Friday, April 29, 2016

The Ghost-Water Constant - 7

Fig. 1 Nansen, East Antarctica (not Greenland)
In times past I considered software modelling of the climate change projection sort.

Specifically, the solution sought was how do scientists, whether citizen scientists or professional scientists, approach the issue of future sea level change (SLC).

The factor that best addressed the problem of projecting future SLC was a robust understanding of acceleration of ice sheet mass loss (The Question Is: How Much Acceleration Is Involved In SLR?, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

The technique used to communicate the issue of acceleration to laypersons by professional scientists was the concept of "doubling":
The increasing Greenland mass loss ... can be fit just as well by exponentially increasing annual mass loss, a behavior that Hansen (2005, 2007) argues could occur because of multiple amplifying feedbacks as an ice sheet begins to disintegrate. A 10-year doubling time would lead to 1 meter sea level rise by 2067 ... 2045 ... for 5-year doubling time and 2055 ... for a 7-year doubling time.
(The Evolution of Models - 7). Let me add that the concept there is a composite with includes Greenland, Antarctica, and land based glaciers that are not attached to ice sheets.

That said, remember that those three sources for increasing ocean volume by melt or by calving, can have an acceleration of ice mass loss individually or collectively.

For example, notice this about one of them:
"Mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet has quadrupled over the last decade due to a combination of increased surface runoff from the ice-sheet periphery, increased frontal ablation (ice discharge and submarine melting) and widespread speed up at tidewater glacier termini ... Concentrated at the ice-sheet margins ... this mass loss impacts both the ice and ocean by changing the hypsometry of the glacier ... increasing submarine melt rates ... and altering the salinity, temperature and circulation of fjord waters ... The increased ice flow speed at tidewater glaciers is thought to be caused by a number of factors including increased basal sliding due to the increase in meltwater runoff ... changes in back stress as mélange composition and extent fluctuate ... as well as submarine melting at the terminus ... Surface and subglacial meltwater runoff is important in tidewater glacier systems. Runoff is predicted to increase as Greenland's climate continues to warm ... and consequently is expected to continue influencing fjord circulation and submarine melting by enhancing the entrainment of warm ocean waters ... As fresh meltwater enters the fjord at depth, it mixes with ambient ocean water as it moves along the terminus to the surface, concurrently melting the terminus face ... altering the geometry, and, potentially, the calving style ... Therefore, understanding subglacial water transport is critical in identifying meltwater controls on tidewater outlet glacier dynamics and freshwater delivery to the ocean. Furthermore, incorporating these drainage processes into coupled ice/climate, ice/ocean and ice/climate/ocean models will advance our understanding of the long-term influence of these processes on glacier stability."
(Annals of Glaciology, emphasis added, 4/28/16). Let's focus on the acceleration value which those researchers used: "quadrupled over the past decade."

That value is the mathematical equivalent of "doubled over the past five years" or in other words a "5-year doubling time."

That happens to be an acceleration rate addressed in the quote of Dr. James Hansen above:
A 10-year doubling time would lead to 1 meter sea level rise by 2067 ... 2045 ... for 5-year doubling time and 2055 ... for a 7-year doubling time.
(The Evolution of Models - 7, emphasis added). It is not clear whether that value can also be applied to Antarctica and mountain glaciers.

There is evidence that those other two areas besides Greenland are also having acceleration of mass loss (Nansen, East Antarctica, Belopolskijbreen, Svalbard, Pacific Northwest Glaciers).

There has been a debate for decades that held East Antarctica to be stable even if West Antarctica was not, but as Fig. 1 shows, that is changing (cf. this).

The acceleration of ice sheet and glacial melt and/or calving does not directly involve ghost water (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5).

What does change the location of ghost-water is the loss of ice sheet gravity (The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4).

Acceleration of the loss of ice sheet gravity means that the water along the coast, out to the hinge line ((The Evolution and Migration of Sea Level Hinge Points) will be relocated toward the equator at an accelerating rate (ibid).

