Does El Niño affect Arctic sea ice?

[Steven]

This topic pops up occasionally on other threads, e.g. here.  If anyone thinks there is a connection between ENSO (El Niño and La Niña) and Arctic sea ice, or wants to refute such claims, they can post it here.  I looked at this a few years ago but couldn't find any correlation. 



Some data for ENSO:

Oceanic Niño Index (ONI):
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

Multivariate ENSO index (MEI):
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/#data


(El Niño shown in red, La Niña in blue)

[be cause]

lol .. could be easier to find a correlation with La Ninas .. b.c.

[binntho]

My guess is that there is a connection, but that it is very weak and swamped by other signals.

So when the ENSO index is positive, more melt is more likely, and vice versa, but other factors weigh more heavily and tend to hide the ENSO signal.

Besides it's good to keep in mind that El NInas do not cause global warming. The ENSO is only a variation around global temperatures and does not affect global temperatures in the long run. El Ninos do not cause global warming, even if they do release stored heat and bump the curve up a bit. Same goes for La Ninas, they may be good at sequestering heat and keeping the atmosphere cool for a while, but do not affect the long run.

So there is no "long term" effect. Only a very weak short-term effect in my very humble opinion.

[Tor Bejnar]

I recall reading on the ASIF or someplace (Category 6?) about 9-month or 2-year lag times (things like that) associated with El Niño and La Niñas.  There might be a perceived correlation with only intense ENSO events or only long-duration ENSO events, and as these are fairly rare, it isn't obvious at all without using sophisticated models (and higher mathematics).

[binntho]

I recall reading on the ASIF or someplace (Category 6?) about 9-month or 2-year lag times (things like that) associated with El Niño and La Niñas.  There might be a perceived correlation with only intense ENSO events or only long-duration ENSO events, and as these are fairly rare, it isn't obvious at all without using sophisticated models (and higher mathematics).

A 9 month or 2 year lag - how would that work? The biggest problem I have with any ENSO - sea ice teleconnection is that there isn't any. I.e. there is no clear causal path between an ENSO event and SIE/SIA/Volume measurements 9 or 24 months down the line.

El Nino years tend to be the warmest globally, and La Nina years coldest, but that's about it.

[binntho]

I've done an extremely messy attempt to see if there was any correlation between Arctic temperatures and the ENSO index. Conclusion: The year following a positve ENSO sees a warmer arctic, the year following a negative ENSO sees a colder arctic. Mostly, but not all the time.

I used Zach Labes arctic temperature charts (https://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/arctic-temperatures/), and my own homebrewn ENSO charts based on https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

The (very ugly) attempt is below, I've drawn blue lines from the negatives, and red lines from the positives in the ENSO graph down to the Arctic Temperature graph.

If anybody had links to monthly arctic temps then I might play around with making some prettier graphs. I might even go looking for monthly arctic temps tomorrow!

[binntho]

The 2010 - 2012 temps in particular seem to be totally out of sync with ENSO.

[Pmt111500]

Doubly delayed teleconnection sums up either in Arctic or Antarctic Ice is my current assumption. ENSO rises the tropical temperatures directly in 4-6 months (regular teleconnections) and CO2 amounts by outgassing in central to eastern pacific. The other delay would then be by changes in ocean current pressures round arctic/antarctica, changing the pattern of melt either in Arctic or Antarctic. Quite likely there is a horrible amount of variance involved. When I tried to multivariate this f.e. forgot the Pinatubo eruption which messes up the pattern pretty royally. Other inconsistencies exist. Good luck in trying to figure this out. I think I got an 18 month delay out of it (which is not likely the 'most correct' one) but discarded that stuff after Antarctic Ice got plenty losses after the recent Nino. Southern Annular Mode (SAM) should likely be factored in and then you might have too many variables and could see nonexistent patterns where there are none.

[gerontocrat]

Good luck with linking el Nino and al Nina with the Antarctic sea ice changes. For a start the metric most often considered is the maximum extent , not minimum as nearly all the sea ice disappears in summer as most is 1st yr ice.

After on average minuscule maximum extent increases from 1979 to 2012, very large increase 2013 2014, and a collapse to a record low maximum in 2016, and pretty stable since.

And no really convincing explanation from the scientists  - ozone hole, increasing polar winds, increased warm deep water incursions, some oscillation or other used to explain both increases and decreases. Down south remains very much a mystery.

I would forget it. Signals from ENSO probably overwhelmed by local factors.

That's my speculation that belongs to me.

[Pmt111500]

Good luck with linking el Nino and al Nina with the Antarctic sea ice changes. For a start the metric most often considered is the maximum extent , not minimum as nearly all the sea ice disappears in summer as most is 1st yr ice.

After on average minuscule maximum extent increases from 1979 to 2012, very large increase 2013 2014, and a collapse to a record low maximum in 2016, and pretty stable since.

And no really convincing explanation from the scientists  - ozone hole, increasing polar winds, increased warm deep water incursions, some oscillation or other used to explain both increases and decreases. Down south remains very much a mystery.

I would forget it. Signals from ENSO probably overwhelmed by local factors.

That's my speculation that belongs to me.

That's the big issue about linking SAM or other antarctic variables to this. Anyone trying to do that is sure to have temptation to use these as an 'escape hatch' to get 'better (=worse)' correlations and have his/her reputation as a statistician botched by a number of SH researchers. I'd stay out of it too, and only flirt with that to explain the poor correlations from only NH variables.

[crandles]

64N to 90N available at
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
UAH satelite temperature data:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

You might want to try some lags like: Average 4-10 months previous ENSO monthly values. Trouble is the number of ways you can do the possible averages (starting month, finishing month, etc) it becomes hard to see if the relationship is real or if there is no real relationship and what you are finding is just an effect of data mining the data until it appears you have found something.

[nanning]

<snip>
I would forget it. Signals from ENSO probably overwhelmed by local factors.

That's my speculation that belongs to me.

Great analysis I think. Completely agree with you.

[Pmt111500]

For those budding researchers who do not heed warnings, this chinese paper might be of relevance: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,405.0.html

[jdallen]

I've done an extremely messy attempt to see if there was any correlation between Arctic temperatures and the ENSO index. Conclusion: The year following a positve ENSO sees a warmer arctic, the year following a negative ENSO sees a colder arctic. Mostly, but not all the time.

I used Zach Labes arctic temperature charts (https://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/arctic-temperatures/), and my own homebrewn ENSO charts based on https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

The (very ugly) attempt is below, I've drawn blue lines from the negatives, and red lines from the positives in the ENSO graph down to the Arctic Temperature graph.

If anybody had links to monthly arctic temps then I might play around with making some prettier graphs. I might even go looking for monthly arctic temps tomorrow!

I see some literal gaps in your theory (e.g. around 2003-2008 or so stands out)  where there aren't any corresponding high points and low points.

I'm sure the ENSO contributes, but I think we're an awful long way from showing any kind of direct correlation.

[binntho]

I've done an extremely messy attempt to see if there was any correlation between Arctic temperatures and the ENSO index. Conclusion: The year following a positve ENSO sees a warmer arctic, the year following a negative ENSO sees a colder arctic. Mostly, but not all the time.

I used Zach Labes arctic temperature charts (https://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/arctic-temperatures/), and my own homebrewn ENSO charts based on https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

The (very ugly) attempt is below, I've drawn blue lines from the negatives, and red lines from the positives in the ENSO graph down to the Arctic Temperature graph.

If anybody had links to monthly arctic temps then I might play around with making some prettier graphs. I might even go looking for monthly arctic temps tomorrow!

I see some literal gaps in your theory (e.g. around 2003-2008 or so stands out)  where there aren't any corresponding high points and low points.

I'm sure the ENSO contributes, but I think we're an awful long way from showing any kind of direct correlation.

Absolutely. And it´s not "my theory" in any sense, I just noted something that seemed to be the case more often than not.

[binntho]

For those budding researchers who do not heed warnings, this chinese paper might be of relevance: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,405.0.html

Well, he seems to be saying that an El Nino causes a rise in global temperatures and that the Antarctic Oscillation changes with changes in global temperatures. So no direct causation.

My take: ENSO variability causes fluctuations in global temperatures. These fluctuations may or may not reach the Arctic.

All other hypothetical connections between ENSO and the state of the Arctic sea ice lack a clear causal relationship, and all attempts to show correlation through covariance have failed.

[Killian]

My guess is that there is a connection, but that it is very weak and swamped by other signals.

Yes. I assume this is part of the reason scientists had largely dismissed the idea.

Besides it's good to keep in mind that El NInas do not cause global warming... El Ninos do not cause global warming.

Straw Man. This is not an issue for this topic.

