This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

El Niño Is Coming: Here's What To Expect

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Back in March, when looking for the next great economic scapegoat, we wrote "Goodbye Polar Vortex; Hello Solar Vortex - El Nino Is Coming", because as everyone knows by now, in a centrally-planned world, in which the present always disappoints and the rigged market is driven purely by the overly optimistic future forecasts for five years in a row now (despite the rosy future never, ever materializing in the form of a better than expected present), any deviation from what is "priced to perfection" has to be promptly explained away, usually with such ridiculous gimmicks as the weather, i.e. snow in the winter, hot summers, balmy springs and so on.

Two months later, the Bank of Japan confirmed precisely what we knew would happen when it said it is set to blame El Nino for the upcoming spending collapse (which apparently has nothing to do with the utter failure of Abenomics, or the recession japan Now finds itself in following the sales tax hike earlier this year).

Idiot central-planner and economist "justifications" for always being wrong aside, the reality is that El Nino is on its way even if the slowdown in the economy will be due to every other factor except the weather (start with the Fed) which just so happens is a "recurring" event. So upcoming GDP collapse (that nobody could have foreseen earlier, nobody, certainly not the Fed) notwithstanding, here is what one should really expect as a result of the unique weather formation which whose temperature and precipitation impacts across the United States occur during the cold half of the year, from October through March.

From Climate.gov

United States El Niño Impacts

By this point, most of you have heard that it looks like El Niño is coming, and maybe you’re wondering why you should care.  After all, why should it matter if the tropical Pacific Ocean becomes warmer than average? That’s thousands of miles away from the continental United States.  Well, it turns out that El Niño often results in changes in the patterns of precipitation and temperature across many parts of the globe, including North America (Ropelewski and Halpert 1987, Halpert and Ropelewski 1992).

Many folks probably remember the heavy rainfall, flooding, and landslides that occurred in California in 1982/83 and again in 1997/98. As the region suffers through a devastating drought, it could be something of a relief if we knew for certain that El Niño would bring similar soaking rains. But those two events were the 2 strongest El Niños in the past 60 years, and we’ve seen many other El Niño years where California didn’t experience those types of devastating impacts. So assuming El Niño develops, what can we expect across the United States and when can we expect it?

By examining seasonal climate conditions in previous El Niño years, scientists have identified a set of typical impacts associated with the phenomenon (Figure 1). “Associated with” doesn’t mean that all of these impacts happen during every El Niño episode. However, they happen more often during El Niño than you’d expect by chance, and many of them have occurred during many El Niño events.

 

Figure 1. Average location of the Pacific and Polar Jet Streams and typical temperature and precipitation impacts during the winter over North America. Map by Fiona Martin for NOAA Climate.gov.

 

In general, El Niño-related temperature and precipitation impacts across the United States occur during the cold half of the year (October through March). The most reliable of these signals (the one that has been observed most frequently) is wetter-than-average conditions along the Gulf Coast from Texas to Florida during this 6-month period. This relationship has occurred during more than 80% of the El Niño events in the past 100 years.  

In Southern California and U.S. Southwest, strength matters

Over California and the Southwest, the relationship between El Niño and above-average precipitation is weaker, and it depends significantly on the strength of the El Niño. The stronger the episode (i.e., the larger the sea surface temperature departures across the central equatorial Pacific are), the more reliable the signal in this region has been.

For instance, during the two strongest events in the past 60 years (1982/83 and 1997/98), much-above-median rainfall amounts fell across the entire state of California. Median or above-median precipitation was recorded over the entire state during strong episodes in both 1957/58 and 1972/73 (Figure 2). However, strong events in 1991/92 and 2009/10 only provided small surpluses in the southern part of the state, while precipitation during 1965/66 was generally average to below-average across the state.


Figure 2. Difference from average (1981-2010) winter precipitation (December-February) in each U.S. climate division during strong (dark gray bar), moderate (medium gray), and weak (light gray) El Niño events since 1950. Years are ranked based on the maximum seasonal ONI index value observed. During strong El Niño events, the Gulf Coast and Southeast are consistently wetter than average. Maps by NOAA Climate.gov, based on NCDC climate division data provided by the Physical Sciences Division at NOAA ESRL.

For weak and moderate strength episodes (Figure 2), the relationship is even weaker, with approximately one-third of the events featuring above-average precipitation, one-third near-average precipitation, and one-third below-average precipitation.  

Elsewhere over the United States, El Niño impacts are associated with drier conditions in the Ohio Valley, and there is a less-reliable dry signal in the Pacific Northwest and the northern Rockies. Hawaii also often experiences lower-than-average rainfall totals from the late fall through early spring period.

The climate impacts linked to El Niño help forecasters make skillful seasonal outlooks. While not guaranteed, the changes in temperature and precipitation across the United States are fairly reliable and often provide enough lead time for emergency managers, businesses, government officials, and the public to properly prepare and make smart decisions to save lives and protect livelihoods.

Definitions

Weak El Niño: Episode when the peak Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) is greater than or equal to 0.5°C and less than or equal to 0.9°C.

Moderate El Niño: Episode when the peak Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) is greater than or equal to 1.0°C and less than or equal to 1.4°C.

Strong El Niño: Episode when the peak Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) is greater than or equal to 1.5°C.

References

Halpert, M.S. and C.F. Ropelewski, 1992: Surface Temperature Patterns Associated with the Southern Oscillation, J. Clim., 5, 577-593.

Ropelewski, C.F. and M.S. Halpert, 1987: Global and Regional Scale Precipitation Patterns Associated with the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, Mon. Wea. Rev., 115, 1606-1626

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 06/15/2014 - 11:46 | 4858523 _ConanTheLibert...
_ConanTheLibertarian_'s picture

Let's HAARP the motherfucker.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:04 | 4858564 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Better talk to Congress about cash to fire it back up...

Not that it would make any difference what so fucking ever...

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:05 | 4858567 TahoeBilly2012
TahoeBilly2012's picture

Could use some skiing next season, one whol friggin day last year.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:18 | 4858605 AssFire
AssFire's picture

BFD, our immigration catch and release centers are filled with El Niños.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 14:09 | 4858847 mkkby
mkkby's picture

If the economy is weak, blame el nino.  If it's strong Obama/fed will take credit.  The sheeple will nod their heads and believe what ever told.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 14:40 | 4858907 knukles
knukles's picture

Amazing that after reading the whole thread of comments, most or it centers in upon climate change as opposed to the fact that Il Niño is a comin', period.
I for one will be grateful for the rain in my area because I'm sick and tired of the local politicians claiming a drought which, while all over much of CA, does not affect my immediate area.  Just want the politicians to shut the fuck up, global warming by whom or what I do not care as a political solution ain't gonna work any better than any other political solution ever has and they all been abject failures.
I do not need some elected morons telling me about saving the Earth.
The Earth will be here long after man has disappeared into the the winds of history.
And if it is man-made, then FFS, address the root problem of too many people and not the symptoms.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:35 | 4859018 7.62x54r
7.62x54r's picture

During the last Il Niño, the Oregon coast warmed to the point where the fishing charters offered tuna and marlin fishing, and you could surf without wetsuits.

