I was reminded by Jennifer Marohasy of my post a year ago (Pacific Sea Levels- Warming, ENSO, or Wind?) in which I showed that “Sea level rise in Kiribati and the Marshalls has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with the ENSO cycle, and winds in particular.”
I wonder how things are going after 12 months?
Back then I had a brief exchange with one of the commenters, MorinMoss, a Global Warming Enthusiast, part of which included the following:
Me:
So Morin, getting back to sea levels in the Pacific, what do you think sea level at Kiribati will be a year from now- higher, lower, or the same as now, and why? I reckon it will be lower- because of the ENSO cycle. The Pacific will be in neutral or La Nina phase by then, trades will be dominant, with less westerly wind bursts on the Equator.
MorinMoss:
Hard to say – there’s so much warm water in the Pacific that I think it’s too early to say how the cycle will progress.
We could be looking at a double-dip El Nino or a strong neutral (or would that be weak neutral?) phase, not proceeding immediately to a La Nina.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/science/global-warming-pacific-ocean-el-nino-blob.html
Me:
Good-oh, we shall see!
So 12 months ago I predicted sea level at Kiribati would be lower because of the ENSO cycle.
Time for a reality check.
This was the position in my post last year:
And this is the position now.
Kiribati sea level change still precedes NINO4 change, and sea level has fallen from the highest it had been in this record to about average.
Q.E.D.
Tags: El Nino, predictions
kenskingdom 
November 9, 2016 at 7:54 pm
You are one perceptive guy, Ken Stewart – usually well ahead of me when it comes to working these things out. Thanks for this. Jen
November 9, 2016 at 8:40 pm
You’re welcome Jen!
November 9, 2016 at 11:27 pm
This ass-covering, possible/may/could response to your question:
MorinMoss:
Hard to say – there’s so much warm water in the Pacific that I think it’s too early to say how the cycle will progress.
is typical of the CAGW adherents even though the ‘science is settled’.
I look forward to MorinMoss’s use of the ‘settled science’ to explain your correct prediction (and Nature’s total disdain for the same ‘settled science’.
November 11, 2016 at 9:30 am
Reblogged this on CraigM350.
November 17, 2016 at 11:41 am
To help with your analysis of Pacific Ocean sea levels please visit the Bureau of Meteorology web site at http://www.bom.gov.au/pacific/projects/pslm/index.shtml and click on the Monthly Sea Level and Meteorological Statistics which will take you to http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/data/monthly.shtml . This brings up a map showing the western Pacific Islands. The PDF plots for each of the sites will provide the sea level variation data you need from 1993 to 2015. This provides further support for the view that levels have remained essentially static since 1993.
November 17, 2016 at 12:09 pm
Thanks Stan, I completely forgot to include the links in this post, as well as NINO links, that I used last year.
http://www.bom.gov.au/pacific/projects/pslm/
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices
December 29, 2016 at 3:48 pm
First off I’m not a “global warming enthusiast”.
I’m not and have never been looking forward to seeing a significant increase in planetary warming and back when I first took an interest, in the early 80s, I expected that we would have cut back drastically on GHG production long before now.
As to the point about sea level change at Kiribati / ENSO, I’m puzzled as to why this would be considered a big deal rather than a curiosity.
Does it help explain which years of, say, the next 10 will be Nino, Nina or neutral? And how strong the cycles will be or how long they’ll last?
Also, ENSO is not the cause of global warming but an significant arctic of the ocean circulation of warm waters and shifting winds.
What is significant & notable is that, prior to the mid-70s, a Nina year used to be significantly cooler compared to Nino & neutral years.
Not only is that no longer true but they’re now quite a bit *warmer* than Nino / neutral years were just 20 years ago
December 29, 2016 at 4:36 pm
Nice try Morin. Sea level change at Kiribati is a big deal because it is claimed to be by the government of Kiribati and by many in the global warming community- GWEs if you like. I have shown that it has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with the ENSO cycle. Also I do not try to “explain which years of, say, the next 10 will be Nino, Nina or neutral? And how strong the cycles will be or how long they’ll last”. But it looks like NINO4 has a way to drop before it swings back towards El Nino- because it tends to follow Kiribati sea level.
December 29, 2016 at 6:34 pm
If you’re so confident of your data, methods & results refuting global warming, let’s see you throw down the gauntlet to tamino.wordpress.com and invite all your friends.
December 29, 2016 at 8:51 pm
You still don’t get it- this post is not about refuting global warming, but refuting the supposed relationship between global warming and Kiribati sea level. And tamino? You must be joking.
December 30, 2016 at 6:22 am
Your tagline is “A reality check on global warming”
So check my reality.
Is global warming really happening?
Is it primarily driven by CO2 levels?
Do the climate data sets support this?
No, I’m not joking. Not now and now at any time in over 30 years and I’ve changed my life & ways accordingly. I could do more & I do more that I perceive as beneficial or less damaging every year, even if it doesn’t save me money although much of what I’ve done has kept a few more dollars in my pocket.
So what about my challenge that you challenge Tamino makes you think I’m joking? If he’s willing, why wouldn’t you?
Or is this just some recreational online mathturbation?
December 29, 2016 at 3:51 pm
Typo alert – In my previous reply, I meant to type “a significant *artifact*”, not “significant arctic”
December 30, 2016 at 11:52 am
MorinMoss at Dec 30 6:22am:
Wow, I did stir you up! And, wow, you really are a Global Warming Enthusiast!
Is global warming really happening? Yes, undeniably, in the last 150 years or so. No, undeniably, in the last 10,000 years, and no, in the past 1 million years.
Is it primarily driven by CO2 levels? Partly, but not primarily.
Do the climate data sets support this? Yes.
I am pleased that you are living responsibly, and that you are happy with your choices- as I am.
And as for Tamino: no thanks. That site is a cesspit and I wouldn’t lower myself by going anywhere near it. If that’s where you get your inspiration there’s not much hope for civil discussion. If you want tit for tat, why don’t you go to WUWT and challenge Anthony or any of the many intelligent scientific minds there.
Now there has been enough off-topic discussion so let’s call it a day. If you persist in posting off-topic comments you will be automatically moderated.
December 30, 2016 at 1:20 pm
I commented occasinally over at WUWT for years and was watching the debate Watts agreed to host between Monckton & journalist Hadfield some years back.
Monckton quickly found something better to do once he realized Hadfield was no pushover and I think that was when he decided to join the hunt for Obama’s birth certificate – not sure why that much matters to an English peer.
Despite entreaties from Hadfield that Watts insist on Monckton return to finish the debate, nothing further came of it.
In fact, Watts used a video call between Hadfield & Peter Sinclair as an excuse to cancel the debate because Sinclair had once ( he claims) said something very offensive about him.
Not sure what that had to do with Hadfield but there you have it.
Tamino does an excellent job of data analysis and explanation – and dissecting a lot of the questionable analyses that find their way onto WUWT.
I’m amused at how quickly so many backtrack when I propose taking him on. And the explanation never extends to what exactly is wrong about his analysis, but does includes a complete set of ad hominems.
I’ve not yet found a better tool to weed out the poseurs.
December 30, 2016 at 1:55 pm
OK, bye.