Back-to-back La Ninas cooled globe and influenced extreme weather in 2011

Jul 11, 2012
The lead character of the 2011 climate story was a double dip La Niña, which chilled the Pacific at the start and end of the year. Many of the 2011 seasonal climate patterns around the world were consistent with common side effects of La Niña. Credit: NOAA Climate Portal

(Phys.org) -- Worldwide, 2011 was the coolest year on record since 2008, yet temperatures remained above the 30 year average, according to the 2011 State of the Climate report released online today by NOAA. The peer-reviewed report, issued in coordination with the American Meteorological Society (AMS), was compiled by 378 scientists from 48 countries around the world. It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments on land, sea, ice and sky.

“2011 will be remembered as a year of extreme events, both in the United States and around the world,” said Deputy NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D. “Every weather event that happens now takes place in the context of a changing global environment. This annual report provides scientists and citizens alike with an analysis of what has happened so we can all prepare for what is to come.”

Two back-to-back La Niñas, each characterized by cooler-than-average water temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific, affected regional climates and influenced many of the world’s significant throughout the year. These included historic droughts in East Africa, the southern United States and northern Mexico. La Niña conditions contributed to an above-average tropical cyclone season in the North Atlantic hurricane basin and a below-average season in the Eastern North Pacific. It was also associated with the wettest two-year period (2010–2011) on record in Australia, which was particularly remarkable as the wet conditions followed a decade-long dry spell.

The Arctic continued to show more rapid changes than the rest of the planet. Sea ice shrank to its second smallest “summer minimum” extent on record during 2011, as older ice (four to five years old) reached a new record minimum at more than 80 percent below average. Overall, glaciers around the world continued to lose mass. Loss from Canadian Arctic glaciers and ice caps were the greatest since measurements began in 2002.

The report used 43 climate indicators to track and identify changes and overall trends to the system. These indicators include greenhouse gas concentrations, temperature of the lower and upper atmosphere, cloud cover, sea surface temperature, sea level rise, ocean salinity, sea ice extent and snow cover. Each indicator includes thousands of measurements from multiple independent datasets.

Highlights:

Warm temperature trends continue: Four independent datasets show 2011 among the 15 warmest since records began in the late 19th century, with annually-averaged temperatures above the 1981–2010 average, but coolest on record since 2008. The Arctic continued to warm at about twice the rate compared with lower latitudes. On the opposite pole, the South Pole station recorded its all-time highest temperature of 9.9°F on December 25, breaking the previous record by more than 2 degrees.

Greenhouse gases climb: Major greenhouse gas concentrations, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, continued to rise. Carbon dioxide steadily increased in 2011 and the yearly global average exceeded 390 parts per million (ppm) for the first time since instrumental records began. This represents an increase of 2.10 ppm compared with the previous year. There is no evidence that natural emissions of methane in the Arctic have increased significantly during the last decade.

Arctic sea ice extent decreases: Arctic extent was below average for all of 2011 and has been since June 2001, a span of 127 consecutive months through December 2011. Both the maximum ice extent (5.65 million square miles, March 7) and minimum extent (1.67 million square miles, September 9) were the second smallest of the satellite era.

Ozone levels in Arctic drop: In the upper atmosphere, temperatures in the tropical stratosphere were higher than average while temperatures in the polar stratosphere were lower than average during the early 2011 winter months. This led to the lowest ozone concentrations in the lower Arctic stratosphere since records began in 1979 with more than 80 percent of the ozone between 11 and 12 miles altitude destroyed by late March, increasing UV radiation levels at the surface.

Sea surface temperature & ocean heat content rise: Even with La Niña conditions occurring during most of the year, the 2011 global sea surface was among the 12 highest years on record. Ocean heat content, measured from the surface to 2,300 feet deep, continued to rise since records began in 1993 and was record high.

Ocean salinity trends continue: Continuing a trend that began in 2004 and similar to 2010, oceans were saltier than average in areas of high evaporation, including the western and central tropical Pacific, and fresher than average in areas of high precipitation, including the eastern tropical South Pacific, suggesting that precipitation is increasing in already rainy areas and evaporation is intensifying in drier locations.