As a kid, I rather enjoyed it.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:45 | 4859045 OldPhart
OldPhart's picture

In 73, my itty-bitty, high desert, one horse, no stoplight (and even to this day, no McDonalds, Starbucks or other chain), population 2000 spread out over 250 miles, town received four feet of snow.  It shut down the Victor Valley for about three days, we were shutdown another two...others, out on the dirt roads, had to wait for it to melt.  Normal snow here is maybe an inch or two...lasts long enough to take a picture.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:11 | 4858587 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

HAARP is having it's last installation in Alaska turned off in the next few days. Once shut off for good, it is planned to scrap it and bull doze the site. Now then, with all HAARP sites gone, what shall we blame extreme weather events on? Maybe science? Or measurements over time? Nope, I hear "chemtrails" are doing it!

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:30 | 4858635 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

What is most amusing is that many of the same people who blame HAARP (a man made device) for all major weather disruptions and even earthquakes, scoff at the idea that man could affect the climate by pumping out untold tons of shit into the air every day, to the point where they are now selling air in parts of China.  Oh, and they acknowledge that Fukishima (a single nuclear plant) could be a threat to the world.  The common theme?   Libertarians consider the concept of climate change a threat to their God given right to pollute the common air.  They don't own a nuclear plant, and HARRP is the work of government, so it's okay to consider those a threat to humanity.  But climate change from billions of people pumping shit into the air each day?  Shit made up by socialists.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:36 | 4858659 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

If you knew the first thing about science, you would be aware that what you are supporting is not science.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:17 | 4858958 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

@Jack Burton - Australia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q707lnp5bq8 - @12:00 min

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 16:23 | 4859125 bag holder
bag holder's picture

Climate science is a lot like economics. As we know, there's an iron-clad, causative correlation between unemployment and central bank interest rates, except when there's not.

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 17:16 | 4860418 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Climate science has as much in common with the Taylor Rule as the set of all well crafted sophistries has with your post...

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:13 | 4858968 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Whereas it would be nice if you knew the first fucking thing about how science really works...

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 16:52 | 4859176 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Whereas you have nothing but ad-homs and fallacies.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 18:01 | 4859335 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

What do you expect from a liberal WOMAN?

 

My mental image of FlakFRAU is that of that ugly cunts Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Michelle Obama, Janet Reno, Hillary Clinton, Madelline Albright and Janet Yellen...all morphed into one.

 

FlakFRAU, Is that why you, FlakFRAU, are so ashamed of being a woman, that you pretend to be a man?

 

You can console yourself, FlakFRAU, with the line that beauty is just skin deep. But it will not negate the truth that your ugliness is to the bone.

 

Go lick your own pussy as you are too spineless to write any truth, FlakFRAU.

 

Nidstyles...Call Ms FlakFRAU a cunt, as Col Klink did yesterfay, and see HER response.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 18:46 | 4859401 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"Look at how you speak to people. That is exactly why I don't work for free. I don't want to live in a world where people like you are the fucking norm. You're pathetic to be around and you hate everything that doesn't support your notions of reality.  This is what absolutism does to people, it turns them into cynical over-judgemental little pre-madonnas such as yourself. You're completely capable of talking all sorts of shit over the internet, but can't spend two seconds to actually treat anyone that disagrees with you civilly. Then people wonder why the world is going to shit, it's because there are too many leeches such as yourself.  If my kind treated your kind with close to the same ridicule, most of you would be dead already. People that think like you have been around for centuries, and are responsible for the majority of the atrocities that have occurred."

-Nidstyles, this thread, 6.15.2014.  Irony at its best.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 23:48 | 4860173 Greenskeeper_Carl
Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

I don't think I've ever seen someone's own words used against then so well on here before. Well played. I will say this, I disagree with you on a lot of things, but you do tend to keep it civil, with me at least. Not sure why calling out such hypocrisy got so many down votes.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:40 | 4858664 in4mayshun
in4mayshun's picture

No one is denying pollution is affecting the planet you JackHole! We're denying that Carbon dioxide is. And by the way... The crap being dumped into the oceans is going to kill us long before coal plants will. But that doesn't make Al Gore money so you'll never hear about that.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 14:22 | 4858872 zerozulu
zerozulu's picture

Why no one talks about planting more trees to curb excess CO2???

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 14:43 | 4858914 cbxer55
cbxer55's picture

While they are whacking trees in the Amazon Rain Forest in ever increasing numbers, exactly how many do you plan on planting. I'm not a greenie by any means, but I most definitely know the importance of trees, and rain forest in particular, when it comes to oxygen and converting CO2 to same. Could CO2 be rising because of the below quote, as much as anything else? I think that is mankinds biggest contribution to "global warming", cutting down too damn many trees.

[quote]In 1950, about 15 percent of the Earth’s land surface was covered by rain forest. Today, more than half has already gone up in smoke. In fewer than fifty years, more than half of the world’s tropical rainforests have fallen victim to fire and the chain saw, and the rate of destruction is still accelerating. Unbelievably, more than 200,000 acres of rain forest are burned every day. That is more than 150 acres lost every minute of every day, and 78 million acres lost every year! More than 20 percent of the Amazon rain forest is already gone, and much more is severely threatened as the destruction continues. It is estimated that the Amazon alone is vanishing at a rate of 20,000 square miles a year. If nothing is done to curb this trend, the entire Amazon could well be gone within fifty years.[/quote]

http://www.growingairfoundation.com/?page_id=143

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:26 | 4859001 SilverRhino
SilverRhino's picture

That's quite all right.  What is the first thing they plant when they convert a bunch of farmland into housing developments around here?   TREES.

The forest band in Texas used to run between Dallas and Ft Worth .... now it extends out beyond Weatherford.     

That's a lot of fucking trees that have been planted in the last 30 years.   

 

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:50 | 4859054 verum quod lies
verum quod lies's picture

Some countries, for example the U.S., Sweden, etc. , have more trees now than a century ago. Now, of course the overpopulated, non-European shitholes don't. And, of course, soon neither will we by importing millions of little ninos/parasites. It amazes me how taboo it is to mention the driving force of pollution is more people, and especially those that breed like rats, yet the watermelons of today ('green on the outside, red on the inside') abjectly refuse to make the simple causal link yet focus on scams to lay waste to places with populations that factor that in and prop up and even import to the point of genociding their own populations those that have never given a darn about the environment. Insanity meets suicide.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 14:48 | 4858925 Vampyroteuthis ...
Vampyroteuthis infernalis's picture

Why no one talks about planting more trees to curb excess CO2???

If you did that the fraudulent carbon cap and trade would never occur making libtards billions. Your solution is simple and pragmatic.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 16:36 | 4859148 Radical Marijuana
Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:42 | 4859038 oddjob
oddjob's picture

As it gets warmer the tree line naturally creeps north consuming more CO2.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 17:56 | 4859325 NuckingFuts
NuckingFuts's picture

I spent a decade working for a nonprofit tree planing org. No I am not some "tree-hugging Lib". Also did a stint in the Peace Corps planting trees in the third world. My comment is this: to often anyone trying to improve the environment is labeled by "some" as a card carrying communist, liberal, environmental nut job. Trying to leave the world in a better place then we found it is not liberal or conservative... Just common sense. We don't have to argue the science of AGW, just try not to be a dick and ruin things. And don't label those without a political agenda. OK rant off.

More trees, less assholes.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 19:07 | 4859437 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Trying to leave the world in a better place then we found it is not liberal or conservative... Just common sense."

Agreed.

As a child of the sixties/seventies, I don't believe anyone has ever argued for dirty air & water. I/we argue against the lies of agenda driven "science" and empowering the state to control not only what goes on outside our homes but what comes in them.

Can we say, mercury in light bulbs was an extremely bad idea? ;-)

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 19:44 | 4859511 NuckingFuts
NuckingFuts's picture

As usual nmewn, well said. Putting mercury in bulbs but you can't find a good thermometer anywhere = insanity.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 20:10 | 4859586 nmewn
nmewn's picture

lol...yes, we'll find a third way through the bullshit.

I have faith in us, not so much "the others" ;-)

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 00:47 | 4860316 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The master of bullshit and deceit strikes again...

So what is a bigger source of mercury in the environment?

A) Used CFL bulbs thrown into the garbage with no attempt to recycle them

B) Coal fired power plants

Bonus:

X) What fraction of CFL bulbs are recycled?

Go ahead tell us....

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 02:31 | 4860446 Blythes Master
Blythes Master's picture

Flakingcunt, The breaking of one of these algorean cfl lightbulbs inside your house, according to the ORIGINAL MSDS sheets requires a response from my friends and I on the HAZ-MAT team.

Must suck to be you for being called out for being too cunty tonight. Yet again. :rolling eyes:

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 09:10 | 4860862 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Parroting old nonsense from Rush only shows you are a Hedgetard.... 

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:13 | 4858906 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yep... all the C02 is resulting in acidification of the oceans and could very well result in collapse of the food chain...

You are just another example of an ignorant fucktard at the Hedge demonstrating their complete and utter lack of comprehension, by choice mind you.... 

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:19 | 4858981 J Pancreas
J Pancreas's picture

Youve either got a small pecker or are a big blubbering vagina. You spew hate and malicious garbage in about every post. Learn how to be civil or head back to your women's empowerment meeting because you dont fit in well here.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:42 | 4859010 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I say, dear sir, you have a small pecker and/or are a big blubbering vagina.  

Was that civil enough for you?  I took lessons from you.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 16:45 | 4859161 ThankYouSatan
ThankYouSatan's picture

Yummy

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 18:47 | 4859404 dr kill
dr kill's picture

My dear girl, you should immediately halt commenting here and run to inform your superiors that American growers have been using CO2 generators in their greenhouses for some time now. Apparently 1500 ppm doubles some yields. Do be a dear and run along.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 20:22 | 4859618 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Sure does, too bad the earth is not ganga grow room...

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 23:59 | 4860197 Jugdish
Jugdish's picture

I'm gonna write president Bama and ask him to shut down all the volcanoes that spew all that naughty air.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 13:22 | 4858750 aardvarkk
aardvarkk's picture

No.  What is most amusing (and dismaying) is when someone is so, so sure of their own convictions that they cannot allow for the possibility that they may be in error.  Like the people who had my mother jamming margarine down my throat instead of butter for my entire childhood because it was "healthy".  Or the people who tried to remove fat from everything because it was evil.  The science is "settled", you know?

I'm currently of the mind that CO2 is a minor factor in whatever may be going on, and that anthropogenic CO2 is a relatively minor component of that (vulcanism and other sources being the rest).  My mind is open to the other possibility, but every time I try to find good data I run into ridiculous shit from "scientists" like extrapolating ring data from a few hundred trees to an entire continent.  Or the time when I looked at the source code released in one of the climategate releases (I'm a software guy) and saw comments in the source code like "Jerry said to add these numbers in here, not sure what they're for".

Nope.  Not buying that particular pile of horse crap.  That's not to say I won't...but they'll have to do better than they have to date.

Oh, and one...JUST ONE...of their models will have to successfully predict climate changes.  None have so far.  They've been badly off.

Now please tell us all how the Kochs are evil and it's Bush's fault.  We're dying to hear it again.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 13:39 | 4858788 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

I like my margarine with extra fluoride.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 20:46 | 4859692 Debt-Is-Not-Money
Debt-Is-Not-Money's picture

+1,000!

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 14:22 | 4858867 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You see, to me, it's not a poltical issue.  It is a matter of science.  http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

To you, it is a political issue.  Therefore you read some Drudge articles that show some scandal involving a few scientists, while ignoring a huge body of work as described in the above link that you won't read. 

It is possible the scientists are wrong.  So what?  So keep on keeping on until what?   Seriously, what proof would be sufficient to allow you to accept the science despite your ideology.  

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:10 | 4858961 goldpercent
goldpercent's picture

For the sake of discussion, lets accept the premise of the scientists.

How on earth could we respond to something on such a huge timeline without unintended consequences?

Doesn't that bother you just a little bit?

Why wouldn't the solutions be worse than the problems?

Must we really do something?

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:20 | 4858986 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"For the sake of discussion, lets accept the premise of the scientists."

What blows my mind is that your question is preceded with this, as if it should be controversial.

 

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:30 | 4859008 goldpercent
goldpercent's picture

Fine, the scientist are correct.  Now on to the discussion assuming you can unblow your mind.  Please, I really am interested in your response.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:40 | 4859025 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

The question is meaningless.  You are asking if we should do something if we are literally destroying our ecosystem?

The world is not going to do anything about this problem, period.  Yes, there will be some cap and trade bullshit that will make some oligarchs a bunch of money, but none of it will be close to enough to make a dent in the problem.  I engage in this debate soley because the whole issue of ignoring the science is so irritating to me.  Oil and coal companies and oligarchs in general who make money polluting the environment have been spreading propaganda for years that their shit don't stink, and libertarian-minded people suck up the propaganda with a large straw because it fits their worldview.  The reality is that society as a whole will never voluntarily give up the current energy model.   Even if one country did, most would not.  It's not even worth trying in my opinion.   Some day in the future, people struggling with the damage done due to our blind greed and selfishness as a species will look back at us and think we were a bunch of fucking selfish douchebags, and curse us.  Life will go on, but most people will be much worse off than today.  That is our legacy, just as it was the legacy of the last several generations to live beyond our means as a society economically, leading to trillions upon trillions of debts that will crush our economy for the foreseeable future.  Nothing will be done about that either, until the shit hits the fan and people start dying in large numbers.  That's it.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:45 | 4859042 goldpercent
goldpercent's picture

Excellent.  Thank you for your response. 

I actually see us moving towards "doing something" in the form of a Carbon Tax.  Seems like there is a lot of momentum towards doing that.  As that would effectively be a Tax on almost all economic activity, I am concerned.

