A massive El Nino is brewing out in the Pacific

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

The 2014 El Nino could be a record monster El Nino, experts predict. See http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/04/this-years-el-nino-could-grow-monster. Global warming is in full swing, and this monster is only going to contribute to more record warmth. It's gonna be a scorching hot Summer out West, and it's gonna be a warm wet Winter as well.

Predictions of the nasty El Nino have already affected the Indian stock market, stay tuned, could be some serious carnage out there.

[Stevetoad]

I would love an El Niño! Warm water with great surf, summer rain and maybe give us another mild winter. I'll be crossing my fingers.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

A more tempered, less sensational report can be found at Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/el-nino-looks-more-likely-for-summer-and-with-it-drought-relief-for-west/.%C2'>

Definitely a lot more swells coming in on El Nino years. If it starts in the Summer, it means an abundance of South swells and massive Winter West and North swells. It also means mud slides and red tides.

[palmislandRandy]

The El Nino pattern tends to keep our hurricanes at bay also

[ghar41]

Rain

[ghar41]

Please

[Jimbean]

the last time this happened it was a dry summer here in Florida. So far we are on the same pattern as 1997.

[Gonzer]

mud slides and red tides.

Forever...Castles of stone, soul and glory

[Dypsisdean]

could be some serious carnage out there.

What great news.

Only "carnage" for those choosing to live in flood/slide zones. For the rest of California, the water is always a blessing.

[DoomsDave]

Hmm.

Picking up my way overlong quill pen:

(ahem, achoo . . . )

El Nino, el Nino

been awhile

since we seen yo

Or, an open letter to the Dieties:

"I said a life of reduced pain, not rain!"

[DoomsDave]

A more tempered, less sensational report can be found at Scientific American:

Definitely a lot more swells coming in on El Nino years. If it starts in the Summer, it means an abundance of South swells and massive Winter West and North swells. It also means mud slides and red tides.

Oh, yeah, gotta love Scientific American. Thanks for the bird-dog (my sub expired).

[Alicehunter2000]

So what does this "warming" El nino mean for me..........another brutally cold winter?

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

So what does this "warming" El nino mean for me..........another brutally cold winter?

You get the same weather we do - a ton of rain during the Winter. NOAA can explain it better than me. http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mlb/?n=enso_florida_rainfall

Overall, El Nino enhances the jet stream, so less arctic intrusions. It's the opposite of what happened last Winter.

El Niño has other effects further into North America. It tends to enhance the jet stream, creating a wall that prevents Arctic air (and the Polar Vortex) from dipping down to mid-latitudes. East Coast winters are generally drier and warmer during El Niño years, which is probably good news to those still smarting from this recent frigid season. The mild winter has interesting downstream effects, like a boost for the U.S. economy during the Christmas season. (http://www.wired.com/2014/04/el-nino-effects/)

This is really predicted to be a whopper; See http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229682.400-world-is-unprepared-for-major-el-nino-later-this-year.html

THE weather is preparing to go wild, and will wreak havoc and death around the globe later this year. An El Niño, a splurge of warm water in the Pacific Ocean, is coming. It will unleash floods in the Americas, while South-East Asia and Australia face drought. Yet little is being done to address these consequences.

"The tropical climate system is primed for a big El Niño," says Axel Timmermann of the University of Hawaii in Honolulu (see diagram).

Anyone who' got any doubts on the magnitude of this event, here's an interesting comment and great write up looking at the enormous Kelvin wave of warm water that is now surfacing in the East Pacific.

We are observing an extraordinarily powerful Kelvin Wave, one that was likely intensified by factors related to human global warming, traveling across the Pacific. It appears to be an epic event in the making. One that may be hotter and stronger than even the record-shattering 1997-98 El Nino. What this means is that we may well be staring down the throat of a global warming riled monster. (http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/monster-el-nino-emerging-from-the-depths-nose-of-massive-kelvin-wave-breaks-surface-in-eastern-pacific/)

Interesting to see what happens in Hawaii too. Trade winds are reversed, so Kona goes wet and Puna goes dry. here's a nice overview from KITV Honolulu: http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/hawaii-forecasters-issue-el-nino-watch/24949666.

[porkchop]

The last El Nino winter was the best surf in So. Cal swell after swell ..... !!! In addition to surf ... Yellowfin Tuna almost year round !!!

[Silas_Sancona]

Been waiting to see who would be the first to post about it..

Watching all the signals since January, there is still a few months to go before we'll know exactly what extent a possible warm episode will have further out. While a lot of the ingredients are coming together and looking quite impressive ( +6.0c temps in the Kelvin Wave), models have been wavering and the NOAA's last update were down to +1.5 or so on the scale, down from 1.7-8 earlier.. The '97 episode registered +2.2. '82 was around +2.0 at their respective peaks.. More rebellious dynamic models are still cruising around the +2.0 threshold so what happens over the next 3 months will fill in more puzzle pieces.

Regardless, where this potential episode sets up in the Pacific will offer different effects. The closer to Ecuador and Chile, better odds for mega drought relief out west. Remember, El Nino can also bring drought.. per 1976. Also, because Cali has been dry for several years, it may take a couple back to back ++average rainfall winters to get things fully turned around.. Read an article from a well respected Bay Area forecaster last week regarding such info.

Other things to keep in mind revolve around when the other big Ninos started.. and where all the numbers stood by this stage in the game.. and in August. Also, where the current phase of the PDO stands has some influence on how everything plays out. It is interesting that there is already ALOT of warmer than average water in the North Pacific as this possible warm episode continues to evolve.

For now, id say just keep in mind ( and PRAY for) that next winter could be wet. Summer is already ahead of schedule and looking HOT.. Things could get interesting if a very strong Monsoon signal sets up offering much more moisture transport from Mexico and the E. Pac. Basin.. and an above average potential for Dry Lightning events across CA. Pacific has already started hinting at an active Hurricane season ahead. Just missed the development of the first named system there last week..

By the same token, the winter of 09-10 was an El Nino.. though weak.. First time I've ever heard of planes having to thaw out before taking off, in Florida.. Have seen a couple ominous outlooks for the southeast this coming winter also so again, be prepared.. just in case..

Awaiting the early update of the bi- weekly reports from Stormsurf.. Loads of info there..

-Nathan-

[Dypsisdean]

Interesting to see what happens in Hawaii too. Trade winds are reversed, so Kona goes wet and Puna goes dry. here's a nice overview from KITV Honolulu: http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/hawaii-forecasters-issue-el-nino-watch/24949666.

FYI - We've had 10 inches here at my place over the last ten days, and 2.5 the week before that - as wet as it has ever been for that long in the last ten years. The rest of the state has been much much dryer.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

I hope Jeff marcus' pond has a lot of water capacity, he's gonna need it quite a bit over the next few months.

[Gtlevine]

El Nino would be great, but I learned to never trust weather forecasting. Hell, if we believed the Global Warming hacks of the 90's So Cal beach Cities would already be 7 feet underwater. Instead, we had 17 strait years of no change in temperatures, hence global warming is now climate change. Oh I forgot, they now call it climate disruption, whatever that means. I guess I'm not burning my share of gas and oil, my temps are not going up and I still can't grow coconuts. Oh well, lets just hope they get this El Nino prediction right this time.

Gary

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

Gary, you must have been reading about the sea level rise in The Globe or the National Inquirer. The most recent projections of sea level rise are quite more aggressive than any sea level rise published in the 1990's. Back in the 1990's they didn't know to what extent the poles would be melting. Now they can actually measure it because it's happening. But even those more aggressive estimates based on current known water flow coming from the poles has the sea level rise at only of 28 to 98 centimeters (a maximum slightly over three feet) by 2100. That's enough to swallow up a few islands and some coastal cities.

As for the temperature changes, have a look at this video, seems pretty convincing to me, sure explains why the poles are melting.

If you have any doubts about the sea level rise, take a look at these articles:

http://time.com/96173/antarctic-glacier-loss-is-unstoppable-study-says/

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is one of the keys to global sea level rise. Running up against the Amundsen Sea, it contains an estimated 527,808 cu. miles (2.2 million cu. km) of ice, about 10% of Antarctica’s total land ice volume. That’s enough ice to raise global sea level by more than 15 ft. (4.6 m) were it all to melt, collapse and flow into the ocean, which in turn would swamp coastal cities as far inland as Washington, D.C.

And according to new research, that’s exactly what’s beginning to happen.

Researchers from the University of California, Irvine, and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory have found that the group of six glaciers on the ice sheet directly draining into the Amundsen Sea are rapidly melting, as warming ocean water eats away at the base of the ice shelf. That’s making the ice around the West Antarctic Ice Sheet increasingly unstable—and the researchers could find no clear geographical obstacle that would slow down the retreat of the glaciers. Essentially, that means these glaciers—which collectively hold enough ice to boost sea levels by 4 ft (1.2 m)—”have passed the point of no return,

And here is more reading:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140512-thwaites-glacier-melting-collapse-west-antarctica-ice-warming/

[Funkthulhu]

Well, if we're going to derail this thread with the ole' climate change debate I'll just throw this in there:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/cjuGCJJUGsg

"...you don't need people's opinion on a fact." (Language Warning for those at work)

Edited May 14, 2014 by Funkthulhu

[PALM MOD]

Please - don't make this a thread I have to check up on every couple of hours.

[_Keith]

Can't we all just accept that the climate is changing, has always been changing, and will always be changing. The cause is irrelevant cause in the end, the preceding is the truth and will always be the truth in spite of the many causes both before, and hate to say it, but after man. Only then can we have a good dialog about how to live with it in the interim.

[Chasrobin]

Hmmmm how about a permanent change in the trade winds so they always blow west to east?

Setting up conditions for a stable El Niño effect, thereby turning the west coast into a tropical paradise!

All of us Central Valley guys would have to give up on our apples, stone fruit, and nuts and trade them in for pineapples, lychees and mangos.

Hahaha yeah right!

[Gtlevine]

In the Antartic the sea ice extent for April 2014 is 9 million to 14 million sq kilometers, the largest on record and 320,000 more than the record set in 2008.

Point is you can pick your data but Keith is correct, climate is always changing. Man has absolutely no effect on climate changing, we will turn into the tropics, then back into the ice age, whether we use gasoline or run our vehicles on windmills.

All i'm saying is I wish that bloated loon Al Gore knew what he was talking about, a warmer climate would have so many more benefits than a colder one, plants love CO2 and warm weather. I never saw strawberries growing in the snow.

Gary

Edited May 15, 2014 by Gtlevine

[Hollywood Palms]

A good article by a PhD candidate on the possible El Nino, with an excellent explanation of the underlying forces and complexities at work.

http://www.weatherwest.com/archives/1493

David

[Silas_Sancona]

Good info David (Hollywood Palms).

Saw an article yesterday discussing how the tropical belts appear expanding pole ward at about one degree per decade. Article also discussed how research has suggested that over the past 30 years, more tropical systems are reaching their peak intensities at higher latitudes as well. Interestingly, a lot of the changes researchers had noted seemed to favor the Pacific Basin and changes were less obvious in the Atlantic/Caribbean.

-Nathan-

[Funkthulhu]

Gary,

You have stated a fact that on the surface appears to support your negative assertions about anthropogenic climate change but is actually evidence for it. The whole story shows that the extended sea-ice is a result of increased continental melting; which in turn lowered the surface water salinity and effectively raised the temperature at which sea-ice can form. The result is, essentially, more melting (due to increased temperatures at the poles) has lead to a wider extent in seasonal sea-ice.

Furthermore, by invoking the name of Al Gore, you have declared to all that your opinion on climate change is not motivated by facts or science but by politics.

And we all know that politics will get us a whack from the ban-hammer.

Just Sayin'...

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

I agree, Al Gore is a terrible source of knowledge when it comes to global warming, the National Inquirer might actually be more accurate.

[Gtlevine]

Gary,

You have stated a fact that on the surface appears to support your negative assertions about anthropogenic climate change but is actually evidence for it. The whole story shows that the extended sea-ice is a result of increased continental melting; which in turn lowered the surface water salinity and effectively raised the temperature at which sea-ice can form. The result is, essentially, more melting (due to increased temperatures at the poles) has lead to a wider extent in seasonal sea-ice.

Furthermore, by invoking the name of Al Gore, you have declared to all that your opinion on climate change is not motivated by facts or science but by politics.

And we all know that politics will get us a whack from the ban-hammer.

Just Sayin'...

Climate change is a natural occuring event from the beginning of time until we are all gone. Politics is irrelevent to me, only common sense. Politics dictates that man has an effect on every single weather event because politicians are looking to further an agenda and control the people. There is absolutely zero empiracle evidense that man has any effect on climate change. It is all based on computer modeling where a bunch of pinheads on government grants stick garbage into the computer to make sure they get an outcome that keeps the funding coming. This is not political to me at all, just a fact. Climate is absolutely changing all the time, but there is absolutely nothing we can do to alter the climate, because we have nothing to do with it to begin with. I don't care at all about the politics of it, except I really don't want a $1000/month energy bill due to a bunch of pinheads sitting in front of a computer playing God, it is utterly ridiculous and insane. So the pinheads got caught with their pants down 2 years ago fixing the input data to prove global warming, which has not happened in 17 years, so the agenda had to change. It is no longer global warming but now, but climate change. Oh wait, it's now climate disruption. The sillyness continues. But back to my original point, Global Warming would be awesome. There are areas in Europe where the ice is melting and you can see where the warmer climate of the middle ages allowed this area to be productive farm lands. Warmer is better.