Which means that sea level fall (SLF) near the coast will take place as sea level rise (SLR) takes place on the other side of the hinge line (Proof of Concept , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

The bottom line is that SLC will be "worse than previously thought," and we may even see some scientific papers saying "thermal expansion has tripled."

Be sure to ignore that myth if "further adjustments" come down the pike  (On The Evolution of Sea Level Change - 2).

That is, until they see ghost water hidden in plain sight right before their eyes:
"So Rignot and an international team of researchers took it upon themselves to map out 14 glacial fjords in West Greenland, north of the famous Ilulissat Glacier. At various points between 2007 and 2014, they measured temperature and depth in these fjords and used sonar to map out underwater topographic features. They found that the actual seafloor depths were anywhere from 100 to 1,000 meters deeper than what was previously suggested by the charts.
...
The Oceans Melting Greenland, or OMG, mission kicked off last April with the goal of measuring ocean temperatures and modeling the shape and depth of the seafloor in Greenland to help scientists better understand the role the ocean plays in the melting of the ice sheet."
(The Ghost-Water Constant - 6, cf. this). What is relevant to that OMG research is the quantity of ghost water which ice mass/gravity loss releases to be relocated toward the Equator (The Ghost-Water Constant - 4).

The previous post in this series is here.





Thursday, April 28, 2016

The 1.14% vs. The 100% - 2

Writing Scientific Papers
In the first post of this series I pointed out that to keep the law in today's civilization one must become an alarmist.

As has been pointed out here on Dredd Blog, it is alarming that only 1.0 - 1.14% of ice sheet and glacial ice needs to reach the ocean to cause catastrophe (The 1.14% vs. The 100%, The Ghost-Water Constant - 3).

What are science, religion, and government for if not to warn the citizenry of dangers the people face  (New Climate Catastrophe Policy: Triage, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)?

The answer that comes to our mind in response to that  question is a product of the culture we are born into, and our personal conclusions formulated during our lives.

Those all change from time to time.

I am inclined, at this time, to say that science, religion, and government should be for, and subject to, the common good (The Common Good, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).

But when science, religion, and government form their own language and ideas in a vacuum far from the common good, they depart to seek what is "good" only for themselves and their "stockholders".

Don't take my word for it, check these out:
Experience has shown that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

"Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people." - Thomas Jefferson

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"In other words, a society does not ever die 'from natural causes', but always dies from suicide or murder --- and nearly always from the former, as this chapter has shown." - A Study of History, by Arnold J. Toynbee
(Dredd Blog Quotes Page). Climate science for professional and layperson alike has been around since dirt (Oldest Climate Change Records, Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 54).

Even military officers feel a duty toward scientific warnings for citizens who rely on them for protection:
The nature and pace of climate changes being observed today and the consequences projected by the consensus scientific opinion are grave and pose equally grave implications for our national security. Moving beyond the arguments of cause and effect, it is important that the U.S. military begin planning to address these potentially devastating effects.
(Global Climate & Homeland Insecurity - 2). Equally counter-intuitive, scientists and religionists can be the most opaque with their use of Latin or words formed in a some other secret-society like environment (Speaking in Tongues).

Some scientific papers speak in a tongue the people they say they are helping can't understand:
Here we apply the most advanced type of these models to explore, for the first time, the impact of the sea-level feedback on projections of AIS collapse under a wide range of future emission scenarios. We also adopt several models of the Earth’s viscoelastic structure in the sea-level modelling to capture the range of gravitational, rotational and bedrock deformational responses to the ice-ocean mass redistribution. We note that long timescale, large spatial scale ice-sheet modelling studies include treatments of bedrock deformation ... but recent regional studies of future AIS retreat over up to hundreds of years have kept the bedrock elevation fixed ... and none of these studies have included gravitational effects on sea level. Our results indicate that sea-level changes associated with gravitational effects and deformation of the solid Earth may impact future Antarctic ice-sheet evolution. Moreover, the adopted viscoelastic Earth structure influences the size and timing of the impact of the sea-level feedback.
(Sea-level feedback). There is no practical information in that piece for the common people, however, I am sure that the scientists involved stroked their own egos a bit (Earlier Criticism of This Concept).