The questions are mearly there to highlight what you know.  We are collectively a bunch of idiots.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 18:27 | 4859370 aardvarkk
aardvarkk's picture

Personally, I make a rather large distinction between "pollution" and "emissions".  To me, "pollution" is something that doesn't generally occur naturally in the environment.  This might be huge concentrations of something like sulphur dioxide or other chemicals that cause repiratory and other problems.  In particular I don't like things like coal plants that emit particulates, which is a dwindling problem due to FAR better filters on the stacks and so forth.  "Pollution" might also legitimately (in my mind) be something like nuclear waste or anything else that emits harmful rays.  Or anything that fouls the water and is harmful to aquatic or other life.

What I do NOT consider "pollution" are, for instance, any of the basic components of the air we and virtually all other animals on the planet breathe out in the process of natural respiration.  Like CO2.  Especially when lots and lots and LOTS of that same chemical are emitted naturally by other processes.

Also troubling to me when thinking of CO2 as a causative issue for climate effects are the charts I've seen that show that CO2 always in prehistory--ALWAYS--follows rather than leads the changes that are being bitched about.  But then, that kind of strays from being responsive to your stated bitch.

It honestly sounds to me like you are pretty simply a person-hater and would just as soon see us all gone.  If that is indeed the case, let's just say that my own position is quite different and agree to disagree.  Indeed, there seem to be a lot more people cropping up with that attitude lately, and it has made me participate less in discussion.  I miss Ronnie Reagan not necessarily for his low taxes or winning the cold war or other attributes and accomplishments (many of which I love and admire) but mostly just for his sunny disposition.  I was a staunch Democrat in those days, and I still couldn't help liking the guy.  That is one of the things we are sorely lacking in public life over the last decade or two.  IMHO.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 19:23 | 4859467 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I don't hate people at all.   But the reality is that the oligarchs have won.  They have convinced most people that trillions in debt are okay, that a constant state of global conflict is normal, that we need the Fed, that the ___ Team would save us if the ___ Team would just stop being obstructionist, that we need the MIC to protect us from the boogey man, that it's okay for hedge fund managers to make billions of dollars a year in a rigged system and leave said billions to their offspring just as Lords and Ladies did throughout history, that free trade will bring wealth and prosperity to America, and that global warming is either a hoax or a far-away problem that can be solved if we pay some extra taxes or whatever other bullshit solution they will push on us that will allow the status quo to continue.   I don't hate my fellow man for this.  I was in the same matrix until a few years ago.  

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 20:19 | 4859611 goldpercent
goldpercent's picture

I believe you don't hate people.  I'll go one further, I believe you care about them.

But, I don't believe you think the fight is over.

Many battles lost no doubt, but hold on to the hope you clearly have.

Some thoughts regarding libertarians:

Not all people who identify as libertarians are libertarians.

Fundamentally the libertarian supports property rights and non-aggression.  If someone strays from that and claims to be a libertarian, they are actually a confusedatarian.

Those folks are a big problem.

Some clever guy once pointed out that the best way to take down a good argument is to argue for it vehemently and badly.

Some do this deliberately while some are just confused, but the results are the same.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 21:11 | 4859764 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I am often accused of having a black and white view, but the opposite is true.  I voted for Ron Paul in the last Presidential election (wrote him in, in FL) not just out of protest, but because I would rather him be President by a million times.  But I totally disagree with pure libertarianism.  I don't think pure free markets work, I don't think wage arbitrage is a good idea so I don't believe in free trade with countries like China, and I believe that there is nothing wrong with pooling resources for retirement through public funding, with the wealthy paying into a system they will not use because a functioning economy is what makes them wealthy.  But Ron wanted to end the Fed, the MIC, and the NSA, which is reason enough to vote for him.  If someone like him took the reins, we could debate the other stuff and the country would be a better place regardless of where we landed on these issues.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 23:19 | 4860104 cbxer55
cbxer55's picture

Nice! I'll upvote ya for that one. Don't get to do that very often. ;-)

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 04:07 | 4860493 Captain Obvious.
Captain Obvious.'s picture

They will start a new religion.

They will make little garden gnomes of us and teach their children to piss on them each morning. No-one will remember why, but they will know that it is very important.

(if we are lucky)

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:40 | 4859031 goldpercent
goldpercent's picture

Also, to be fair.  I am just trying to move on past a discussion of climate change.  I believe that mankind has an impact on our environment.  I even believe that impact is negative.  And, sorry about the snark, but it seemed like your were deflecting.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 16:01 | 4859076 holmes
holmes's picture

Yeah, like scientists have never been wrong dipshit. Back in the 70s, said scientists were saying we would be living in igloos by now. Science is a process, not a religion.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 23:55 | 4860188 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Problem is that the majority were not saying that...

So don't make shit up...

Yes, it is a process and the process is basically over for the big picture, now the question is exactly how bad and how fast, is 30 or is it 50 years....

And we are clearly past a few tipping points, there is at least 4 feet of sea level rise baked in the cake over the next few centuries on top of the 1 to 2 over the next 80 years....

http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/news/antarctic-ice-sheet-20140512/#.U55p_pR33cs

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 05:33 | 4860537 holmes
holmes's picture

"the process is basically over for the big picture"

What's your story? Do you have divine powers or just the best crystal ball ever. Your power to predict the future is extraordinary. Please let us know when the next earthquake is coming.

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 10:15 | 4860872 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Clearly you are too stupid to understand what I wrote or are deliberately trying to be thick...

See for example this:

http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/can-we-trust-climat...

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 01:02 | 4860325 goldpercent
goldpercent's picture

Reply button bug. Excuse me.

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 01:01 | 4860337 goldpercent
goldpercent's picture

Holmes,

I'm pretty sure science has become a religion and I think that might be the problem you are trying to highlight.  Good science is certainly a process, some might say a method. 

No doubt, there are a lot of conflicting interests in the world of science as there have always been. 

Regarding the climate, there are massive conflicts of interest and it can be a challenge to get to the truth of it.  Not sure what you are responding to with the dipshit thing, but it isn't to hard to imagine that human beings have an impact on their environment.  I don't actually have a problem with that as I'm a big fan of humans.  It is also not crazy to suggest that some of what humans have done has had a negative impact.  Do we agree that mercury is bad eating?  I don't like to eat mercury.  Fukushima also strikes me as a man-made problem.  Again, I don't want to eat that.  I don't feel like I'm going out on a limb here.

As for the climate change I have a few thoughts. 

The first idea is that we will do more harm than good trying to alter the amount of carbon in the environment because we are really bad at thinking about unintended consequences.  We aren't even that good at thinking about intended consequences but generally put little to no effort into exploring the unintended ones.  Once we get an awesome idea in our head we tend to think about why it is so much more awesome than we first imagined, not the other way around because remember we are all super awesome – in our minds.