La Niña chilled the eastern tropical Pacific in 2011, but ocean heat content nearly everywhere else was above the long-term average. Maps and trend graphs of 8 additional are available from climate.gov. Credit: NOAA Climate Portal

The report also provides details on a number of extreme events experienced all over the globe, including the worst flooding in Thailand in almost 70 years, drought and deadly tornado outbreaks in the United States, devastating flooding in Brazil and the worst summer heat wave in central and southern Europe since 2003.

The 2011 State of the is peer-reviewed and published annually as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The report is part of a suite of climate services NOAA provides government, business and community leaders so they can make informed decisions. It was edited by Jessica Blunden, Ph.D., and Deke Arndt of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. The full report can be viewed online. The report highlights are available online.

Additionally, for the first time a complementary article has been published by AMS today examining the linkages between climate change and extreme events of 2011. The paper looks at six global extreme weather and climate events from last year.

Findings:

• Determining the causes of extreme events remains difficult. While scientists cannot trace specific events to climate change with absolute certainty, new and continued research help scientists understand how the probability of extreme events change in response to global warming.

• La Niña-related heat waves, like that experienced in Texas in 2011, are now 20 times more likely to occur during La Niña years today than La Niña years fifty years ago.

• The UK experienced a very warm November 2011 and a very cold December 2010. In analyzing these two very different events, UK scientists uncovered interesting changes in the odds. Cold Decembers are now half as likely to occur now versus fifty years ago, whereas warm Novembers are now 62 times more likely.

• Climate change cannot be shown to have played any role in the 2011 floods on the Chao Phraya River that flooded Bangkok, Thailand. Although the flooding was unprecedented, the amount of rain that fell in the river “catchment” area was not very unusual. Other factors, such as changes in reservoir policies and increased construction on the flood plain, were found most relevant in setting the scale of the disaster.

The paper, Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective, was produced by NOAA and UK Met Offices scientists as well as numerous colleagues around the world. It was edited by Thomas Peterson, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center; Peter Stott, UK Met Office-Hadley Center; and Stephanie Herring, NOAA’s Office of Program Planning and Integration. The study can be viewed online.

Explore further: Massive debris pile reveals risk of huge tsunamis in Hawaii

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

NOAA: Global temperature ties for warmest on record

Oct 18, 2010

The first nine months of 2010 tied with the same period in 1998 for the warmest combined land and ocean surface temperature on record. The global average land surface temperature for January-September was ...

Recommended for you

NASA image: Fires in the Egypt River Delta

1 hour ago

This NASA satellite image is of the Egyptian River Delta. Actively burning areas, detected by MODIS's thermal bands, are outlined in red. Each hot spot, which appears as a red mark, is an area where the thermal ...

Terra Satellite sees Tropical Storm Ana over Hawaii

1 hour ago

Tropical Storm Ana made a slow track west of the Hawaiian islands over the last couple of days, and by Oct. 20 was moving westward away from the main Hawaiian islands and heading toward the northwest Hawaiian ...

Asbestos likely more widespread than previously thought

8 hours ago

Naturally occurring asbestos minerals may be more widespread than previously thought, with newly discovered sources now identified within the Las Vegas metropolitan area. The asbestos-rich areas are in locations not previously ...

User comments : 44

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Howhot
2 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2012
When extremes heat meets extreme cold, it makes for the release of significant energy. Welcome to the new normal.

http://www.youtub...rS2L6KcE

ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 11, 2012
"Every weather event that happens now takes place in the context of a changing global environment. "
When has it not?

The thing constant about the climate of the earth is change. 12,000 years ago half of North America was covered in glaciers. The melting glaciers left a big pile of dirt just off the coast of MA which helped create a productive fishery.

"Determining the causes of extreme events remains difficult. "
But AGWites KNOW the cause is manmade CO2.
rubberman
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 11, 2012
"Every weather event that happens now takes place in the context of a changing global environment. "
When has it not?

The thing constant about the climate of the earth is change. 12,000 years ago half of North America was covered in glaciers. The melting glaciers left a big pile of dirt just off the coast of MA which helped create a productive fishery.

"Determining the causes of extreme events remains difficult. "
But AGWites KNOW the cause is manmade CO2.


It's nice to see you finally coming around.
freethinking
3.4 / 5 (15) Jul 11, 2012
Tree rings don't lie

http://www.dailym...age.html

All you deniers, THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED, no more need verify that the globe is warming. Just give all your money to Al Gore so he can save us by buying more jets, cars and mansions. The more he and his global warming priests have and consume, the safer the rest of us humans who should be living in grass huts will be.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (12) Jul 11, 2012
@Free - Physorg ran the article you linked a few days ago. It's pretty interesting (though not unexpected)that we would be witnessing warming over the last 150 years if orbital parameters initiated a cooling trend 2000 years ago that should still be happening.This is actually not new as there are several papers supporting the notion that the earth should be cooling right now.