Don't you think that the endangered people would rather know that only 1% to 1.14% of the ice sheets and mountain glaciers of the world need to melt in order to begin the extinction of civilization?

And especially when that tiny, tiny percentage of ice melt could be reached:
"That revelation was made by an official with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] on Tuesday at the annual RIMS conference for risk management and insurance professionals in San Diego, Calif.

The conference is being attended by more than 10,000 people, according to organizers. It was day No. 3 of the conference, which ends Wednesday.

Margaret Davidson, NOAA’s senior advisor for coastal inundation and resilience science and services, and Michael Angelina, executive director of the Academy of Risk Management and Insurance, offered their take on climate change data in a conference session titled “Environmental Intelligence: Quantifying the Risks of Climate Change.”

Davidson said recent data that has been collected but has yet to be made official indicates sea levels could rise by roughly 3 meters or 9 feet by 2050-2060, far higher and quicker than current projections. Until now most projections have warned of seal level rise of up to 4 feet by 2100.

These new findings will likely be released in the latest sets of reports on climate change due out in the next few years.

“The latest field data out of West Antarctic is kind of an OMG thing,” she said."
(Will This Float Your Boat - 12). Scientific, religious, and government jargon that obscures the dangers to the people constitute incompetence mixed with ill will.

Stop it.

Here is an example of better communication between scientists and laypersons by Dr. James Hansen in his recent letter to Warren Buffett:
Recent scientific data indicate that continued high fossil fuel emissions will lock in sea level rise of at least 6-9 meters (20-30 feet). Almost all coastal cities, including most of the world’s largest cities, would be lost. Large impacts may not begin for several decades, but this delayed response of the ponderous climate system spells danger for young people. We can pass a point of no return, where it becomes impossible to avoid future Antarctic ice sheet disintegration and loss of coastal cities. Economic devastation and refugees could make the world ungovernable.

So, Mr. Buffett, I am heartened by the words in your last annual report, where you conclude that continued inaction on climate change “is foolhardy.” You wrote: “Call this Noah’s Law: If an Ark may be essential for survival (your emphasis), begin building it today.”
(Scientist Communicates With Billionaire). It is even ok to start building it "yesterday" in some cases.

The previous post in this series is here.



Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Global Climate & Homeland Insecurity - 2

I. Begin Here

The subtitle of today's post is: "When The Truth Is Found In The Wayback Machine."

The first post in this series, on July 14, 2009, discussed the national security implications of The Damaged Global Climate System's impact on the global environment (Global Climate & Homeland Insecurity).

In that first post I discussed an investigation by CNA concerning the U.S. Military's perception of global climate change.

As noted in that post, the substantial and robust report was "disappeared" sometime after I penned the post, but when I noticed the link no longer worked, I sought and found a copy of that CNA page recorded in The Wayback Machine.

Anyway, in that report the generals and admirals were unequivocal in their 2009 conclusions:
The nature and pace of climate changes being observed today and the consequences projected by the consensus scientific opinion are grave and pose equally grave implications for our national security. Moving beyond the arguments of cause and effect, it is important that the U.S. military begin planning to address these potentially devastating effects.
(CNA Report, emphasis added, PDF). It is clear that those who participated in the study and report are aware of military national security matters:

GENERAL GORDON R. SULLIVAN, USA (Ret.)
Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Army
Chairman, Military Advisory Board

ADMIRAL FRANK "SKIP" BOWMAN, USN (Ret.)
Former Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program;
Former Deputy Administrator-Naval Reactors, National Nuclear Security Administration

LIEUTENANT GENERAL LAWRENCE P. FARRELL JR., USAF (Ret.)
Former Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs, Headquarters U.S. Air Force

VICE ADMIRAL PAUL G. GAFFNEY II, USN (Ret.)
Former President, National Defense University; Former Chief of Naval Research and Commander,
Navy Meteorology and Oceanography Command

GENERAL PAUL J. KERN, USA (Ret.)
Former Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel Command

ADMIRAL T. JOSEPH LOPEZ, USN (Ret.)
Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and of Allied Forces, Southern Europe