My other thought and suspicion is that there are folks who would like to see a global tax on the entire economy.  A really great way to do that would be to tax the font of our economy, energy which at the moment emits carbon, so we see the carbon tax.  For these folks it would be great because it would be so easy to apply the tax at the source, namely the oil fields.  So in this model, regardless of reality, there will be incentives to identify carbon as a scourge that must be addressed – for the children.

Truth is not relative but the perspectives of scientists are as they are people. 

Scientist are made out of people!

You tell everybody. Listen to me, Hatcher. You've gotta tell them! Scientists are people! We've gotta stop them somehow!

 

 

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 02:44 | 4860452 MEAN BUSINESS
MEAN BUSINESS's picture

"My other thought and suspicion is that there are folks who would like to see a global tax on the entire economy."

 

Did your suspicion develop before you were pottie trained? Can you explain how 25 years X 6% X totalcarbon taxes went bye-bye?

For the children? Here's a thought from me : Fuck You.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 18:13 | 4859348 aardvarkk
aardvarkk's picture

Did you not read the part where I don't like that they extrapolate data from a few hundred trees to an entire continent?  Or the part where I like my programs running my models to LACK seemingly arbitrarily contrived numbers into important calculations?  I think you must have a different definition of "science" than I do.

My point was actually the reverse of what you're saying.  I like my science PLAIN, and not remixed and force fed to me by a bunch of yahoos who have decided one interpretation of the data is right, all others are wrong and anyone who might disagree is an infidel or something.  That's not science, that's religion.

I don't disagree with their raw data.  Data is data, and if it is cleanly and honestly gathered it is what it is.  THAT is science.  It is also science to point out that the temperature station they've been using for 50 years had a parking lot built next to it maybe 15 or 20 years ago that now radiates more ambient heat.  It's even better science to review all the temp stations specifically looking for anything that might be changing readings over time aside from actual "global warming".

It is NOT good science to keep changing the name of the thing you're studying...or at least it makes me think you have something to hide.  It was "global warming".  Then it was "climate change".  Sometimes now it's "global weirding" or other catchy tags.  This isn't politics, where something like "liberal" gets a bad name so they change it to "progressive" and it doesn't really matter much.  In science PRECISION COUNTS.

Merely the fact that so many people ON BOTH SIDES, but PARTICULARLY on the left, have conflated politics with this branch of science, makes me distrust ANYTHING that ANYONE on ANY side of this debate announces or trumpets.

Nobody can make decent policy in this area with this kind of environment.  And therefore the best thing to do--barring bringing out real, hard, science that the "other side" can't refute--is nothing.  Nada.  No crazy carbon credit trading schemes, no carbon taxes, no vehicles for politicians to punish their political enemies.  They have enough of those already.  Ask Obama about his favorite, the IRS.

I've actually tuned this entire debate out for the most part because it's absolutely worthless.  When Al Gore and the rest of the people trying to force this on us start cutting their electric bill and selling their private jets (the most CO2-intensive possible way to travel per mile) and motor yachts (probably a close second to the jets) then I'll start to pay attention again.  Until then they're just a bunch of hypocrites who need to go get stuffed and get out of my face.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 21:56 | 4859887 Dr. Everett V. Scott
Dr. Everett V. Scott's picture

LetThemEatRand says: "...it's not a poltical issue. It is a matter of science." Then comes "consensus".

Science is not consensus, period. That is the lame Argument from Authority fallacy. 

You want real Authority? Planet Earth is the ultimate authority, and the planet is DEBUNKING the "carbon" scare. Global warming STOPPED 17+ years ago:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/tren...

^The blue sawtooth is CO2; the green line is the global temperature trend. Anyone viewing that chart would have an impossible time convincing everyone that CO2 causes global warming.

The "carbon" scare is a false alarm, promoted by riders on the grant gravy train. It is not science; it is nonsense. And now we hear the preposterous argument that 'global warming causes global cooling'. As if.

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 00:48 | 4860193 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Quit being an ignorant hedgetard...

Even with your bullshit cherrypick of a record El Nino year we have had the following (ht to Greg Laden):

According to the NOAA GISS global instrumental record for temperatures (1880 to the present), since 2000 (inclusively) we have had


 2002 and 2003 ties for first and second warmest January. Januray 2014 was the fourth warmest, 2005 the fifth warmest.


 February 2010 was the third warmest Feburary, and 2002 had the fourth warmest February.


 March 2002 was the warmest, 2012 was the second warmest. March 2014 was the fourth warmest.


 April 2010 was the warmest on record, April 2014 the second warmest.


 We are still waiting for the data on May 2014, but during this time the warmest May on record occurred in 2010, and the second warmest in 2012.


 The warmest and second warmest months during this period were recorded for June, July, August, September, October, November, and December.


 With an impending El Niño, of as yet undetermined strength (and, actually, not 100% certain to occur) we might expect some of the remaining months for 2014 to be in the top two or three rankings for warmest over the entire instrumental record.


 May temperatures should be available over the next week or so.


 So far, for this period, 2010 has been the warmest year on record. 2005 has been the second warmest year on record. 2007 has been the third warmest year on record. 2002 has been the fourt warmest year on record. Last year, 2013, was the sixth warmest and 2003 the seventh. Of the 14 most recent full years, nine have been in the top ten.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 14:04 | 4858837 Greenskeeper_Carl
Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

Here's why THIS libertarian doesn't buy into the whole idea that my z71 Tahoe is killing the planet. All this talk is coming from the SAME people trying to sell me on the economy being fixed, we are in a glorious recovery, the fed and govt knows what's its doing cuz Keynes was right, we should just trust them. All of this is a giant wealth transfer scheme, one of the biggest in history. It's all a giant scam. Those people are so irredeemabley full of shit I don't believe a thing any of them say. Ever. If they say its sunny out and the sky is clear, I know if better bring an umbrella. These same people just a few years ago were worried about global cooling and a new ice age now it's global warming, oh wait temps aren't really rising? We will go with climate change. Each ad every time you aren't allowed to argue with them because "the science is settled". Still waiting on that ice age. This rising oceans thing is going to be like the Fed's fabled GDP growth predictions- it's never TODAY, but it's always coming up, right around the corner

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 14:21 | 4858862 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Last time I checked, there are thousands of scientists who agree that man-made climate change is real.   http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.   Doesn't mean they are right beyond any doubt, but to ignore them because it is against your economic and personal ideology is ideological blindness.  I totally agree that the politicians and oligarchs are using this issue to gain further government power and to make money.  But they do that with oil, too.  And the use the fact that there are a few nutjobs in caves overseas to terrorize us too.  They do it with everything.   So you ignore the science because it is being used by politicians?  Brilliant. 

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:10 | 4858962 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

There are thousands of scientists that believe in evolution, contrary to the fossil record with human species above or below species they supposedly evolved from or to. There are thousands of scientists that say GMO is harmless. There were thousands of scientists that said smoking didn't cause cancer. Etc, etc, etc. Even Flakmeister cited Kehoe and his lead follies. Shall we discuss pharma? Health scares: eggs, butter, etc. How about flouride? 