More of the same here: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece

Edited May 16, 2014 by Gtlevine

[Gtlevine]

More nonsense.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/Study-suggesting-global-warming-exaggerated-rejected-publication-respected-journal-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

More nonsense.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/Study-suggesting-global-warming-exaggerated-rejected-publication-respected-journal-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html

That article is nonsense indeed, the paper got rejected by peer review, and the author is making up stories as to why, he has zero proof that it got rejected for the reasons he cites. Gary, why don't you actually read the research on the subject? Then you can actually address the science piece by piece instead of throwing out the baby with the bath water. As it stands you're basically saying scientists are all liars.

[Gtlevine]

More nonsense.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/Study-suggesting-global-warming-exaggerated-rejected-publication-respected-journal-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html

That article is nonsense indeed, the paper got rejected by peer review, and the author is making up stories as to why, he has zero proof that it got rejected for the reasons he cites. Gary, why don't you actually read the research on the subject? Then you can actually address the science piece by piece instead of throwing out the baby with the bath water. As it stands you're basically saying scientists are all liars.

Oh believe me I did Axel. I know everything about this phony research. I studied it from the beginning. I'm just showing how the politics of this is so far out of control that it is silly. There is so much invested in this from the Socialist left, that the science is completely corrupted in order that the result is man is causing all these floods, hurricans, droughts, etc..... it is such nonsense that I can't believe anyone would believe all this. And even if you do believe man is causing global warming, there is nothing you can do about it, we are not going back to the stone age and China, Russia, India, etc... can care less. Plus, I stand by my initial reason that who cares, warmer climate is preferable anyway. They seemed to get along fine during the other warm periods in man's history, so will we. Sit back and think about it Axel, leave out your political feelings for a minute and you would know your engaging in a debate and effort in futility. The only thing this can lead to is Government control over us, more taxes and regulations, and zero effect on the climate one way or another.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Gtlevine

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

More nonsense.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/Study-suggesting-global-warming-exaggerated-rejected-publication-respected-journal-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html

That article is nonsense indeed, the paper got rejected by peer review, and the author is making up stories as to why, he has zero proof that it got rejected for the reasons he cites. Gary, why don't you actually read the research on the subject? Then you can actually address the science piece by piece instead of throwing out the baby with the bath water. As it stands you're basically saying scientists are all liars.

Oh believe me I did Axel. I know everything about this phony research. I studied it from the beginning. I'm just showing how the politics of this is so far out of control that it is silly. There is so much invested in this from the Socialist left, that the science is completely corrupted in order that the result is man is causing all these floods, hurricans, droughts, etc..... it is such nonsense that I can't believe anyone would believe all this. And even if you do believe man is causing global warming, there is nothing you can do about it, we are not going back to the stone age and China, Russia, India, etc... can care less. Plus, I stand by my initial reason that who cares, warmer climate is preferable anyway. They seemed to get along fine during the other warm periods in man's history, so will we.

I would be more interested to look at scientific papers and have you tell me explicitly where the flaws in the science itself is. Could you give me a citation and help me understand what's wrong with it? Let's take this paper for example: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/abs/408184a0.html. Can you tell me why you would think this model is invalid?

Next, can you please tell me how this paper showing measurements of the melting of the Greenland icesheet (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5795/1958.short) is invalid?

How about this one which outlines a connection between global warming and drought in the Western US? http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5698/1015.short

You're welcome to debate the science, but if you're gonna debate the science, then at least be explicit and start pointing out the specific flaws with the thousands of published articles. That could be super interesting and fun at the same time.

The science isn't what needs to be debated, the science is sound and has nothing to do with any socialist left. It's what we're gonna do about it that lands in the realm of arguments and political debate. That debate, on the other hand isn't fun at all. And that debate should not be undertaken on PalmTalk.