So there is no "long term" effect. Only a very weak short-term effect in my very humble opinion.

Also a Straw Man. The theory is stated as a 2-year window. Try to actually address the theory. You have made a number of erroneous points that cloud the discussion.

[Killian]

I looked at this a few years ago but couldn't find any correlation. 

...Some data for ENSO:

Some? Let's not cherry pick. ASIE started falling in 1953. You just lopped off 27 years of data.

[Pmt111500]

So far, all statistical attempts to show a direct relationship between Arctic Sea Ice and ENSO phase have been inconclusive and statistically they show a poor correlation by themselves. Assuming there are other factors at play (as there most certainly are) the verification of a possible link between ENSO and Arctic becomes much of an exercise in weather and oceanic weather (currents) analysis. This very easily introduces too many variables to analysis giving it a poor predictive result...

[binntho]

I looked at this a few years ago but couldn't find any correlation. 

...Some data for ENSO:

Some? Let's not cherry pick. ASIE started falling in 1953. You just lopped off 27 years of data.

I didn't lop anything off, i compared from 1979 for the SIE satellite data.

And if you can't show covariance since 1979, what ever makes you think that adding another 27 years are going to do?

[binntho]

Also a Straw Man. The theory is stated as a 2-year window. Try to actually address the theory. You have made a number of erroneous points that cloud the discussion.

But that's not a theory! That's what we would call "speculation" based on some vague squinting at a few charts.

Can you show covariance visually? Can you explain the causal link? No. You can't.

I won't address your speculation until you can show some factual evidence.

[Killian]

...to see if there was any correlation between Arctic temperatures and the ENSO index.

Why? Straw Man.

Conclusion: The year following a positve ENSO sees a warmer arctic, the year following a negative ENSO sees a colder arctic. Mostly, but not all the time.

Fits, though. I'm not sure the temp correlation would be clear in any case. A lot of this is about preconditioning, weather, all sorts of things, not just temps and not just one year. And, the correlations you show with your lines do not in any way reflect the theory.

Why you insist on posting so much and using Straw Men at every turn is beyond me. Only people with an agenda do that.

I fixed it for you to fit the theory.

[Killian]

Quite likely there is a horrible amount of variance involved.

Which makes it potentially impressive, if not random correlation, that we get over 80% correlation '53 - '18.

I think I got an 18 month delay

Fits the theory.

but discarded that stuff after Antarctic Ice got plenty losses after the recent Nino.

Why? Antarctic sea ice was never part of the theory. The known lags and opposing oscillations of the Arctic and Antarctic arewell-known. I would expect no signal that would be detectable no matter what you tried.

[Killian]

But that's not a theory!

Look up the word.

Can you explain the causal link? No. You can't.

Already have. Your dishonesty continues.

I won't address

the nstop posting on the issue. You have been dishonest with every single post you've made and have not one time addressed the points of the theory, but have cherry-picked data, looked at isolated aspects, etc., used Straw Man arguments, etc.

You have an agenda. Given there is no rational reason for it, it can only be personal.

Get over it.

[Pmt111500]

but discarded that stuff after Antarctic Ice got plenty losses after the recent Nino.

Why? Antarctic sea ice was never part of the theory. The known lags and opposing oscillations of the Arctic and Antarctic arewell-known. I would expect no signal that would be detectable no matter what you tried.

Might be well known for those who have read  or studied about these opposing oscillations. Is this connected to seasons?  Discarded since I could not explain 2 or 3 large deviations from the correlation. It got a bit complicated too for me, attempted indeed to include some version of IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole) in the function that I used for finding the correlation and it got way too messy after that.

[Tony Mcleod]

My guess is that there is a connection, but that it is very weak and swamped by other signals.

Yes. I assume this is part of the reason scientists had largely dismissed the idea.

Besides it's good to keep in mind that El NInas do not cause global warming... El Ninos do not cause global warming.

Straw Man. This is not an issue for this topic.

So there is no "long term" effect. Only a very weak short-term effect in my very humble opinion.

Also a Straw Man. The theory is stated as a 2-year window. Try to actually address the theory. You have made a number of erroneous points that cloud the discussion.

Killian, is there any reason to be so aggresive? I thought binntho was just making a few interesting points and even went to the effort of making up a graph to post. Yeah ok the graph was a tad "ugly" but hey back off a bit.

[Killian]

Now that everybody and their brother has chimed in with not one of you seeming to have a grasp of what I have suggested, let me fill you in.

