...

NOAA's most recent statement on La Niña ... October 2020 La Niña Update ... "La Niña’s reign continues in the tropical Pacific, with an approximately 85% chance of lasting through the winter. Forecasters currently think this La Niña will be on the stronger side." ... later in the article they describe "stronger side" by a greater than 1ºC difference ... not the 3ºC claimed by the National Enquirer article in the OP ...

We try to average out these El Nino/La Niña oscillations in climatology ... the OP seems confused about the difference ...

Ha ha ha, nice try fella, but they have already updated it to THIS:


November 2020 La Niña update: just us chickens
Author:
Emily Becker

November 12, 2020

Excerpt:

La Niña strengthened over October, with both the tropical Pacific Ocean and the atmosphere clearly reflecting La Niña conditions. Forecasters estimate at least a 95% chance La Niña will last through the winter, with a 65% chance of it hanging on through the spring.

The October sea surface temperature anomaly (departure from the long-term average) in the Niño 3.4 region of tropical Pacific was -1.3°C according to the ERSSTv5 dataset, substantially cooler than the La Niña threshold of -0.5°C. This is the eighth-strongest negative October value in the ERSSTv5 record, which dates back to 1950. I’ll talk more about feats of strength (vis-à-vis La Niña, that is) later.

LINK

=====

You were only 6 weeks out of date, but do admit the 3C is ambitiously low forecast. It is expected to reach the -1.5C level starting a month from now.

Thank you for withdrawing your bogus claim of 3ºC ... glad you found the the correct website to get your weather forecasts ... here where I live, we're expecting a 3ºC temperature increase over the next couple of hours ... whether or not CO2 ... it's called "dynamic meteorology" ... yes, weather changes all the time ... thank you for reminding us ...

I didn't make the 3C claim in the first place, did you not read that it was part of the HEADLINE, Pierre made.

Here are my two sarcastic statements from post one:

I thought CO2 was the warm forcing driver, causing the warming so many worry so much about, yet when a regional change in the Pacific Ocean occurs after being missing for years, easily overturns the overrated warm forcing power of CO2, is it because Jack Frost is a very cool guy?

and,

How does a regional Ocean phenomenon so easily overrun CO2, the super warmist bogeyman molecule?

Never once specifically supported the 3C claim the entire time.

It was about showing a how a regional change in the ocean can make profound changes to the weather patterns, creating a cooling weather pattern. A regional change effecting the planet, while global CO2 coverage seems quite small in comparison, gets pushed aside to watch a cooling trend show up.

The "correct" website links were in the article, which appears YOU never read after all, just like Mamooth didn't.

Maybe you should slow down..........

Sure .. I understand ... you typed that into your OP but you can't be held responsible for typing it into your OP ...

"In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth"

I'm not responsible for that claim, I just typed it in is all ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

You are full of shit since you have completely ignored WHY I made the thread starting post in the first place, brought it up once already in post 17, which you ignored, because you are too busy running off at the mouth!

I thought CO2 was the warm forcing driver, causing the warming so many worry so much about, yet when a regional change in the Pacific Ocean occurs after being missing for years, easily overturns the overrated warm forcing power of CO2, is it because Jack Frost is a very cool guy?

and,

How does a regional Ocean phenomenon so easily overrun CO2, the super warmist bogeyman molecule?

 

[Montrovant]

If the models are accurate, I'm curious how the temps would compare to previous La Nina events. Without that information I don't see how this means anything as far as global temperatures rising. Is there an argument that temps will never go down because of global warming?

You are missing the barn here, the postulated warm forcing of atmospheric CO2 remains unchanged, while there are more of it every year, should mean a slight increase in over all warm forcing effect.

But a small regional change of the Eastern Pacific EASILY overwhelms it, that causes pronounced cooling down the road. It has already cooled from the previous 2016 high, when a weak La-Nina showed up, creating a huge .5C drop in a SINGLE year!