Who's Al Gore?
freethinking
3.1 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2012
Al Gore, either a AGW con-artist who doesn't believe in AGW (which explains why he owns and uses private jets, owns several beach front energy hog mansions, drives monster cars, etc) or a hypocrite, whom AGW believers extol as their high priest.

His movie, An inconvient truth, which has been proven to be false, yet is still AGW believers gospel.

He was given he nobel peace prize for his efforts at getting rich on AGW.

He was also a failed presidential candiate, awful vice president.

Howhot
1.7 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2012
I guess freethinging doesn't like al-gore. Too bad, I though Al was a superb VP, and has been excellent in rallying efforts to confront the causes of global warming. Namely burning fossil fuels. To the denier crowd, Al-Gore spooks them more than a fox in a hen-house, and they will say any BS to try to discredit him. Unfortunately for the deniers, Al speaks to truth, which is why I respect him and trust him over your Bull.

rubberman
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 11, 2012
Ohhhhh, that Al Gore. Oddly enough I am in the AGW camp and have been since I started researching it (long before Gores movie). When he came out with "an inconvenient truth" I refused to watch it or even acknowledge it because he did exactly what Denialists accuse all scientists/politicians/corporations who believe that AGW is happening of doing...he found a way to exploit climate change for profit. It's pretty easy to pick out who is doing this and who is trying to make a difference in earnest. FYI, there is more money on the denialist side, they just can't seem to get science to support their view....
rubberman
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2012
Sorry HH, IMO he's the NotParker of the AGW camp. (except science supports his stance so it's alot easier for him to look good, but at the end of the day he's a politician which = professional ass kisser)
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 11, 2012
Rubber is exploiting AGW for power, like a good socialist.
Power is more important to the 'progressive'/socialist than profit.
Just look at the NYC mayor. He doesn't want more profit, he wants the power to tell people how to live.
Same with Soros.
rubberman
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 11, 2012
NYC mayor...pfft. As Prime minister of Canada I'll be strategically positioned to affect global change to my way of thinking, the rest of the world will eventually see the light and follow my lead into a new era of socialist utopia. Should any of you denialist types attempt to oppose me I'll strap on my biodegradable solar powered pine needle bullet/oil proof suit and deal with you mono a mono....like an eco nazi Tony Stark.

Anyone who isn't happy on my happy sustainable globe can move to planet Rygg, where there are no traffic lights, speed limits, police or pesky lines on the road telling you where and how to drive one of your 3 complimentary lincoln navigators you receive upon arrival to Ryggtopia. There are no taxes, everyone just pitches in when asked, or if they don't feel like it, they can recite the planetary credo - "I don't wanna so I'm not gonna". This will garner the respect and admiration of all inhabitants.
3 PM every day is tire fire hour....LIGHT EM UP!!!!
freethinking
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 11, 2012
Funny thing is Rubberman, Conservatives care more for the planet than Progressive Environmentalists. My 10 year old even noticed this and he has a question for you.

Why is it when conservatives have a rally at a park, the park winds up cleaner than before the rally, no one get arrested, everyone is friendly, yet when there is a Progressive rally (union, OWS, Demomcrat, or even and especially at a Environmentalist/green) rally the park winds up littered, and more filthy than before the rally. Also the types of people are ruder and cruder and meaner?

My son would really like to know.....
rubberman
3 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2012
Well free, your first statement is your own opinion, not fact. I have never seen a conservative rally at a park about anything so please cite some examples, and lastly I applaud your parenting that you would take your 10 year old son to both types of rallies to broaden his horizons since that would be the only reason I can think of for you to be at a progressive environmentalist rally.

