Skip to content

El Nino Update

May 2, 2016

By Paul Homewood


Just a brief El Nino update. 


El Nino conditions have continued to weaken during April, with negative SSTs appearing in the East Pacific.




Below the surface as well cold water is taking over.





Most models are now predicting transition to neutral conditions by June, with an increasing likelihood of La Nina by the autumn.




It will be interesting to see what atmospheric temperature anomalies tell us, when UAH and RSS report later this week.



North Atlantic



I have been reporting on the ever growing cold blob in the North Atlantic recently.

WUWT also has a piece up about ocean heat content there, written by David Archibald.

This shows that heat content down to 700m has been sharply declining  since it peaked in 2008.






Climate is ultimately controlled by the oceans. We have cold times ahead.

  1. May 2, 2016 4:55 pm

    Paul, thanks for the update. I notice the negative SSTAs are spreading and expanding westward along the equator in the Pacific, indicating the start of a La Niña. At this rate, we might see full blown La Niña conditions by late this year. I also notice a huge negative SSTA area in the northern Pacific, in addition to the smaller one in the northern Atlantic.

  2. May 2, 2016 5:02 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  3. Bulaman permalink
    May 2, 2016 6:01 pm

    Bula Paul,
    The Aussie BOM SOI numbers are still strongly El Nino.

    It has been interesting where I live this has been a very good metric for the general weather. It rained on every peak (towards neutral) and has been dry in every trough on that graph.


    • Green Sand permalink
      May 2, 2016 8:15 pm

      So too are the ‘Cloudiness’ numbers:-

      “Cloudiness along the equator near the Date Line typically increases during El Niño (below average outgoing long-wave radiation, or OLR) and decreases during La Niña (above average OLR).”

      So for over a year solar energy reaching equatorial waters at the dateline has been below average. Less energy in?

  4. Green Sand permalink
    May 2, 2016 7:09 pm

    I am starting to get a little ‘twitchy’ about the climate4you OHC chart.

    The data comes (via the KNMI Climate Explorer) from NOAA here:-

    IIRC the data set was updated with the Oct-Nov-Dec 2015 on or about 20th Jan 2016. First quarter 2016 has not yet been posted and we are in May?

    Past experience of ‘late results’ leaves me twitchy. It is quite a significant slope and I do trust we are not looking at a data collection/processing issue?

    • Bloke down the pub permalink
      May 2, 2016 8:35 pm

      No indication on the graph of error range. I wonder how many data points they had down at 700m back in the 60’s?

  5. AZ1971 permalink
    May 2, 2016 7:23 pm

    Has anyone given an explanation for the highly concentrated and unusual 6°-8°+ Celsius anomaly off the NE coast of the US?

  6. Tom Sieswerda permalink
    May 2, 2016 11:12 pm

    A favor please. When we click on a graph could it please be enlarged? The print is often too small.

  7. May 3, 2016 1:39 am


    In an email Hans wrote …

    “The essence of science is to be able to have a discourse and discuss pro and cons about hypotheses and theories especially if you claim that the organization you represent has the intention to reach a standard that is at a scientific level. I have found that leading members of PSI show little will to discuss scientific matters and to leave out personal emotions making it close to impossible to have a meaningful dialog.

    “Doug Cotton might behave in a miserable way showing his anger towards certain scientists and PSI. Still, the book he has published contains many arguments which deserve a serious and thorough investigation. This is why I have recommended a number of Australian politicians to read what he writes. Much of it is essential in the debate of the IPCC false claims and even the future economies of western countries and even more. ”


    You can’t assume (like Postma and Bright-Paul) that the mean of 168W/m^2 could produce a mean temperature above 233K (-40°C) just because the radiation is variable and can reach over 1,000W/m^2 for a very small portion of Earth’s surface. The variability actually leads to a LOWER mean temperature than that for steady flux. How would you explain Venus surface temperatures with your conjecture anyway?

    That’s why the correct paradigm had to be discovered, as I did –

    IT’S ABOUT TIME all you CLAUSIUS FANS got it into your heads that (for NON-RADIATIVE HEAT) the Clausius corollary of the Second Law* only applies in a horizontal plane wherein gravitational potential energy does not change and thus does not affect entropy. THIS IS OVERWHELMINGLY IMPORTANT IN REGARD TO PLANETARY TEMPERATURES.

    It is NOT radiation that supplies all the necessary thermal energy to maintain a planet’s surface temperature – it is free (or “natural”) convective heat transfer happening at the molecular level and carrying out the SECOND LAW* process of MAXIMUM ENTROPY PRODUCTION. But you will need to study my paper that arrogant people at PSI rejected in 2013.

    * Second law of thermodynamics: “In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.” There’s nothing in there about heat from hot to cold.

  8. AndyG55 permalink
    May 3, 2016 3:01 am

    UAH Global for April is +0.71, fractionally down from March.

    NH, Tropics down. SH up a bit.

    See Roy’s site.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: