ENSO is playing games with climate scientists — mocking their ability to predict the single greatest natural short term climate swing factor. The El Niño–Southern Oscillation drives floods, droughts, bushfires, and essentially pushes the planetary temperatures up and down on a year by year basis. Nothing determines the year’s climate headlines more than this one thing, yet climate scientists haven’t the faintest idea what drives it.
Imagine what it would look like if they could? They’d be able to say … blah… solar wind changes driven by, say, solar barycentric dynamics will lead to El Ninos in 2023, and ’25, a weak one in 2026. Farmers could plan ahead. Dam managers would know when water would be scarce. The UN would know which years to ask for even more money.
Instead we get this vague post hoc prophesy:
Rare ‘triple’ La Niña climate event looks likely — what does the future hold?
Nature
Meteorologists are forecasting a third consecutive year of La Niña. Some researchers say similar conditions could become more common as the planet warms.
On ongoing La Niña event that has contributed to flooding in eastern Australia and exacerbated droughts in the United States and East Africa could persist into 2023, according to the latest forecasts. The occurrence of two consecutive La Niña winters in the Northern Hemisphere is common, but having three in a row is relatively rare. A ‘triple dip’ La Niña — lasting three years in a row — has happened only twice since 1950.
Get ready: Matthew England predicts more triple events:
This particularly long La Niña is probably just a random blip in the climate, scientists say. But some researchers are warning that climate change could make La Niña-like conditions more likely in future. “We are stacking the odds higher for these triple events coming along,” says Matthew England, a physical oceanographer at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. England and others are now working to reconcile discrepancies between climate data and the output of major climate models — efforts that could clarify what is in store for the planet.
“Working to reconcile discrepancies” is climate-scientist-speak for “working to fix our broken models”. We note the get-out-of-jail clause on most climate news reporting, some scientists say this, some say that, so some climate scientists are always right.
How useful, exactly, are those models that predict a 51% chance of a La Nina seven months from now?
The latest forecast from the World Meteorological Organization, issued on 10 June, gives a 50–60% chance of La Niña persisting until July or September. This will probably increase Atlantic hurricane activity, which buffets eastern North America until November, and decrease the Pacific hurricane season, which mainly affects Mexico. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Centre has forecast a 51% chance of La Niña in early 2023.
When it comes to predicting what climate change will actually do to ENSO events — for years most scientists hedged and only say that both La Ninas and El Ninos may get more extreme, but not necessarily that one or the other will become more common.
Media Headlines. More Frequent El Nino Evnts predicted by 2040
Fortunately by 2019 the models were all converging….
El Niño happening more as climate warms
Review says the models of an increase in extreme weather events are agreeing.
According to Cai, extreme El Niño events happened roughly once every 20 years in the 20th century, but they’re now increasing in frequency. “It will almost double, to one in 11 years or so.”
He adds that there’s more consensus among the models they’ve examined than in previous studies, such as one he authored in 2015. “More models are saying the same thing. I think that it’s because we are now able to get more realistic models.”
And with exquisite timing just two months ago:
The sudden change to neutral conditions in the ENSO 3.4 region wasn’t predicted by these models two months ago:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/NMME/current/plume.html
Which models are better predictors? NOAA doesn’t know. Which is why it keeps presenting all these model results.
342
Climate models are like a blind monkey throwing darts.
Most darts probably miss the wall completely !
422
And when they miss, they move the wall.
50
My money is on the NCEP CFS V2 model.
31
Is that the capuchin?
10
All I can say is that its a couple of months in front of the pack.
20
They have enough models to predict whatever they want as required.
171
None of the models take in account historical evidence. Look at this site https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/rainfall-poster/ There you will find posters with a record of the SOI and IPO. The poster on Qld extended periods of wet and dry should interest many. Look at the periods -nothing has changed. Models do not include the periods of planet alignment. People forget the orbit of Jupiter around the sun is approximately 11 years. This period coincides with many cycles. When living in Sydney we had severe bushfires which burnt fences on our property 3 times separated by around 10 years 1980, 1991 and 2001. Sunspot cycles I believe are about 22 years. The alignment of Venus, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus together can affect what is happening in the sun and the way it affect the Earth. Indigo Jones and Lennox Walker used planet alignment and other records for their long range weather forecasts which were far better than the present BOM with their models that ignore history.
170
I find it extraordinary that these “scientists” (sic) think that a mostly natural change of concentration of parts per million of an atmospheric trace gas can change the climate and yet they completely ignore the contribution of our sun, a VARIABLE star.
And they also continue to get away using non-validated climate models that have no predictive capability whatsoever. Back in the day, there used to be a self-explanatory concept taught to programmers and modellers, “Garbage In Garbage Out”.
581
So true David. Clearly La Nina’s cluster during and post La Nina troughs, ie
La Nina triple (1998/99, 1999/2000 & 2000/01) – SC22 / SC23 trough related
La Nina double (2010/11 & 2011/12) – SC23 / SC24 trough related
La Nina triple (2020/21, 2021/22 & probably 2022/23) – SC24 / SC25 trough related
Those claiming these La Nina’s are CO2 driven are delusional. Clearly they are “Solar Cycle” driven.
What happens if the GSM forecast later this decade eventuates? Well clearly there will be “La Nina clustering” on a grand scale and resultant Global Cooling.
30
Here’s a word I’ve coined: scyentists.
00
https://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/ENSO/Time_Series/SOI.html
Mmmm!
81
A simple chaotic oscillation. Upwelling starting and stopping.
332
Couple of things ..
1. “working to reconcile discrepancies between climate data and the output of major climate models” usually refers to adjusting the data to fit the models. eg GISS et al
2. If they get enough of their comrades to predict a whole gamut of possible futures.. one of them might eventually be correct about something.. maybe, perhaps.. or not.
481
“If they get enough of their comrades to predict a whole gamut of possible futures, one of them might eventually be correct about something…”
Ah, the “infinite monkey theorem”. Seems appropriate for some reason.
401
Will the models write some Shakespearian prose at some point!
61
Isn’t that a little demeaning to monkeys? Surely they would have a better success rate than the “look what happened! According to the records we just fabricated, we predicted this years ago!” practices of the AGW community.
00
As a band, I liked the Monkeys. As a pox, not so much. Am I the mean or demeaning?
00
You have to admire these people (scientists ?!) for their inventiveness.
Even though they have it all wrong, upside down and back to front . .
301
A climate scientist is an oxymoron.
90
Or you gcould just leave off the “oxy”.
80
ENSO is fundamentally chaotic. Commentators here used to rabbit on about La Nina always follows El Nino, but that isn’t true either. There may be a tie in with AMOC which seems to be fundamentally changing as pools of freshwater melt increase around Greenland.
547
You mean that the natural ocean cycles are driving the climate back into a cooling period.
And that CO2 is a total nothing-burger when it comes to driving climate trends.
Thanks Simon.. That’s exactly what we have been saying for ages…
Great to see you finally starting to catch up.
631
La Niña is when there is cold water upwelling and El Niño is when it temporarily stops, so they in fact have to “follow” one another.
