Skip to content

End Of El Nino & Global Cooling

December 13, 2016

By Paul Homewood


h/t Joe Public


Cooling: New Met Office world data shows a big fall from heat spike caused by El Nino this year


Warmists have been quick to point out that the large drop in global temperatures since March is purely due to the end of El Nino.

Strange then that they were not saying the same thing about the large rise in temperatures after the onset of El Nino.

For instance, the Guardian reported back in March:

According to Professor Michael Mann, the director of Penn State Earth System Science Centre. He said it was possible to look back over the temperature records and assess the impact of an El Niño on global temperatures.

“A number of folks have done this,” he said, “and come to the conclusion it was responsible for less than 0.1C of the anomalous warmth….

Jeff Knight from the Met Office’s Hadley Centre, said their modelling set the additional heat from a big El Niño, like the current one, at about 0.2C.


According to HADCRUT4 (as shown in the Mail graph above), global land and ocean temperatures have now fallen by 0.48C since March.

RSS satellite temperatures show an even bigger drop of 0.60C.

And all of this has happened without the beginning yet of La Nina conditions.


If Mickey Mann really was right, we would now be rushing headlong into the next ice age.

Fortunately for humanity, Mickey is rarely right!

  1. December 13, 2016 11:50 am

    ‘global land and ocean temperatures have now fallen by 0.48C since March.’

    I’m not sure how much can be deduced by comparing March temps to December unless we can see the corresponding figures for at least several previous years?

    • December 13, 2016 1:48 pm

      Don’t forget these are based on anomalies (although David Rose has reconverted these into absolutes on hs graph!)

  2. Broadlands permalink
    December 13, 2016 1:50 pm

    Because the temperatures along the margin of the chart did not make sense with respect to the global air-sea values of NOAA, I wrote to a friend at the Met Office… His reply:

    “It so happens I found the explanation of this yesterday. Please see a full illustrated discussion at the following web site So its global lower tropospheric temperature over land only (not land surface data). This extra temperature anomaly drop can be largely explained by the atmospheric circulation over Asia.”

    As far as the ENSO is concerned the NINO3.4 has been in La-Nina territory (according to NOAA’s three month values) since July,Aug,Sept. The November monthly values from HadlSST1.1 show that the ENSO has reversed and is now warming, although still below the 0.5°C threshold.

    All a bit complicated and, as usual, unpredictable.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      December 13, 2016 3:03 pm

      Hmm…carbonbrief…says it all really.

    • HotScot permalink
      December 13, 2016 5:12 pm


      I’m not a scientist but I find some of the statements in the carbonbrief puzzling, if not contradictory.

      “In reality, 2014, 2015 and 2016 have been the three warmest years on record not because of a large El Niño, but because of a long-term warming trend driven by human emissions of greenhouse gases.”

      I went back to source for this. I have always found it difficult to believe that CO2 @ 3% of al greenhouse gases so I sought out John Tyndall’s experiment from 1859(?). Now, there’s no point in me reading papers, they are beyond me so I visited the Royal Institution from where I followed the link on Tyndall to Wikipedia (I’m assuming the link from the RI is to reliable information) Under the heading ‘Main Scientific Work’ his experiment is described in terms I can understand and his conclusion pretty well supports my lay assumption that 3% CO2 is just not enough to influence climate change to any meaningful degree, far less man’s contribution of around 3% (of 3%);

      “He [Tyndall] concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small. Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth’s atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he was the first to prove it. The proof was that water vapour strongly absorbed infrared radiation.”

      That being the case, unless Zeke Hausfather can provide evidence disproving Tyndall’s original experiment then his criticism of Roses work seems unjustified. In fact, to my mind, Tyndall himself undermines the entire AGW hypothesis.

      But Hausfather goes on to tell us that satellite measurement of land temperatures is inaccurate so should not be relied on. Instead, land based measurements should be accepted as reliable. However, don’t we know from Anthony Watts that surface station data are frequently contaminated by urban heat island influences?

      It would seem to me that criticising Roses use of RSS data when Hausfather seems to ignore questions surrounding his assumptions and data sources is hardly consistent with analytical science. And when data is published with the condition that it “should be used with caution”, firstly, why publish it, and secondly, perhaps Rose did use it with caution.

      Like I said, I’m not a scientist and these are merely observations.

      Thanks for reading.

    • December 13, 2016 6:32 pm

      Land surface temps according to NOAA have also plummeted, down by 1.6C since March.

      As for ENSO, the Nino 3.4 only covers part of the region. NOAA’s own MEI index shows that La Nina conditions still had not started in their Sep/Oct index (the latest available). They describe it as “Low ENSO neutral”

      There is of course a lag of perhaps 3 months between ENSO changes and atmospheric temps

      • Gerry, England permalink
        December 13, 2016 7:09 pm

        There is also the blob. Isn’t that outside the Nino 3.4?

  3. Harry MacDougald permalink
    December 13, 2016 3:49 pm

    Paul, the Wallace, Christy & D’Aleo (2016) paper does an econometric analysis of 13 separate temperature time series that removes ENSO effects and finds no trend in ENSO-adjusted temperatures from 1959 forward. None, zilch, zip, nada.

    The paper has an impressive list of scientists who agree with the methods and conclusions.

    Alan Carlin has commented favorably on the paper here:

    The paper further invalidates the hot spot, which is essential the theory of AGW.

    Mann is wish-casting with weasel words when he says ENSO effects are only .1 C of “anomalous warming.”

  4. Mike Allen permalink
    December 13, 2016 9:18 pm

    You do realize that the graphical illustration provided demonstrates pretty clear evidence of a global warming trend over time?

    • December 13, 2016 10:51 pm

      Only on HADCRUT

      The satellites still show temperatures have paused since 1998

    • Adam Gallon permalink
      December 14, 2016 7:14 pm

      The Globe’s warmed over time, few people doubt that to be the case. It’s certainly warmer than at the end of The Little Ice Age.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: