Slashdot Mirror
El Nino Has Finally Arrived, Far Weaker Than Predicted
An anonymous reader writes "The periodic warm weather pattern called El Niño has finally arrived in the mid-equatorial Pacific Ocean, more than a year late and far weaker than predicted by scientists. "The announcement comes a year after forecasters first predicted that a major El Niño could be in the works. At the time, NOAA predicted a 50% chance that an El Niño could develop in the latter half of 2014. The agency also said the wind patterns that were driving water east across the Pacific were similar to those that occurred in the months leading up to the epic El Niño of 1997, which caught scientists by surprise and contributed to flooding, droughts and fires across multiple continents.
In the end, last year's forecasts came up short, in part because the winds that were driving the system petered out. Researchers, who have been working to improve their forecasting models since 1997, are trying to figure out precisely what happened last year and why their models failed to capture it."
In the end, last year's forecasts came up short, in part because the winds that were driving the system petered out. Researchers, who have been working to improve their forecasting models since 1997, are trying to figure out precisely what happened last year and why their models failed to capture it."
Awk Awk
It's the fault of global warming.
Awk Awk.
It looks like you're the only one saying that.
Well, hell, why not? Just remember that it's Climate Change now though, not Global Warming. Among other amazing things, Climate Change is responsible for:
ISIS: Yup, somehow, Climate Change was one of the reasons we have ISIS.
Crime. Climate change is also responsible for more rape.
Prostitution. Yeah, see, climate change may increase prostitution too.
I know, I know, this comment is a little snarky, but even the people here on Slashdot that are hardcore global warming types can see that there's a whacko fringe in their camp that is beyond ridiculous.
Love sees no species.
Weather != climate.
If you flip a coin and get heads twice in a row, do you claim statistics is bunk?
"NOAA predicted a 50% chance that an El Niño could develop in the latter half of 2014"
With odds like that, how could they be wrong?
Is this sig nificant?
is El Nino. You killed my father. Prepare to DIE!!!
So these awesome weather models that have been driving so much controversy over global warming and everything else are not quite right? Hmm, soo let me get this straight. They can't predict the weather next week very accurately, but we are supposed to "trust" the experts when they tell us what is going to happen in the next few years or longer? And we are seeing constant reminders like this that their models are broken and prone to human error. Forgive me if I take ALL weather predictions with a degree of doubt, like I have for almost all my life.
Yiiiiiiippppppppeeeeeee to Mr. Nino!
The real story is a lot more complicated that TFA indicates. The new el nino is just starting and it's six months out of phase with the usual timing. So instead of starting six months late, it could just as well be seen as starting 6 months early in the next cycle. And more importantly, it is now combined with a phase change in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The two cycles combine to produce a much stronger warming effect. The negative PDO was responsible for the impression that warming had slowed. Now that it has reversed the warming will not just return to pre-1998 levels but will be much stronger. This could last for the next 10 to 15 years. Hopefully by then people with short attention spans will have realized that the planet is irrevocably getting hotter.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
But computer models are always right and we can NOT investigate further....science is settled.
The political problems in Syria are very much timed with huge crop losses causing food price issues that are very likely the fault of global warming.
It has been one of the coldest and wetist winters in awhile. High around 39 should not be a common occurrence on the gulf coast but it feels more like Seattle than a subtropical place. It got in the 70s only a few times last February.
El Nino was supposed to be big as a big surge of very warm water up to 150 ft deep and almost 1,000 miles long headed east. However the winds picked up and chilly Antarctic current which cools west South America mixed in for a few months so it is not so warm anymore.
Weather is complex and last decade (no I do not deny global warming) had a solar null which means cooler temperatures and more la nina events like those in the mini ice age from 1400 - 1840 which explains colder temperatures and dryer conditions. California hit a 500 year drought where the climate actually changed from mediterranean to desert. Same in Chile and Peru.
http://saveie6.com/
They can't predict the weather next week very accurately, but we are supposed to "trust" the experts when they tell us what is going to happen in the next few years or longer?
There is quite some difference between predicting an outcome of a chaotic system (tomorrow's weather) and accurately enumerating data sets already acquired in the past.
Your 'Climate Skepticism' (global warming denial) is very thinly veiled. Top points for smugness, though.
It's all those damn turbines we're putting up. Slow down all the wind, and pretty soon there won't be any. Then what are you going to do, eh?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I wonder where the idea that weather = climate comes from? Could it have been that it was used to promote global warming stories? http://www.independent.co.uk/e... Don't cry when the same people who were fed crap stories about snow never happening due to global warming turn around 15 years later and laugh about it. Do try and understand that when you have been actually paying attention (and not just wringing your hands and worrying) to the 'message' and what climate change is attributed to have caused, for 15+ years it's pretty obvious to see the hyperbole and just plain stupidity when it comes to global warming - sorry climate change, where it is never wrong, the science (which was settled) never changes unless there is a pause and then it changes to match the data and it was settled and now it's settled again. Or you know when we say there is an el nino when the criteria to actually announce that is a hard coded science flowchart requiring 5 months of elevated readings of which we only have 4 currently (assuming NOAA's data for this month is also elevated) - but you know that'd be using actual science to question why the rush to breathlessly declare el nino when it's not certain yet. That is really the question.
...no.
The fact that they did not accurately predict the weather, does NOT have a bearing on the legitimacy of the theory of human-induced global warming.
None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Not significant.
So you can stop posting about it.
It's a shame this hasn't so far made it rain in the California area. At least freak weather patterns can help sometimes by simply causing different weather. Hopefully that changes in the near future. Then again, California's economy and politics are so fucked up, the weather might as well crap out too.
Nice try, but 15 years of weather statistics is climate. One winter is not. The science has been fairly consistent, only the specifics seem up for grabs.
You might also want to note that El Nino isn't itself part of climate change.
And I wouldn't crow too much about the name change. The term 'global warning' has mostly fallen out of favor due to idiots thinking a slightly chilly morning in the middle of winter meant it couldn't be real.
It is a sin to even question your faith. Don't forget.
Why 15 years? Because it fits your preconceived notions? Climate is much more than 15 years, and cherry picking your 15 years isn't much better than the opposition cherry picking one winter. But you're both the same
And yet temperatures continue to rise, ice continues to melt, sea level continues to rise and the oceans continue to acidify.
One definition of climate is the statistics of weather, IOW the average and standard deviation of weather over some time period. The World Meteorological Organization defines the standard classical period for climate as 30 years.
One scientists misstatement about snow doesn't make climate science collapse.
Because after 15 years, many of the chaotic changes in weather average out. The sun cycle is 11 years, for instance. After 15 years, you'd expect a few El-Ninos and La-Ninas. You can calculate that a 15 year period is about the minimum. For a more robust number, you could take 30 years. More than 30 years isn't very useful. There aren't really any weather related patterns that last longer than that.
There was an ice age 10K years ago. So there are definitely longer term weather patterns on this planet. That's not evidence for or against global warming, but to claim we understand the climate well is disingenuous at best.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Of course, there are longer term patterns, but these aren't weather patterns. Glaciation cycles are caused by orbital patterns. On even longer time scales you have things like continental drift, and gradually increasing solar output. These patterns are interesting, and it's good to know they exist when you want to compare climates over similar time spans, but they aren't really relevant for the discussion about climate change.
Yes, it has nothing at all to do with the instability in Iraq caused by a pointless war there. War apologist much?
That is fair enough. But that also means that any article claiming the end of the world for any recent event is clickbait.
Make El Nino five or ten years late and there is reason to think about it. A year give or take in a 30 year span isn't much to argue about.
Too bad there's no "not even wrong" moderation...
That's rich, coming from a troll who's written over a thousand comments here about climate science with nearly nothing of substance in hundreds of pages worth of your nonsense.
No, they don't. The 15 year window is chosen because that's about the longest window you can take without the data making you look like a lying ass. Look at all of the data or STFU. But you can't do that, can you? Because then you'd have to acknowledge the obvious.
And then you come along and spoil it by posting such a deep and insightful comment.
In fact it goes opposite to what global warming / climate change is expected to do. Global warming should result in more extreme weather, including more powerful storms.
Not trying to disprove global warming here. Isolated events taken out of context are not proof.
Too bad climate isn't based on statistics.
Wow the cognitive dissonance is stunning.
No kidding one winter isn't. That's the reason why the 'settled' science saying snowfalls would be gone in a decade (pub. 2000) is laughed at. Instead of embracing the joke and laughing at the kook element that is crying that the sky is falling the fact that you feel the need to 'defend' science (why is this a thing - science is what it is - evidence doesn't need defenders it speaks for itself) just doubles down on the hypocrisy.
There are plenty of us that thing the world is getting warming - are unsure but willing to let the actual evidence and further research prove how much is human forcing - and actually think most 'green' policies are fine at face value, however also think that the fervor used to tout 'climate change' is neither scientific or rational.
It wasn't one statement - it was multiple headlines over a period of a few years.
Don't put words in my mouth please I didn't say climate science collapsed. I said if you don't understand the joke here it is
I think the 15 years is being taken out of context (in all the replies) - 15 years is the period between publication of the first 'snow is gone in 10 years' article (2000) and today (2015) - it's not some magical number if the article was published 30 years ago I would have said 30. The only reason 15 years is relevant in my comment is because 1) that's how long its' been that the headlines were such, and 2) it is longer than the decade claimed after which snow was gone.
The headlines today aren't any less ridiculous - Science (the publication) just blamed the Syrian War on climate change. I'd actually go so far as to say the kook headlines are worse today than 15 years ago - and that's exactly what I mean when I say 'looking at 15+ years' - the ridiculous and unsupportable claims that climate change is the cause of every problem in the world at the same time.
You know there is more to this planet than the good ole US of A. Maybe you guys have had a hiatis for the last 10 or 15 years but here in Australia we've been breaking weather records every year for about the same period.
Australian Bureau of Meteorology is now considering revising up the (standard) average temps because now every year for the last 10 or 15 years have been unusually above average, summer & winter. Snow season is even starting later now than ever before, and finishing earlier.
Major bush fires that that histrically occur every 10 or 12 years now occur every 6 or 8 years.
Hiatis my arse....
Weather records are being broken all over the world. Not just every now and then like before, but every year.
To anybody with common sense that should seem at least a little strange....
It may not be entirely our fault ( varying output from the sun and such)...but we're certainly not helping matters......
besides the amount of oil and gas in the ground is not unlimited ( won't last for ever)..... It took millions of years to put it there and in a few hundred years we've managed to pull a very large portion of it out again.
Remember the whole "polar vortex" thing in North America last year? That thing that's repeating this winter? The bitterly cold temperatures are causing pipes to freeze. Pipes that are inside heated and insulated houses.
It's getting so damned cold from arctic air making it farther south than normal that people are being advised in some Canadian cities to keep their taps running 24/7 so they don't freeze, and their water bill will be adjusted so they don't pay for the extra water that they use.
If the arctic air coming south is so cold that it's causing issues like this, how is it even remotely possible that the arctic is warm enough for glaciers to be melting in huge amounts due to temperature?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Not trying to disprove global warming here. Isolated events taken out of context are not proof.
The problem is that every single event that refutes global warming is an "isolated event taken out of context," whereas every single event that points to global warming is "part of an undeniable pattern."
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
"Oh...ice ages aren't weather related patterns that last longer than 30 years, because that would disprove my incredibly ignorant comments about climate!"