History

In August 2015, there was a strong El Nino predicted. It wondered if a strong El Nino might affect the ASI. I did a quick lit survey and found nothing direcly addressing this. Another person posted two papers that were tangential, but not directly related. So, I went to the data in the form of charts I could find online. I did not use any raw data at all, just eyeballed two charts: El Ninos, ASIE 1953 - as close as it got at that time.

I wrote a couple posts about it at RC. That's it. That's the entire extent of the development of this theory.

I used this info to predict a new low ASIE or near new low (2nd or 3rd lowest) ASIE for 2016. All of you who frequent these pages know how hard predicting ASIE is. I predicted the Sept. ASIE minimum for 2016 (2nd lowest) in August 2015. Dumb luck? Maybe, but I don't think so.


The Theory

It is a theory: Observation, hypothesis, test.

Observation: Science lit says no effect. Charts say there is. 1 to 2 years following an EN, low ASIE's often occur.

Hypothesis: Warmth from the Pacific via air (fast feedback) and ocean waters (slow feedback) can affect ASI by weakening or fully melting sea ice directly and indirectly, within 24 months of the end of an EN (really two summers as the third summer would be outside the window usually.)

Some mechanisms:

* Direct short-term air temps
* Direct longer-term air temps
* Precipitation, pan-Arctic
* Direct effects from hgher and/or warmer river discharge
* Direct longer-term ocean temps via Bering Strait from the Pacific.
* Direct/inderect effects from increased short-lived, local CO2/CH4, both land and sub-sea.

Storms? No idea.

Here is my original "data":

EN ’51 – ’54 = inception of ASI Extent decline.
EN ’57 – ’59 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’65 – ’66 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’68 – ’70 = New Low
EN ’72 – ’73 = possible correlation, some delay
EN ’76 – ’78 = New Low
EN ’79 – ’80 = New Low
EN ’82 – ’83 = New Low
EN ’86 – ’88 = New Low (’89,’90)
EN ’94 – ’95 = New Low
EN ’97 – ’98 = Drop from Previous (?)
EN ’04 – ’05 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’04 – ’05/’06 – ’07 = New Low
EN ’09 – ’10 = New Low (’10, ’12)
EN ’15 – ’16 = New Low ’16,’17?

Result: 86% correlation of ENs and ASIE lows.

Since that time, I remember two studies concluding there are teleconnections between Pacific air temps and moisture and ASI.

I have attached the original ASIE chart I used.

This is, perhaps a better starting point for these conversations, a bit of a reboot, maybe.

And... well, damn. I go searching for those two papers and find this, from this year:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0363-1

By isolating the impact of the individual drivers in an Earth system model, we here demonstrate that internal variability of sea ice is primarily caused directly by atmospheric temperature fluctuations. The other drivers together explain only 25% of sea-ice variability. The dominating impact of atmospheric temperature fluctuations on sea ice is consistent across observations, reanalyses and simulations from global climate models. Such atmospheric temperature fluctuations occur due to variations in moist-static energy transport or local ocean heat release to the atmosphere. The fact that atmospheric temperature fluctuations are the key driver for sea-ice variability limits prospects of interannual predictions of sea ice, and suggests that observed record lows in Arctic sea-ice area are a direct response to an unusually warm atmosphere.

Mic. Dropped.

[Archimid]

From the other thread:

I see everyone posting graphs of average annual ENSO relative to the minimum extent. That's where the least ENSO influence is expected.

I don't see why this would be. Regardless of the time of year energy is transferred, is it not the total transferred that matters in the end? If an EN, for example, pushes ice melt in the Spring, that's still less ice to be melted. Etc.

Not really. Like others say, often times the ENSO effects over the Arctic are masked by the weather and other patterns. Decades ago when the pacific was cooler and the ice thicker that effect was masked even more.

As the world warms and the ice thins the effects become more obvious, specially during winter.  The winter effect is larger because during summer area loss is mostly solar driven. During summer the temperatures right above the ice is at almost 0. During winter  -40.  By the time warm air from the pacific makes it to the Arctic it is relatively cold. Thus the effect is minimal.

That air is also humid. Clouds cause cooling during summer and warming during winter. Thus warm humid air intrusions during winter slows ice formation during winter.

I think statistics are not the right tool to understand the relationship between ENSO and the Arctic. The most important reason why this is true is hat there isn't enough data yet. Yes we have decades of ENSO data but only a few years of ENSO + thin ice + warm world.