ADMIRAL DONALD L. “DON” PILLING, USN (Ret.)
Former Vice Chief of Naval Operations

ADMIRAL JOSEPH W. PRUEHER, USN (Ret.)
Former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) and Former U.S. Ambassador to China

VICE ADMIRAL RICHARD H. TRULY, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

GENERAL CHARLES F. “CHUCK” WALD, USAF (Ret.)
Former Deputy Commander, Headquarters U.S. European Command (USEUCOM)

GENERAL ANTHONY C. “TONY” ZINNI, USMC (Ret.)
Former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)

(ibid, caps in original). I have posted about other military officers tasked with grasping the climate change threat to national security (Has The Navy Fallen For The Greatest Hoax?, with a video of R.Adm. Tilley's presentation @ Pentagon).

II. Perhaps It Was The Irony?

I wondered why CNA would be directed to lose the report.

It was excellent, well researched, unconventional, and counter to the Oil-Qaeda and MOMCOM propaganda of the day (Will This Float Your Boat - 12).

But the number one polluter, in terms of fossil fuel burning, is said to be the U.S. military (A History of Oil Addiction - 2, cf. The Military Assault on Global Climate).

So, I though "perhaps they do not want us to think that they are a threat to national security" ... hence the missing report?

We are all in this together, and today's military is as much a victim of bad decisions made by their predecessors in command as we are (The Universal Smedley - 2, Viva Egypt - 2).

III. Military Solutions?

There is nothing the military can do beyond what other agencies can do (Why The Military Can't Defend Against The Invasion; The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports - 4; Greenland & Antarctica Invade The United States, 2, 3, 4; Why Sea Level Rise May Be The Greatest Threat To Civilization, 2, 3, 4, 5).

But they can stop fighting for possession and or control the oil that is causing the problem (The Fleets & Terrorism Follow The Oil).

They can switch to non-polluting sources of energy (U.S. Military Orders Less Dependence on Fossil Fuels).

IV. Military Conflict With Climate Change Deniers?

Some military officers have also anticipated problems with some of the current presidential candidates (Pentagon Officers: We Quit if Trump Wins).

One wonders how they have interacted with similar congressional deniers during the past few years (Inhofe's One Man Troofiness Crusade).

Even the courts and prosecutors are seeing reason for concern about the hiding of the facts (Have Courts Fallen For The Greatest Hoax?, Oil-Qaeda & MOMCOM Conspire To Commit Depraved-Heart Murder - 5).

Increasingly, the physical predicament is exacerbated by the predicament of the conflict of world views in government (The Authoritarianism of Climate Change).

Not to mention the cover-up instead of coverage in the press (In the Fog of The Presstitutes - 4).

V. Worse Than Previously Thought

One has to wonder if the deniers, who used to make fun of environmentalists because they wanted to save the snail darter (Snail Darter Politics) will awaken.

Up to this point in time, their dangerously myopic viewpoints have had certain untenable impacts on reality (Civilization Is Now On Suicide Watch, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

Impacts that bring it all home (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports, 2, 3; The Extinction of Charleston, The Extinction of Philadelphia, The Extinction of Washington, D.C., The Extinction of Boston, The Extinction of Miami, The Extinction of Manzanillo, The Extinction of Houston, The Extinction of Providence, The Extinction of Chesapeake Bay Islands; Endangered Naval Bases).

It is not about snail darters assholes (On The Origin of Assholes), because now even East Antarctica is catching up (Melt Expanding into East Antarctica).

VI. Conclusion

It is time for the panicked frenzy of immature leaders in government to disappear instead of continuing to disappear the facts they are afraid to admit (The 1.14% vs. The 100%).

Time to admit that the waters around us have grown:

Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’
or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’

(The Times They Are A-Changin’, by Bob Dylan). Yep, worse than previously thought.

The previous post in this series is here.

"Everything is Broken" by Bob Dylan, (lyrics here).






Sunday, April 24, 2016

On The Origin of the Sea-level Seesaw - 3

Fig. 1 SLC and El Nino
I. Introduction

The advent of specialization has had a positive impact on some aspects of scientific research.