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Nice try, but 15 years of weather statistics is climate. One winter is not
Err...that would be two winters. And a virtually non-existent summer.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
"There aren't really any weather related patterns that last longer than that."
Given that glacial/warm eras tend to last for more than 30 years, I'll beg to differ.
If cold air is getting pushed out of the Arctic, what kind of air do you think goes back in to replace it ?
Weather related patterns are patterns that form as a result of the chaotic nature of weather. And these chaotic patterns are not responsible for ice ages.
These are some of the same climate scientists openly discussing geo-engineering of the climate. Just as you can't automate what you don't understand, you can't 'fix' something if you can't accurately describe how and why it's broken. Hands off until they can please..
Organization? You must be joking..
North America has insulated houses now?
There isn't an equal balance of warm and cold air
There's not a perfect balance, but the local, day to day fluctuations we call weather are mostly a result of the same heat being distributed in different ways. Total heat on earth isn't going to be dramatically different between yesterday and tomorrow.
the sun is entering into a new solar minimum, meaning there is less warm air all around.
The amplitude of the solar cycle is about 0.1% of the total solar output. That's not a significant contribution.
Kudos for an incredibly stupid question. Did it occur to you to actually check what the weather in the Arctic was like during these polar vortexes?
I grew up in Valdez, Alaska. I wasn't there for the avalanche mentioned in the article, but it's pretty epic, no? The whole town was cut off from the world by a snowslide/ice dam for a couple of weeks. Fun times. But the glacial melting is just unreal. Ten thousand year old ice is vanishing, there are glacier overlooks built where you can't actually see the glacier any more. The Columbia Glacier retreated like twenty miles. The low altitude, smaller glaciers are the ones melting fastest, and they're the most visible/accessible.
It's cool though. You haven't seen any of that, so it must all be made up. Wishful thinking beats reality any day, I'm sure.
It takes a certain kind of mind to counter measurable and published evidence with a flawed thought experiment using a single condition experienced by a small portion of the world for a small portion of the year.
Even ignoring the problems with your thought experiment, why not instead try and prove the visible evidence we see, rather than try and disprove it.
Or are you merely exposing your true identity as Adam Savage? "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
Remember the whole "polar vortex" thing in North America last year?
Not really. I live on the west coast of North America and it never affected us. The "polar vortexes" you are referring to only affected less than 5% of the surface of the Earth. February 2015 was in the top 5 warmest globally.
Yes, it has nothing at all to do with the instability in Iraq caused by a pointless war there. War apologist much?
Because there can never be an event that has multiple contributing factors? There always has to be exactly one straw that breaks the camel's back?
The "snow is gone" remark was never published in the peer reviewed literature. It was an off the cuff remark. It was only one scientist. It may have made the headlines but it was never part of the mainstream science.
I believe that up until recently, what is currently called a "polar vortex" was called "arctic air" in a weather forecast. Polar vortex, while being a historical term dating to the 1800's, was rarely used to describe the phenomena of cold cyclonic polar air pushing south. Using it commonly now makes it seem like winter weather patterns have suddenly and drastically changed. They haven't, not in just a couple of years.
Why are you so fucking stupid?
risk = damage x likelihood.
What would the damage be if global climate change is right? Is there 0% chance that CO2 traps heat? Is there a 0% chance that methane traps heat? Id there a 0% chance that ocean acidification will effect us?
I really want to know if you are paid to be shill or you are actually as stupid as you seem.
There are plenty of gullible people who believe weather == climate. In reality weather can affect climate over the long term on a geological timescale, but more importantly to those living on the planet today, climate influences weather. These people should read a first-year university-level textbook about meteorology to learn the distinction.
So you're saying the arctic air is warmer than the air half way to the equator?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
An ice age is a period (an incredibly long one, I might add) of very cold, very dry weather across the entire planet. Of course it's weather related.