[binntho]

Well done Killian with predicting that 2016 would be in a tie with 2007 for the second/third lowest SIE. Some would call it a fluke (and lots of other people were predicting the same thing for different reasons).

But one prediction does not a theory make. In scientific terms, a theory would have to be pretty well backed up with data as well as a good hypothesis for the causal link.

What you have put forward is an idea, or speculation, without any real data and without any good causal link.

Observation: Science lit says no effect. Charts say there is. 1 to 2 years following an EN, low ASIE's often occur.

No, charts do not say there is an effect. And when  "1 to 2 years" after something, something else "often" occurs seems to me to be a good description of randomness.

Just to be clear: El Ninos cause a temporary rise in global temperatures, over and above the underlying general rise. A summer or winter with higher global temperatures may well indicate a summer or winter in the Arctic with higher than normal temperatures.

And this idea that an effect can be up to 2 years in the making seems very specious and demanding better explanations.

Oh, and by the way, stop shouting "straw man" all the time. This discussion is not exclusively about you or your speculations, and I am free to make my own statements without reference to whatever you may have been saying.

[binntho]

Can you explain the causal link? No. You can't.

Already have. Your dishonesty continues.

Well, stupidity is sometimes mistaken for other than what it is. I haven't seen any explanation of a causal link other than what is clear to everybody: El Ninos cause higher temperatures, and higher temperatures can melt more ice. Basta cosí.

Shouting is not explaining.

[binntho]

I fixed it for you to fit the theory.

Your "theory" seems to be that because both graphs show constant and big variation, shifting one to match the other somehow creates something that says ... what?

That El Nino years are colder than La Nina years globally, and that the effect can even be felt in the Arctic? Well, guess what, that's something we can all agree on!

[Pmt111500]

Not really. Like others say, often times the ENSO effects over the Arctic are masked by the weather and other patterns. Decades ago when the pacific was cooler and the ice thicker that effect was masked even more.

This is true and why the speed of melt, not he total amount must be used in searching the correlation.

And to the later point, statistics alone are not enough, even though I finally remembered Pinatubo and it's effects on Pacific surface temperatures it was still too messy to call it well done science. In fact I had to rework the whole f-ng sheet to get it behave after Pinatubo. Initially I just excised the two and half years off the datasets after that bang.

(Some guys at GISS are probably now LOL)

[Killian]

Wow... there's a lot of new stuff on air heat and moisture transport to the Arctic...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333154564_Atmospheric_moisture_transport_and_the_decline_in_Arctic_Sea_ice

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317326631_Impact_of_Poleward_Moisture_Transport_from_the_North_Pacific_on_the_Acceleration_of_Sea_Ice_Loss_in_the_Arctic_since_2002

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332345293_Impact_of_Atmospheric_Heat_and_Moisture_Transport_on_the_Arctic_Warming

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330242989_Atmospheric_moisture_transport_between_mid-latitudes_and_the_Arctic_Regional_seasonal_and_vertical_distributions

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325744172_Year-to-year_Variability_in_Arctic_Minimum_Sea_Ice_Extent_and_its_Preconditions_in_Observations_and_the_CESM_Large_Ensemble_Simulations

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325443332_Summers_with_low_Arctic_sea_ice_linked_to_persistence_of_spring_atmospheric_circulation_patterns

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325328146_A_new_pattern_of_the_moisture_transport_for_precipitation_related_to_the_drastic_decline_in_Arctic_sea_ice_extent

Etc.

I guess if we're motivated enough, we can get some idea of how clear any linkages might be.

[Killian]

The winter effect is larger because during summer area loss is mostly solar driven.

Just to be absolutely clear, I have not looked at ASI Area. Second, all the papers I found today would indicate otherwise - that said without a thougrough review - though I know that is the consensus on this site, and may well be accurate.

I think statistics are not the right tool to understand the relationship between ENSO and the Arctic. The most important reason why this is true is hat there isn't enough data yet. Yes we have decades of ENSO data but only a few years of ENSO + thin ice + warm world.

Perhaps. I'm neither a scientist nor a statistician, but I think the myriad papers on heat and moisture air transport that have sprung up in recent years suggest there may be more there than stated. What gets more heat and moisture in the air than an EN?

And, I've never stated the effects are from temps and moisture *during the summer,* but mostly from preconditioning. Take preconditioned ice + summer anomalous weather and maybe we get somewhere.

