This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
El Niño Is Coming: Here's What To Expect
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
- 58559 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


The vast majority of the proponents for Climate Change blame humans for the natural change of the environment and want to support further taxation and state involvement in the regulating of human activity.
It's a fucking scam in other words. The science has spoken more than once. CO2 levels are pulled by temperature, not the other way around, which means the AGW folks essentially spent billions in tax dollars to lie to the public for politicians to create new taxes.
When I am being blamed for denial of something that was a lie in the first place, do you expect me to take you seriously on the issue?
The fact that climite change is such a devisive issue is a red flag for me. I believe that tptb know full well that the past 150 years of burning fossil fuels has altered the Earths atmosphere and they have no intention of doing anything about it. The reason that climate change is devisive has puzzled me because I know that there is zero chance of tptb wanting to do anything about it so why get all worked up?
It's divisive because people believe in BS, rather than actually using science to confirm your beliefs you just say it's true and keep pushing the lie. Sort of like that post you just made that did that SAME EXACT THING.
I am not married to my opinion about climate change. In the 10+ years of reading and writing comments on the internet, I think this is the first time posting in a climate change thread. Climate change really doesn't interest me because I know that even if burning fossil fuels for the past 150 years has altered the Earth atmosphere there is zero chance of tptb wanting to do anything about it. What does interest me about climate change is the devisive nature of the debate over the years.
Call me paranoid, but I believe that when an issue is extremely polarized the propaganda comes from one place. As long as an issue remains devisive and polarized tptb do not have to do anything about it. That is the only reason I tend to believe that burning fossil fuels has altered the Earths atmosphere.
That tells me that you don't really understand the argument fully.
The argument is not over whether climate is static or evolving, it's about taxation and economic controls.
Here's a tip my grandfather taught me when I was younger, when a politician says there is a problem, just look at the solution he's offering to tell you what he's truly after. There is nothing else you need to do other than to prove that problem to be non-existant to win, but the politician doesn't play fair, they will lie cheat and steal their way into conning others to support him. So you end up having to draw lines to stop them. That is why it's so divisive.
Surveys have been done, people have extreme opinions about climate change one way or the other. Very few people are indifferent on the subject of climate change. That is a red flag, just like my HOA having half a million dollars go through their hands every year for the past 20 years and keeping zero records. You think there is some stealing going on there?
From http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus. The science is not divisive. What is divisive is ideology. I tend to believe scientists over people with an admitted black and white ideology such as Nidstyles.
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
American Geophysical Union
"Human?induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse?gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11
OTHER RESOURCES
List of worldwide scientific organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
When you quote the AMA ( which is just a lobby group) as an authority on climate change you lose me. I should respect their view on this? Please. I can't respect their views on Healthcare today.
There is no " scientific consensus" which in it self an oxymoron. The only "consensus"is a cobbling of groups with similar view point and claiming agreement.
If humans are the sole cause of climate change than the reverse must be true. Periods where human activity was at a minimum means climate stability. This has never been shown. Or maybe we should eliminate humans, keeping only a select few to conduct research if reversal is possible. The AGW crowd are only qualified for this because they alone will conduct the research without bias.
Miffed;-)
Typical logic on this issue. You find a nugget you don't like in the bath water, and throw out the baby. Let me point out the many logical fallacies in your short post:
1) the AMA is but one organization on a long list. So because you don't like the AMA, every other scientist is also wrong? And by the way, the ABA is a lobbyist for issues that have nothing to do with climate change.
2) saying that the climate is becoming warmer on average over a long period of time due to a specific input, does not in any way imply that the climate was static before mankind came along. There was radiation on the earth in varying quantities before mankind came along. Does that mean that if I say that Fukishima is adding dangerous radation to the earth, that I am also saying that all radiation is bad, that radiation never existed, or that radiation never fluctuated before?
3) No one is saying that mankind is the sole cause of climate change. The scientists are saying we are pushing it in a direction over generations. Every one of them says there are other factors, also.
4) NASA. What do they know about shit?
NASA knows that CO2 levels peak after the average peak in temperature. They have reported as such more than once.
CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, it's situation as a "greenhouse gas" is dubious at best. Any suggestion that states otherwise is a money making scam by corrupt and inept "leaders" or self-proclaimed "leaders". They might have a cast of their "experts" that they pay that will say it's true, but that doesn't matter. SCIENCE IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. THe evidence in every instance so far has said to the counter of what the "experts" are claiming.
This is worse than the ozone layer nonsense. Ozone is a cloud not a layer of strata.
So you agreed with NASA before you disagreed with them?
NASA makes a very clear connection between CO2 and other pollutants and global warming in the link I provided, and plainly endorses the science.
I don't think you understand anymore. The conversation is over. You lost, get over it. The con will not work on me. I know for a fact that it's bullshit, and NASA's own data proved it. Not a bunch of blabbering stooges. The very data from their satellites proves that it's bullshit.
No, you lost. Get over it. I am rubber and you are glue.
<p>CO2 dissolves better in cold water than warm. You may have noticed this with your human beverages. Anyway, your planet's oceans vastly outweigh your planet's atmosphere, and continuously release and absorb gasses into and out of the atmosphere. One of these is CO2. When ocean Temperatures are increasing, this shifts the rates of release and absorption of CO2 into the atmosphere. Which explains why the proxies for atmospheric CO2 rises FUCKING WELL =LAG= proxies for global temperature rises. And this makes sense, whether your favorite carbonated beverage is champagne or something cheaper.