No, me deciding to work from home today rather than starting my car to drive to the office isn't going to start an ice age, so in that sense you're right, but you're using the most narrowly defined meaning of weather you possibly can, to avoid the fact that the climate of the earth has been in constant flux for millions of years, and somehow, now, the global warming apologists are convinced that we're suddenly causing it, and if we stopped burning fossil fuels, then the climate would become static.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Wow,
how can one be so stupid is beyond me.
The ice melts not in the winter when you have an arctic vortex. How retarded are you? Actually you have every winter an arctic vortex. The question is how many loops it has. Is it an even number of loops the north of america stays relatively warm, is it an odd number one loop is either over the US/canada *or* over skandinavia/europe.
Regarding the melting glaciers: they obviously melt during spring and summer. And as you seem to be an rally badly educated man: glaciers exist in the Alps, in the Himalaya, in Africa on the Kilimancharo, in New Zealand, I bet you have them in the Rockies and in the Andes, too.
If the arctic air coming south is so cold that it's causing issues like this
Actually, it is not even arctic air. That was likely an american TV layman's explanation. It is simply "continental climate". Air that cools down in central Canada, or central USA and drifts towards the north west of the USA.
If there was no global warming, you had this weather every year and much much colder. How damn young are you that you don't know that?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The amplitude of the solar cycle is about 0.1% of the total solar output. That's not a significant contribution.
It is a bit closer to 1%, but you are right, it is not really significant regarding the climate (or weather).
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Looking at the black running mean on this graph:
https://protonsforbreakfast.fi...
I see about 1W swing on 1366W average, which is 0.07%
Well, I was more thinking about the sun itself. Minimum regarding sun spots and maximum, not sure about other cycles. The total between the lowest sun output and the maximum should be around 1% ... but perhaps I have memorized that wrong and it is 1 "promille" (strange that we have no sign for that on the keyboard)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Sure - that doesn't stop it from being the message of climate change (especially when it's not loudly denounced) nor does it stop the message being out of control today (climate change causes prostitution - yep real headline).
And yet when you try and use rational thought on those articles you get the same responses everywhere 'denier' 'koch shill' etc. My worry is that the politicization of the topic along with the fervor used to defend it against any challenge at all no matter how trivial (the reason you see people compare it to a religion - because defending silly claims is silly) eventually will do more damage to science as a whole than anything else in modern history.
I think it has a marked effect on our culture and is partially responsible for other ludicrous crap like anti-vaxxers but you know never question because 'denier' is a powerful and vicious derogatory against someone who disagrees (even if it's over nuance) - at least until enough people decide to claim the title and we go back to a dark age.
but you're using the most narrowly defined meaning of weather you possibly can
I'm using "weather" to mean the daily chaotic events that go on in our atmosphere. I'm using "climate" as the average weather of a period that's long enough that most of the chaotic noise of the weather is removed. That takes about 15-30 years, depending on the circumstances, and what exactly you're looking at. Looking over even longer periods, we'll see "climate change".
The purpose of these distinctions is to aid in usefulness. A change in climate must have a underlying cause that we should be able to identify. A change in weather is just chance. Longer term events, such as glaciation cycles are interesting too, but we know their cause (orbital cycles). We also know that our current climate change isn't caused by those orbital cycles, because they follow a certain pattern.
the climate of the earth has been in constant flux for millions of years, and somehow, now, the global warming apologists are convinced that we're suddenly causing it, and if we stopped burning fossil fuels, then the climate would become static.
Correct. The climate of the earth has been in constant flux. But unlike changes in the weather, you can't just simply throw your arms up in the air, and claim we're just having a "warm century". There must be a cause. And if that cause isn't the increased amount of CO2, then please tell us what it is.
In this case, it's the weather that matters. Lack of El Nino means no end to the California drought.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Well sed.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
OK, for those of us who slept through grade school, 2 < 15.
Why did this get downgoated? The total lack of sense of humor on the part of the alarmists hurts them more than they realize.