No doubt there are many chaotic oscillations in ocean circulation. One interesting candidate is Arctic deep water, which flows south well past the equator, and Antarctic deep water, which flows north well past the equator. I image them sometimes sliding past one another and sometimes not.
392
Cause and effect aren’t easy to identify.
Is the change in upwelling due to a change in wind, or is the change in wind due to the change in upwelling? (I just use these for illustration. Other factors might have influence too, even if that influence is only under certain circumstances.)
201
Not quite right. It depends on the intensity as to whether it gets called an El Nino or LA Nina, to correspond with the noticeable weather effects on the land that it was named after. There is no discernible pattern there for actually EN/LN, although the oscillation sticks out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93Southern_Oscillation#/media/File%3ASoi.svg
By rabbitting on, I think Simon means we didn’t jump on the “it’s Thermaggeddon!” band wagon during an El Nino.
71
Simon
Don’t limit your ice geography to the northern hemisphere. Remember a little while ago when the ice pack around Antarctica was melting? Where did that huge pulse of cold water go?
151
The Antarctic circumpolar and Peru currents are best shown at this link, an oldie but a goodie like a lot of commenters here. Check out where the cold water for our La Ninas come from.
While-ever the Antarctic Circumpolar Current keeps spinning around, there will never be run-away global warming.
151
Hi Rowjay,
Have you heard of the surmise that volcanic activity in or near the Drake Passage varies the amount of the ACC that is diverted north to the Humboldt Current? I would love to hear of a scientist investigating this possible trigger of el Nino events.
61
Hello Richard
Who better than NASA to educate us about heat under the Antarctic ice sheet at this link.
These rivers and lakes under sometimes kilometres of ice were not created by a warming atmosphere. So geothermal heat from the mantle is the best bet – this may increase the movement rates on glaciers emptying into the surrounding sea.
I have read about mega El Ninos that seem to pop up every 400 years or so and lay waste to early South American civilisations, but I also think that the earth’s natural thermostat in the southern ocean works by warming oceans melting Antarctic ice to create cold water plumes that are distributed throughout our oceans by the ACC. This has a cooling effect on the oceans which allows Antarctic sea ice to develop again, then rinse and repeat cycle.
Antarctic ice has been there for about 60 million years and grew bigger when Australia and South America detached from the Antarctic landmass and drifted north, allowing the ACC to develop. Since that time, the oceans have been cooling and atmospheric CO2 reducing from about 2,000 ppm at the time of separation to the remarkably low 180 ppm’s when plants struggle to survive. Ice in the Arctic is a geologically recent event – developing maybe 3 million years ago when the natural Panama Canal closed off and disrupted equatorial ocean currents.
101
Why only Greenland?
According to researchers at the University of Iceland, each of the country’s glaciers will expand this year for the first time in the past 25 years. As reported in Electroverse, the Hofsjökull, Langjökull, Mýrdalsjökull, and Vatnajökull glaciers have expanded over the last twelve months, from autumn to autumn, “With Mýrdalsjökull showing a really significant addition of ice this year.” These are the largest glaciers in Iceland: Hofsjökull is third largest after Vatnajökull and Langjökull, while Mýrdalsjökull is the country’s fourth largest ice cap.
Jakobshavn has represented the largest source of Greenland’s ice mass loss over the last 20 years, and has produced about 10 percent of the country’s icebergs. A study published in the March issue of the journal Nature stated, “Here we use airborne altimetry and satellite imagery to show that since 2016, Jakobshavn has been re-advancing, slowing and thickening. We link these changes to current cooling in ocean waters in Disko Bay that spill over into Ilulissat Icefjord. Ocean temperatures in the bay’s upper 250 meters have cooled to levels not seen since the mid-1980s.”
191
It seems funny that while the Arctic ice extent is falling, Arctic temps are below average and have been for some time.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
91
In loving memory of all this ice that sacrificed itself for the existence of mankind, I hereby declare these days…… Summer.
Lest we forget.
80
‘ENSO is fundamentally chaotic.’
Deterministic Chaos
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2017.00008/full
21
‘ … may be a tie in with AMOC’
There appears to be a teleconnection with the NAO, but that is still hotly debated.
Our best bet seems to be a relation between ENSO and PDO.
20
I have an inclination that the Gulf of Mexico helps the reversal to El Nino by reversing the trade winds.
All open ocean surface that is 30C or higher is a convergence zone. The Gulf of Mexico is not “open” but in July 2015 it was a convergent zone at mid levels as was the west coast of Mexico:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/07/01/0000Z/ocean/primary/waves/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-97.35,2.94,388/loc=-87.845,26.339
But that means divergence in the upper levels:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/07/01/0000Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-97.35,2.94,388/loc=-87.845,26.339
Warm pools either side of Mexico has the ability to reverse trade winds for some distance across the Pacific:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/07/21/0000Z/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-97.35,2.94,388/loc=-93.721,5.365
That happens about 20 days after the surface reaches 30C.
ENSO is a tug-of-war across the Pacific. The normal circulation favours La Nina but there is some atmospheric communication from Pacific to Gulf of Mexico. The NAO probably contributes to ENSO.
50
In this graph you can see Australia’s cool wet period from the early 1950s until the mid 1970s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdecadal_Pacific_oscillation
Assuming CO2 doesn’t cause warming, our likely future will be a repeat performance of those decades.
This would indicate (without first lookin), an abundance of La Nina.
40
In the 300 months to 1975:
116N
97L
87E
Have not looked at how that compares with the last 25 years but that gets 1998 and 2016 El Ninos. You can get the data here:
http://bmcnoldy.rsmas.miami.edu/tropics/oni/ONI_NINO34_1854-2022.txt
20
We could do a weight check and bundle them into weak, moderate and strong. In this way the balance might swing even more in our favour.
00
Solar connection to NAO.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226173907_Long-Term_Correlation_Between_the_Nao_and_Solar_Activity
10
Simon : ” ENSO is fundamentally chaotic ……There may be a tie in with AMOC which seems to fundamentally changing as pools of freshwater melt increase around Greenland ”
Simon provides no reputable source for this AMOC speculation . Another one of his deceptive distractive rabbit holes .Quite how ice melting into the northern Atlantic ocean in the north west of the northern hemisphere could be influencing the Pacific ENSO phenomenon in the southern hemisphere is anyone’s guess .Was there an unusually rapid surge of Greenland meltwater over the last two months or did you recently watch the Cli -Fi movie ‘The Day After Tomorrow ” for inspiration ? I ask this because two months ago ” new research published in Nature Climate Change ” predicted ” by 2040 El Nino events will become more frequent because of changes to the climate ” El Nino events we are told ” are already in motion and will happen regardless of short term mitigation efforts “…..” a growing pile of work …pointing quite conclusively to ongoing changes to ENSO related greenhouse gases ” According to climate jeremiah Kim Cobb ” We are a day late and a dollar short …We are locked into certain increments of warming no matter what ”
Does the prospect of a triple La Nina mean the locked door of doom is slightly ajar ..that we have a day extra and a dollar more ” ? That we are confronted with an unfalsifiable ideology like the sacred lore of a vicissitudinous cult ?