[Killian]

I finally remembered Pinatubo and it's effects on Pacific surface temperatures it was still too messy to call it well done science.

Interesting that the ASIE chart I posted shows it went up the year after Pinatubo and was kind of static for a few years after.

[Killian]

Killian, is there any reason to be so aggresive? I thought binntho was just making a few interesting points and even went to the effort of making up a graph to post. Yeah ok the graph was a tad "ugly" but hey back off a bit.

Identifying a logical fallacy is aggressive? Know what is aggessive? Attacking someone for not being like you.

Your post was completely uncalled for. Maybe read this bc you are incredibly intolerant of "voice": https://www.autostraddle.com/kin-aesthetics-excommunicate-me-from-the-church-of-social-justice-386640/

[Killian]

Since I have been warned for speaking the truth, I seek to avoid the person who seeks to only disrupt: How do I block/ignore/whatever is available on this forum?

Yes, I looked and couldn't find how to do it, only a mention of it.

[Sterks]

Killian:
Theory:
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
An observation of event correlation is not a theory. It demands a theory.
1. Does any one have a theory for the observed (?) correlation?
2. Is the observation even valid (in other words, is the observed correlation statistically significant?)
(no)

[Pmt111500]

Since I have been warned for speaking the truth, I seek to avoid the person who seeks to only disrupt: How do I block/ignore/whatever is available on this forum?

Yes, I looked and couldn't find how to do it, only a mention of it.

I see it as a disagreement between 'theory' and a 'hypothese'. Of course there's net heat transport towards poles, that's normal for a planet with greenhouse effect, how fast this happens and what routes the heat escapes is another issue. Further, tropical heat could escape before it hits the pole though warming up another place... TL/DW   editing ignore list happens in profile -> modify profile-> buddies/ignore list -> edit ignore list and then you have to type the offending nickname to add it to not see his/her comments in threads. Still you'll see the quotes others make and their posts on the latest activity window.

[binntho]

Since I have been warned for speaking the truth, I seek to avoid the person who seeks to only disrupt: How do I block/ignore/whatever is available on this forum?

Yes, I looked and couldn't find how to do it, only a mention of it.

I see it as a disagreement between 'theory' and a 'hypothese'. Of course there's net heat transport towards poles, that's normal for a planet with greenhouse effect, how fast this happens and what routes the heat escapes is another issue. Further, tropical heat could escape before it hits the pole though warming up another place... TL/DW   editing ignore list happens in profile -> modify profile-> buddies/ignore list -> edit ignore list and then you have to type the offending nickname to add it to not see his/her comments in threads. Still you'll see the quotes others make and their posts on the latest activity window.

Thanks Pmt ... Killian, I posted to you how to ignore other users a few days ago.

Someone said there is a way to mute people... I don't like jerks.

Go to Profile, Modify Profile, Buddies/Ignore List, Edit Ignore List. It's not easy to find! I've only ever ignored one poster, and I certainly won't ignore you Killian but feel free to ignore me whenever you feel like it!

But I don't think it will help you much with your "theories" to ignore those who do not agree with you.

[binntho]

Killian, is there any reason to be so aggresive? I thought binntho was just making a few interesting points and even went to the effort of making up a graph to post. Yeah ok the graph was a tad "ugly" but hey back off a bit.

Identifying a logical fallacy is aggressive? Know what is aggessive? Attacking someone for not being like you.

Your post was completely uncalled for. Maybe read this bc you are incredibly intolerant of "voice": https://www.autostraddle.com/kin-aesthetics-excommunicate-me-from-the-church-of-social-justice-386640/

Killian, this is not good. If you are unable to state your case so that others can understand it, then you should perhaps rethink your stance, rather than starting with the ad hominems (a sure sign of a lost cause).

[Killian]

no

False. There is a theory, there is a mechanism, there is supporting science with lots of links.

This is just being argumentative, imo, and pointless. You now want to argue over the definition of theory? To what end? Goodness...

[Sterks]

That ENSO ever-warming trend is interlaced with the AGW of the planet, we could say that there's a good correlation here.
That AGW causes Arctic Sea Ice to disappear there's a lot of evidence, correlations, and theoretical predictions.
That El Niño episodes correlate with Arctic sea ice minima, I perceive weak echoes maybe, after monster ones.
But if you insist, you will have to establish the correlation and the mechanism why it happens. You'll have to go all into research instead of insulting people that disagree with you.