And it has had a positive impact on the applications of those discoveries to the problems of civilization.

But on the other hand, it has also engendered a type of myopia within scientific research which actually sometimes hampers discovery.

Which means that it also hampers the uses of discovered knowledge ("One effort to avoid being blind-sided by overly-specialized disciplines, which can create scientific myopia, is Sackler Colloquia" - Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 47).

A timely example of this anomaly of modern science is found within the word storms of El Niño meteorologists and climatologists that are being bandied about these days.
Fig. 2

That dialogue and discussion is very much like another word being blown about in modern journalism’s political discourse.

I am talking about a word we called "peace."

Like "El Niño" we can pronounce "peace", we can spell it, we can call it a noun, verb or adjective, use it in a sentence in a book, but in real life we can't very often find it, nor do we know what peace really is.

II. Begin With A Bottom-Line?

Fig. 3
Sometimes I like to start with the bottom line dogma first, then work my way back out of the muck, then progress into the nuts and bolts of the dogma.

Which, in this case, would be:
"The truth is, no one knows what really causes El Niño."
(On The Origin of the Sea-level Seesaw - 2, emphasis in orig.). By the use of "really" I think the scientist using that word meant "we know that the ocean, the atmosphere, weather and climate are involved, but we don't know much more than that."

One scientist was focusing on the seesaw issue of sea level, of all things, while doing El Niño autopsies, using, among other things, tide gauge data:
Fig. 4
"In his last years of El Niño research, Wyrtki focused on documenting the evolution of a complete El Niño cycle to answer the question still challenging scientists today: What starts and stops an El Niño?  Again, his main tool was sea level measurements."
(‘Klaus Wyrtki and El Niño’, emphasis added, PDF). That quote comes from the International Pacific Research Center (IPRC), and was taken from their journal "Climate", Vol. 6, No. 1, p. 13, 2006.

The graph at Fig. 1 shows one of their graphs dealing with the sea level seesaw.

III. Ok Dredd, So What Does Sea Level Have To Do With It?

They do not seem to possess the knowledge of the impact of ice sheet melt and gravity loss on sea level change (SLC).

So they unevenly associated general sea level fall (SLF) and general sea level rise (SLR) with some specific dynamics of an El Niño:
During very strong El Niño events, sea level drops abruptly in the tropical western Pacific and tides remain below normal for up to a year in the South Pacific, especially around Samoa. The Samoans call the wet stench of coral die-offs arising from the low sea levels "taimasa" (pronounced [kai' ma'sa]). Studying the climate effects of this particular variation of El Niño and how it may change in the future is a team of scientists at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa and at the University of New South Wales, Australia.

Fig. 5
Two El Niño Taimasa events have occurred in recent history: 1982/83 and 1997/98. El Niño Taimasa differs from other strong El Niño events, such as those in 1986/87 and 2009/10, according to Matthew Widlansky, postdoctoral fellow at the International Pacific Research Center, who spearheaded the study.

"We noticed from tide gauge measurements that toward the end of these very strong El Niño events, when sea levels around Guam quickly returned to normal, that tide gauges near Samoa actually continued to drop," recalls Widlansky.
(What is El Nino Taimasa, emphasis added). The use of those tide gauge records gave rise to another word for another observation within the seesaw:
Using statistical procedures to tease apart the causes of the sea-level seesaw between the North and South Pacific, the scientists found that it is associated with the well-known southward shift of weak trade winds during
Fig. 6
 the termination of El Niño, which in turn is associated with the development of the summer rain band.

Looking into the future with the help of computer climate models, the scientists are now studying how El Niño Taimasa will change with further warming of the planet. Their analyses show, moreover, that sea-level drops could be predictable seasons ahead, which may help island communities prepare for the next El Niño Taimasa.
(ibid, emphasis added). Yes, a new word has emerged from the research ("Taimasa").

But, like the word "peace" and "El Niño", "taimasa" is just another word to try to tame the observers into thinking they know all about this stuff.

