Monster El Nino may be brewing-experts say

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

Let's be real. Climate change IS a fact. What is not so much an undisputed fact is that mankind are the primary drivers of that change.

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

Actually, we do know a lot of the various factors that do influence climate and actually, thanks to technological advances, have the ability to look back over time to see what climates looked like, including atmospheric gas compositions, utilizing ice core samples and pollen counts. Where there are degrees of uncertainty is how all of the various pieces may fit together in terms of projections. I don't disagree that we've had cooling and warming trends throughout the history of this planet. In fact, I'll throw in that there is suspicion that we may be entering into another Maunder Minimum like what we saw take place back in the 17th and 18th centuries (think famine and Black Death to calibrate your history lessons to that time period).

Part of my schooling also included paleontology and paleoclimatology. I've actually been on digs looking for fossils of bygone eras (found a couple great ones, too, that became university property). You can spend all day trying to dismiss what I'm saying and relegate it to "belief"; however, I can spend all day knocking down what you say right on back. My concerns about the changes that are currently underway are not a matter of belief. It's a combination of education and observation over decades.

The issues we are facing are not simply a factor of climate change but a series of failures...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

Let's be real. Climate change IS a fact. What is not so much an undisputed fact is that mankind are the primary drivers of that change.

Climate change is only fact if you examine it in the light that the climate is always in flux. It is a normal, cyclic occurrence of the planet.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

Actually, we do know a lot of the various factors that do influence climate and actually, thanks to technological advances, have the ability to look back over time to see what climates looked like, including atmospheric gas compositions, utilizing ice core samples and pollen counts. Where there are degrees of uncertainty is how all of the various pieces may fit together in terms of projections. I don't disagree that we've had cooling and warming trends throughout the history of this planet. In fact, I'll throw in that there is suspicion that we may be entering into another Maunder Minimum like what we saw take place back in the 17th and 18th centuries (think famine and Black Death to calibrate your history lessons to that time period).

Part of my schooling also included paleontology and paleoclimatology. I've actually been on digs looking for fossils of bygone eras (found a couple great ones, too, that became university property). You can spend all day trying to dismiss what I'm saying and relegate it to "belief"; however, I can spend all day knocking down what you say right on back. My concerns about the changes that are currently underway are not a matter of belief. It's a combination of education and observation over decades.

The issues we are facing are not simply a factor of climate change but a series of failures...

I am not dismissing your point. I am simply stating that the climate changes over periods of time and has been doing so since the dawn of life.

To run with the media hype and claim it to be something of imminent doom and abnormal is ridiculous.

Every scientific method these technologies utilize is based off theory. In fact pretty much all science is theory. So if we use this technology to theorize gas compositions of the past and temperatures of the past etc etc. It is all theory in the end.

So therefore can never be fact.

Also when considering all the factors involved one must take into account the changes in temp. on the sun, solar radiation, wind patterns, gas composition, geothermal changes, magma flow within the earth, heat absorbed and released by asphalt. Man made gases, gases released by the earth, etc, etc.... Get my point?

I've done a dogpile.com search re what sort of Southwestern precipitation occurred during the last big El Nino . . . and came up still wanting.

There seems to be the data out there . . . however buried in extensive very dreadful professional article tomes.

If anyone knows a good 1-3 paragraph summary, I'd love to read it.

I'm really hoping we do have an El Nino. Where I live in Canada, we've had a very very long winter. I could use a 1998 esq El Nino next winter! I remember the 1998 one, it was one of the nicest winters I've experienced up here.

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

I think that you are confused about the difference between "theory" in its general use and "theory" as in scientific theory. They are vastly different.

Common usage of theory definition

In the context of science, a theory is a well-established explanation for scientific data. Theories typically cannot be proven, but they can become established if they are tested by several different scientific investigators. A theory can be disproven by a single contrary result.

www.wordnik.com...

Scientific theory:

In the context of science, a theory is a well-established explanation for scientific data. Theories typically cannot be proven, but they can become established if they are tested by several different scientific investigators. A theory can be disproven by a single contrary result.

chemistry.about.com...

The establishment of any scientific theory requires the repeat (ad nauseam) testing of a hypothesis by multiple scientists all testing that same hypothesis. Then it gets publicly flogged repeatedly in peer-reviewed scientific journals where they pick over minor details of the published information including methodology, over and over again for years and years before the theory ever sets foot into a textbook. To put it this way, it takes roughly 10 years for a hypothesis to pass muster without issue before it can grow up and become a scientific theory.