Ahhh, yes America. Sorry, we don't have rallies here in Canada. Just the "occupy" guys who, it is estimated, were composed of 10% true environmentalists and 90% "others". If you found the environmentalists ruder,cruder and meaner then perhaps they tagged you right away as not one of them, I hope your son and you got out OK. Lastly, if they are true environmentalists, they aren't littering or wrecking green space.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2012
True environmentalists don't bother using up fossil fuels to get to environmentalist rallies and home again. If they can't get there by pedal power, then they will forego these Liberal/Socialist/AGWist festivities/rallies because they know they will only wind up cleaning up after the pseudo-environmentalist piggies who strew their garbage on the grounds while thinking to themselves, "we were here...we were actually here". Older enviros still go to these rallies in their camper vans with "flower power" written on the side, trying desperately to relive the "Woodstock Nation" atmosphere of their long-gone youth, to which we young folk laugh and watch in amazement at how old people grow old so ungracefully.
Concern for the environment is on a daily basis...in the home, the yard, shutting off the water spigot and using less power and much more. It's a silent revolution that AGWists don't know about. It's not about attaining power over people and regulating lives and money.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2012
(contd)
The average American family is smart enough to know that you don't create a mess where you live and eat. The American Indians aka native-Americans knew this principle, which is why after a season of living in one area, they would pack up their tepee poles and their belongings, and move to a place that was fresh and clean and hadn't been polluted. They knew that any place where they had lived had to be given a chance to refresh and replenish and allow nature to do this. So Native American tribes moved frequently from place to place. We can't do that and we have to stay put wherever we have set down roots. There are advantages and disadvantages to this, but this is who we are, and we're not prepared to live in grass huts or caves. Fossil fuels, although a source of pollution, is a blessing that we appreciate. Without it, we would freeze and our movements would be limited. Until something better comes along, we will use what is available.
nuge
3 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2012
Since La Nina/El Nino are essentially driven by the sea surface temperature differential across the Pacific ocean, could we not control it to everyone's benefit simply by heating the water in some places? Perhaps with a geosynchronous orbitting mirror, or even something as simple as some wave-powered heating buoys? Same for the Indian Ocean dipole. We might be able to put an end to extreme monsoonal flooding and droughts. We could spend a bit of money to save much more money and potentially, people's lives.

Thoughts?
NotParker
3.4 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2012
"2011 was the coolest year on record since 2008"

Yes ... and how cold was 2008?

Jan 2008 0.053

Jan 1878 0.160

Jan 1932 0.100

etc ...

Howhot
2.2 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2012
Just give all your money to Al Gore ...
followed by some rightwing-nut bull. Just so you know, 100% (not 90 or 80) of all the profits from "An Inconvenient Truth", both the book and movie are going to Non-profit environmental educational groups. That doesn't sound NoPark like to me rubberman. But let's not forget the Mr. Gore also won the Nobel peace prize for his part in bringing public attention to the AGW crisis. He cares about this issue, and that is no-fake political self serving in his acceptance speech;

http://www.youtub...lLNL33V4

And what he did to get the Internet off the ground using his position as Senator from TN was awesome. As a politician, he did incredible good.
Howhot
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2012
@nuge, That is a good question. Can we geo-engineer the environment to reduce global warming? Answ: We might have to, if nothing more than for survival, sometime in 2100. It's a big area of the ocean, and if you alter that, it could effect someplace else.

Regardless, the best computer models predict that the removal of CO2 by simply reducing fossil fuel use would do more to benefit earth than anything engineered.
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2012
HH, I have to admit that I am ignorant to Gore's accomplishments as well, and I really wasn't aware of the dispersion of the profits from an inconvenient truth going to educational groups. I also have a bias towards career politicians as I made pretty obvious above. I have heard that he runs all of his affairs out of the house in Nashville, and the one in Montecito looks pretty nice too. It makes a pretty easy target for a smear campaign when you preach sustainability and conservation from the balcony of a castle, even if it is a solar powered one. I would wager those profits would be post maintenance and upkeep on these facilities.

At the end of the day I believe in the whole practice what you preach philosophy, so if you preach sustainability you shouldn't be doing it from 1 of 2 massive estates or a comfy seat on your own jet.....
freethinking
3.6 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2012
One of the companies that I run has won several "green" awards. Why, because as a Conservative I hate wasting money and because I like helping other organizations.

What bugs me is that I compete with unionized companies and government run organizations that do the same job that I do, yet they are NOT run in an environmentally sound way, nor are they more cost effective. BUT "green" people are liberal so they to to unionized companies, and the government uses government facilities.