It has been cooling over all since 2016, yet you hypocrites call it cherry-picking while you roll around in the mud over warmest monthly or daily events, screaming proof of global warming.

You hypocrites? Who do you think you’re talking to?

I notice you ignored all this over a single word, you must have nothing to answer me with after all.....

You are missing the barn here, the postulated warm forcing of atmospheric CO2 remains unchanged, while there are more of it every year, should mean a slight increase in over all warm forcing effect.

But a small regional change of the Eastern Pacific EASILY overwhelms it, that causes pronounced cooling down the road. It has already cooled from the previous 2016 high, when a weak La-Nina showed up, creating a huge .5C drop in a SINGLE year!

It has been cooling over all since 2016, yet you hypocrites call it cherry-picking while you roll around in the mud over warmest monthly or daily events, screaming proof of global warming.

A small region of the Pacific ocean having large swings in surface temperature causes big warming or big cooling swings in the atmosphere, while the bogeyman doesn't seem able to stop the large mood swings.

So you, ReainDays and Mamooth can't address another failure of the CO2 bogeyman, its ok, Halloween is over.

Again I will ask: is there an argument wherein global warming means no cooler periods will ever occur? Also, how does this projection about the current La Nina compare to previous occurrences? For example, if the projected temperature during this La Nina were still warmer than most or all of the previous La Ninas, how would that in any way argue against the idea that there is a warming trend on the planet?

This thread seems like a strawman in which you are trying to argue against an idea no one has brought up, i.e. that CO2 warming should prevent the cooling that occurs during La Nina.

 

[Sunsettommy]

If the models are accurate, I'm curious how the temps would compare to previous La Nina events. Without that information I don't see how this means anything as far as global temperatures rising. Is there an argument that temps will never go down because of global warming?

You are missing the barn here, the postulated warm forcing of atmospheric CO2 remains unchanged, while there are more of it every year, should mean a slight increase in over all warm forcing effect.

But a small regional change of the Eastern Pacific EASILY overwhelms it, that causes pronounced cooling down the road. It has already cooled from the previous 2016 high, when a weak La-Nina showed up, creating a huge .5C drop in a SINGLE year!

It has been cooling over all since 2016, yet you hypocrites call it cherry-picking while you roll around in the mud over warmest monthly or daily events, screaming proof of global warming.

You hypocrites? Who do you think you’re talking to?

I notice you ignored all this over a single word, you must have nothing to answer me with after all.....

You are missing the barn here, the postulated warm forcing of atmospheric CO2 remains unchanged, while there are more of it every year, should mean a slight increase in over all warm forcing effect.

But a small regional change of the Eastern Pacific EASILY overwhelms it, that causes pronounced cooling down the road. It has already cooled from the previous 2016 high, when a weak La-Nina showed up, creating a huge .5C drop in a SINGLE year!

It has been cooling over all since 2016, yet you hypocrites call it cherry-picking while you roll around in the mud over warmest monthly or daily events, screaming proof of global warming.

A small region of the Pacific ocean having large swings in surface temperature causes big warming or big cooling swings in the atmosphere, while the bogeyman doesn't seem able to stop the large mood swings.

So you, ReainDays and Mamooth can't address another failure of the CO2 bogeyman, its ok, Halloween is over.

Again I will ask: is there an argument wherein global warming means no cooler periods will ever occur? Also, how does this projection about the current La Nina compare to previous occurrences? For example, if the projected temperature during this La Nina were still warmer than most or all of the previous La Ninas, how would that in any way argue against the idea that there is a warming trend on the planet?

This thread seems like a strawman in which you are trying to argue against an idea no one has brought up, i.e. that CO2 warming should prevent the cooling that occurs during La Nina.

Do you know what a Red Herring is?

Red Herring Definition

Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue. In literature, this fallacy is often used in detective or suspense novels to mislead readers or characters, or to induce them to make false conclusions.