Global Warming is a statistical element, it is not CO2, pollution, or even abnormal weather pattens. And no matter the cause weather human related, or just a coincidence it is happening. Who knows what effect it will have on the planet, we do know that the planet has been quite a bit warmer than it is now, so we should be fine for a while anyway. But if it keep going beyond that point which some predictions have estimated it might then we will be in trouble.
We're perfectly capable of predicting that a boiling pan of water will run dry, and even predict when exactly, without even having the faintest idea where exactly the next bubble will surface.
Well, if you pre-select the events to include ONLY those you think indicate that AGW is wrong, of COURSE you'll find your "fact" true.
But that's just cherry picking.
Pick ALL the cherries.
Not just East Coast US, but West Coast US, Arctic, Australia, Brazil, etc...
And in that case you find that the vast majority of cases are warming climate changes and a minority aren't unusually warm,
Would it work for you if I told you Australia has had the worst drought in recorded history and a record number of summer high temperature records broken, therefore claim "every single event proves AGW"? No? Then don't cherry pick the ones that seem to support your beliefs and preconceptions.
You claim "snow is gone in 10 years", but no such claim has been made. You've merely CLAIMED it happened.
1) One claim about snow being gone was undefined as to WHEN it would happen, with another claim being "we won't know how to deal with snow (in the UK)", which came true within 5 years
2) If you mean "Arctic sea ice gone", then that 10 year was
a) the shortest period possible for the model
b) which was a model that had the most dramatic and rapid loss of sea ice
whereas the consensus was by the middle of the 21st Century, and we look to beat that by over a decade.
But you don't say what the hell you think went on, nor show evidence it actually happened, so I'm just guessing here.
Teh stupid hurts mah brain!.
and then we have the NSA and CIA who are the parents of the ISIS animals.
and see, how the trollboard downgrades posts like previous. Shame on you slashdot fuckers!
The political problems in Syria are very much timed with huge crop losses causing food price issues that are very likely the fault of global warming.
Modded "Informative"?!
Is this what passes for intelligent thought these days?
Clearly, the state of public education is a much more imminent existential threat than the state of atmospheric CO2 levels.
Your 'Climate Skepticism' (global warming denial) is very thinly veiled. Top points for smugness, though.
No, your 'Agenda Denial' is very thinly veiled. Trotting out your straw man about someone "denying" climate change is the lazy way to avoid addressing the real issue. The real issue is that people are making specific claims about "settled science" model predictions of exactly X number of inches of ocean change, or Y change in temperature or precipitation in a given area, or Z change in glacier or sea ice, which clearly means that Policy A and Tax B and Redistribution Of Income Model C are clearly required and should be run by newly established International Entity D staffed by newly needed bureaucrats E, F, and G, all of whom stand to gain the power to steer vast sums of money to their own cherry-picked NGOs, contractors, and kickback-powered corrupt third world governments.
The biggest backers for calling the models correct and science "settled" are those who have a vested interest in a huge new government-layer middleman operation with enormous reach into daily lives and cash flow across all industries and societies. There are a class of people who really see themselves as perfect for that role, and look for every opportunity to mandate the existence of such.
The main denial in play here is the denial that such people and such a fervently wished-for agenda exist.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I believe that up until recently, what is currently called a "polar vortex" was called "arctic air" in a weather forecast. Polar vortex, while being a historical term dating to the 1800's, was rarely used to describe the phenomena of cold cyclonic polar air pushing south. Using it commonly now makes it seem like winter weather patterns have suddenly and drastically changed. They haven't, not in just a couple of years.
I believe this ties into the phenomena of the naming of winter storms by a certain cable weather channel.
Regarding the melting glaciers: they obviously melt during spring and summer. And as you seem to be an rally badly educated man: glaciers exist in the Alps, in the Himalaya, in Africa on the Kilimancharo, in New Zealand, I bet you have them in the Rockies and in the Andes, too.