People or organizations who say they are green or environmentalists typically are nothing but ignorant lazy hypocrits, or con artists, which is why my company doesn't boast it is green, we just are.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2012
As usual the sockpuppet p/r/r/p cannot resist to display their profound ignorance:
The American Indians aka native-Americans knew this principle, which is why after a season of living in one area, they would pack up their tepee poles and their belongings, and move to a place that was fresh and clean and hadn't been polluted.
They moved because they had farmed out the land. Or because they were following the buffalo. Or many didnt move at all.
http://en.wikiped..._culture

Bigotry stems from small brains which cant handle diversity.
ubavontuba
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2012
Back-to-back La Ninas cooled globe
This is the stupidest assertion I have ever read. That's equivalent to saying you can make your sailboat go faster by blowing on the sail, or your car go faster by pushing on the dashboard.

Anyone buying into this crap "science" is an idiot. They need to explain how this cooling effect might occur.

It is possible that La Niñas increase cloud cover, preventing some solar heating, but this could be easily mapped and quantified with satellite images. And, atmospheric water content is a known "greenhouse gas" itself, so even this scenario would be doubtful.

Or conversely, if the cloud cover is reduced by a La Niña, then that could also be quantified. But, the diminished cloud cover would let in more sunlight (which would be trapped by CO2), thefore making even this scenario doubtful, as well.

And, if CO2 was such a strong factor in heating the world, La Niñas and La Niña effects would tend to diminish over time, not increase.

Get a clue.
ubavontuba
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2012
Back-to-back La Ninas cooled globe
This is the stupidest assertion I have ever read. That's equivalent to saying you can make your sailboat go faster by blowing on the sail, or your car go faster by pushing on the dashboard.

Anyone buying into this crap "science" is an idiot. They need to explain how this cooling effect might occur.

It is possible that La Niñas increase cloud cover, preventing some solar heating, but this could easily be mapped and quantified with satellite images. And, atmospheric water content is a known "greenhouse gas" itself, so even this scenario would be doubtful.

Or conversely, if the cloud cover is reduced by a La Niña, then that could also be quantified. But, the diminished cloud cover would let in more sunlight (which would be trapped by CO2), therefore making even this scenario doubtful, as well.

And, if CO2 was such a strong factor in heating the world, La Niñas and La Niña effects would tend to diminish over time, not increase.

Get a clue.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2012
@scoobadooba
Anyone buying into this crap "science" is an idiot. They need to explain how this cooling effect might occur.
"The study can be viewed online."

-Why are you speculating? Did you read through the study?

Get a clue.
ubavontuba
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 13, 2012
Anyone buying into this crap "science" is an idiot. They need to explain how this cooling effect might occur.
"The study can be viewed online."

-Why are you speculating? Did you read through the study?
Yes. I saw nothing in their about how the earth magically cools itself with a La Nina, in spite of rising CO2.

From the study:
The La Niña that was underway at the start of 2011 was among the strongest in the historical record. ...La Niña usually lowers the global average surface temperature,
La Niñas are relatively cool tropical ocean currents. Does this vast expanse of water simply "decide" to be unusually cool? Hardly.

Obviously, the cool water must have a source. So where's the vast cold water reservoir from which this cool current is drawn, and how long will it take AGW to deplete it? Why, in spite of this supposed AGW, has it gotten stronger? Why, in spite of rising CO2 can it substantially cool the entire globe? It's a mystery.

Get a clue.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2012
Obviously, the cool water must have a source. So where's the vast cold water reservoir from which this cool current is drawn, and how long will it take AGW to deplete it? Why, in spite of this supposed AGW, has it gotten stronger? Why, in spite of rising CO2 can it substantially cool the entire globe? It's a mystery.
Ah. The Uncaused Cause. The Unmoveable Mover. The Ursache. 'But WHY mommy?'

Scientists say that this phenomenon in this area is the cause of weather patterns elsewhere. This doesn't have anything to do with what causes IT.
NotParker
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 13, 2012
When extremes heat meets extreme cold, it makes for the release of significant energy. Welcome to the new normal.


AGW causes extreme cold?

AGW is the miracle cult.


freethinking
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 13, 2012
If its cold blame AGW, if it is hot blame AGW, if it is not a scam Al Gore would sell his sea side mansion, quite flying his private jets, and stop driving his monster cars.
NotParker
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 13, 2012
Science: There are short term cycles that warm and cool the globe as much as 1C up or down.

AGW "Science": It is absolutely impossible for there to be a longer term cycle that warms and cools the globe as much as 1C up or down. All warming is caused by CO2. All cooling is a mystery to us.
Howhot
3 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2012
From the article:
Cold Decembers are now half as likely to occur now versus fifty years ago, whereas warm Novembers are now 62 times more likely.


Now this kind of thing hasn't happened for 100s of thousands of years. The world is pretty consistent in it's weather. It's like the weather patterns of Jupiter have consistent bands. Atmospheric chemical mixing in Jupiter at specific latitude that hasn't changed in centuries. But mankind has managed to effect the atmosphere by the global release of sequestered CO2 as air pollution.

And here we are. Nopark-n-freepark posting BS and the scientists-n-sane people of the world expressing their concerns about the rapid rise of CO2. What a tool for tards every where; Nopark and Freepark.

NotParker
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2012
From the article:
Cold Decembers are now half as likely to occur now versus fifty years ago, whereas warm Novembers are now 62 times more likely.


Now this kind of thing hasn't happened for 100s of thousands of years.



Hmmm ... 50 years ... why not 78 years?

1934 was the warmest December in the UK in terms of mean temperature.

http://www.metoff...d/UK.txt
NotParker
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2012
Cold Decembers are now half as likely to occur now


Coldest December UK 2010
12th Coldest December 2009

2001 and 2008 came in at 26th and 27th.

http://www.metoff...d/UK.txt

The warmest December this century was only 11th.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
2 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2012
Welcome to the rest of your life. Not only is hot extremes happening more often than cold due to the AGW, it is an interesting illustration and, as here, later attribution to it.

@ ryggesogn:

"When has it not?"

When it has not.

For example during glacials and interstitials. What is happening now is a climate changing regime that climate scientists recently has managed to observe as global warming (the fastest ever under the current environment, to boot) and then attribute to anthropogenic forcing. Mostly release of greenhouse gases.

@ ubavontube:

You cherry-picked the title instead of the text. The text is correctly describing it as "Two back-to-back La Niñas, each characterized by cooler-than-average water temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific, affected regional climates ...".

The heated water is forced down and accumulates to heat the oceans faster.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2012
he fastest ever

Ever? That is a lot of time with NO data.
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2012
Obviously, the cool water must have a source. So where's the vast cold water reservoir [...]can it substantially cool the entire globe? It's a mystery.

Get a clue.


ubybooby,

YOU get a clue, baby! The answeres to your questions re: the source of the La Nina are very easily obtained via a simple search -wikip would do just fine.

It's all fluid thermodynamics, or thermal hydrodynamics -whichever you prefer- as the ocean water reacts to gradients in pressure, temperature, wind, the earth's rotation --and all in 3D realtime!!!! It's a real mind-blower. I'm not sure you can handle it, so be careful.

Since it's a coldwater current, it ABSORBS heat from the surrounding environment, thus LOWERING uh, I mean COOLING the ambient temp. Averaged out, this is a GLOBAL cooling effect.

By the way, I forgot to ask how your record snowpack in the Western U.S. mountains was holding up...any GLACIERS forming yet?

ubavontuba
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2012
@Torbjorn_Larsson_OM:

You cherry-picked the title instead of the text. The text is
correctly describing it as


Obviously, you missed that this article is merely a brief synopsis of a 282 page report. You can find the full report here:

http://www1.ncdc....-rez.pdf

Here's a quote from the report:

"La Niña events typically lead to a reduction in nearsurface
and tropospheric temperatures globally,"

-----------

Various links to report highlights, and such, are found here:

http://www.ncdc.n...2011.php

The heated water is forced down and accumulates to heat the oceans faster
I call Bull-oney. Source, please.

And again, this does nothing to describe how it cools the entire globe.

Get a clue.
ubavontuba
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2012
@Caliban:

The answeres to your questions re: the source of the La Nina are very easily obtained via a simple search -wikip would do just fine.
No it isn't. There's no mention of a cause in the wiki article.

http://en.wikiped...i%C3%B1a

From the broader ENSO article:

"La Niña, accompanies low air surface pressure in the eastern Pacific. Mechanisms that cause the oscillation remain under study."

http://en.wikiped...illation

as the ocean water reacts to gradients in pressure, temperature, wind, the earth's rotation

Since it's a coldwater current, it ABSORBS heat from the surrounding environment, thus LOWERING uh, I mean COOLING the ambient temp. Averaged out, this is a GLOBAL cooling effect.
This looks like made up crap. Source, please.