30
Climate séance is discovering that niños and niñas don’t necessarily flip-flop in cyclic fashion. And they’re already inventing new scenarios, amazing.
161
They do flip flop but the oscillation is aperiodic.
181
In American slang, this is patently “cover your [exposed] ass” retrodiction!
171
Climate models need accurate data to begin with but this is almost entirely, if not entirely, fabricated (or ignored) as he points out in these two videos:
https://youtu.be/2y1MPPprzX4 Pt 1, under 8 mins
https://youtu.be/WwEy7QhUgIY Pt 2, under 8 mins
Also, he has a video about hiding Australia’s hot past.
https://youtu.be/ULrRo_iowG0 under 6 mins.
As I said above, Garbage In, Garbage Out.
191
A good model does not need any input data. Earth has a maintained surface water and a narrow temperature range for billions of years despite different solar forcing, atmospheric constituents, meteor impact, volcanos, earthquake and the location of land masses. It is self stabilising.
An accurate and quite simple climate model is that open oceans cannot sustain a temperature over 30C and liquid water does not exist below 2C. Combine the two and you arrive at an average of 14C. I know for a fact that this simple model will give a better result than any existing complex climate model.
In 2000, the CSIRO model was forecasting the Nino34 region would be regularly exceeding 30C by 2020:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itas_csiro_mk3_5_sresa1b_160-210E_-5-5N_n_su.png
The observed temperature has shown a slight downward trend with an average of 27C over the past 42 years. The model is provably WRONG. Predicting physically impossible ocean temperatures. The correlation coefficient between modelled and measured is NEGATIVE! They cannot even get the direct right because that would kill any notion of CAGW.
mean csiro mk3 5 sresa1b tas 160-210E -5-5N with NINO3.4 rel
months lag corr p no 95% CI
NINO3.4 Jan 0 -0.085 0.2981 152 -0.24… 0.07
NINO3.4 Feb 0 -0.057 0.4827 152 -0.22… 0.11
NINO3.4 Mar 0 -0.064 0.4299 152 -0.21… 0.08
NINO3.4 Apr 0 -0.075 0.3579 152 -0.21… 0.07
NINO3.4 May 0 -0.061 0.4561 152 -0.20… 0.09
NINO3.4 Jun 0 -0.090 0.2709 151 -0.26… 0.07
NINO3.4 Jul 0 -0.066 0.4242 151 -0.23… 0.11
NINO3.4 Aug 0 -0.086 0.2898 151 -0.25… 0.10
NINO3.4 Sep 0 -0.086 0.2899 151 -0.25… 0.10
NINO3.4 Oct 0 -0.061 0.4594 151 -0.22… 0.12
NINO3.4 Nov 0 -0.002 0.9783 151 -0.18… 0.18
NINO3.4 Dec 0 -0.043 0.6020 151 -0.21… 0.14
Yearly cycle of mean csiro mk3 5 sresa1b tas 160-210E -5-5N (tas_csiro_mk3_5_sresa1b_160-210E_-5-
Australian taxpayers pay for the CSIRO to produce this garbage.
30
The whole anthropogenic global warming fraud has gone way too far and has a life of its own.
I see no other way to address it, but by going back to the fundamental principles of the AGW hypothesis and ask the following questions. Most important is point 1.
We must demand solid evidence that:
1) Trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere cause warming. The hypothesis of the “greenhouse effect” appears never to have been proven on an open system like earth’s atmosphere.
2) That the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is of substantially anthropogenic origin.
3) That the increase in CO2, for whatever reason, is harmful in any way.
4) That global temperatures have meaningfully increased in recent decades based upon a non-fraudulent dataset. (SEE links to Tony Heller videos I posted above.)
5) That any increase in temperature, for whatever reason, is harmful in any way.
6) What is the scientific basis for excluding from CO2 emissions targets the world’s largest CO2 emitter, China.
We have to keep asking these questions and demanding answers.
261
In regard to point 1, it appears that the only evidence that a parts per million trace gas can increase temperature is a supposed correlation between CO2 from ice core data and supposed temperature of deposition of the snow that was the progenitor of the ice. And yet that correlation appears highly questionable, especially as we have had ice ages at far higher CO2 concentrations.
Most supposed correlation between temperature and CO2 only go back 400,000 years.
But they don’t show you graphs like this, as per Patrick Moore’s Tweet plus see comments. Note also the poster of the original Tweet seems to have been suspended by Twitter for such heresy (“This Tweet is from a suspended account.”):
https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1224032067144404992?t=fWViYwK9cdKJWWpgGUtMYA&s=19
131
David, I think the skeptic side won the scientific argument years ago. The propaganda war is a different animal because the bad guys have all the megaphones. The political crusaders are on a teal road to self destruction.
The next phase is in the hands of mother nature as the natural consequences of windless nights kick in. The propaganda war and the teal crusade can only destroy themselves if they attempt to fight nature.
Science and engineering will win. It is utterly inevitable. Sadly the lysenkos of the world will wreak vast damage in the meantime.
231
Thanks Forrest.
And, anyone, please correct me if I am wrong about point 1. Or any other point I made.
I am not a warmist, I follow the scientific method and go by hard evidence.
92
David I think there is more to support the unfortunately named greenhouse effect than ice core data.
The most solid science is in the form of spectral analysis of the atmosphere. It is indisputable that various frequencies of light interact with various molecules. The energy is absorbed and retransmitted at lower frequencies. Each absorbtion and retransmission warms the atmosphere.
BUT the level of CO2 is at or around saturation level for the relevant frequency. Adding more CO2 will make little or no difference.
That in a nutshell is the physics of the greenhouse. It’s real with the proviso above.
To return to your point 1 there are difficulties with ice core samples as well. The biggest problem with the ice core samples is that the studies do not understand or respect their limitations. All you can say objectively is that a particular part of the sample currently has particular concentrations of various gases. From there it is layer upon layer of supposition.
The problem is more easily understood with tree rings. You can see the width of a ring and if you are lucky you have independent temperature and rainfall and other measurements. When you have all the data you can do some nice correlations. But you can’t or at least shouldn’t extrapolate from the width of a tree ring in siberia to claim that you know what the global temperature was.
What you can do is to use the principles of chemistry to calculate the expected atmospheric concentration of CO2 or any other soluble gas for a particular ocean temperature. I would be interested to see even early attempts to say what the global concentration of CO2 SHOULD be given the current ocean temperature profile. My guess is that the estimates of error would effectively tell any real scientist that the answer is unknowable.
And as a disclaimer I am absolutely certain that what I write on the subject has been written far better by others.
101
This was established long before it was shown to occur using satellites. Spectrometry of energy absorption and emission is everyday and long standing science and the observed characteristics of emission and absorption by different molecules is supported by predictions from the chemical and physical properties of the atoms/sub atomic particles/interactions between atoms/bonds/etc
710
Just a hint GI. Only reply when you have something to add. Once again you display no knowledge of science whatsoever.
92
“Is supported by predictions “ – Thus the argument this skeptic has trouble with , if I wanted a prediction I’d go to a clairvoyant. Or bring out the broken clock because at least with the clock it’s guaranteed of accuracy at least twice a day and isn’t funded on its ability to stay broken.