Another gas that also is dissolved in your planet's oceans is dihydrogen monoxide, whose absorption and emission spectra very largely overlap with CO2. It also forms "clouds" which "reflect" "energy" from the sun but also slow its emission from the ground at night. They are also involved in convection processes that pump heat into space. These "clouds" are governed by partial differential equations that are "non-linear" which makes long term models of what they will do a "joke". For a definition of "joke" see IPCC global temperature models. They fail. We are on year 18 of a "pause" in warming, according to the IPCC. Their models predicted alarming rises. See also "hockey stick". </p>
Good effort, but the evidence is that C02 leads not lags but there is indeed a slow but powerful feedback from dissolved C02. So sad that you went off the rails in the second paragraph. Water is not dissolved in water...
Give it up, you don't know enough to know what you are cutting and pasting is utter bullshit...
What if the science is wrong? Peer review has been demonstrated to be easily falsified or to exclude theories it does not want to consider. You have multiple groups relying on the input of a small number of climate scientists (no conflict of interest there). We know the government regularlies distorts and lies about all kinds of data- hard science included to get the people to accept their actions.
What if scientists are using a data set (surface and subsurface temperatures) and attributing it to the wrong source through ignorance? Ever researched a scientific study? Monsanto refused to provide raw data for peer review of GMO products. It didn't seem to bother the USDA. I have read the studies on herb's effectiveness, if I used such lousy product I would get similarly poor results as well.
You labor under the delusion that the government and scientists are completely honest. That they have no agenda, even as the Club of Rome wrote a policy paper in the early sixties encouraging the use of terrorism and climate change to effect cetain social actions favorable to totalitarian rule.
The modern history of science is a story of corporate drivers through State intervention and manipulation. Ever research the history of the NPK fertilzer scam? Did you know the USDA, until 1939, recommended no fertilizers, but proper husbandry of the soils. That fertilizers were completely unnecessary?
Want to stop cocaine and heroin creation? Two chemicals from a handful of companies. Ever wonder why the war on drugs doesn't go there?
We are being manipulated through a false religion. Is there a sound basis for the religion? Perhaps. Has it been distorted to fulfill the aims of the power mad? You do study history?
Quit making shit up and constructing blatant strawmen...
You were always better than that...
The Kochs have spent more money pushing FUD than it cost to get the data that went into the orginal Hockey stick. You know the one that has been confirmed by every study since except for one and that author issued a correction/retraction....
I actually agree with Nid's ideology, I however disagree that we can overlay a sound money ideology onto a fiat money world. It only serves to give credibility to the status quo he claims to be fighting against.
Not fighting anything. I don't care about any of you. I'm here for my own entertainment purposes.
Nothing here changes my life or future anymore. No matter what, I will be fine and survive. I didn't go into the military just to make myself feel better. I went in because I knew what the world would look like in 10 years about 12 years ago. Better to commit some morality to the table and buy into the system just enough to get some training out of it. It's better than sitting on the side and letting the world eat me up. No matter what happens, I will be fine as a result. That is how this sytem works, and I think it's laughable than any of you would presume to try and tell me that I do not know how it works. I've already used it, I have seeen it first hand. I know what it's capapble of. You guys are fucked. You have no chance of winning. your best chance is about 40 years from now. Not my generation, the millenials, or yours. The next generation that has a shot at freedom will be the grandchilden of the millenials, and the boomers let this happen on their watch.
The rest of you can't say that you aren't angry in anything other than that typical progressive passive aggressive tone.
I used to be one of you. I know the lies you tell yourself every night.
Hello? I'm going to but a CO2 generator in your honor right now. And I'm letting it run 24/7. They're on page 341 in the new Farmtec catalog. May I send the receipt to your Alma Mater? They would be so proud. Was that the University of Northern Colorado?
Now that I think of it, there isn't anything pushed by the global leftists that isn't based on BS and divisive.
About that "98% of all climate scientists" consensus thingy, its not quite right.
Yeah I know, everyone is shocked & appalled that the Karbon Kids would distort, obfuscate, manipulate, contort etc. something and use it to their own advantage again...but lets set the record straight once and for all:
"So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”."
-----------
But what were the TWO open ended survey questions illicited from this 98% of SEVENTY FIVE SCIENTISTS having had their "work" peer reviewed by their fellow travelers to be endlessly presented as "scientific consensus" & FACT one might ask?
Well, thats a good question, lets find out:
"That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)"
Good gawd, stop the presses! The climate has "changed" from before 1800!
"The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?"
I can't add anything "significant" to this, outside of the fact that the higher proportion of vegans today, infrastructure builders and "land use central planning authorities" (ie governments) flying around the world holding summits featuring kobe beef & shrimp cocktail...really must mean they are trying to kill us all ;-)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/
//////////
Returning to this one last time, I see I've picked up a manmade global warming hysteric reddie who must be a "denier" of what was presented here by me.
So, is it a fact based, "scientific denial" of what I presented as truth (because it is) or one of an opinion on how I presented it? ;-)
You should hang out at WUWT, they just eat up that shit up...
Hell, it would be like watching the crooked southern evangelical whipping his flock into a state where they start shaking uncontrollably and speaking in tongues....
Be the one, satisfy their need for confirmation bias....
No wandering in the wilderness asking burning bushes for guidance now Flak, stay on point, is what I presented about the much cited survey (used by consensus building manmade global warming/cooling hysterics)...the truth or not?
Why take my word for it, this is Richard Tol's very own words:
Taken right out of his paper
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821
And there is this from his recent testimony at Congress:
http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-examining-un-int...
summarized nicely here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/republican-witness-admits-consensus-real...
Why do you deliberately play so stupid?
Obfuscating, lying prick, you're the one who is being stupid and you just proved it.
The survey cited is not from Tol. Its clearly in the link I provided Flak. Its Zimmerman (an IU student) and Peter Doran a University of Illinois "professor" who was "advising her" on her masters thesis.