By the way, I forgot to ask how your record snowpack in the Western U.S. mountains was holding up...any GLACIERS forming yet?
Western U.S. glaciers are doing just fine.

Get a clue.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2012
Ubber has it nearly 100% correct. Cold ocean currents from the Arctic pull down cold currents from north to south until the reach the equator and the coriolis pull the current towards the mid pacific, where geology uplifts the current towards the surface. The end results of all of the fluid dynamics is a cold spot in the ocean with a hot atmosphere over head. Well at least it effects the Hi/Lows of weather.

So, global warming is melting the Arctic Ice faster that what has occurred over the last 100000 years or so, resulting in a colder pacific current and colder than normal (average) La-Nina.

Western U.S. glaciers are doing just fine.


Actaully, no.. no they are not. All snow packs across the world are melting. Melting very rapidly in fact. In the west, just look no further than Glacier International Park, shared on the boarder between the USA and Canada. It's nearly gone.

Look at the clues. They are as obvious as the flowers blooming in your back yard.
NotParker
3 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2012
Ubber has it nearly 100% correct. Cold ocean currents from the Arctic pull down cold currents from north to south until the reach the equator and the coriolis pull the current towards the mid pacific, where geology uplifts the current towards the surface. The end results of all of the fluid dynamics is a cold spot in the ocean with a hot atmosphere over head. Well at least it effects the Hi/Lows of weather.

So, global warming is melting the Arctic Ice faster that what has occurred over the last 100000 years or so ...


1922 isn't that far back.

http://wattsupwit...view.png
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2012
Cold ocean currents from the Arctic pull down cold currents from north to south until the reach the equator and the coriolis pull the current towards the mid pacific, where geology uplifts the current towards the surface. The end results of all of the fluid dynamics is a cold spot in the ocean with a hot atmosphere over head. Well at least it effects the Hi/Lows of weather.

So, global warming is melting the Arctic Ice faster that what has occurred over the last 100000 years or so, resulting in a colder pacific current and colder than normal (average) La-Nina.
This looks like made up crap, and does nothing to explain why it switches from warm El Ninos to cool La Ninas. Nor does it explain how it magically cools the globe. Source, please.

continued...

ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2012
Western U.S. glaciers are doing just fine.


Actaully, no.. no they are not. All snow packs across the world are melting. Melting very rapidly in fact. In the west, just look no further than Glacier International Park, shared on the boarder between the USA and Canada. It's nearly gone.
This lie is easy to expose:

"Scientists in Glacier National Park have measured such increases two or three times in the past seven or eight years, each one more than offset by the losses in the negative years,"

http://news.yahoo...522.html

Look at the clues. They are as obvious as the flowers blooming in your back yard.
It looks like you need to...

Get a clue.
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2012
This lie is easy to expose:

"Scientists in Glacier National Park have measured such increases two or three times in the past seven or eight years, each one more than offset by the losses in the negative years,"

http://news.yahoo...522.html

Look at the clues. They are as obvious as the flowers blooming in your back yard.
It looks like you need to...

Get a clue.

ubybooby, baby-

By MEAD GRUVER - Associated Press | AP Tue, Nov 1, 2011

Last year's ice extent and remnant snowpack only exhibited year-over-year increase in a few isolated areas, and this was "more than offset by the losses in the negative years" in GlacierNP, as is stated in the above quote from your article.

The same holds true for the rest of the region in general.

You can't even do an effective job of cherrypicking.

Maybe you should...

Try buying a clue.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2012
ubybooby, baby-

By MEAD GRUVER - Associated Press | AP Tue, Nov 1, 2011

Last year's ice extent and remnant snowpack only exhibited year-over-year increase in a few isolated areas, and this was "more than offset by the losses in the negative years" in GlacierNP, as is stated in the above quote from your article.

The same holds true for the rest of the region in general.

You can't even do an effective job of cherrypicking.

The point was, they aren't "Melting very rapidly in fact."

And beyond that, not all of the "snow packs across the world are melting."

Mount Shasta, for instance:

"seven of the glaciers have grown over the period 1951-2002, with the Hotlum and Wintun Glaciers nearly doubling, the Bolam Glacier increasing by half, and the Whitney and Konwakiton Glaciers growing by a third."

http://en.wikiped..._Glacier

Get a clue.