[Gtlevine]

Doesn't this remind you of the settled science of the 70's, 80's and 90's, that butter, eggs and hamburgers would kill you? Saturated fat and cholesterol was the boogie man back then and you had to smear fake butter on your toast. So we got the food pyramid from the Washington pinheads and were told if we did not eat broccoli and carrots we were going to die. Well, 40 years later and it was all bogus. Glad I use common sense, i've been enjoying my hamburgers and eggs the whole time, while everyone else was eating turkey burgers and Tofu.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

That's an interesting analogy, and yes, there are some similarities. It's not the data of the old food science that was wrong, it was the conclusions that were drawn from the data that was wrong. Cholesterol and saturated fat are in fact linked to heart disease and stroke. But then, they discovered that saturated fat comes in different types, and they discovered that transfatty acids (margarine) were even worse than the saturated fat. And then they found out that sugar caused more heart disease than fat did. The old food science isn't wrong, it was incomplete.

Climate science is similar. It's not wrong, we know what we know, and with that, you make the best possible conclusions. But those conclusions could be wrong because what we know is also incomplete. For example, we are dumping more CO2 in the atmosphere. One argument is that if we stop and the CO2 drops, we have the opposite problem - a massive ice age. In fact, there are a number of papers out that outline the scenario that global warming isn't the real issue, the problem will arise when we finally run out of oil, gas and coal, and the CO2 starts to drop. Given that global warming is well underway, the best option might just be to ride it out and curtail our emissions so that we hold the CO2 steady as opposed to seeing it drop.

And you have a point with the Chinese, they're not gonna stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere - but they will when they start loosing their coastal cities. In the end, your energy costs will go up not because of global warming taxes, but because oil is a finite resource and global population is still growing. I am far more concerned about that then global warming. As Keith pointed out earlier, we will probably get wiped out anyway because no matter what, the planet cannot sustain this level of population.

[Gtlevine]

More nonsense.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/Study-suggesting-global-warming-exaggerated-rejected-publication-respected-journal-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html

That article is nonsense indeed, the paper got rejected by peer review, and the author is making up stories as to why, he has zero proof that it got rejected for the reasons he cites. Gary, why don't you actually read the research on the subject? Then you can actually address the science piece by piece instead of throwing out the baby with the bath water. As it stands you're basically saying scientists are all liars.

Oh believe me I did Axel. I know everything about this phony research. I studied it from the beginning. I'm just showing how the politics of this is so far out of control that it is silly. There is so much invested in this from the Socialist left, that the science is completely corrupted in order that the result is man is causing all these floods, hurricans, droughts, etc..... it is such nonsense that I can't believe anyone would believe all this. And even if you do believe man is causing global warming, there is nothing you can do about it, we are not going back to the stone age and China, Russia, India, etc... can care less. Plus, I stand by my initial reason that who cares, warmer climate is preferable anyway. They seemed to get along fine during the other warm periods in man's history, so will we.

I would be more interested to look at scientific papers and have you tell me explicitly where the flaws in the science itself is. Could you give me a citation and help me understand what's wrong with it? Let's take this paper for example: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/abs/408184a0.html. Can you tell me why you would think this model is invalid?

Next, can you please tell me how this paper showing measurements of the melting of the Greenland icesheet (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5795/1958.short) is invalid?

How about this one which outlines a connection between global warming and drought in the Western US? http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5698/1015.short

You're welcome to debate the science, but if you're gonna debate the science, then at least be explicit and start pointing out the specific flaws with the thousands of published articles. That could be super interesting and fun at the same time.

The science isn't what needs to be debated, the science is sound and has nothing to do with any socialist left. It's what we're gonna do about it that lands in the realm of arguments and political debate. That debate, on the other hand isn't fun at all. And that debate should not be undertaken on PalmTalk.

I can debate you on all of this, with facts. First, let me see where you are coming from.

Do you believe in Global Warming generally, or do you believe man is causing it? I can prove man cannot have any impact. I believe climate changes naturally. So What will we be debating?

Second, do you really believe global warming is a problem? I mean, I really need to know what you believe. Al Gore and the other loons who take the political position, have been predicting doom and gloom, been photoshopping pictures of the impending disaster and floods, it's crazy. I really don't understand the hysteria. Through history we have ice advancing and receding, temps warming and cooling. Why do you really care, because I just don't care. I know for a fact there will be no disasters, climate changes happen over decades or centuries and so slowly it is irrelevant.