And Doran had some pretty weird ideas himself back in 2006, about an ozone hole over the Antarctic and when that heals it will warm "dramatically". So I guess the rescue crews saving the global warming hysteric moonbats need to send the bill to him for them getting stuck in pack ice?
Irregardless you dipshit, you deliberately misled...again...just like the rest of the hysterics. It had nothing to do with Tol and before you cite him again you better look at what he says about the economic impact of your hysteria on all of us.
He quit the Summary for Policy Makers of Working Group 2 of the IPCC for just that reason...because of obfuscating nutcases like you.
Was that about the time that he admitted "gremlins" in his code that when addressed showed negative impact almost immediately from GW...
You're the one speaking in tongues, twisted ones at that...
Still trying to divert to Tol I see, instead of answering the "consensus" question in the survey cited.
Its one of the reasons people distrust AGW hysterics.
Well done.
You guys (Tol) finally get something published in a 3rd rate journal where it becomes obvious immediately that it is a deeply flawed piece of shit all but disowned by the author so you immediately flock to some other piece of flawed dreck blog "analysis" (Forbes) that borders on an outright lie.
Did you even read the Doran paper?
Yeah, thats how WUWT rolls, and you would fit right in with your lies and deceit...
A consensus of SEVENTY FIVE...lol...yeah, I read it.
So I guess the thousands who said the bulk of "climate science" is garbage and needed to be weeded out of the survey to arrive at the "desired consensus" or quit publishing rubbish because they have more self pride & dignity in themselves didn't need to be included in the survey...very good point.
Yes, thats how you do it.
Propose a theory (or do a survey) and noodle it down till you arrive at the desired result.
Out-fucking-standing Flak but many are starting to see through it and you.
Twist away...
I bet you still didn't read the Doran paper, let alone the Cook paper...
Noble fight nmewn. She will never relent. The " scientific conclusions" are sacrosanct now and any detractor is to be squelched. Personally I am very skeptical of climate modeling. The conclusions are dubious. Reminds me of the failure of Biosphere 2 from CO2 build up. Their second attempt was to put in filtration and still treat it as a valid model.
The real interesting point is the recommendations for the reduction of green house gases. It's there where by their fruits you will know them. I wonder if flak has elucidated that given the AGW crowd is simply trying to save the planet.
Miffed;-)
Zzzz....
Ok nmewn, I'm seriously upset now. Does this mean “4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gum to their patients who chew gum.”
may not be true? All my life I wanted to meet that 5th dentist and smack him silly for his lack of understanding why chewing Trident was essential. Turns out, I may have based my life quest on a lie. I'm so ashamed.
It's certainly comical to see how some have morphed science into a religion. And to witness such distortions to make their case only shows desperation. The next step will be oppression on those who resist. The pattern is always the same.
Miffed;-)
Because they are model drivien lies designed to increase .gov control in an energy supply shrinking world. The perfect strategy to turn us into an anthill with the elites on top.. Flak and the others are just easily fooled and will not consider the truth.
Even the briefest engagement with HackMeister illustrates she's in on the scam. Her sophistry, cherry-picking, and endless strawman-ing make no other conclusion possible. Even she's not quite dumb enough to believe what she posts.
The best thing that could be said for her is she suffers from noble cause corruption... but I suspect she's just riding the best gravy train she's ever likely to find.
Are you two having fun jerking each other off...
And here she is! Nothing substantive to say, Hack? Not going to tell us why we should still trust climate scientists to predict the future when they failed to predict the last 17+ years? Haven't got some 'latest' research that proves the science is finally settled?
Big Jim, you are so fucking intellectually bankrupt that even when the 17 year lie has been demonstrated time and time again, you continue to fall back on it...
You are a shining example of a Hedgetard deliberately lying to themselves...
Now go back to your circle jerk with your other Hedgetards....
How could anyone be so inherently retarded as to believe that the weather will remain in a constant state of neutrality. I would like to see any of you simpleton climate change naysayers refute the global history of weather pattern swings from ice ages, droughts and periods of extremely high water levels. It doesn't happen over night, but it most definitely happens.
Except no one ever said anything close to what you are accusing us of saying. Great job on keeping your emotions in your posting though, it's obvious that you're not being rational that way.
Speaking of emotional posters, look who took the bait.
So basically what I can gather from your opinionated, yet fact less comments is that climate change is a government induced hysteria, that will obviously never come to fruition, and therefor we should continue pressing forward with industrial production because it has no influence whatsoever on our robust infinite ecosystem.
Or perhaps you would like to clarify your stance?
Climate Change is a propoganda term term that supports AGW.
NASA confirmed what I have already stated in this thread, that CO2 levels are dragged upward by temperature.
My stance is that you're playing right into the state's goal of having complete control over all economic activity. You are supporting tyranny over a lie. Only a fool or an apologist would support this stuff.
That is hardly an opinion when the evidence is piled high that supports what I am saying.
You thinking you laid a trap when your entire post relies on that one lie being true when the whole world know's that it isn't except for you motley crew of troglodytes.
Oh here we go with the language of the devil again... So what if I were to call it environmental progression.... Actually that would probably offend the sensitive sensibilities around here as well. But the point I'm trying to make is that our climate is in a constant state of alteration and to believe millions of fossil fuel burning combustion engines, factories in all their unnatural output, and our propensity to abuse our environment for short term gain has no affect and therefor is unnecessary to observe and modify is ridiculous. I don't care if it is the government or private industry who is pushing this agenda, this is one notion that I support.
It's too bad that your blind rage inhibits your ability to see the greater good, and therefor the possibilities for constructive change, but I'm sure the future generation will appreciate your black and white perspective.