91
you guys are serious?
You make an observation… say that planets move a particular way. You know that the planets are certain distances from the sun and each other, you know (or think you know) their mass and various other things about them. You hypothesise a model that describes planetary motion and you plug in all those physical properties and see how it matches the obsersvation. Of particular interest is where it doesn’t quite match which you need to explain – a missing planet that you didn’t account for, some sort of other physical process that you didn’t know about.
This is what the chemico-physical properties of atoms and molecules has been undergoing for a long time and observed emergent energy properties like absorption and emmission of energy is one way of testing whether the models are represented. Close matches mean that the theory is probably mostly right but there is much to be gained (and much money to be spent if you need a hadron collider) by working out why they don’t match exactly.
This was established long before it was shown to occur using satellites.
36
Forgive me I’m not a scientist but if observations don’t match the theory the theory is wrong , if you can’t work out why the theory is wrong wouldn’t you ditch it and start again with a fresh approach instead of adjusting the theory so it matches the observation ?
90
If the observations match a substantial part of the theory, the theory might be useful (think of Newton’s theory of planetary motion) or correct but deficient. You don’t throw the whole thing out if it is actually correct but just needs adjustment.
Something like modern quantum theory developed in pieces, it didn’t just pop out fully formed.
27
“the theory might be useful”
So might a story about the Easter bunny. or Goldilocks.
Thing is, as the theory is incorrect… it is highly damaging to real science, to maintain the farce.
Negative usefulness. !
90
“If the observations match a substantial part of the theory”
For AGW.. real data doesn’tmatch the theory or the models…… That’s why they have had to “adjust” the data so much.
80
Just a thought on the planet example – theory could be right but the observation insufficient.
the motion of outer planets didn’t match theory. Rather than throw out the theory, they hypothesised that the deviation from theory could be due to an unobserved object. Voila, Neptune.
45
Yes, they do need to put much more of that central mass of the solar system into their climate models.
AGW (warming by CO2) is barely a conjecture, and has basically been dis-proven by reality and measurements.
There is no actual scientific evidence to back up warming by increased atmospheric CO2.
It only exists in their un-validated models.
60
For an example Gee Aye I have a theory that the rainfall in Oz is highly variable and can back that up with nearly 200 years of observations , if someone wants to prove me wrong with their theory they would need to back it up with data that proves that rainfall isn’t variable . And if someone wants to prove that the rainfall is variable now only because of a slight increase in CO2 they also need to prove it using observations that match and disprove my theory . Theories that are easily proven with observations and data surely have more weight than a theory that says otherwise even though there is no actual proof otherwise .
20
It has something to with the barycentre and length of day.
‘Large-scale fluctuations of the Earth’s rotation rate are determined by the Solar System barycentre motions. Study of these fluctuations is of paramount scientific significance, since it may give further insight on the reasons of geophysical anomalies, such as strong volcanic eruptions, catastrophic earthquakes, climate warming or cooling, etc.’ (EPSC 2010)
20
Measurements have shown conclusively that the small extra absorption in the CO2 spectrum due to increased aCO2, is channeled through the much broader atmospheric window.
Also, lab measurements have shown that the absorption of CO2 actually levels off at around 280ppm
ie.. it is not actually a log curve.
THERE IS NO RADIATION ENERGY TRAPPED.
And of course, convective transfers are controlled by the atmospheric pressure gradient, which CO2 has absolutely zero measurable effect on.
ps.. tree rings respond strongly to increase atmospheric CO2, especially when they have been starved of CO2 for a long, long time.
71
So…CLASS ACTION!
#Free CO2
We must start a class action against the IPCC for falsely claiming anthropogenic CO2 is doing harm.
Millions would join and fund it.
How to get started? Start sharing this.
00
“Science and engineering will win. It is utterly inevitable. Sadly the lysenkos of the world will wreak vast damage in the meantime.”
That is exactly right, science and engineering will win. But what will they win? It is conceivable that what they win may not be to your liking. Then what?
24
“Science and engineering will win”
So Ian admits that his warped anti-science, anti-engineering ideologies, will lose.
Only the opinion polls and politics are on your side, Ian.
(Mainly because opinion polls are were you get your opinions and beliefs from.)
Not the science, and not the engineering. They are not in your favour, at all. !
40
‘It is conceivable that what they win may not be to your liking. Then what?’
That is inconceivable, all we have to do is prove a benign trace gas doesn’t cause warming.
The amount of CO2 released each year by humans is less than one percent of the atmosphere. At some point the penny will drop.
10
Ian, you have written many things but in my estimation this is the most misguided twaddle of all time.
Just because Jo vouches for you I will give you a hint. The laws of nature cannot be broken. You can only break yourself if you try.
Apart from that do everybody a favour and take a course in logical thinking.
10
Thanks again Jo for trying to educate us about these so called scientists who can adapt and cover their backsides year by year.
But how many people understand that they also have a cover for thousands of years into the future even if we were somehow able to reduce all HUMAN co2 emissions today?
The Conversation had this article in 2017 and essentially they’ve now covered their backsides forever, even if Humans stopped all co2 emissions today. Again just unbelievable but true. Here’s a quote and the link and I’ll link to the Zickfeld study and The Royal Society and USA NAS endorsement as well, if I can find it.
“Slam on the climate brakes”
“What would happen to the climate if we were to stop emitting carbon dioxide today, right now? Would we return to the climate of our elders?
The simple answer is no. Once we release the carbon dioxide stored in the fossil fuels we burn, it accumulates in and moves among the atmosphere, the oceans, the land and the plants and animals of the biosphere. The released carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Only after many millennia will it return to rocks, for example, through the formation of calcium carbonate – limestone – as marine organisms’ shells settle to the bottom of the ocean. But on time spans relevant to humans, once released the carbon dioxide is in our environment essentially forever. It does not go away, unless we, ourselves, remove it”.
https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882
121
Here’s the Zickfeld 2013 study reference at the link to the Royal Society site.
This is where the Conversation probably read about this wonderful backside cover for thousands of years.
IOW they can never be wrong, but we must follow them blindly down their path to pre- industrialisation and poverty.
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/
71
You ask “How useful, exactly, are those models that predict a 51% chance of a La Nina seven months from now?”
The answer might be found via http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean and the link available at the base of that page to “Previous Climate Driver Updates”.
The last time I compared recent conditions to what was predicted six months ago I found that the models’ predictive skills were poor.
121
Their predictive skills are about as good as me standing at the front bar, after 6 Schooners.
The only difference is 6 Schooners is far too cheap for me to have any creditability.
However if those Schooners cost $1m each, I’d be a renowned international expert on the matter.
[*Gold Star Award*]AD
311
To our North American cousins, schooner refers to a size of beer glass in Australia.
However, I was unaware until now that schooner was a type of glass used in the US and Canada as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schooner_%28glass%29?wprov=sfla1
41
Schooner always was a sherry glass to me. 🙂
40
That’s a lot of Sherry Annie !