Scientists are like academicians, dime a dozen. Prostitutes with phd's. 

There are dedicated scientists. However, when governments outlaw cars, re-plant forests, minimize the military (grand polluters all), eliminate big ag and chemical pollution I will start to listen to "science". I do my own research, just because a scientists says something is no different than listening to a politician. 

 

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:24 | 4858992 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"There are thousands of scientists that believe in evolution, contrary to the fossil record with human species above or below species they supposedly evolved from or to."

Let's just all let that sink in for a moment and remind ourselves why we are having this "debate" about man's ability to change the climate with untold tons of pollutants, and how no matter how many studies there may be that come to the same conclusion, there will be those who find a reason to disagree with them.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:47 | 4859048 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Care to argue with the current paleo archeological science? You think this is a current discovery? Have you read the opinions of Darwin's contemporaries and friends? You dismiss tthe fossil record? Yet, we have been convinced a certain "branch" of science is the correct one. Scientists are wrong on a regular basis. 

No one is arguing that climate is static, they are debating the policy objectives and solutions. The government's solutions do nothing to heal the planet, they merely create new carbon markets that can be leveraged and create new taxes to fund. They allow larger corporations to eliminate competition through higher costs, regardless of environmental tradeoffs. 

Anyone calling for the elimination of large scale animal production and pollution? Anyone calling for the elimination of cars? Any national programs to grow and source food locally and individually and closing factory farms? No demand for organic farming for the sequestration of carbon? 

Your a shill and always have been.

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 03:16 | 4860466 MEAN BUSINESS
MEAN BUSINESS's picture

"and create new taxes to fund." fund what? 

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 11:27 | 4861318 Dr. Everett V. Scott
Dr. Everett V. Scott's picture

LetThemEatRand says:

Let's "remind ourselves why we are having this 'debate' about man's ability to change the climate with untold tons of pollutants".

WRONG!

The debate is over one thing: whether the trace gas CO2 ["carbon"] causes any measurable global warming. CO2 is not a pollutant!  CO2 is as necessary for life as H2O. The rise in CO2 has been measurably GREENING the planet. At current and projected levels, CO2 is HARMLESS and BENEFICIAL to the biosphere. More is better.

The mass Media drumbeat of "carbon" [CO2] propaganda 24/7/365 has colonized your mind, to the point that you are now just automatcally nodding your head with your mouth open.

TRY to think for yourself. Carbon dioxide is harmless: no one has ever found any global harm from the rise in CO2 — from only 3 parts in 10,000, to 4 parts in 10,000 — over 150 years. And global warming stopped almost twenty years ago. Think!

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/tren...

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 11:42 | 4861374 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yet another Hedgetard lying to themselves...

Do you actually believe that your nonsense trumps the conclusions reached by essentially every climate scientist? Or is this what you say to yourself to make yourself feel better?

As for the RSS data, why don't you learn about what you are actually plotting from the people who gave you the data:

http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature

Then tell us with a straight face the warming has stopped...

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 00:26 | 4860269 mophead
mophead's picture

Smoking does not cause cancer. But I thumbs up'd you anyway.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:27 | 4859004 Greenskeeper_Carl
Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

Someone being a 'scientist' means exactly jack shit to me. Just like Paul krugman is full of shit and a politically motivated liar, but he is still a PHD 'economist'. All of these people are whores. Except they are worse than whores, because at least prostitution is honest. All global warming is is a tool used to dupe the gullible into a giant global taxing system. This system will destroy what is left of the middle class in western countries. All economic activity results in CO2 being released, therefore it will be a tax on ALL economic activity. Global warming is just a way to scare people into buying into it. Like how those people in caves you mentioned in another post are used to scare us into giving up our civil liberties and natural rights, and sell us on the idea of perpetual warfare against the 'terrorists'. Which isn't meant to be won, just like the war on drugs, poverty, et fucking cetera. The whole 'stopping global warming' isn't meant to be won either, just a giant scam to steal more money from the citizens of the world. The political ideology being why I don't believe this is spot on though- mi ideology makes me not believe any of their bullshit anymore, some as that.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 16:07 | 4859091 holmes
holmes's picture

Check again. The whole "97% of scientist agree" is BS. Same as the Global Warming er, Climate Change (excuse me)

science is BS.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/tol-takes-on-cooks-97-consensus-cl...

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 17:26 | 4859281 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Exactly, even the basic premise on which they base their argument is a flawed lie typical of the type..  Adaption to a changing environment never discussed just attempts at using coercion and taxation and some of you so called libertarians fall for this shit, wake up !!!

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 00:51 | 4860322 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Still deluding yourself into thinking that because you don't like it, it can't be real?

That is the way a child behaves....

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 00:42 | 4860309 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yet another Hedgetard satisfying his confirmation bias WUWT...

This is Richard Tol's very own words:

“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate changeoverwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

Taken right out of his paper

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 11:37 | 4861350 Dr. Everett V. Scott
Dr. Everett V. Scott's picture

@Flakmeister,

So you found someone riding the grant gravy train, and he parrots the words necessary to keep getting his ticket punched. 

I don't see any credibility in that. 

More than 31,000 professionals, all with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD's, have co-signed a statement that CO2 is HARMLESS, and BENEFICIAL to the biosphere.

The alarmist camp has never been able to get one-tenth that number to sign a statement that CO2 is a problem. Not one-tenth.

Obviously, the 'consensus' is on the side of those skeptical of man-made global warming.

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 11:50 | 4861407 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Keep lying to yourself...

Peddling out 5 year old petitions that represents ~0.3% of people holding a B.Sc. is hardly a meaningful statistic...

Do us a favor and list the number of active climate scientists on your list...

I'll check back later...

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 18:17 | 4862982 prmths2
prmths2's picture

The link you provide cites the "97%" that has been used in many articles, such as the last line of this one:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/201...

The above article refers to "97 percent of scientific experts," yet the embedded link itself shows that the "97%" is derived from an analysis of publication abstracts and does not actually apply to scientists themselves. Another "consensus" builder ( James Lawrence Powell) describes his methodology:

"The first thing anyone who wishes to do a literature review needs to do is to decide what question they wish to answer. Many people seem to assume that my question was, “What percentage of scientists accept anthropogenic global warming [AGW]?” But that was not my question. Rather it was, “What fraction of peer-reviewed scientific papers reject AGW and what evidence do they present?” In other words, is there a scientific case against anthropogenic global warming? To answer that question, I needed to find peer-reviewed papers about global warming and review them sufficiently to judge whether they rejected anthropogenic global warming, or offered another alternative."

Notice that Powell does not allow for those who are withholding judgment.

In short, the 97% number does not refer to scientists, but papers, and is based upon rating the abstracts of the papers. A much more definitive study could easily have been done by submitting a short list of statements to the authors of the papers and asking them if they agreed, disagreed, or had no opinion. Such a study would have the benefit of being current and avoiding the problem of interpreting an abstract for what it implied.

Pro or Con, there is a great deal of distortion and disinformation involved in this issue. It seems that only the loudest voices are being heard.

