‘Equatorial total ozone variations with time scales of annual, quasi-biennial, and about 4-year periodicities are described by paying attention to their longitudinal structure. Analyses are made for 11 years from 1979 to 1989, using the global total ozone data derived from the total ozone mapping spectrometer on board the Nimbus 7 satellite. Over the equator an annual cycle in total ozone is conspicuous. Zonal mean values are maximum around September and minimum around January. The longitudinal structure shows a zonal wavenumber 1 pattern with minimum values around 140°E to the date line all year-round, indicating a close relationship to a region where the convective cloud activity is vigorous. By removing the climatological annual cycle from the original data, there appears the quasi-biennial oscillation in total ozone. This variation is characterized by zonally uniform phase changes and is strongly coupled with the quasi-biennial oscillation of the equatorial zonal wind in the lower stratosphere. Moreover, subtracting zonal mean values from the anomaly data mentioned above, we see an east-west seesaw variation with a nodal longitude around the date line. This east-west variation, having a characteristic time scale of about 4 years, is clearly related to the El Niño and the Southern Oscillation cycle. During El Niño events the longitudinal anomaly field in total ozone is positive in the western Pacific and negative in the eastern Pacific; the anomaly pattern is reversed during anti-El Niño events. Because the active region of convective clouds is located relatively in the eastern Pacific sector during El Niño events, it is suggested that the stronger upwelling and the higher tropopause associated with the convective cloud activity bring about less total ozone.’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/92JD00530/abstract
Scaling the QBO to ENSO and calling it a model is the epitome of dumb science.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n5/fig_tab/ngeo2138_F2.html
Now all you need to have a poor projection – on top of a curve poorly fitted to data – is to predict the QBO.
‘ENSO causes climate extremes across and beyond the Pacific basin; however, evidence of ENSO at high southern latitudes is generally restricted to the South Pacific and West Antarctica. Here, the authors report a statistically significant link between ENSO and sea salt deposition during summer from the Law Dome (LD) ice core in East Antarctica. ENSO-related atmospheric anomalies from the central-western equatorial Pacific (CWEP) propagate to the South Pacific and the circumpolar high latitudes. These anomalies modulate high-latitude zonal winds, with El Niño (La Niña) conditions causing reduced (enhanced) zonal wind speeds and subsequent reduced (enhanced) summer sea salt deposition at LD. Over the last 1010 yr, the LD summer sea salt (LDSSS) record has exhibited two below-average (El Niño–like) epochs, 1000–1260 ad and 1920–2009 ad, and a longer above-average (La Niña–like) epoch from 1260 to 1860 ad. Spectral analysis shows the below-average epochs are associated with enhanced ENSO-like variability around 2–5 yr, while the above-average epoch is associated more with variability around 6–7 yr. The LDSSS record is also significantly correlated with annual rainfall in eastern mainland Australia. While the correlation displays decadal-scale variability similar to changes in the interdecadal Pacific oscillation (IPO), the LDSSS record suggests rainfall in the modern instrumental era (1910–2009 ad) is below the long-term average. In addition, recent rainfall declines in some regions of eastern and southeastern Australia appear to be mirrored by a downward trend in the LDSSS record, suggesting current rainfall regimes are unusual though not unknown over the last millennium.’
Webby has made a prediction – it is impossible that more frequent and intense La Nina can continue for a decade to three more – let alone longer term variability. It is after all an oscillation – and the obvious – and hugely documented decadal and longer variability just doesn’t exist.
He misses it all – his is very, very, very poor science – he fits the data series procrustean like to fit the theory – and I am a denier because I disagree with him. I’ve got news – but not such as he is capable of processing. I don’t deny any science – he does.