By the way NASA is a government agency. But hey we won't worry about that conflict of interest.
Blind rage. Ok chief.
That's the same reason why I'm supposedly using a conflict of interest when bringing up that their own science industry proved them wrong.... You don't do logic, I get that, it doesn't mean the rest of us do not though ;-)
You progressives do really grasp at those straws don't you? You can't admit that you were wrong, so you have to try and destroy everyone else to make it seem like you were being demonized. What are you going to do when everyone starts to understand the game you kids are playing? When everyone starts playing it on their own level, which is likely to be higher than yours as you have to play that game just to keep up with the honest folks?
You know what happens when rationalism wins out right? You guys lose and have to accept your roles as peasants like the rest of us. The oligarchs will crush you just like anyone else here, and you helped to put them in that position.
I really have a problem with being labeled a government apologist around here. You guys hear one little word or see someone support anything government related and BAM your a cocksucker for life! It's nonsense, and completely hypocritical but anyways...
Strange comment though in regards to the games we kids are playing? They are somehow worse then the games that everyone else is playing? Right. Keep clamouring for higher ground, you self righteous ass, the future will show that working together, compromise and understanding of common ground will solve more issues then your extremist bullshit ever will.
And here's another little tidbit for ya, YOUR generation did more to solidify the position of oligarch then my generation could possibly have. But you got yours didn't you, and now Gen Y and millennials are left to clean up the mess. Thanks asshole, I don't mind taking some responsibility but get the fuck out of the way, your ancient ideology is dead.
Seriously, I'm only 33. I am a Gen Yer.
I know more about losing ideology than any of you. My entire life changed because boomers elected and supported Bush II. The industry I was in literally disappeared over night. I went from having a great future to having it ripped out from under me within a year.
I was at the beginning of the physicist glut that shoved them all into Wall Street.
I stand corrected. Sorry to hear that. I can understand the difficulty of watching the future disintegrating before your eyes. It's frustrating, and to be honest things don't look to be improving anytime soon.
Ok fuck nuts, write down the Lagrangain for a simple pendulum....
I don't work for free. You want something from me, offer something I might want.
I just have to laugh at this one. Yeah, you know it, but you won't tell. Fucking priceless.
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.
Do you have any self respect?
I really approached AGW with an open mind, well, subject to the constant beat of statist propaganda. I came to the conclusion that there is purposeful deceit on the part of governments to obtain more power. I found very little evidence that human behavior changes climate on a macro level. I've looked at graphs of CO2 versus temperature and come to similar conclusions.
I don't like the term "denier" as it smacks of some kind of Inquisition to me. The facts, as I have seen them, tend to discredit AGW. What is most telling is that as the scientific argument for it becomes more discredited, the message has changed. I'm old enough to remember "global cooling" hype.
Nid, you do not labor in vain. Keep up the good work.
It's all a propaganda campaign for them, and that is the key to understanding how to beat them. If their lips are moving they are likely lying or defaming someone.
Thank you for the kind words, I do try, even early in the morning before I have even eaten.
What empty nonsense....
My stance is that you're playing right into the state's goal of having complete control over all economic activity. You are supporting tyranny over a lie. Only a fool or an apologist would support this stuff.
Doesn't the whole "create money out of thin air" fiat currency system already give them complete control over all economic activity? My logic is they want to maintain high levels of economic activity so there is more for them to skim. What motive is there to reduce economic activity(that doing something about climate change would seem to imply)? They have no desire to do anything about climate change other than laughing at us for arguing about it.
Nid, you got it right. You might be out numbered by the nebbish brigade, you are spot on!
First Known Use: 1766 The word douche came to English via French, from Italian: doccia "conduit pipe" and docciare "pour by drops" to douche, from doccia water pipe, probably back-formation from doccione conduit, from Latin: duction-, ductio means of conveying water, from ducere to lead – where today it means shower,[3] as it does in most other European languages.
Did you get A grades at the same Divinity school where Al Gore got D grades? Science is proved by observation and experiment, not predictions on computer models. Warming is proved by faith in computer models. Do those same computer modelers make economic predictions for the government? In computers: it's garbage modeling in = garbage predictions out.
I have been a Physicist for nearly 13 years now. I know the subject very well as I run into it at least twice a month now, and honestly it's getting very tiring fighting the idiocy. They never run out of idiots to throw at me though. There is an endless supply of idiots in the world...
Bwah, ha ha ha ha....
Now that is truly funny....
You a physicist????
I think I just pissed myself laughing...
How large is the system that is being talked about when referring to climate change? If you can come even close to correct, I will show you something..
I tried to explain this to them above, Nidstyles. What do you think? :
<p>CO2 dissolves better in cold water than warm. You may have noticed this with your human beverages. Anyway, your planet's oceans vastly outweigh your planet's atmosphere, and continuously release and absorb gasses into and out of the atmosphere. One of these is CO2. When ocean Temperatures are increasing, this shifts the rates of release and absorption of CO2 into the atmosphere. Which explains why the proxies for atmospheric CO2 rises FUCKING WELL =LAG= proxies for global temperature rises. And this makes sense, whether your favorite carbonated beverage is champagne or something cheaper.
Another gas that also is dissolved in your planet's oceans is dihydrogen monoxide, whose absorption and emission spectra very largely overlap with CO2. It also forms "clouds" which "reflect" "energy" from the sun but also slow its emission from the ground at night. They are also involved in convection processes that pump heat into space. These "clouds" are governed by partial differential equations that are "non-linear" which makes long term models of what they will do a "joke". For a definition of "joke" see IPCC global temperature models. They fail. We are on year 18 of a "pause" in warming, according to the IPCC. Their models predicted alarming rises. See also "hockey stick". </p>
Got to do better than simply cut and paste buddy...