 

 

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 14:58 | 4858939 goldpercent
goldpercent's picture

Carbon Tax

Given that almost every bit of economic activity depends upon energy that releases CO2, I see this as a global tax on all economic activity.

A global tax on all economic activity is the goal and justifications for it will be backfilled.

CO2 may contribute to global climate change or not.

Global climate change may be bad or not.

All economic activity on the planet being taxed?  I'm pretty sure that is bad.

 

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:17 | 4858975 Greenskeeper_Carl
Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

Exactly. That's what I meant above with wealth transfer. The goal of all this is to destroy what is left of the middle class. A global tax on all economic activity has always been the goal.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 18:40 | 4859392 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Suburbs are their kryptonite on Elm Street.  They hate us for our single family homes, our grass, our family sized cars, and our maddening tendency to shape our  children's environments with royal indifference to government workers, academic government shills, and urban elites' opinions and.directives.  

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 03:34 | 4860480 MEAN BUSINESS
MEAN BUSINESS's picture

odd, given that the 6% tax has been bandied about for 25 years. As in : since when there was a middle class! Why wait until the middle class is almost extinct, and lose out on 25 years of tax revenue, only to implement the tax when the tax base is so thoroughly diminished??? Why did the all powerful cabal wait so long? 6% X 25yrs X totalcarbon is a lotta bucks!

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 17:11 | 4859222 stacking12321
stacking12321's picture

LTER, do you ever become sickened by your own intellectual dishonesty?

"Libertarians consider the concept of climate change a threat to their God given right to pollute the common air."

i don't know of any libertarian that believes this view that you ascribe to them.

perhaps you can spend less time and energy flailing quixotically at your perceived bogeyman of rand / libertarians, and more time looking in the mirror.

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 00:00 | 4860198 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You clearly have not been reading very closely...

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 11:50 | 4861399 Dr. Everett V. Scott
Dr. Everett V. Scott's picture

LetThemEatRand:

0bama fixed healthcare, 0bama fixed the economy, 0bama fixed the Border, and 0bama fixed the Middle East. Now he wants to fix the weather.

What could possibly go wrong?

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:30 | 4858644 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Jack - is this true about HAARP?  

When the Feds bulldoze things - it is usually to cover thing up like Sandy Hook crisis actors.

El Nino is real and has nothing to do with fictional global warming BS..

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 14:34 | 4858891 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Freddie wrote: "El Nino is real and has nothing to do with fictional global warming BS.."

Yes, correct.  The term itself comes from Peru which was having "El Niños" even before the Spaniards showed up (1500s).

+ a lot for truthiness.

 

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:08 | 4858954 Isotope
Isotope's picture

Yes, it's long been known as "El Niño," which of course is Spanish for "The Niño."

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:52 | 4858688 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Weather modification has military applications and is practiced by all major military powers. Do you really think we are "bulldozing" it? 

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 13:19 | 4858748 cro_maat
cro_maat's picture

Exactly. If they are bulldozing it then they have better technology than HAARP already in place that we don't know about.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:05 | 4858953 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

Bingo

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:15 | 4858970 ozzzo
ozzzo's picture

Hello... HAARP is being shut down because ""We're moving on to other ways of managing the ionosphere, which the HAARP was really designed to do,"

http://www.adn.com/2014/05/14/3470442/air-force-prepares-to-dismantle.html

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 23:08 | 4860094 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Are you this stupid in your real job? 

Seriously....

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 16:28 | 4859139 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

My understanding is that the HAARP technology has become more distributed and privatized.

Meanwhile, here is a relevant link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lmeLtq9hB4

S0 News June 6, 2014 | Geo-engineering, Volcanos, Space-weather

After first mentioned the problematic nature of geoengineering, that video goes on to discuss the apparent NEW TREND that the predicted El Nino is weakening from what was being predicted a few months ago.

Click on the "Show more" for the "Featured Links" to several sources for that view that the El Nino, while still coming, does not NOW look to be as strong an effect as was being predicted.

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 00:33 | 4860291 tony wilson
tony wilson's picture

we did

we are

all system go

forward rothschild not

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 11:48 | 4858527 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Climate change!

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 11:48 | 4858529 TeamDepends
TeamDepends's picture

El nino is here alright, and there is way, way, way, more than one.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 14:12 | 4858845 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Yes, Thanks to Obama's Amnesty invitation, many thousands of unattended Niños are now being dropped off at the border daily.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 14:36 | 4858894 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Bastantes niños!  Miles y miles!  Muchas gracias, Obama!

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 11:50 | 4858535 Oracle 911
Oracle 911's picture

So in winter it was La Niña or a really weak El Niño. I hope the flash floods which I predicting wont happen in regions with drought.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 11:52 | 4858537 Reaper
Reaper's picture

El Nino is an economic tool used to make economic forecasts. Unlike the prophets of old, our economic prophets are neither discarded nor slaughtered because of false prophecies, but instead are exonerated and praised because the weather takes the blame.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 14:11 | 4858843 Dave Thomas
Dave Thomas's picture

El Nino is the excuse we use when we want to cut back on the number of slices of tomato we put on your Hamburger. Consequently so is La Nina.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 11:53 | 4858539 kowalli
kowalli's picture

blame weak el Nino

blame strong El Nino

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 11:54 | 4858540 CrownedCoke
CrownedCoke's picture

Sure to weaken the housing market

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:09 | 4858578 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

but have nothing to do with QE of course.....

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 11:54 | 4858541 redvetttes
redvetttes's picture

It means I can leave my boat in all year and go boating in Feburary

Buffalo NY

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 11:58 | 4858543 El Oregonian
El Oregonian's picture

So, the bottom line is "the child" will what? Will flood our borders???

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:21 | 4858553 homiegot
homiegot's picture

I love cycles. They're so goddamn predictable.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:01 | 4858555 Da Yooper
Da Yooper's picture

lets seeeeee

last winter had 75 days below zero & also had 25 feet of snow & now you tell me it will get worse

no problem I will just chop up another tourist & throw it on da fire

Baaaaa Hahahahahahahahaha

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:35 | 4858657 robertocarlos
robertocarlos's picture

"below zero", is that F, C, or K?

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:49 | 4858682 BurningFuld
BurningFuld's picture

Well we can eliminate degrees K right off the bat can't we?

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 13:02 | 4858711 Skateboarder
Skateboarder's picture

Where I come from, you cross absolute zero when you leave the beer in the freezer for too long and it becomes beer slushy.

Thank you come again.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 13:25 | 4858756 cbxer55
cbxer55's picture

And if it's in bottles, BOOM!!!!

Been there done that. ;-)

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 14:22 | 4858871 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

My goofing with the liquid nitrogen tank at work has been legendary. I was lucky my boss at the time had a good sense of humor cuz I really should have been fired.

I never tried putting a beer in it come to think of it......

Miffed;-)

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:21 | 4858989 Da Yooper
Da Yooper's picture

Miffed ya cant let us down

you have home work to do

get back to us & let us know how that turns out

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 17:54 | 4859322 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Ok, thanks for turning ZH into an attractive nuisance for me.