At least, chill out and stop insulting or somebody will end up calling for moderation

[Steven]

Here is my original "data":

EN ’51 – ’54 = inception of ASI Extent decline.
EN ’57 – ’59 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’65 – ’66 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’68 – ’70 = New Low
EN ’72 – ’73 = possible correlation, some delay
EN ’76 – ’78 = New Low
EN ’79 – ’80 = New Low
EN ’82 – ’83 = New Low
EN ’86 – ’88 = New Low (’89,’90)
EN ’94 – ’95 = New Low
EN ’97 – ’98 = Drop from Previous (?)
EN ’04 – ’05 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’04 – ’05/’06 – ’07 = New Low
EN ’09 – ’10 = New Low (’10, ’12)
EN ’15 – ’16 = New Low ’16,’17?

Result: 86% correlation of ENs and ASIE lows.

That list is riddled with errors.  There was no "new low" Arctic sea ice extent in 1989, 2010 or 2016.  Nor was there a new low within 2 years after the 1965/1966 and 1979/1980 El Niño events.

[Killian]

Here is my original "data":

EN ’51 – ’54 = inception of ASI Extent decline.
EN ’57 – ’59 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’65 – ’66 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’68 – ’70 = New Low
EN ’72 – ’73 = possible correlation, some delay
EN ’76 – ’78 = New Low
EN ’79 – ’80 = New Low
EN ’82 – ’83 = New Low
EN ’86 – ’88 = New Low (’89,’90)
EN ’94 – ’95 = New Low
EN ’97 – ’98 = Drop from Previous (?)
EN ’04 – ’05 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’04 – ’05/’06 – ’07 = New Low
EN ’09 – ’10 = New Low (’10, ’12)
EN ’15 – ’16 = New Low ’16,’17?

Result: 86% correlation of ENs and ASIE lows.

That list is riddled with errors.  There was no "new low" Arctic sea ice extent in 1989, 2010 or 2016.  Nor was there a new low within 2 years after the 1965/1966 and 1979/1980 El Niño events.

Your corrections have errors, but I don't care to correct them at the moment bc they are due partly to you not understanding the list and that's not worth dealing with. But, yes, there are a couple errors, I think. It was made a long time ago with poor resources.

Edit:

Oh, what the heck!

There was no "new low" Arctic sea ice extent in 1989: Correct.

2010: Correct. For all these years I had remembered 2010 as one of the lows since 2005. Don't ask me why, just a memory error. I can only guess in 2015 that's what happened. It was, however, a NNL.

2016: Correct, but the list does not claim it was. After all, if you'd read all the relevant posts, you'd know that list is from 2015, so how could it have been claimed? Thus, the "?".

Nor was there a new low within 2 years after the 1965/1966: Correct. Also not on the list. The list designates a new low woth only New Low. It designates a Near New Low and or mix of NNL and NL as Near New Low/New Low.

1979/1980 El Niño events: Incorrect. 79 was a significant new low, 80 and 81 qualified as near new lows. The EN started at the beginning of the year and was well underway come summer.

So, rather than being "riddled" with errors, there was only one.

[binntho]

Killian, this whole discussion that has taken us back and forth between threads started when you posted this:

<snip>
There is a very important, never-discussed issue that is a pet of mine. Both 2012 and 2016 were strong El Nino years. The scientific literature in 2012 said EN's do not affect ASI. They're wrong, IMO. As you can see here...

I went further back, eyeballing from an extent graph through 2010 or so with poor detail (what I could find) and a list of ENSO years and intensities. This is the rough. If anyone has more detailed resources and can nail this down better, please do.

Here is what I found going all the way back to the beginning of ASIE decline @ 1953-ish.

EN ’51 – ’54 = inception of ASI Extent decline.
EN ’57 – ’59 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’65 – ’66 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’68 – ’70 = New Low
EN ’72 – ’73 = possible correlation, some delay
EN ’76 – ’78 = New Low
EN ’79 – ’80 = New Low
EN ’82 – ’83 = New Low
EN ’86 – ’88 = New Low (’89,’90)
EN ’94 – ’95 = New Low
EN ’97 – ’98 = Drop from Previous (?)
EN ’04 – ’05 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’04 – ’05/’06 – ’07 = New Low
EN ’09 – ’10 = New Low (’10, ’12)
EN ’15 – ’16 = New Low ’16,’17?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/unforced-variations-aug-2015/comment-page-5/#comment-635199

...I predicted the near new low (2nd in the record) of 2016 a full year ahead, in August 2015. How? An EN was brewing and was expected to be strong. I looked back through the data all the way back to the 1950's and noticed a correlation between ENs and ASI changes. However, as we know, it takes time for energy to propogate through a system, particularly the oceans. It was when I used a two-year post-EN window that the correlation jumps out. The year of the EN it is occurring during the melt season, but in the Pacific, not the Arctic. It takes time for that energy to propagate and takes time for ice to react. Bottom melt, as we all know, dominates.