That's a huge difference. The former is based off of inference and inductive reasoning. The latter is based off of repeated experimentation to prove the same outcome in order to prove statistical correlation between the variable and the hypothesis in a form of deductive reasoning. And it takes a very long time. In fact, that's one of the chief complaints that scientists have in regards to how things are presented in the media. Oftentimes, the media finds some sexy new experiment that basically turns things on its head and publishes it before it ever has a chance to get properly peer reviewed by the appropriate quarters. That's what happened with Vitamin C and colds actually.

A theory can be disproven by a single contrary result.

Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.

That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago. I attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The Economic Implications of High Cost Energy. The conference featured serious natural science, contrary to the self-interested political science you hear from government financed global warming alarmists seeking to justify widely expanded regulatory and taxation powers for government bodies, or government body wannabees, such as the United Nations. See for yourself, as the conference speeches are online.

What you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data. In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in public debate.

forbes


read the rest of the article for the contrary results.

this is but one. There are many studies that refute and disprove abnormal climate change. Not saying that they arent as flawed as climate change studies, but they do hold every bit as much water.

so once again it is still a theory.

I am well aware of what a theory is and was only making a point. To believe science is wholly fact is practicing faith.

How about you stop acting like you are talking to an uneducated fool and do a little research from the other side of the argument. controversial science is controversial for a reason.


ETA: thanks for the fun debate but it is time for me to get ready for bed.

have a good night

originally posted by: TDawgRex

originally posted by: calstorm
I wold just like to say that I called it. The California drought last year was all I needed to know this was coming. Lived in Ca for 30 something years and a drought year always comes before an El Nino year.

And what happens then?

Floods? Mudslides? I'm actually curious.

Heavy rains. It depends on the location as to what the result will be. I remember when My Jr. High school flooded, but that was due to the location. In 2006 it literally rained for 40 days and nights straight and no, we were not underwater. It did become a bit of a joke though.

a reply to: calstorm

It might be even worse considering all the fires you all had last year.

But hopefully it will refill all the Reservoirs and I know the farmers could use it. As long as it doesn't come down all at once.

a reply to: BO XIAN
How about pictures. Last strong El Nino was 97-98.



www1.ncdc.noaa.gov...

a reply to: Phage

EXCELLENT. Exactly what I was looking for.

THX BIG.

Looks like a mixed bag.

It could mean above average rainfall/precipitation.

That would be most welcome.

a reply to: lostbook

here's a link: kingworldnews.com...

which might be a cause for a very severe El Nino, or some other strangeness of climate/weather

in part the article says ...the Hadley cell winds are moving closer to the poles... and the Polar Vortex is moving further southward than any time in recorded history.... all this is brought about by Volcano Ash clogging the atmosphere



(ragnarock apocalypse is here) where 'summers' will be rare or nonexistent in the future

a reply to: lostbook

doom porn yes.

i find it interesting that the say "there is a far larger than normal amount of heat, which is a necessary precondition for an El Niño." the reason why i find this interesting is that while i am not sure the Philippines qualifies as being in the "equatorial Pacific", it has been noted by people that live here that it has been cool the last few months, not overly hot. it has been hot this last couple weeks, but i don't think any more hotter than last year at this time. it is summer here after all, which does tend to be hot here.

a reply to: generik
It is warm water in the central to eastern Pacific which characterizes El Nino.
www.wunderground.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: generik
It is warm water in the central to eastern Pacific which characterizes El Nino.
www.wunderground.com...

What do you think, Phage? Climate change caused by Man or is it a natural phenomenon that we shouldn't worry about?

originally posted by: lostbook
Climate change caused by Man or is it a natural phenomenon that we shouldn't worry about?

Even if it is natural, we should worry about it and try to mitigate it. It's clearly happening.

Earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, etc. are all natural, too. I sure as heck worry about most of those.

SkepticOverlord


5) boring (carpenter) bees very prevalent, very early in season

funny.... I have noticed the carpenter bees at my storage shed are about 4 times as many as were colonizing the last 3 years...(past years seen maybe 6-8 insects at any one time...I count as many as 25-35 at a time flying around "their" shed and even invading my carport this Spring)

I just chalked their prolific numbers to be the result of 3 successive years of having a very protective habitat

but knowing that a large increase of carpenter bees can be a Sign/Omen for a La Nina year I am better informed