By the way, real scientists always acknowledge when they use other peoples material. When you don't it is called plagiarism and being caught will ruin your academic career...
It is called standards and accountability....
I love how the global warming zealots mix statistical subsets to get the results they want. They slice and dice world temperature on an annual basis to get their man made global warming models, then try to apply that to the 12 years solar cycle, then try to apply that to the 10,000 year ice age cycle. Ludicrous. Any statistician can see the absolute delusion in their models. That 100 year cycle they use to show the "trend" in "man made warming" is just a single data point in the 10,000 year ice age cycle. I didn't know you could determine a trend from a single data point.
Save your bullshit for the WUWT comment section...
Yet another fucktard showing just how fucking ignorant they are....
Ad-homs do an argument, not make.
When fuck nuts like you and him comes up with a coherent argument it will be duly noted...
At least the guy trying to misapply the Lambert-Beer law is trying. The above is one step removed from word salad...
Jack, take a serious look at all the precip maps. Do you really see a definable pattern, because I don't. The amounts are all over the place. You might as well be throwing darts.
Next, no mention of the pacific occillation. My understanding is they influence one another.
Political considerations are a function of mass propaganda, which are a function of Club of Rome driven policy objectives, so regardless of climate change, we will receive the pre-determined story, supported by "science" to effect the social behavior desired.
Ultimately, it would seem that time would be better spent making sure you have food and energy for what the weather brings. I think it is called being prepared for winter, a yearly ritual participated in by humans for tens of thousands of years.
Or we could get all caught up in the drama and get jerked around by every pseudo scientist on the net. Just saying...
It makes me wonder what other "science based" iniatives they have created and pushed on us in general that are complete fabrications.
At least you admit that you have no fucking idea what is actually going on...
First honest thing you have said...
What if the SUN blows up?
News monitoring of UFO activity and anomalies near the Sun for June 14, 2014.http://youtu.be/BqRLTh1OzdM
Watch KTLA channel 5 in Los Angeles as they do storm coverage of a mudslide in Malibu, CA 1995:
http://youtu.be/mbivxDohGTk
A VERY nice summary Jack Burton! Thank you.
Jack, I always love your political commentary, always spot on IMO. But this drivel about man mad global warming is utter bullshit! Trust us engineers instead of the bs climate scientists to lead you to the truth about the climate....
Jack, I always love your political commentary, always spot on IMO. But this drivel about man mad global warming is utter bullshit! Trust us engineers instead of the bs climate scientists to lead you to the truth about the climate....
Jack Burton, I repeat this that I already stated in reply to Flak above, to call that to your attention:
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.
During the last seven or so years, I have been recording my efforts to try to figure out the issues about Humans blamed for climate change ...
I started off believing that the basic greenhouse gas mechanisms were scientifically valid, and I still believe that those mechanisms exist. However, I have gradually become convinced that the more cosmic factors were deliberately excluded from the climate models, which was why those models have been failing to give accurate predictions for the last 20 years.
If there was nothing but the greenhouse mechanisms operating, then we would already be seriously screwed, since those have the potential to go into runaway feedbacks, such as methane release, etc. ... However, I think we are getting a temporary break from the more cosmic factors, such as the combined effects of the Sun/Earth magnetic field interactions.
It appears from the ratios of comments and votes on Zero Hedge that the people posting here tend more towards dismissing the ICPP stuff, than accepting it. Since the banksters set up the UN, and therefore, the UN has lots of evil ulterior motives, I can sympathize with those who despise the banksters' agenda also disliking the apparent agenda behind blaming human beings for climate change, while proposing "solutions" that will benefit the banksters' social control systems. Tragically, climate science is deeply buried under that pile of bullshit, and therefore, very hard to discern.
My basic opinion is that human beings do NOT understand the Sun very well, and therefore, they do NOT fully understand anything about the climate either. Even worse, one thing I AM SURE OF is that human social pyramid systems ARE controlled by lies backed by violence, and therefore, their "solutions" to climate change problems are practically guaranteed to be evil events that actually make things worse.
@Jack Burton
Your info is saying that the ice is melting rapidly, while I read some months back that the polar ice caps were the thickest they've ever been in several decades.
I'm not saying which one is truth (as I can't confirm with credible sources for either), but both seem to be at odds with each other, making this whole topic a confusing mess.
Well you misremembered what you read or you read somthing that was deliberately misstated...
And you couldn't have tried very hard to find credible sources...
This took me 10 seconds to find
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183
This figure sums it up:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183/F5.large.jpg
Ok, Flak. You called me out on my inability to find a source. Then it took me two seconds to find this:
And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a yearhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Retur...
Call me out on laziness to identify (any) source, fine. But the fact from conflicting sources available remains that this topic is a confusing mess.
\facepalm...
Seriously, this is confirmation bias at it's finest...
We are talking about land based ice caps in the Antartctic and you bring up sea ice extent in the Arctic...
BTW, does this look like a 29% gain or is someone twisting the numbers and you are too fucking blind to see or more likely don't want to?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
In case you didn't know that is the web site of the people that actually measure the ice in the Arctic...
Bookmark it so that you can see the data for yourself instead of having others twist it out of recognition....
They update every 2 days or so...
Thanks for posting the link. Will capture.
The data you show indicates the ice is decreasing over time, which supports @Jack Burton's view.
Which would be contrary to my initial link's position.
You are very welcome...
Seriously.
Average and Maximum temperatures for all seasons in Australia trending up, and have been for years (the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has all the relevant data). Even without empirical data, I can tell you growing seasons have been changing every year (from personal experience). Although, the far warmer weather helps my compost heaps nicely.