IV. The Myopia

Since they did not know about (or worse they ignored) SLC based on ice sheet melt, ice sheet gravity, "ghost-water", and other interdisciplinary considerations, the application of SLC to "El Nifty cycles" is immature.

I also noticed that when they had a shadow in their understanding, they allowed some bias to "turn their knobs:"
Another observation by Wyrtki seems associated with El Nifty cycles: “I was intrigued by the fact that the North and South Equatorial Currents vary out of phase. When one is strong, the other is weak. Are the North and South Pacific subtropical gyres also operating out of phase? I was hoping they would be.
(ibid, p. 14, emphasis added). Hope is not a useful replacement for data or prior scientific work that bears upon the subject at hand.

Fig. 7 SLC impact on Zones AS, AX
Regular readers of Dredd Blog know that there is a sizeable body of scientific papers (beginning with Woodward, 1888) which have shown SLC in the form of SLR and SLF are caused by melting ice sheets far from the local area where SLC is observed (The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4,, Proof of Concept, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

The melting ice sheets not only add water volume to the ocean as they melt or calve, but additionally as ice sheet gravitational power weakens, there is a release of "ghost-water" from the coastal area near the ice sheet.

That water is already a part of the ocean water volume, but it is relocated toward the Equator by the Earth's rotational force, gravity, and ocean tides (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5).

The randomness of these ice sheet phenomena impacts sea level in a manner that could skew the rise and fall records of sea level during events in the area where they call "El Niño SLF" a "taimasa."

Fig. 8
The graphic Fig. 7 shows the general location of Zones AS and AX where this takes place.

The general area is the small black square east of Australia.

The colors (orange, yellow, cyan, and blue) show how Antarctica, Greenland, and mountain glaciers impact SLC around the globe.

V. Discussion

Looking at the PSMSL station data in the two zones (AS featured in Fig. 2 - Fig. 3; AX featured in Fig. 4 - Fig. 5), I can't say that I see any general connection between general, global SLC and the phenomenon they call El Niño.

Remembering: 1) that the global climate system is damaged, and 2) that they are looking for symmetrical behavior (such as would take place with synchronous repetition in a non-damaged system), I am not surprised that general SLC is not generally related to El Niño events (The Damaged Global Climate System, 2, 3, 4, 5).

My opinion is bolstered by the graphs at Fig. 6 and Fig. 8, which show that major SLC takes place in the weakest of El Niño years.

In those two graphs, the large red squares at the bottom (where the years involved are shown), point out when SLC intersects with major El Niño years, and the smaller red squares show when less powerful El Niño years intersect with SLC.

The large blue squares on those graphs show major SLC in weak or non-existent El Niño years.

For your viewing, a list of El Niño years and other relevant data (so you can compare them with SLC years) is provided in a table shown at the end of this post (at Fig. 9 below).

VI. Conclusion

The seesaw phenomenon in the tide gauge records of SLC is a very normal phenomenon (Questionable "Scientific" Papers).

One year up some, one year down some, is standard fare (ibid).

Trends are the story that have importance, and we have in some cases a hundred years of records that show a trend, a pattern where sea level was and is on an SLF trajectory (Proof of Concept - 3, 5).

Likewise, we have records for an opposite trend, a pattern of SLR (Proof of Concept - 4).

Trade wind anomalies and other damaged global climate system events certainly can impact sea level in local areas during what are called  El Niño events, but like thermal expansion and land subsidence, these are minor local players in the saga of global SLC.

The previous post in this series is here.