There are hundreds of glaciers in the Cascade range of mountains in the northwest US. And sadly to say, they all seem to be retreating. Just the other day news broke of a glacier cave on Mt. Hood, near Portland, OR, that had been around for ages but is now collapsing. Not that I venture into glacial caves myself :-) And we have had one hell of a weird winter in this part of the world, which did not help the cave. While we watch the news and see what our family and friends are dealing with everywhere east of the Rockies, I have flowers blooming in my front yard two weeks ago! And I'm in the middle of Oregon!
I guess if you live long enough, you really can see it all. Heh
You should just quit while you're ahead. You're not going to convince anyone with your juvenile ranting.
Get your PhD in Physics and Meteorology, then you can start making statements and back it up with evidence.
Win the Nobel Prize (or, in your case, the knob-end prize) and then you may be onto a winner.
This site has a pretty good writeup of it: www.weatherwest.com
0 A.D. was a bit cooler than it is now. By 1000 A.D. global temperatures had warmed to roughly what we're at now. Then it cooled down again, reaching a minimum somewhere around 1700 A.D. (which, incidentally, is what the global warming apologists frequently use as the pre-industrial average temperature, rather than an unusually cold minimum.) Then it started warming again, until about 1997, when it appears to have leveled off again.
Did Jesus develop lots if industrial technologies that caused a rise in CO2 and a corresponding rise in temperatures for the next 1000 years? Did an economic downturn in 1000 A.D. cause Jesus Industries Inc. to collapse, reducing CO2 output, and thereby cooling the earth off for the next 500 years or so? There must have been a cause, and since we all know that human produced CO2 is the only possible thing that affects global temperatures, that must have been it, right?
When I say the climate has always been in flux, I don't mean we've been in and out of ice ages for millions of years, with a 20,000 year static climate between ice ages, and an 80,000 year static climate during an ice age. I mean it's been in flux. Every single year is either warmer or colder than the year before it. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a static climate on earth. Man-made CO2 global warming models all seem to assume that the climate would be roughly static between ice ages, but for human-caused warming. All evidence points to this assumption being false.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Yes, the snow at pass levels in Oregon (around 5,000 feet) is nonexistent this year. In a normal year there would be at least 4 or 5 feet of packed snow by now. The one glacier that is still growing in the Northwest is the one in the crater of Mt. Saint Helens but of course the crater and glacier didn't even exist until after the 1980 eruption.
Wow. The straw men in this article are thick and fast.
Nowhere did I state that 2 cold winters were more important than a 15 year average. I just pointed out that the "single winter" that the GP discounted was not only a single winter, but was significantly more "unimportant outlier data" than what they were admitting to.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
The problem is that every single event that refutes global warming is an "isolated event taken out of context," whereas every single event that points to global warming is "part of an undeniable pattern."
Unfortunately that's just part of human nature. We tend to take note of singular events more than long term trends. The reality is that all weather events happen on a background of a changing climate from global warming. The evidence of climate change is in the statistics of how those individual events are changing over time.
So you're saying your post wasn't intended to have any relevance at all to the conversation?
WOW.
That's rich, coming from a troll who's written over a thousand comments here about climate science with nearly nothing of substance in hundreds of pages worth of your nonsense.
We know who you are, and why are you lying?
Lying about what?
Temperature has some minor instances of feedback with the things like carbon but the VAST majority of temperature fluctuations come from solar activity or lack thereof and all long-term data show we are about to enter another iceage as the sun enters into a solar minimum.
Actually, that was the argument that was settled in the 1970s. Back then some scientists figured we would be heading into a new glacial period which would outway the human contributions to global warming. They were wrong, we aren't going into a new glacial period, instead it looks like human activity will end the Quaternany Period by melting both Ice caps. An event which we think hasn't happened in the last 2.6 million years.