So while globally, average temperatures may only appear to rise by 0.5C, looking at a continent by continent basis paints a far different picture.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!". Upton Sinclair.
As relevant as ever and why there are conflicting reports on climate change.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-i-historic-development-ne...
Behind the scenes a major advance has been quietly churning. It is something I have barely even hinted at. (Oh how I wanted to!)You may have noticed my other half Dr David Evans has been quiet — it’s not because he’s moved out of the climate debate, instead a strange combination of factors has pulled him full time into climate research. Things have been very busy here. He’s discovered something extraordinary, and like all real science, it’s been a roller-coaster where the theory appeared to collapse, and we nearly gave up, but then a new insight would turn out to be more valuable than the version that went before. Other times it all seemed so obvious in hindsight we wondered why no one had done this before. But the answer is that there is a very unusual combination of factors at work — how many people have Ivy League experience in Fourier maths, and electrical circuits and have worked as a professional modeler, software developer, and have an interest in the finer details and theory of the climate debate? Who of the people with this background would also be prepared to spend months working unpaid to investigate a non-CO2 climate theory?
Dr David Evans is an electrical engineer and mathematician, who earned six university degrees over ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering (digital signal processing): PhD. (E.E), M.S. (E.E.), M.S. (Stats) [at Stanford], B.E. (Hons, University Medal), M.A. (Applied Math), B.Sc.[University of Sydney]. His specialty is in Fourier analysis and signal processing. He trained with Professor Ronald Bracewell late of Stanford University.
David has worked in the climate industry, consulting full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, and part-time for the Department of Climate Change from 2008 to 2010. He was the lead modeler analyzing the carbon in Australia’s biosphere for Kyoto accounting purposes, and developed the world-leading carbon accounting model FullCAM that Australia uses in the land use change and forestry sector.
For the last 18 months David pursued an idea, and developed something the climate debate has needed, but failed to do achieve after 30 years, despite billions of dollars in funding. He’s taken sophisticated silicon-chip maths and applied it to the climate system — analyzing the system as a black box to discover the filters and parts. He has built a working O-D model with 15,000 lines of code. In order to develop the model he had to produce a more advanced method of Fourier analysis (which on its own is an achievement and will be useful in many other fields). We’ll be releasing the results of this independent work over the next week amongst other posts. Make no mistake, this is not like anything I have seen or read about. It fits, like all good science does, into a coherent theory that matches the data and connects many other papers. The jigsaw is coming together.
===========
BIG NEWS Part II: For the first time – a mysterious notch filter found in the climate--------------- Discovering the NotchGuest post by Dr David Evans, 15 June 2014
The carbon dioxide theory is clearly inadequate, as readers here know only all too well. So we wondered if the changes in the Sun might be causing some of the recent global warming. That is, the global warming over the last few decades, maybe back to 1800 or so.
Solar radiation and temperature
The best and most obvious solar datasets are those for total solar irradiance (TSI), or the total energy from the sun at all electromagnetic frequencies — mainly visible light, but also UV and some infrared. These datasets estimate the total energy from the Sun falling upon the plane that is at the average distance of the Earth from the Sun (1 AU, or astronomical unit). This TSI data is thus deseasonalized, so it cannot tell us anything about what is happening on time scales of less than a year or at frequencies greater than one cycle per year (this will become important later). TSI is measured in Watts per square meter (W/m2).
The temperature we are most interested in is the one for our immediate environment, the “global average surface air temperature”, namely air temperatures at or near the surface averaged across the entire planet. When we use “temperature” without qualification in these posts, we mean this temperature. “Global warming” is the rise in this temperature.
The initial aim of this project is to answer this question: If the recent global warming was associated almost entirely with solar radiation, and had no dependence on CO2, what solar model would account for it?
Let’s build that solar modelWe are envisaging some sort of black box, whose input is TSI and whose output is temperature.
The climate system is approximately linear for small perturbations such as have occurred since the end of the last ice age. It is common in climate modeling to assume that the climate system is linear. The climate system is also “invariant”, which just means that its properties do not change significantly with time. So we assume that the climate system is linear and invariant, at least for the last few hundred years (and presumably as far back as the end of the last ice age).
The way to analyze a linear and invariant system is with sinusoids (aka sine waves). A sinusoid has a frequency, an amplitude, and a phase. Sinusoids are special for linear invariant systems, because:
Lots of systems are linear and invariant, such as free space for electromagnetic fluctuations, which is why sinusoids and Fourier analysis are so ubiquitous in our analysis of the universe. While Fourier analysis can also be used for mere curve fitting, its true significance and power is that sinusoids are eigenfunctions of all linear invariant systems.
So let’s analyze the TSI and temperature datasets in the frequency domain. That is, we will recast them as sums of sinusoids.*
Great, when he publishes a paper in a peer reviewed journal we'll pay attention...
Yes, becasue peer reviewed journals never deny access to deniers, right.. Go ahead Flak say right, we will bury that shit..
So what is your professional title FlaK? Your name? I want to read your journal work.
My name is on almost 300 published peer reviewed papers including these famous papers:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0204014
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0504018
and this one
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0010338
The last one is one of the most cited works in particle physics in the past 20 years...
Professionaly, I have given colloquia and seminars in 7 countries spanning 3 continents including places like Caltech, U of Chicago, Stanford and many many others...
Maybe I'm getting old or sumpin, but I don't see Flakmeister in any of those papers...
I don't think he will understand why I asked in the first place.
It does go to prove my point though. Vested interests are a motherfucker...
Only 300 Flak,
My esteemed cousin at Haaarvaaad only has 180.+ published.