30
Annie, a million miles off topic, but ….. Sherry, or according to the laws of Australia, now it must be referred to as Apera.
My good lady wife is not all that much keen on alcohol of any sort at all, and the only one she would ever drink was Woodleys Three Roses Cream Sherry, long since gone the way of the Dodo, but it was without fraction of a doubt, the single smoothest Sweet Sherry I have ever tasted, an absolutely beautiful ‘drop’, and since it ‘passed away’, I have never found a sherry even close to that one.
However, and as a music afficionado, I picked up on a song by The Alan Parsons Project off his first album, Tales Of Mystery and Imagination Edgar Allan Poe, released in 1976. Now that album was released as a concept. The songs on the album were all of them a sort of tribute to Edgar Allan Poe. (as per the title) One song was called The Cask Of Amontillado, a song based upon a very dark short story about a man who, in his basement, bricks up behind a wall, another man who he perceives as having slighted him, using that lure of a cask of Amontillado, a type of sherry.
On that ‘spur’ I went out and purchased a bottle of Amontillado, and I had to search long and hard to find a good one, eventually. The original intent was to find a replacement for that Woodleys Three Roses for my good lady wife.
I finally did find a very (very) nice one, Barbadillo Pedro Ximinez.
After so much work tracing it, my good lady wife ….. “Nup, Don’t like it”, even though it was closest to the Woodleys.
Oh well, life is good!
Tony.
70
Reader’s Digest version:
Climate scientists predict either more or fewer El Ninos, both of which absolutely prove global warming.
At what point do people realize this is a religion not remotely connected to science?
321
I guess we are in for another round of “its the new normal” from assorted experts.
The last time they were wrong about the new normal we got desal plants to help fill the presently overflowing dams that would never refill.
I wonder what they have in store? perhaps better drainage and flood prevention? Nah, that would be too pracrical and useful and has low virtue signalling poential. More windmills I guess, that will fix it.
131
The cost of the Vicdanistan desal plant costs taxpayers A$1.8 million PER DAY, even when unused. It is probably far more on the rare occasions it is actually used as there is a contractual obligation to buy water from it but I heard the purchased water is just dumped into the sea.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/wonthaggi-desalination-plant-costs-649-million-a-year-to-operate/news-story/76716bd878186e3acd5f5bd45841f81d?amp=
Other state desal plants probably cost similar.
They use vast amounts of electricity. I don’t know how they’ll be run after the next coal power plants are destroyed.
161
” I don’t know how they’ll be run after the next coal power plants are destroyed.”
Easy answer from South Oz where we’ve destroyed all our coal power plants USE DIESEL
Actually we don’t use the desalination plant more than a few hours a year (contractual necessity) but the diesel plant there has been useful on occasions when the wind doesn’t blow.
131
“Actually we don’t use the desalination plant more than a few hours a year (contractual necessity) but the diesel plant there has been useful on occasions when the wind doesn’t blow.”
Not quite so, G 3. The desal plant just at the beginning of June completed an order for I think from memory 70 gigalitres and will start production again in September with a new order of 15 gig, (15,000,000,000 ) this water is pumped uphill to Cardinia Reservoir and distributed from there. Liberals didn’t use the desal plant when the water was “free” from rain and stored in the catchments. Labour run the desal plant whether we need it or not because they built it. The fact that this desalinated water is very expensive to produce is of no concern to the labour government, the cost being directly passed on to every user supplied by Melb. Water. Its back to “its other peoples money” so governments have no obligation to save. The plant also runs on fossil fuels, so, to run this plant it is in fact a loose, loose situation. The water is unnecessarily more expensive and the “pollution” from fossil fuels totally justified.
As a slight aside, Melbourne water will offset its use of fossil fuels with power produced from a local wind farm. This wind farm is still in the “proposed” basket and may or may not ever be built given that residents near another wind farm in the same area have recently won a case for damages due to noise pollution.
101
What happened to earlier concerns about the level of boron contamination in the desal water?
That’s why I understood and was told that the water was just dumped into the sea.
Not in is a cumulative poison, it cannot be fixed merely by dilution.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/desalination-plants-quality-hard-to-swallow-20110828-1jgfu.html
71
Dilution is the solution to pollution.
31
Had not heard of this issue until now thanks David. I guess that while boron is cumulative, the report does say that dilution is accepted to get the levels below 0.5mg/litre. Cardinia dam has a capacity of 5.5 million cubic metres depending on where you look and is all part of the gravity fed system that links the upper Thompson dam to the upper Yarra dam. Lots of dilution capacity in wet years, maybe not so much in drought conditions.
20
“They use vast amounts of electricity. I don’t know how they’ll be run after the next coal power plants are destroyed.”
They do indeed. But lack of coal is immaterial as Perth’s desalination plant which provides 45% of Perth’s water is powered solely by wind from the 80MW Emu Downs Wind Farm. Sydney’s Desalination plant is also fully powered by wind
18
Ian, a desal plant requires a constant source of power as any power outage causes the membranes to be destroyed.
Please explain how a desal plant can be powered by a random power source like a wind subsidy farm.
60
And SA’s is powered (when it runs) by diesel.
40
“powered solely by wind from the 80MW Emu Downs Wind Farm. Sydney’s Desalination plant is also fully powered by wind”
LOL.. Where did you get that arrant nonsense from.
Its akin to saying the ACT runs on 100% renewables. Its totally laughable.
Sydney desal plant runs from grid power.. period, so most of the time is 70% plus coal powered (like right now). There are no wind turbines anywhere near it.
Perth’s Desal plants ARE NOT weather dependent, so they RELY on gas and coal powered electricity.
What you are saying is that the desal plant currently isn’t operating, because wind is supplying basically nothing to the WA grid.
You need to start switching your mind out of GULLIBLE mode. !
30
ps. Emu Downs provides electricity to the Perth grid..
It does not supply direct to the desal plant.
The grid supplies the desal plant, and that grid is regularly powered by mostly coal and gas.
Emu Downs is 260km away from the Desal plant.
If you remove coal from the grid, then the desal plant will regularly have to run on nearly 100% GAS.
20
This Awesome, so ‘Climate Change’ means we will have more good seasons and less droughts. What’s there not to like about that!
81
Despite having their theories of Climate all totally wrong, upside down and back to front nothing stops these intrepid Climateers in their search for future funding.
241
It’s good to know that with the right government energy policy we can stop droughts and flooding.
Inflation is just a totally random thing and there’s nothing government can do.
I do see government facing some issues in accommodating all the possible genders.
I recommend a panel of experts.
If you are short on experts in Oz, we have extras at Harvard and Yale.
181
Oh, I forgot wind.
You guys need non-intermittent wind.
I also suggest an expert panel for consistent wind production.
151
Definition of ‘expert’, ex is a has-been, spert is a drip under pressure, pretty much sums it up.
51
Also someone from more than fifty miles away.
10
The correct pronoun for the climate is it.
The correct pronoun for the climate modelers is them.
The correct use for their reports is fish wrap.
261
These ‘scientists’ are getting good at Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
Perhaps they can explain how 3% human caused CO2 is bad for the planet and yet the other 97% isn’t.