It is clear you can't read shit since here AGAIN my Sarcastic statements about CO2 (the bogeyman molecule) from post one:

I thought CO2 was the warm forcing driver, causing the warming so many worry so much about, yet when a regional change in the Pacific Ocean occurs after being missing for years, easily overturns the overrated warm forcing power of CO2, is it because Jack Frost is a very cool guy?

and,

How does a regional Ocean phenomenon so easily overrun CO2, the super warmist bogeyman molecule?

Warming and cooling phases since 1979 have always been based on Ocean changes, CO2 bogeyman doesn't make it happen at all.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

I thought CO2 was the warm forcing driver, causing the warming so many worry so much about, yet when a regional change in the Pacific Ocean occurs after being missing for years, easily overturns the overrated warm forcing power of CO2, is it because Jack Frost is a very cool guy?

No Tricks Zone

Cooling Planet: NASA Projects Deep La Niña Event, Peak Temperature Deviation Up To -3°C!

By P Gosselin on 14. November 2020

Excerpt:


Data from NASA point to a powerful Pacific La Nina event in the works, and so with it could bring a considerable drop in the mean global surface temperature in 2021.

According to the latest report issued by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), the La Niña conditions continue in the tropical Pacific: “International climate models suggest it is likely to continue at least through February 2021.”



Peak La Niña conditions expected in January, 2021. Chart source: BOM.



LINK

=====

How does a regional Ocean phenomenon so easily overrun CO2, the super warmist bogeyman molecule?

Has anybody blamed trump yet?

 

[Old Rocks]

If the models are accurate, I'm curious how the temps would compare to previous La Nina events. Without that information I don't see how this means anything as far as global temperatures rising. Is there an argument that temps will never go down because of global warming?

Easy enough to do. Here are the troposphere temps back to 1979. Note that the October temperature of 0.54 was higher than many medium El Nino events in spite of the fact that we are in a La Nina;

 

[Sunsettommy]

If the models are accurate, I'm curious how the temps would compare to previous La Nina events. Without that information I don't see how this means anything as far as global temperatures rising. Is there an argument that temps will never go down because of global warming?

Easy enough to do. Here are the troposphere temps back to 1979. Note that the October temperature of 0.54 was higher than many medium El Nino events in spite of the fact that we are in a La Nina;

View attachment 421008

The effect of La-Nina doesn't show up right away, it takes around 1-3 months.

October .54C is a lot lower than .88C of February 2016....., which means it is cooler now than in 2016.


Math is hard for leftists .....

 

[Sunsettommy]

Here is the current numbers from the NOAA, showing that La-Nina is just starting:

​ 0.6 0.7 2015 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.6 2016 2.5 2.2 1.7 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.3 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 2017 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 -0.1 -0.4 -0.7 -0.9 -1.0 2018 -0.9 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.8 2019 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 Year​ DJF​ JFM​ FMA​ MAM​ AMJ​ MJJ​ JJA​ JAS​ ASO​ SON​ OND​ NDJ​ 2020 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.9

​

 

[Old Rocks]

We have been in a La Nina since September, the effect should have already shown up. Here are the charts;

Strengthening La Niña likely to continue through start of 2021

La Niña conditions strengthening in Equatorial Pacific indicate greater likelihood of phase continuing through winter & spring.

www.kxan.com

Yet, today, the northern hemisphere is at +1.2 C warmer than normal, and the arctic is +5.3 warmer than normal. No matter how much you deny reality, there it is. We are in strong La Nina, as you pointed out, yet we are seeing a very warm year, and very warm temperatures right now, three months into the La Nina.