1) I have discovered Dipping Dots Ice cream is more difficult to make than you'd think. Thankfully I am working alone today and will clean up the mess so no one will know.

2) when dipping a cockroach in liquid nitrogen, be sure to tie the string around the body and not the leg ( had a choice spot for this baby). Hopefully I will have perfected my dumb innocent look when it is discovered when the tank is cleaned because all eyes will turn to me when found.

Miffed;-)

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 23:18 | 4860112 cbxer55
cbxer55's picture

Must have been a choice cockaroach. Tony Montana would probably have approved. ;-)

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:33 | 4859015 robertocarlos
robertocarlos's picture

Hoisted on my own petard. I was trying to make an F u C K it's cold outside joke.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 13:33 | 4858775 Da Yooper
Da Yooper's picture

F.....at -35 things get interesting

Dis is da UP

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:03 | 4858560 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

Translation: "Be scared, fearful, of everything except the state with all their guns, missiles, drones and killers in uniform, and send the state more of your labor and wealth so the state can 'protect' you."

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:06 | 4858569 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

What an incredible impersonation of a babbling fool!

\hattip...

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 15:06 | 4858956 Calmyourself
Sun, 06/15/2014 - 23:10 | 4860096 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

By all means, tell us what the variation in solar output has been for the past 100 years...

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 08:22 | 4860731 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

you certainly dont seem to think it exists.  I've stopped commenting about you being an idiot, but you still show me every time something about the carbon farce comes up here.

Mon, 06/16/2014 - 09:15 | 4860891 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You wouldn't know what to do with the TSI data if someone jammed it up your ass..

Face it, you are hedgetard playing dumb because that is how you roll...

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:07 | 4858575 RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

It's about time the .gov began a 'war on weather.'

They could spend money building all sorts of Green N R Gee projects, and also use aircraft to bomb the clouds.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 17:15 | 4859251 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

I thought that they were already doing that.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:05 | 4858566 Smegley Wanxalot
Smegley Wanxalot's picture

Holy fuck.  El Niño is coming?  I'd better stop buying food now.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:09 | 4858579 RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

Hey, how'd  you get that squiggel on your N? Nice.

I'm off to Amazon to buy swim trunks, a parka, and hip waders.  Bring it on, El Nino.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 14:31 | 4858881 knukles
knukles's picture

Hah ha ha ha
Squiggles are oñly for the choseñ oñes

 

 

Apple systems have all sorts of alphabetic anomalies when one simply holds down the letter key for a moment, as opposed to repeating it incessantly...

Tö Wit  oôöòóœø?õ

 

Could probably get a job with some nefarious governmental agency creating supposed Voynich manuscripts to confuse the Opfor

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 14:39 | 4858905 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Plus uño!

Ja ja ja ja ja ja...!!!

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:06 | 4858570 SandiaMan
SandiaMan's picture

El Nino is in the White House The Boy

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:07 | 4858574 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

I have posted over the past few months the possibility of a major El Nino developing. The evidence is still pointing towards a major or super El Nino. The long period of above normal sea temperatures in the West Pacific have been held in check by strong trade winds for a decade or more. This has locked the heat in deeper and deeper depths as the heat grows. It takes a collapse of trade winds for the El Nino to develop and the warm waters to migrate east to cause an El Nino. The Pacific cycles have maintained an over all cool La Nina bias for 15 years. This accouts for stable air temperatures and the decline in rising air temperatures. If the Pacific cycle is now shifting, as it should be, cycles are called cycles because they change from one state to another.

The great heat that the Pacific ocean has absorbed, is now potentially going to be dumped into the atmosphere. The results will be extreme weather events. Another result will be record global average air temperatures. Or a noticeable rise in the global warming stair way upwards. Air temps seem to rise in steps, a rise, a stable period , a rise, a stable period, etc. etc.

The big story coming will be the extreme weather events, and the collapse of the arctic ice. Sea ice and Greenlands glaciers. This is already well underway, but an El Nino will cause a spike in melting. This year we are on track for record or near record ice melts. Iceland too has been dealing with warming climate and retreating Ice. The economic department of Iceland's government released a glowing report on the economic potential for Iceland of their warming climate, Greenland too is opening large newly ice free areas to mineral and oil exploration. The potential jobs and tax revenue is already making Greenland happy and the Danish semi rulers of Greenland very nervous of total independence. I suggest Greenland will become a fully independent nation and UN member, and EU member and NATO nation very soon.

Bottom line is. El Nino means record insurance liabilities for insureres, don't be long insurers! Do NOT! It mean record global average temperatures in a spike of heat. It means rising food prices as drought and fire attack agricultural lands. Amazon forest may burn as drought kick in. California could see record storm and rain fall events by winter. Australia will continue it's heat wave records and suffer extreme shifts from drought to flood. In fact, drought and flood are the story we will witness if this El Nino continues to develop fully.

Politically, this will cause a fire storm of the old debate over global warming, real or hoax. Fueled by poltical contributions, the US congress will come down on the Hoax side of the debate. Most ZH readers know where I stand, fully on the "it is a scientific fact that global climate change resulting in extreme warming is a fact based on science". This is a personal fact based opinion. I will change my opinion gladly, but only when the science is presented to me to show the opposite is true. For now, denial is not fact based, so I can not give it serious consideration.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:11 | 4858590 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Do you hear that? 

 

It's the sound of your brain on drugs. Lay off the meth and quit being such a douche with the climate change nonsense. 

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:13 | 4858596 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

How do you breathe with your head so deeply up your ass?

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:30 | 4858641 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Yes, my head must be up my ass, but yours is up the state's ass, which is infinitely worse than my own.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 13:28 | 4858760 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

I bet there's a line of guys who would back that statement up.

edit: I just called you gay.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 13:40 | 4858791 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

I have to question the motives of a man whom would call another man gay in the homosexual way.

Either you wish to defame my character or are interested in me romantically. Either way, it sounds like you are the one that has an issue with gays here. I could care less.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 13:49 | 4858810 greatbeard
greatbeard's picture

>> I could care less.

How much less?

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 16:03 | 4859082 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Circular reasoning leads to circular questions, like your own. 

 

Sometimes, your adherence to dialectics will get you confused and paranoid. Perhaps you should learn other forms of logic that are not as impractical...

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 16:15 | 4859104 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I make plenty of grammar mistakes and I often type fast here and don't check, so not throwing stones.  But given that you still don't see the humor in his post, his point is that the correct expression is "I couldn't care less."  You see, if you "could care less," it means that you must care at least a little, because you could care less.   If you could not care less, it means you don't care at all.  

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 17:15 | 4859190 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

You honestly think I did not understand, because I stated clearly that the question is circular, and has no end. Caring is only limited by how much you wish to actually consider something. Therefore it's circular as the more you consider something, the more you care. 

 

 

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:22 | 4858618 deflator
deflator's picture

 Why do you think the arguements surrounding the concept of climate change are so devisive?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!