And he would have had a Nobel prize long ago, apart from Alfred being
pissed at mathematicians, because hus first wife ran off with one, so
there is no math prize..
There are plenty prizes for Mathematics... In fact the Fields Medal is even bigger bucks and prestige...
If you looked at either paper you would understand how a particle physicist can have 300 papers to his name....
So what is your professional name Flak?
When you show me your degree in physics I may consider sharing it...
You've showed us enough.
I may be absinthe minded but for an educated man you sure act like a douche bag troll. Remember, you can't just state anything as fact, you have to back it up with substantiated links. My guess is you just think you're better than everyone else here.
Flaks name is chief propagandist of Global warming, Climate change, let us control your energy usage, social dyanmics and engineering corps (thats corpse to you) operating out of Fort Meade or Utah, depending on the season..
Keep deluding yourself, you are clearly an expert at it...
In a Culture of Corruption, peer reviewed journals are not what you would expect them to be. Whoever pays for the study, gets to call the outcome. Those who pay for the study, usually have an agenda. That agenda is usually money. When money is involved, lies are involved, regardless of who suffers and/or dies. Peer reviewed journals and their contributors are, like everything else, bought and paid for.
Yep, climategate emails proved what was motivating Mann and the other "scientists"... money. Nothing but money and a name for themselves. It's not even pseudo-science. It's zealotry. The Great Hockey Stick was proven to be a complete hoax. The infamous words from Mann about it "Hide the decline". Peer reviewed hoax.
You are projecting...
There are enough climate hockey sticks now to ice a Stanley Cup quality team....
You are just another example of a ignorant fucktard at the Hedge....
What is your professional title?
Flak is a self proclaimed bigfoot hunter. Here is his twitter entry:
Flakmeister @FlakmeisterFormer professional Higgs Boson hunter and Wall St. refugee. Now keeping close tabs on the Energy sector and Climate change and anything else of note...
My guess is that he is a profesional bullshit artist working for the current administration directly or indirectly. Furthermore, he seems to call in the troops for downvotes when he gets in over his head.
Wow, you know how to Google...
Clearly you are fucktard cut a notch above the rest...
Flak ignores my supposition that deniers are blocked from publishing in peer reviewed journals becasue she will get her ass handed to her if she tries to disagree so she ignores it. And the .gov dollars just keep rolling in..
Show me one paper worthy of being in ERL that was unfairly rejected....
Oh, now your a judge of what is worthy of inclusion and exposure to the "scientific" community. Thanks that answer was all we needed to know. It is an interesting logistical problem how all this legislation depends on low - mid level bureaucrats for implementation.
Zzzzzz....
there's the crux, flake - "worthy" - all you have to do is simply deny any paper that disagrees with the carbon scam is even valid,
and boom, your position has been pointed out.
And you are free to believe in dragons and fairy tales. Don't get upset when someone tells you the truth though...
It ain't my position, it is the data driven conclusion of essentially every climate scientist out there...
But Hedgetards like you don't understand or care how science works, you only want the good stuff it provides for you...
"Great, when he publishes a paper in a peer reviewed journal we'll pay attention..."
LOL! - Climategate
"I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report…Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is"
Yes, you can see why all the AGW-ists are so obsessed with peer-review - they own the process!
Its a very small club ,and we are not in it.
I personally only agree with scientists who disagree with peer reviewed scientists. It's how I roll.
You should take up studying economics then, they have some great peer-review.
I suggest you read the FT's 'A-list' which features such establishment luminaries as Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin.... You can always get the truth from the Establishment's picks, it's how they roll!
Do you even understand what peer review is ?
Unless your peers allow publication of your work in the main science publications,
you will be lucky to get a mention on the back page of Mongolian Science Today.
Remember 99% of scientist accepted the earth was flat,and the sun revolved aroud said
flat earth.
Consensus is opposite of science.
Actually, it is a total myth that most scientists ever believed the earth was flat, unless you go back to Biblical times or before, then maybe. As for the earth revolving around the sun, most scientists actually agreed with that proposition many centuries ago, but they were burned at the stake by the Church for daring to suggest that the Earth was not the center of the universe. You see, a faith based ideological belief system trumped science.
That peer review was a little tougher than now, but the same theory applies.
Disagree with herd, and watch out.
The "sun rotates around the earth" crowd were indeed the herd, but they were not scientists. The scientists had it right (for so long as they were not burned at the stake), and had they engaged in peer review back then, they would have been correct to reject the Church's contrary view that was based not on science, but faith.
The people currently approved by the gatekeepers of the (climate science) peer-review process failed to foresee the current 17+ years hiatus in warming, LTER.
All the peer-review in the world can't disguise the fact that the current state of that branch of science simply is not up to the task of making actionable predictions.
Is the scientific method the best way for us to determine how the world works? Absolutely. Is peer review a good way to determine if any particular piece of research is i) genuinely scientific (for instance, keeps confounding variables down to a minimum) and ii) conforms to the body of knowledge in that field as it currently stands? Sure... though it's prone to capture, as the quote from Phil Jones above amply demonstrates.
Does any of this prove that a particular branch of science is any good at predicting the future yet? No.
Is the source of smoke that you try to blow up peoples' asses endless?
Is your ability to ignore the elephant in the room endless?
The only Elephant in the room are the Hedgetards that vote Republican and live in denial of basic science...
And of course, clowns like you that don't have a leg to stand on...
I also repeat my objection, Flak, that the "peers" could all be operating inside the wrong paradigm!
"Great, when he publishes a paper in a peer reviewed journal we'll pay attention..."
What a fucking asshole. Who is 'we' by the way. Peer review my ass. Jon Corzine was peer reviewed recently too.
