The Blackboard

Nearly fell off my seat, 0.392C is precisely my call in the UAH pool… then I noticed ‘RSS’

Your chart seems to show an anomaly of roughly 0.15, and your story says 0.392?

Michael– My plots use a different baseline. I do this so I can later compare all the various temperature series using the same baseline.

Ah, anomaly measured in degrees L

Michael–They are degrees C. Just like the other baselines. All are temperature differences. For drawing uncertainty intervals, I often found it easiest to baseline based on the data being analyzed. So this baseline is Jan 2001- Now. That’s why the 2001-now trend passes through T=0 zero in the middle of the data set.

El Nino won’t be ‘here’ for a few months. You need a sequence of 5(?) (are they tri-monthly?) anomalies of >0.5 before an El Nino event is declared.

Nathan,

If the El Nino does occur, (in other words, we get five months of +.5 tri-monthly anomalies) then El Nino conditions will have had existed now. Amazing thing, tense.

David your logic is impeccable. If the conditions are met, we are in an El Nino event. As yet the conditions haven’t been met. Hence we can’t say we are in an El Nino event.

Remember to be an El Nino the anomlies need to be sustained for a period of time. El Nino doesn’t just mean anomalous warmth in the Pacific, it means sustained warmth in the Pacific.

There have been many times in the past where there have been a few months of warmth in the Pacific, then it’s cooled down. They weren’t El Nino events. We cannot yet say we are in an El Nino, as we don’t know.

Here’s a question-how would one normalize the El Nino variations to non-internal climate variability? How do we know that the sun, aerosols, or even CO2 haven’t effected Sea Surface Temperature variation in that part of the Pacific? I think it says a lot about our knowledge of the relative roles of internal variability and external forcings that we think CO2 should be warming the world but we treat the variability of temperatures in the Pacific as entirely internal-with neither contrary nor confirmatory evidence, to my knowledge.

I’m ordinarily the last person to ask these types of things, but if you think about it, that makes the irony all the more deliciously illustrative…

and the poor ol ice ain’t following that trend
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php that’s Global warming for ya!

Nathan– El Nino conditions are in place in the pacific. NOAA says so. You are correct that we may turn out to not have a true El Nino because the conditions may not be sustained. I think this one is going to be sustaned; no reason not to expect so.

Lucia
so did you consider the start of this year to be La Nina until the end of April?

When people talk of El Nino, typically they are talking about the long event, like the one in 1998. NOAA use the word’s “El Nino episode” to describe the long event and “El Nino conditions” to describe the weekly temp anomaly. So I take it when you say “El Nino is here” you simply mean that the anomaly is greater than +0.5, not that the world is experiencing weather conditions typically associated with “El Nino episodes”.

It’s always best to be clear with your terminology… It’s about precision, yes?

Nathan,
I know you are a copyeditor, but what’s your point?

This is what NOAA published in their weekly update on August 3rd. (Visit climate prediction center.

So, yes, I consider El Nino conditions to be here. NOAA says so too. It is not a full-fledged El Nino. I already said that. NOAA also says that.

Are you going to come back and repeat a lecture on what is required to achieve a full-fledged recognized El Nino? And somehow insinuate that one can’t write a brief sentence “El Nino is here” to mean “El Nino conditions are in place.” as opposed to “We are experiencing a full blow, mind bending, sustained El Nino of the Baskervilles?”

To answer your question: Yes, when La Nina conditions are in place, I and many of those who criticized my conclusions about trend, said it was La Nina was still out there in the Pacific. When saying that, they did not mean (and I did not take them to mean) that there was a full blown La Nina still present and that they were certain it would continue long enough to make the April-June-July average qualify as El Nino. No one would have understood them to be saying that.

If you think any of this was unclear to anyone, you are the one who is mistaken.

I am an editor, a geoscience editor… Copy editors are more generalized.

I was just making sure that you were clear about what you were saying. That’s all.

“El Nino is still here. ”

This is a poor, ambiguous sentence. As an editor I would recommend the scientist to change it and express precisely what they meant. In your case it would be better to say “El Nino conditions are present in the Pacific, as the weekly Nino 3.4 anomaly is…”

Nathan–

am an editor, a geoscience editor… Copy editors are more generalized.

Apples are fruits. So, even though fruits are more general, apples are still fruits. You are a copy editor.

In a journal article, your point might make sense. But to avoid posting and reposting tedious nonsense, you might want to learn something about the importance of context in which language is used. I recommend you become a regular reader of “the language log” and learn to consider context in which language is used.

Calling an apple a fruit is not as precise as calling it an apple. However, it is not a mistake requiring correction. A small degree of ambiguity is not forbidden in conversation. As a copy editor of any variety, you should know this.

UAH is out. +.41

Lucia,

I thought Nathan’s criticism regarding the comment “El Nino is still here.” was constructive. Your response seems inappropriately defensive.

NewYorkJ–
I don’t know why you think Nathan’s editorial advice was constructive or my response defensive. Nathan got cordial responses to his initial inquiry. But when he kept insisiting on his incorrect copy editing advise, and I called him on it.

If you google a bit, you will see that my usage matches those of careful scientists. For example:

* Scientific America wrote “El Nino Has Arrived” on July 10, 2009. The body of the text says “NOAA scientists today announced the arrival of El Niño,”

* On July 9 NOAA“El Niño Arrives; Expected to Persist through Winter 2009-10″. Note: Present tense. As in: El Nino is here, rather than “there is a strong possibility that a full fledged El Nino event will manifest itself.”

If you google El Nino has arrived you will discover that the notion that El Nino has arrived or “is here” is rather wide spread.

The fact is: Nathan’s copy editing advice was incorrect.

Talking about editing: Lucia the noun is spelled as “advice” and the verb as “advise”. In your last post your spelling of the noun was wrong on all three occurrences.

Nathan, the word “pedantic” comes to mind here.

Consistently harping on the observation that the El Nino conditions have not been validated yet serves no purpose here other than to divert the discussion in a frankly irrelevant direction.

Fits the definition of pedantic to a T.

Chris–
Thanks. My spelling is atrocious. I welcome good editorial advice.

Aren’t we in for a ‘Modoki El Nino’, instead of the typical El Nino? Sure temperatures will rise, but not as significantly as a typical El Nino. The warmer area in the equatorial pacific is more horseshoe shaped and is located further west, with less warm water on the South American coast. Me and my organisation are tracking this closely, as a Modoki El Nino has significant rainfall consequences in the tropical parts of Australia. Generally 5 months of rainfall occurs in just two months – ie. a more concentrated monsoonal season. The Japanese Space and Marine Agency (JAMSTEC) are prediciting a Modoki El Nino (sometimes known as ‘Dateline’ El Nino), and these guys are generally right on the money. Modoki El Nino’s tend to be weaker and of shorter duration.