121
Actually I got that 3% way wrong, trace atmospheric gases amount to 0.1% , of that .1%, CO2 makes up 3%, and of that 3% human causes make up 3%, so that’s 3% of 3% of .1%, how miniscule is that to cripple our Western economies, time for a pause and a rethink, I think.
100
Ronin,
You forgot to consider the CO2 airborne fraction. Every year, 54% of anthropogenic CO2 mysteriously disappears, despite the IPCC claiming CO2 has a half life in the atmosphere of 100 years.
So your calculation should read: 46% of 3% of 3% of 0.1%. Although, with CO2 now at 421ppm, perhaps that second 3% should be changed to 4%?
00
The whole global warming scam has degraded the use of the term “expert”.
It seems almost any promoter of the anthropogenic global warming fraud identifies, and is identified by its comrades as an “expert”.
Many of them have no scientific qualifications whatsoever. Some have arts degrees. Others have no formal qualifications.
151
They did not factor the Hunga Tonga volcano into their models.
142
There are known unknowns………..
71
But then there are the unknown unknowns which seem to have a much larger influence since no one has been able to give irrefutable answers to the climate changes
62
51% chance, so it can’t actually be falsified,
as they predict both the event (51% chance) and its negation (49% chance).
71
So climate change which is caused by global warming, causes LaNinas, which cause global cooling. Interesting concept. Bit hard to swallow though.
131
But there again if I received a Govt grant to believe it.
111
war is peace
freedom is slavery
warming is cooling
2+2=5
111
“So climate change which is caused by global warming, causes LaNinas, which cause global cooling. Interesting concept. Bit hard to swallow though.”
I think El Nino and La Nino are not caused by climate change. El Niño and La Niña are naturally occurring climate patterns and humans have no direct ability to influence their onset, intensity or duration.
https://www.unocha.org/themes/el-niño/el-niño-and-la-niña
32
“I think El Nino and La Nino are not caused by climate change.”
Correct.
And since they are one of the major drivers of climate variability, along with other ocean cycles, and the Sun..
…. there is no need to invent or believe the anti-science of CO2 caused warming.
40
ENSO may get worse under AGW.
“Extreme El Niño and La Niña events may increase in frequency from about one every 20 years to one every 10 years by the end of the 21st century under aggressive greenhouse gas emission scenarios,” McPhaden said. “The strongest events may also become even stronger than they are today.” (NOAA)
10
Some geologists believe that the ENSO is driven by geothermal activity.
1. it always starts in the same place, about half way between the Solomon Islands and New Guinea along the tectonic plate line.
– El Nino
2.It is thought that water seeps into a magma chamber and is super heated and under great pressure, it bursts out in pulses. NASA pictures show hot areas of water at regular intervals moving east ward across the Pacific.
– La Nina
3. The magma chamber fills with CO2, bursts out and cools the ocean water as it moves eastward .
111
ENSO responds to changes in the trade winds. If some connection can be made between geothermal activity and trade winds there may be a case to make. Or maybe I’m missing something.
52
warm ocean currents moving into cool water or cool water moving into warm water generates wind.
61
Ocean seismic activity, lagged two years, shows a strong correlation with UAH TLT.
https://chaamjamal.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/seismic-vs-temperature.jpg
60
ps.. remember, the red line has shifted two year to the right.
Since ocean seismic activity fell in 2013/14, a drop in temperature was predicted in around 2016/17… correct prediction.
Obviously a much longer time series is needed to say anything conclusive.
40
I bet the typical warmist has never heard of plate tectonics.
102
Not sure David, I think they fully understand the shifting of the “begging bowl”
91
“I bet the typical warmist has never heard of plate tectonics.”
I think you would lose that bet. Even though plate tectonics were first described in 1915 the full elucidation of the movements in the crust and mantle were not fully described until the 1960s. So anyone who did geography at school at and after that time and most people did, would almost certainly have discussed plate tectonics. Interestingly those that held to the previous theory of the cooling and heating of the earth were called anti-mobilists and those that considered crust movement was correct were called mobilists
http://scecinfo.usc.edu/education/k12/learn/plate2.htm
35
The article you linked is wrong.
Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of “continental drift” in 1912, not 1915.
The theory of plate tectonics was a more elaborate development of that and happened in the late 1950’s to early 1960’s.
20
After listening to the “science” of climate change for the last 40 years, I also believe there is a geothermal factor. We keep looking up, but we should be looking down. The changes in geothermal activity affect the ocean currents and temperatures and “voila” we then get the differences in weather and climate. The earth structure is a crust, mantle, outer core and inner core. That inner core may even be bouncing around. Every now and then, some of that molten inner core leaks to the mantle which warms different oceans. That’s it, simples. Give me a $million, I just solved climate change.
101
I have been doing the maths on atmospheric columns. The difference in specific enthalpy between a saturated column at the maximum SST of 30C and a column at 29C is 4807J/kg. The excess power flux (mostly from sunlight) in a 30C column is about 190W/m^2. That corresponds to a lateral air exchange of just 39 grams per second or 3400kg per day for the column over each square metre of the ocean. Air comes into the warmer column from below 7km and leaves from above 7km. The density at 7km is 590g/m^3. So average vertical updraft is just 0.066m/s – not much. Fact is the mass exchange happens very rapidly during convective instability.
My point here is that there are incredibly high specific energy differences between atmospheric columns at different surface temperature. There are extremely high energy transfers occurring in the atmosphere. In this link you see that the wind power density at 250mb level above 29S, 166W is 104kW/m^2:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/06/22/1600Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=wind_power_density/orthographic=-185.72,-25.08,452/loc=-166.002,-28.964
The differences in specific energy between atmospheric columns distribute massive amounts of heat around the globe.
By comparison, there is negligible difference in the sea floor temperature. So nothing to drive convection.
All open ocean surface water at 30C is condensing more water than it evaporates. With persistent warm pools over the Western Pacific, that part of the ocean is becoming less saline. The Eastern and Mid Pacific is currently the evaporation zone so it is becoming more saline. The latent heat of evaporation reduces as salinity increases. Both sides of the Pacific get the same sunlight at the top of the atmosphere. Eventually the water in the Mid Pacific will build enough water column to become the dominant zone of deep convection and flip to El Nino mode. I expect the Gulf of Mexico becoming a deep convecting zone nudges the flip as trade winds reverse. Also the net precipitation of about 7mm a day over any 30C warm pool will increase the head and drive the saline water deeper. While the regions with net evaporation are reducing the static head but still increasing surface salinity.
There is more on the likely role of salinity here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep06821/
Most of the action in Earth’s climate system occurs over the tropical oceans. That is where most of the heat comes in and the atmospheric columns stores fast amount of readily available energy.
The thermal inertia of the tropical atmosphere is around 22 days – the temperature at the surface influence the top of the atmosphere 22 days later. There is 10mm more water in a saturated column at 30C than at 29C. It takes time to get there. By contrast the thermal inertia of the deep oceans is enormous – centuries rather than days. The atmosphere is the F1 of climate, fast and furious, while the oceans are the Mack truck, big but slow.