 

[Sunsettommy]

We have been in a La Nina since September, the effect should have already shown up. Here are the charts;

View attachment 421373

Strengthening La Niña likely to continue through start of 2021

La Niña conditions strengthening in Equatorial Pacific indicate greater likelihood of phase continuing through winter & spring.

www.kxan.com

Yet, today, the northern hemisphere is at +1.2 C warmer than normal, and the arctic is +5.3 warmer than normal. No matter how much you deny reality, there it is. We are in strong La Nina, as you pointed out, yet we are seeing a very warm year, and very warm temperatures right now, three months into the La Nina.

Oh my you can't read the chart showing the THREE MONTH running mean, that is the metric they use to determine the warm, neutral and cool phases.

Description: Warm (red) and cold (blue) periods based on a threshold of +/- 0.5oC for the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) [3 month running mean of ERSST.v5 SST anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region (5oN-5oS, 120o-170oW)], based on centered 30-year base periods updated every 5 years.

LINK

It is right there in post 28, where it shows that as of October 31, it was at -0,9 which is still neutral.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Right on time, the big drop in temperature showed up in the second month after La-Nina came on. Cooling for three months in a row....

Recall back in post 27:

The effect of La-Nina doesn't show up right away, it takes around 1-3 months.

LINK

=======

Once again, when a La Nina build up, it starts cooling down around 2-3 months later.... the drop is significant .26C in a single month.

The cooling actually started a month earlier but it is too small to count it a cooling based on the La-Nina effect.

Dam you CO2 for not stopping the cooling down!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Right on time, the big drop in temperature showed up in the second month after La-Nina came on. Cooling for three months in a row....

Recall back in post 27:

The effect of La-Nina doesn't show up right away, it takes around 1-3 months.

View attachment 437051

LINK

=======

Once again, when a La Nina build up, it starts cooling down around 2-3 months later.... the drop is significant .26C in a single month.

The cooling actually started a month earlier but it is too small to count it a cooling based on the La-Nina effect.

Dam you CO2 for not stopping the cooling down!

But when you add in the additional warming at the Earth's core...

 

[westwall]

Right on time, the big drop in temperature showed up in the second month after La-Nina came on. Cooling for three months in a row....

Recall back in post 27:

The effect of La-Nina doesn't show up right away, it takes around 1-3 months.

View attachment 437051

LINK

=======

Once again, when a La Nina build up, it starts cooling down around 2-3 months later.... the drop is significant .26C in a single month.

The cooling actually started a month earlier but it is too small to count it a cooling based on the La-Nina effect.

Dam you CO2 for not stopping the cooling down!

But when you add in the additional warming at the Earth's core...

And don't forget the magical heat hidden away in the deep ocean!

 

[whitehall]

It brings up an interesting question. Since the media and the scientific community and the left wing political activists have so much invested in the concept of man made global warming, would they keep global cooling a secret until we were ice skating in July? It's a bit of an exaggeration but we know that the "scientists" will fudge data to keep the funding and the wind and solar industry will pressure the liberal media to keep up the facade.

 

[westwall]

It brings up an interesting question. Since the media and the scientific community and the left wing political activists have so much invested in the concept of man made global warming, would they keep global cooling a secret until we were ice skating in July? It's a bit of an exaggeration but we know that the "scientists" will fudge data to keep the funding and the wind and solar industry will pressure the liberal media to keep up the facade.

Yes, they have managed to convince people that down is up.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It brings up an interesting question. Since the media and the scientific community and the left wing political activists have so much invested in the concept of man made global warming, would they keep global cooling a secret until we were ice skating in July? It's a bit of an exaggeration but we know that the "scientists" will fudge data to keep the funding and the wind and solar industry will pressure the liberal media to keep up the facade.

The media has a big habit talking about warming events, while ignoring cooling events.

Right now it has been cooling over all since 2016, but they ignore that reality continue to scream about 2nd warmest month on record, hottest year on record or what ever crap they want their readers to focus on.

From 2016:

12 month mean:

Media continually present a one sided report.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Thanks for NASA's weather guessimate ... God knows it takes an aerospace engineer to forecast weather ...

NOAA's most recent statement on La Niña ... October 2020 La Niña Update ... "La Niña’s reign continues in the tropical Pacific, with an approximately 85% chance of lasting through the winter. Forecasters currently think this La Niña will be on the stronger side." ... later in the article they describe "stronger side" by a greater than 1ºC difference ... not the 3ºC claimed by the National Enquirer article in the OP ...

We try to average out these El Nino/La Niña oscillations in climatology ... the OP seems confused about the difference ...

Ha ha ha, nice try fella, but they have already updated it to THIS:


November 2020 La Niña update: just us chickens
Author:
Emily Becker

November 12, 2020

Excerpt:

La Niña strengthened over October, with both the tropical Pacific Ocean and the atmosphere clearly reflecting La Niña conditions. Forecasters estimate at least a 95% chance La Niña will last through the winter, with a 65% chance of it hanging on through the spring.

The October sea surface temperature anomaly (departure from the long-term average) in the Niño 3.4 region of tropical Pacific was -1.3°C according to the ERSSTv5 dataset, substantially cooler than the La Niña threshold of -0.5°C. This is the eighth-strongest negative October value in the ERSSTv5 record, which dates back to 1950. I’ll talk more about feats of strength (vis-à-vis La Niña, that is) later.

LINK

=====

You were only 6 weeks out of date, but do admit the 3C is ambitiously low forecast. It is expected to reach the -1.5C level starting a month from now.

Thank you for withdrawing your bogus claim of 3ºC ... glad you found the the correct website to get your weather forecasts ... here where I live, we're expecting a 3ºC temperature increase over the next couple of hours ... whether or not CO2 ... it's called "dynamic meteorology" ... yes, weather changes all the time ... thank you for reminding us ...

I didn't make the 3C claim in the first place, did you not read that it was part of the HEADLINE, Pierre made.

Here are my two sarcastic statements from post one:

I thought CO2 was the warm forcing driver, causing the warming so many worry so much about, yet when a regional change in the Pacific Ocean occurs after being missing for years, easily overturns the overrated warm forcing power of CO2, is it because Jack Frost is a very cool guy?

and,

How does a regional Ocean phenomenon so easily overrun CO2, the super warmist bogeyman molecule?

Never once specifically supported the 3C claim the entire time.

It was about showing a how a regional change in the ocean can make profound changes to the weather patterns, creating a cooling weather pattern. A regional change effecting the planet, while global CO2 coverage seems quite small in comparison, gets pushed aside to watch a cooling trend show up.

The "correct" website links were in the article, which appears YOU never read after all, just like Mamooth didn't.

Maybe you should slow down..........

Sure .. I understand ... you typed that into your OP but you can't be held responsible for typing it into your OP ...

"In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth"

I'm not responsible for that claim, I just typed it in is all ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

I am then held responsible for Pierre writing up that headline, and THIS forum posting requests wanting us to post the true headline of articles.

I posted Pierre's headline, that is obvious of which you have trouble admitting, you should stop your delusion on this.

Neither have you or Mamooth quoted me supporting the -3C deviation.......

You have a problem here, not me.

Snicker.

 

[mamooth]

Neither have you or Mamooth quoted me supporting the -3C deviation.......

You mean aside from you making it your thread title, indicating your enthusiastic endorsement.

You screwed up. Learn from it and move on.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Neither have you or Mamooth quoted me supporting the -3C deviation.......

You mean aside from you making it your thread title, indicating your enthusiastic endorsement.

You screwed up. Learn from it and move on.

That is the proper way to post copyrighted material, but you are too stupid to understand that.

Then you can't quote me after all.

I accept your surrender, please lock the door on your way out.

 

[mamooth]

That is the proper way to post copyrighted material, but you are too stupid to understand that.

No, there's no guideline of any sort on any board stating or implying "You must use the referenced article title as your thread title!". You just made that up.

When in a stupid hole, stop digging. You're way down in a stupid hole now.