If you do believe man is causing it, what do you want the government to do? Do you want Carbon taxes just on us Americans and Europeans while the third world are the real polluters? Do you really want us being forced into tiny cars and pay crazy energy prices which will cause our economy to shrink? What is your goal with this?

Edited May 16, 2014 by Gtlevine

[Gtlevine]

That's an interesting analogy, and yes, there are some similarities. It's not the data of the old food science that was wrong, it was the conclusions that were drawn from the data that was wrong. Cholesterol and saturated fat are in fact linked to heart disease and stroke. But then, they discovered that saturated fat comes in different types, and they discovered that transfatty acids (margarine) were even worse than the saturated fat. And then they found out that sugar caused more heart disease than fat did. The old food science isn't wrong, it was incomplete.

Climate science is similar. It's not wrong, we know what we know, and with that, you make the best possible conclusions. But those conclusions could be wrong because what we know is also incomplete. For example, we are dumping more CO2 in the atmosphere. One argument is that if we stop and the CO2 drops, we have the opposite problem - a massive ice age. In fact, there are a number of papers out that outline the scenario that global warming isn't the real issue, the problem will arise when we finally run out of oil, gas and coal, and the CO2 starts to drop. Given that global warming is well underway, the best option might just be to ride it out and curtail our emissions so that we hold the CO2 steady as opposed to seeing it drop.

And you have a point with the Chinese, they're not gonna stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere - but they will when they start loosing their coastal cities. In the end, your energy costs will go up not because of global warming taxes, but because oil is a finite resource and global population is still growing. I am far more concerned about that then global warming. As Keith pointed out earlier, we will probably get wiped out anyway because no matter what, the planet cannot sustain this level of population.

Actually, it is now coming out that saturated fat and cholesterol is not bad for you. Possibly the small LDL particles cause plaque buildup, but we will see. The current LDL and cholesterol tests are useless, but people change their lives over these tests. But you are correct with the sugars, the amount of sugar they have been putting into all this so called health food has been killing people. Practically everything on the shelves has been loaded with it since the food has literally become unhealthy crap with no taste.

[Hollywood Palms]

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has a new blog, written by a group of climate scientists, focused on El Niño:

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/department/8443/all

It will be interesting to see if they maintain the blog and what data sources they use.

David

[Funkthulhu]

Gary,

You keep using the word "believe" as if my belief makes any difference. I can believe 4 is greater than 5 all I want, but it doesn't make it so. Additionally, I can believe that 5 is greater than 4, but if I don't understand why it is than my belief doesn't matter.

I acknowledge the facts of anthropogenic global climate change. I acknowledge that there are regional fluctuations both up and down over the surface of the globe (but the overall average is up). And I acknowledge that (to get back to point) it will be interesting to see how these changes will effect a large weather-related event soon to affect the west coast and the rest of the country.

So, if you want to keep quoting unreliable news sources and linking everything back to Al Gore and your general misinformed fears about things you obviously don't understand, please feel free to do so.

I, however, am not in the mood to argue about established facts with someone who's belief and actions cannot and will not have any effect on those facts in any globally measurable way. I would rather get back to the subject at hand.

So, how 'bout that El Nino?

[Gtlevine]

Gary,

You keep using the word "believe" as if my belief makes any difference. I can believe 4 is greater than 5 all I want, but it doesn't make it so. Additionally, I can believe that 5 is greater than 4, but if I don't understand why it is than my belief doesn't matter.

I acknowledge the facts of anthropogenic global climate change. I acknowledge that there are regional fluctuations both up and down over the surface of the globe (but the overall average is up). And I acknowledge that (to get back to point) it will be interesting to see how these changes will effect a large weather-related event soon to affect the west coast and the rest of the country.

So, if you want to keep quoting unreliable news sources and linking everything back to Al Gore and your general misinformed fears about things you obviously don't understand, please feel free to do so.

I, however, am not in the mood to argue about established facts with someone who's belief and actions cannot and will not have any effect on those facts in any globally measurable way. I would rather get back to the subject at hand.

So, how 'bout that El Nino?

I agree with you, you are welcome to believe and worry about all this silly nonsense all you want. In my lifetime the climate will be identical to what it is today. Worrying about climate change and thinking you can change it is so silly and meaningless i pay it no mind. So you can go ahead and believe what you will, keep inputting numbers into a computer, but it is meaningless excersize in futility and that is the true fact. So no matter what you think you know from all those silly studies, nothing will change in your or my lifetime that anyone will notice. Edited May 16, 2014 by Gtlevine