22
The Wetern Pacific Warm Pool is a barrier preventing the cool waters entering the Indian Ocean.
11
Cool water from where? Plenty of cool water gets into the Indian Ocean from the Southern Ocean. You just need to deep dive to find it:
https://www.ewoce.org/gallery/I8_TPOT.gif
The Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea go into hyperdrive in April:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/04/30/0000Z/ocean/primary/waves/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-285.40,19.00,388/loc=69.140,9.209
All that atmospheric water has recently been dumped on India, Bangladesh and China.
11
The warm pool just north of New Guinea is a barrier to stop La Nina cool waters going further west.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-193.05,3.94,1060/loc=148.963,-2.209
11
These pseudo scientists don’t understand the extraordinary amount of energy stored in the oceans and the amount we get from the sun. These are the cause of natural cycles and changes in the climate. For example, a LaNina causes a wet year in Australia. Not the other way around.
Saying that “climate change” will cause more triple LaNinas is laughable and complete nonsense.
In this context, how then is “climate change” defined? LaNina is the thing that causes natural climate change? Not the other way around.
They don’t seem to know the concept of “cause and effect” – they have reversed it to “effect and cause”
111
apparently it’s the co2 control knob that causes la ninas
turn it up and you get more (or less) (or the same amount) of la ninas.
turn it down and you get more (or less) (or the same amount) of la ninas.
71
Perhaps this court challenge may be a reasonable way to begin the serious fightback against their climate change lunacy? Who knows but Happer and Lindzen are a good choice in my humble opinion.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/23/co2-coalition-tells-court-carbon-regulation-scientifically-invalid/
51
I think some might find this interesting:
https://geoenergymath.com/
61
Even our clueless ABC are now starting to wake up to future problems for our electricity grid(s) when we have to charge increasing numbers of EVs.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/22/abc-electric-vehicles-could-overload-the-grid/
41
Ok, so no charging at night when everyone comes home from work and there are other electrical loads into the night. Also, that is the traditional time aluminium smelters run.
So when are they going to be charged?
During the day when everyone is at work? But there are other demands then as well, and the practical problem of charging outlets.
Well, maybe if the wind is blowing and sun is shining, you may, with luck, occasionally be able to charge them on the weekend.
Otherwise, walk or take the bus, or a horse, which is what the Elites want us to do anyway.
101
I get the feeling that the overnight charging of batteries and pumping up of hydro dams was calculated using spare coal capacity at night, not the new paradigm of no solar and maybe some wind, this isn’t going to work chaps.
80
Has he admitted that they fudge the figures to get a desired result?
61
They are
so the answer is yes.
30
until the next “discrepanc[y]s between climate data and the output of major climate models” occurs, that is.🤦
52
The flip side of this bold statement is that past models were LESS REALISTIC.
In truth, the past models were WRONG and the present models are still WRONG.
The linked chart is pertinent to the topic. It compares measured and CSIRO forecast for the Nino34 region.
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNhFG4cx21dMijUI3H
I know the models are WRONG because no part of the open ocean can sustain a temperature above 30C. So the temperature predicted for 2080 CANNOT happen. And the current temperature is low by 2C.
If you take a look at the CSIRO model produced in 2000 rather than 2015, the forecast temperature for the Nino34 region in 2022 was already above 30C, which it is clearly not.
The current measured COOLING trend of 1.6C per millennium, based on 2 of satellite and moored buoy records, is going to have to make a rapid shift if it is to get to 30C by 2080 from the current 27C.
72
Models are excellent rumors.
Didn’t we just trash the world economy, create a international framework for totalitarianism, and turn a large portion of the population into grocery sanitizing neurotics based on modeling … produced by one corrupt British guy.
31
I get Media Releases from the Oz Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). A few days ago I received one from them predicting an end to the current la Nina later this year but a likely return to a la Nina in just a shot time after that.
It was all pure conjecture, hand waving and waffle, all dressed up with a few each-way statements from some ‘clever’ people to try and give it some credibility.
I think it has reached the stage where they are floundering.
102
As highlighted above two popular theories about the cause of the ENSO are 1. Trade winds and 2. under sea volcanoes.
My preferred theory relates to the only universal force that has the ability to raise the Pacific Ocean (the biggest entity on planet earth) about one metre a day and gently put it back down again six hours later: Gravity.
My analogy is that of a person sitting in a bath tub and the water is getting a bit cold so we turn on the hot tap, situated down near our feet, and using our hands we then circulate the lovely warm water backwards on one side of our body, and the cold water is pushed forward towards our feet on the other side. This is just circulating the bath water in a horizontal plane.
If you were to tip this picture on its side it represents ocean overturning which is the well described mechanism of the ENSO.
I suspect that someone very clever will be able to do the maths on this looking at the major gravitational players in our solar system, that is the sun, earth, our moon, Saturn, and Jupiter.
The multiple interactions of these are already used to describe various cycles such as the 61 year Yoshimura Cycle and the roughly 1000 year Bond Cycle.
51
That’s brilliant. I wish I could make predictions like that.
41
El Nino and La Nina (my keyboard is not set up to produce tildes) are the yin and yang of Pacific rainfall.
When Australia is getting lots of rainfall due to La Nina, the Western and Southwest US is in drought.
When the Western and Southwestern US gets lots more rainfall, then Australia is in drought.
Round and round, which shell has the rain in it?
31
On many keyboards (Windows), do the following:
Using the alt code shortcut, you can type the N with Tilde symbol (Ñ ñ) on any Windows keyboard or PC. To do this, press down the Alt key and type the N with Tilde Alt Code (165 for Uppercase or 164 for lowercase) using the numeric keypad, then release the Alt key.
40
Or just write it. I am sure our heads can figure it out.
20
Sorry,
When the Western and Southwestern US gets lots more rainfall due to El Nino, then Australia is in drought.
40
Most of these experts could not fix a leaking tap.
41
Climate models like gazing into a crystal ball and seeing things possibly have been sucking on their favorate grass
30
I am told,
The molecule of life is now the molecule of death.
A tree growing is indication of a planet dying.
Cooling is heating.
You can make more energy from less.
No matter how many times I click my heels, I am still stuck here in reality.
50
I’ll reject your reality and substitute my own. (Adam Savage, Mythbusters)
40
(Adam Savage, Mythbusters) And climate scientists.
40
https://youtu.be/W8qcccZy03s
20
There will be more la nina and more el nino.
Probably wont be but I always like to grant their prediction and then say, so what? Can nature still function ? If so, then good, nature adjusts and humans are astonishing at adjustment, its the only reason we became the dominate species.
If nature cant survive, such as in an ice age where everything freezes and biological functions slow, then that is really bad. But the answer here is nature can still function so there are only solvable problems at worst.
3 years of rain and then dry periods would be very good for agriculture, and the natural environment. Aquifers would be charged and deep clays would fill and be used. Water would be stored and used where needed by nature and man.
40
We will need to keep a good eye on growth in bushland though.
When we get another dry period, all that rain will make for lots of burnable material.
Of course, more fires will be blamed on “Climate Change”, when actually, for Australia… its CLIMATE NORMAL.!