Since 2012, and since my theory was posited 4 years ago, two studies have found that Pacific heat and moisture affect ASI. The tie is not as equivocal as my theory, but nobody is looking at my theory because the conventional wisdom EN's don't affect ASI is set. But they do, imo. The combination of the EN, the GAC and the high export gave us 2012. It's not normal. As any good scientist is taught, sometimes you have to throw out the outlier. It does not serve as a good model for a year with no GAC, no EN (though June's and July's high heat might be considered proxies for the EN), and higher but not exceptional export.
<snip>

What immediately struck me was the false claim that 2012 was a "strong El Nino year" as was 2016. That's so obviously not true that it should have been the first thing that you corrected. Neither year was an El Nino year, but 2016 did see the end of the mega-El Nino of 2015, while 2012 was literally sunk in a series of La Ninas.

The text following the table also shows a logical fallacy: You posit a two-year teleconnection between El Ninos and SIE lows, and on the basis of that you predict, in 2015, that 2016 would be a low SIE year because at the time a huge El Nino was brewing ... so the 2 year window did not apply?

According to your own theory, you should, in August 2015 (in the middle of the biggest El Nino episode yet), have predicted a new low in 2017. But you didn't. Neither did you use your own theory, nor did the theory pan out (2017 was high).

And then your table, which I pointed out was full of errors, and you replied immediately that it was I who was in error - without even checking for yourself.

The table has El Nino episodes spanning 3 or 4 years, which is of course ridiculous, and it misses out on a few (such as winter 63/64). Other of your EN episodes are in fact two distinct episodes, with even a La Nina in between.

Finally, yes of course there will be a connection between ENSO and the arctic, both generally (higher global temperatures tend to lead to higher arctic temperatures) and also perhaps specifically (more moisture from the Pacific after an El Nino? I don't know).

But postulating a 2 year lag time requires that there is somewhere a large pulse of energy lurking post-EN to suddenly spring into action in the Arctic (How did it get there? Where was it hiding?)

All in all a rather weakly put case, but vigorously defended without ever needing recourse to facts.

[binntho]

So I  tried a totally new approach:

1) I picked out the years with distinct lows from the first chart here (plus added 2019, perhaps a bit prematurely): https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/longterm

2) For each year I checked if there was an El Nino episode within the previous 4 years according to this: https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

3) I then tabulated the results. The green squares show if there was an El Nino episode in each of four 12 months periods prior to the summer minimum.

NB Notice that 2002 had no prior El Nino events for four years.

Conclusion: Totally random. No discernible pattern.

EDIT: Well. "hastværk er lastværk" as the prioress said to the bishop. It turns out that I should have had 1993 and 1995 but not 1994 ... table is corrected.

[binntho]

Anybody (including you, Killian) is free to try this for themselves, I may have made mistakes or excluded years that others would have included (and vice versa).

[binntho]

A private communication from Killian tells me that I keep moving the goalposts and cherrypicking, he has put me on ignore and has stopped posting on the forum "because of too many a***holes".

Well, they do tend to come in pairs (i.e. the holes - for input and output).

So apparently data must be preferentially ignored and evidence willfully filtered to avoid having your honest criticism and engagement called "goalpostmoving cherrypicking" along with various other personal attacks.

[binntho]

Searching for that elusive correlation has made me think of different ways of plotting the data. This is an attempt to plot the "magnitude" of a "low SIE" year against an average ENSO index. The blue columns are my very own home-brewed SIE magnitude index - worked out like this:

SIEmin - (5 year running average) * -1.

The orange columns are a running 5 year ENSO index, non-normalized (i.e. with fixed baseline).

I only included years with an SIE index higher than 0.5, and it's interestingto see that 2007 has a higher index than 2012, and 2016 doesn't even show up (had an index of -0.28 as did 2015).

But alas, I fail to see any correlation.