Ice is melting but more is taking it's place (hence the ocean acidification as water is taken out of the cycle to be tied up in ice).
No, actually, it's not. Somewhere around 95% of the world's glaciers are losing mass year-over-year. Ocean acidification is not caused by water being removed from the oceans. We know this because a) sea levels are rising, instead of falling and b) ocean acidification is sufficiently explained by rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Extra CO2 is absorbed into the oceans, which causes the acidification.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The amplitude of the solar cycle is about 0.1% of the total solar output. That's not a significant contribution.
When 0.1% is well beyond the temperature changes we've seen and the solar cycle is responsible for nearly 100% of all the heat we have - yeah, 0.1% is pretty friggin' significant and you would have to be a fool to believe otherwise.
Seriously.
Do you think that errors in a model are cumulative?
Do you think the models used here are similar to, identical to, or components of, the global climate models?
If so, then the global models are not capturing all the processes that influence climate, correct?
If so, then the global models yield answers with a margin of error, correct?
Therefore, find out what the error is on the current climate models used to predict global climate change, because an error of +/- 2 degrees on a prediction of 2 degrees increase (say) is kind of important.
And good luck with that. Because there are no error values reported. And there probably can't be; we don't know what we don't know.
Based on that, how much do you want your governent to act on climate change "predictions"?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
(anecdote not data) It's been colder here in PA than it was at a friend's place in central Alberta - so yes.
Without any citations (to papers, not newspaper articles), your post is precisely indistinguishable from the frantic keyboard-mashing of any other denialist. Using terms like "bit cooler" and "roughly" really aren't helping you right now.
I think it doesn't really help your position to confuse an off-the-cuff remark from a scientist, outside their published work, with "the message of climate change". That's about as good an explanation of bias in effect that I can think of in this context. Seriously. You are terrible at this.
I used to be a so-called "skeptic"; the evidence convinced me to change my opinion. This does not stop me from realizing that you actually raise a valid point: Any argument against any point that's touted as pro-AGW is automatically cried down as coming from a "denier." This is a miscarriage of science.
Good observations. Now here are the facts you didn't mention: the jet stream is being controlled by the U.S. Government. They are the ones responsible for this crazy weather....not "global warming", which is a scam designed to appeal to the average simpleton of America.
Anyone who wants to chime in with some idiot remark about "tin foil" hats or such, is an imbecile who should keep silent and save themselves the embarrassment of their idiocy being exposed in front of the world. What I stated above is fact.
The aircraft contained a shipment of state of the art software defined radio equipment, along with four engineers who held the patent on it. That's why the aircraft was hijacked by the US, its passengers interrogated, tortured, and killed, then reloaded on to the place to be crashed in Ukraine.
- shiftless (410350)
The part about the aircraft is not relevant to your comment, obviously. I got things mixed up and thought were in the other thread. But yeah, the U.S. did hijack MH370 as stated, and they're controlling the weather too. Now if only the average American were intelligent enough to see it.
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 8 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 8 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 8 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 8 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 8 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 8 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 8 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 8 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 8 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 8 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 8 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 8 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 8 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 8 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 8 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
It's especially not significant compared to the ~7% annual variation as the Earth swings in its elliptical orbit. This 91 W/m^2 is truly the elephant in climate forcing variations -- everything else is comparatively a mouse.
Interestingly, the annual temperature variation of the Earth countervaries with this -- the Earth is coldest when it is closest to the sun and warmest when it is furthest away. This is spite of the fact that in the tropics where the variation due to inclination is the least and one expects the strongest effect there is no major shift in land/sea area exposed and hence the albedo difference that supposedly cancels the more than 45 W/m^2 peak insolation relative to the mean.
The climate really is a highly nonlinear system and not all of it makes sense in terms of naive models. Yet. Pretending that we understand it when we don't may sell catastrophe (and hence research into contingent catastrophe), but it doesn't do science itself any big favors.
rgb
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.