Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

Has anyone read the ENSO advisory dated 4th Feb from NOAA?

 

 

Looks like there is a pretty strong El Niño effect at the moment, that will be with us well into spring 2010.

 

So that'll be a natural cause of global wombling again then... Never mind just tax us a little more and we can stop nature in it's tracks

 

Arguments like this one just go to show how little you understand the basics.

 

That there is an El Nino and natural cycles of warming and cooling, doesn't mean the current warming trend is explainable in those terms.

 

You will be telling me there is a temperature correlation with the Sun being above the horizon next, and that that "proves" the greenhouse effect must be a myth.

[convert]

Arguments like this one just go to show how little you understand the basics.

 

That there is an El Nino and natural cycles of warming and cooling, doesn't mean the current warming trend is explainable in those terms.

 

You will be telling me there is a temperature correlation with the Sun being above the horizon next, and that that "proves" the greenhouse effect must be a myth.

 

Nice try Wikicat.

 

Have you read the NOAA report, have you?

 

El Niño is present across the equatorial Pacific Ocean.

•Sea surface temperatures (SST) are 1.0ºC-2.5ºC above-average across much of the central and east-central equatorial Pacific.

•Based on current observations and dynamical model forecasts, El Niño is expected to continue at least into the Northern Hemisphere spring 2010.

 

...

 

Anomalies Since April 2009, the upper-ocean heat content has been above average across the eastern half of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Sharp increases in heat content during June and October coincide with the development and subsequent strengthening of El Niño, respectively.

 

 

...

 

From December to early January, strong mid-latitude westerlies (East Asian and Atlantic jets) were accompanied by troughs over the North Pacific and North America. The troughs contributed to below-average temperatures across portions of the U.S. and Canada. At higher latitudes, strong ridging led to above-average temperatures across Alaska and northern Canada. Since mid January, the East Asian jet has extended farther east and a trough has become established over the eastern Pacific. Overmuch of N. America, strong ridging over Canada has contributed to above-average temperatures across Canada and portions of the contiguous U.S. This recent pattern is typical of El Niño.

 

...

 

 

El Niño:characterized by a positiveONI greater than or equal to +0.5C.La Niña:characterized by a negativeONI less than or equal to -0.5C.By historical standards, to be classified as a full-fledged El Niño or La Niña episode,these thresholds must be exceeded for a period of at least 5 consecutive overlapping 3-month seasons. CPC considers El Niño or La Niña conditionsto occur when the monthly Niño3.4 SST departures meet or exceed +/-0.5°C along with consistent atmospheric features. These anomalies must also be forecasted to persist for 3 consecutive months.

 

...

 

The most recent ONI value (November 2009 –January 2010) is +1.8oC.

 

I never said that El Niño was the only cause of warming, I said it was a cause of the warming.

 

Are you disputing the figures from NOAA?

 

Are you disputing the fact that El Niño is a natural effect?

 

Or are you, as usual, trying to muddy the waters by attempting to insult my intelligence.

 

PS for anyone interested in the report you'll find it here.

 

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

[truman]

Nice try Wikicat.

 

Have you read the NOAA report, have you?

 

 

 

I never said that El Niño was the only cause of warming, I said it was a cause of the warming.

 

Are you disputing the figures from NOAA?

 

Are you disputing the fact that El Niño is a natural effect?

 

Or are you, as usual, trying to muddy the waters by attempting to insult my intelligence.

 

PS for anyone interested in the report you'll find it here.

 

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

 

What,you mean natural events may have some input into a rise in temperature.???...Off with your head..

[Phanerothyme]

The el Nino and la Nina cycles are quite natural and periodic. What appears to be happening is that el Nino is strengthening in effect and la Nina is diminishing, both quite quickly. This is a recent phenomenon AFAIK.

[Phanerothyme]

Anyone care to explain why?

[truman]

The el Nino and la Nina cycles are quite natural and periodic. What appears to be happening is that el Nino is strengthening in effect and la Nina is diminishing, both quite quickly. This is a recent phenomenon AFAIK.

 

Where's your data from?

[convert]

The el Nino and la Nina cycles are quite natural and periodic. What appears to be happening is that el Nino is strengthening in effect and la Nina is diminishing, both quite quickly. This is a recent phenomenon AFAIK.

 

To be honest I'd say that since the 1998 maximum El Nino has pretty much observed a pretty regular magnitude (obviously within it's cycle time), as has La Nina.

 

The data is given on page 25 of the NOAA report I referenced above.

[Phanerothyme]

The NOAA data is only a half century worth. Can you detect trends on such a short timescale?

[convert]

The NOAA data is only a half century worth. Can you detect trends on such a short timescale?

 

A good point, and a point that is equally relevant to the Pro AGW camp don't you think?

[convert]

Potentially a very interesting debate about to start on BBC R4.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/coming_up.shtml#form

 

 

Do you trust climate scientists?

 

Climate scientists have taken a battering recently.

 

Leaked emails from the University of East Anglia suggested some climate scientists were massaging data. Then, alarming assertions about melting Himalayan glaciers were found to be vastly exaggerated. Meanwhile in the Amazon, some respected observations about the effects of deforestation were based on erroneous articles by journalists, not scientists.