Fig. 9 (El Niño  years)

(*** = strongest, ** = next strongest, * = moderate, and no * means weak years):

Year
DJF
JFM
FMA
MAM
AMJ
MJJ
JJA
JAS
ASO
SON
OND
NDJ
1950
-1.4
-1.2
-1.1
-1.2
-1.1
-0.9
-0.6
-0.6
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
1951
-0.8
-0.6
-0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.6
1952
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
1953
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
1954
0.7
0.4
0
-0.4
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.7
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.5
1955
-0.6
-0.6
-0.7
-0.7
-0.7
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-1.0
-1.4
-1.6
-1.4
1956
-0.9
-0.6
-0.6
-0.5
-0.5
-0.4
-0.5
-0.5
-0.4
-0.4
-0.5
-0.4
1957**
-0.3
0
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.6
1958**
1.7
1.5
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
1959
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.3
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
1960
-0.1
-0.2
-0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0
0
1961
0
0
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-0.3
-0.3
-0.2
-0.2
1962
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
-0.3
-0.4
1963*
-0.4
-0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1964*
1.0
0.6
0.1
-0.3
-0.6
-0.6
-0.7
-0.7
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
1965**
-0.5
-0.3
-0.1
0.1
0.4
0.7
1.0
1.3
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.5
1966**
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.3
1967
-0.4
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.2
0
0
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.4
-0.5
1968
-0.7
-0.8
-0.7
-0.5
-0.1
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.8
1969
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
1970
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.1
-0.3
-0.6
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
-0.9
-1.2
1971
-1.3
-1.3
-1.1
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
-0.8
-0.7
-0.8
-0.8
-0.9
-0.8
1972**
-0.7
-0.4
0
0.3
0.6
0.8
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
1.9
1973**
1.7
1.2
0.6
0
-0.4
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
-1.7
-1.9
-1.9
1974
-1.7
-1.5
-1.2
-1.0
-0.9
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.7
-0.6
1975
-0.5
-0.5
-0.6
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-1.0
-1.1
-1.3
-1.4
-1.5
-1.6
1976
-1.5
-1.1
-0.7
-0.4
-0.3
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.8
1977
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.8
1978
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.3
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.3
-0.1
0
1979
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
1980
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
0
0.1
0.1
0
1981
-0.2
-0.4
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
-0.1
0
1982***
0
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.5
1.9
2.1
2.1
1983***
2.1
1.8
1.5
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.3
0
-0.3
-0.6
-0.8
-0.8
1984
-0.5
-0.3
-0.3
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.3
-0.6
-0.9
-1.1
1985
-0.9
-0.7
-0.7
-0.7
-0.7
-0.6
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.3
1986*
-0.4
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.1
1987*
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.1
1988*
0.8
0.5
0.1
-0.3
-0.8
-1.2
-1.2
-1.1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.7
-1.8
1989
-1.6
-1.4
-1.1
-0.9
-0.6
-0.4
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
1990
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
1991*
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
1.2
1.4
1992*
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.2
0
-0.1
-0.1
0
1993
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
1994
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.9
1.0
1995
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.5
-0.7
-0.9
-1.0
-0.9
1996
-0.9
-0.7
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
-0.3
-0.4
-0.4
-0.5
1997***
-0.5
-0.4
-0.2
0.1
0.6
1.0
1.4
1.7
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.3
1998***
2.1
1.8
1.4
1.0
0.5
-0.1
-0.7
-1.0
-1.2
-1.2
-1.3
-1.4
1999
-1.4
-1.2
-1.0
-0.9
-0.9
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
2000
-1.6
-1.4
-1.1
-0.9
-0.7
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.8
2001
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.3
2002*
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.1
2003*
0.9
0.6
0.4
0
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
2004
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
2005
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
0
0
-0.1
-0.4
-0.7
2006
-0.7
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.0
2007
0.7
0.3
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
-0.6
-0.8
-1.1
-1.2
-1.3
2008
-1.4
-1.3
-1.1
-0.9
-0.7
-0.5
-0.3
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
-0.5
-0.7
2009*
-0.8
-0.7
-0.4
-0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.0
1.2
1.3
2010*
1.3
1.1
0.8
0.5
0
-0.4
-0.8
-1.1
-1.3
-1.4
-1.3
-1.4
2011
-1.3
-1.1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.3
-0.2
-0.3
-0.5
-0.7
-0.9
-0.9
-0.8
2012
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.2
-0.2
2013
-0.4
-0.5
-0.3
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
2014
-0.5
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.6
2015***
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.2
2.3
2016***
2.2
2.0

Sources: NOAA, elnino dot com, ggweather