And there I thought you were a slightly better cut of fucktard, my bad...
Open access is not the problem – my take on Science’s peer review “sting”
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2013/10/04/open-access-is-not-the-problem/
In 2011, after having read several really bad papers in the journal Science, I decided to explore just how slipshod their peer-review process is. I knew that their business depends on publishing “sexy” papers. So I created a manuscript that claimed something extraordinary - that I’d discovered a species of bacteria that uses arsenic in its DNA instead of phosphorus. But I made the science so egregiously bad that no competent peer reviewer would accept it. The approach was deeply flawed – there were poor or absent controls in every figure. I used ludicrously elaborate experiments where simple ones would have done. And I failed to include a simple, obvious experiment that would have definitively shown that arsenic was really in the bacteria’s DNA. I then submitted the paper to Science, punching up the impact the work would have on our understanding of extraterrestrials and the origins of life on Earth in the cover letter. And what do you know? They accepted it!
My sting exposed the seedy underside of “subscription-based” scholarly publishing, where some journals routinely lower their standards – in this case by sending the paper to reviewers they knew would be sympathetic - in order to pump up their impact factor and increase subscription revenue. Maybe there are journals out there who do subscription-based publishing right – but my experience should serve as a warning to people thinking about submitting their work to Science and other journals like it.
OK – this isn’t exactly what happened. I didn’t actually write the paper. Far more frighteningly, it was a real paper that contained all of the flaws described above that was actually accepted, and ultimately published, by Science.
I am dredging the arsenic DNA story up again, because today’s Science contains a story by reporter John Bohannon describing a “sting” he conducted into the peer review practices of open access journals. He created a deeply flawed paper about molecules from lichens that inhibit the growth of cancer cells, submitted it to 304 open access journals under assumed names, and recorded what happened. Of the 255 journals that rendered decisions, 157 accepted the paper, most with no discernible sign of having actually carried out peer review. (PLOS ONE rejected the paper, and was one of the few to flag its ethical flaws).
The story is an interesting exploration of the ways peer review is, and isn’t, implemented in today’s biomedical publishing industry. Sadly, but predictably, Science spins this as a problem with open access. Here is their press release:
Strawman....
And we are not talking about open access journals...
So all that crystal clear Pacific 'Fukushima' Ocean water will come raining down on Cali this winter?
.gov = bullshit.......
Good call! Rural Californias who have been working the land for multiple generations have already predicted the coming of this cyclical pattern. We are busy buttoning down the hatches; repairing our roofs, cleaning out our drainage ditches, adding culverts and byways. The locusts (be they liberal, urban or 3rd world) will be caught unawares. The political locusts will scream "global climate disruption" and will impose even more regulations on us that we will be forced to ignore. And the popularity of the proposed State of Jefferson grow daily!
Problem ? What problem ?
This is an opportunity .
See http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-quiet-revolution.html
Homo Saps is supposed to be adaptable . So , adapt .
Human beings were animals whose evolution was driven by bad weather, which appears to have looped around to them causing their own bad weather to force them to adapt more. Humans had the crazy combinations of sexual selection and warfare to accelerate their biological and cultural evolution. It seems to me that all the combined exponential growth patterns are developing social storms which are going to manifest as hurricanes of hyper-complicated natural and artificial selection. I tend to believe that more cosmic forces are impinging upon the developing social storms to pump them up and up. Human beings are adapting to bending themselves further and further out of shape ... with no end in sight yet as to how far that can go ...
We could stop all this El & La stuff if we paid more taxes to the man.
Damn right, it's The Man's lack of resources that is stopping Him sorting this out.
I say we all donate a kidney. Hell, two kidneys! What's the use of Kidneys if there's going to be some bad weather?
Weathermen and economist, in the traditional sense, are always going to be inaccurate due to the fact that their predictive "models" do not allow for nearly enough chaos theory. But hey we all gotta earn a living somehow, and no one is always right.
Clouds respond to non-linear partial differential equations. No one knows what effect some extra heat will have on the clouds and what will become of the heat as a result. See IPCC model predictions together with FAIL. There has been no increase in global temperature for 18 years, according to the IPCC, contrary to ALL of their models. So they need more money, and BTW, the sky is.falling.
They have no fuckn' clue about what will happen and their models are nothing by rape instruments.
If you subscribe to the "Shape of Things to Come" reports coming from Clif High at halfpasthuman.com you learn they are predicting an especially strong El Nino that will drench California big time. The predictions come from the 'Web bot Project', a multi-year endeavor that attempts to tap into the inherent phsychic abilities in all humans by looking for shifts in language patterns on internet blogs. The track record is mixed, although they have had some noteable hits, albeit arriving later than expected.
Just sayin'
It was just what I needed: a one inch god with a two inch penis. [/Blame it on Rio]
Haven't paid for any media since my discovery of ZH.
This includes cutting of cable.
Either ZH is very talented in making up stories with extraordinary detail, or the MSM is just a shitbag machine the pumps bullshit for the masses to have something to believe instead of themselves.
Yes, it's a silly statement. MSM is a waist of time.
See below
The internet is media of a sort, I suppose. It's the only thing I do pay for. I have a t.v. for weather watch purposes, since I turn off and unplug all my computer gadgetry during bad storms. I only use wascally wabbit ears on my t.v. though, and they're free.
Another point of view on climate change:
Here
Yeah, 5% of the loss is due to geothermal sources...
Whoopee...
Another doomturd pitching Carbon Tax. The earth will be renewed once this fucker is gone.
SO
http://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers/videos
Yeah, Atomizer, I too rather like the attempt at informed balancing and open-mindedness from Suspicious0bervers.
Wikileaks and Snowden are fake, the NSA never catches Israel.