80
There is nothing that can’t be blamed on climate change especially when your looking for a scapegoat or bucket of money .
30
“There will be more la nina and more el nino.
Probably wont be …..”.
Philip, you are right in the first sentence, wrong in the second. The next La Nina that comes along will prove that there are more La Ninas. If they even bother to try to support the statement they will say something like: one La Nina in a single year compared to the long term average of one La Nina every x years – that’s x times more frequent (and they can make x as big as they like because the greens will swallow and regurgitate anything and the general public won’t check). Same for the next El Nino, of course. And we know that’s how it all works because it has been demonstrated over and over again. Every heatwave, cold spell, drought, flood, storm, etc etc etc, is the worst in history and it doesn’t matter one iota that a quick check of history is all that is needed to show that each claim is false. Every day is groundhog day in climate science.
10
Here is the latest video from Tony Heller about climate data fraud and some history. Australia is mentioned also.
Please comment. Also, I would be interested to hear the warmist point of view.
https://youtu.be/rhzLCPiEwGI
10
Collective nouns are interesting to study. A bed of oysters. A gaggle of geese. A pride of lions. A bunch of drongos. And fittingly, a plague of experts.
50
Some other interesting collective nouns are:
A loveliness of ladybugs.
An exaltation of larks.
A charm, troubling, shimmer, bouquet, chattering, drum, glittering, tune or hover of hummingbirds.
20
I always like a murder of crows.
40
“Crows” earned it.
In Australia we have so far as I know five different types of crow, all of them crows I don’t know them all, and they may not be all murderous. But some are horribly cruel.
30
“It seems this guy will say just about anything, as long as he gets press and the press are too stupid to start asking him questions.”
30
What I don’t forget:
Early warning: Physicists from Giessen, Potsdam and Tel Aviv forecast “El Niño” for 2020
Earlier I read, their model found signs for El Niño all other models were unable to see. 😀
Amazingly there was nothing to see 😀
So the “blind” models were right 😀
50
Th. Landscheit was able to predict some El Niños with sun data of the angular momentum. So it seems, Enso isn’t based on climate change but just vice versa
40
We need Climate Equity.
Flooding, droughts, typhoons, should be equality distributed based on historic cultural marginalization.
The former Western colonial cultures should have mandated limits on good weather as a form of reparations.
Bad weather was caused by Western Colonialist Industrial Cis Patriarchal Culture.
(Come on, this is funny, cause you know there is likely an academic paper or NGO policy statement out there that says this almost word for word. How else do we achieve Climate Justice? Academia and government have become parodies, that’s why they censor jokes. I live near a University.)
40
Several years ago I explained how changes in solar output could lead to changes in global cloudiness which would then alter the balance betwee El Nino and La Nina events.
I actually predicted an increase in La Nina events if the sun remained relatively inactive.
https://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
80
Stephen – do you think that your theories can explain the changes in cloud cover over the satellite age, or is that too short a period? See the cloud part of figure 1 in https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2022-0478.pdf eg. – I was quite surprised to see the sharp drop in cloud cover 2015-17, but there is enough pattern in there maybe for some analysis (the decrease in cloud cover is nothing like a straight line).
10
Mike
Fig 5 is the important one. Althouth there has been a reduction in clouds across the entire period we can see that it stabilised around 2000 when the temperature rise also stopped.
It was around 2000 that the sun became less active and the jet stream tracks became more wavy than before.
If the sun stays quiet I would expect clouds to start to recover, jets become wavier still and a cooling set in.
Oceanic thermal inertia complicates the position and I would not expect the effects of 2015 to 2017 to be apparent in the face of that.
The ‘unprecedented’ run of La Ninas lately supports my position. Have you got a version of Fig 5 that runs to 2021 ?
00
La Nina, Tina, Angelina, Philomena, Sassy Sabrina the Filipina, whatever…
We need CLIMATE ACTION NOW!
/s. 😃
20
When Australia destroys it’s last coal power station, the only thing that will briefly work in a non-random manner will be the Snowy Hydro 2 battery which will be able to (supposedly) produce 2GW for just over a week, assuming it is full of water and fully “charged”.
There’ll also be a few isolated diesel, gas turbine and gas powered power stations.
By that time what little industry we have left will be running it’s own diesel generators, as will the wealthier households, including the Leftist Elites.
But sooner or later, the price of diesel will become prohibitive as well, even more so than now.
10
The thing I love about science is the constant invention of new language/terms/phrases—most of the time, totally unintuitive and/or incomprehensible. And the constant changing of definitions and parameters.
Used to be, climate was, minimum, a reference to a 30-year period. Now the word is used incessantly when the word “weather” should be used instead. If this winter is different from last winter, it’s “climate change.” Well, I’ve lived in Vermont for 24 years now, almost a full climate period, and as far as I can remember, every single season, from one year to the next, has been different. Some summers are dry, some are wet. I’m an avid mushroomer, so I notice the summer precipitation. Wet summers suck for BBQ’ing and the like, but OMG!, tons of wonderful free food in the woods, come end of summer. With winters, the amount of snow shoveling and my back are the gauge, along with how often I’m seeing my plow-guy and how much sand he’s dumping of the driveway—which I have to pay someone to sweep up in the spring. There are NO major trends that I can see.
BTW, everyone caught, I hope, that the latest IPCC report erased the Dust Bowl years from climate history, right? A period of time characterized not just by bad farming practices (which we have again, with all of our vast glyphosate-laden monocultures), but also by heat waves all around the world. They also erased the cool mid-century, which prompted astronomer John Gribbin to write the 1978 book “What’s Wrong With Our Weather?” On page 26, he’s got this beautiful Northern Hemisphere temperature graph ramping up through the 30s and peaking during WWII… and plummeting straight down, right afterwards. At which point we had all the speculation about the imminent new Ice Age. So, the IPCC erased/ignored all of the evidence, for a major period of natural climatic oscillation—from recent history! Warm, cold, warm… Duh! So unlikely on a giant orb spinning through space in a gigantic orbit…
50
“Working to reconcile discrepancies”
Does that mean “changing past temperature records to match the model predictions”?
40
Yes… the BOM have been doing it already. Jo made us aware of the BOM’s fiddling of past temperature records in Australia, called ACORN 1 and ACORN 2. As a result, if you look on the BOM’s website, they state that the atmospheric temperature in Australia increased by 1.47 degrees C in 110 years (1919 – 2020). THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE. The REAL warming rate is 1.25 degrees C over 140 years (1880 – 2020). The BOM has been taken over by the left-wing bias that is, unfortunately, believed by too many Australians.
40
And they deleted the official record before 1910.
40
Why are we cutting emissions? To reduce the worlds temperature. El ninos are events associated with colder temperatures and now they say they will become more frequent. If they’re more frequent why do we need to cut temperatures if that’s the consequence of what we’re doing anyway.
I’m so confused.
Clearly logical and good enough reason to destroy our economy.
30
We’re all confused, Zig…join the club
00
If the probability of an event happening is around 50% then how is that a prediction. If it happens you’re about right and if it doesn’t happen it’s about right. Better off to keep your mouth shut.
00