From the DOE/PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY
El Nino and global warming work together to bring more extreme weather
RICHLAND, Wash. – In the future, the Pacific Ocean’s temperature cycles could disrupt more than just December fishing. A study published in Nature Communications suggests that the weather patterns known as El Nino and La Nina could lead to at least a doubling of extreme droughts and floods in California later this century.
The study shows more frequent extreme events are likely to occur. Other research shows the Golden State’s average precipitation increasing gradually, but not enough to account for the occurrence of extreme events. A better understanding of what gives rise to El Nino and La Nina cycles — together known as El Nino-Southern Oscillation — might help California predict and prepare for more frequent droughts and floods in the coming century.
“Wet and dry years in California are linked to El Nino and La Nina. That relationship is getting stronger,” said atmospheric scientist Jin-Ho Yoon of the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. “Our study shows that ENSO will be exhibiting increasing control over California weather.”
Rain’s range
California is experiencing one of the most severe droughts in its history, but it’s not clear if a warmer world will make droughts worse, more frequent or perhaps even improve the situation. After all, warmer air can hold more water, and some research suggests global warming could increase California’s average rain and snowfall.
However, research also suggests future rain will come down more as light drizzles and heavy deluges and less as moderate rainfall. Yoon and colleagues from PNNL and Utah State University in Logan, Utah, wondered if droughts might follow a similar pattern.
To find out, the researchers looked at what happens to California in global climate models. They simulated two periods of time: 1920 to 2005 using historical measurements; and 2006 to 2080 using conditions in which very few efforts are made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They chose this future scenario to examine the most extreme case.
To understand how well the simulations worked, they used two tactics to show reproducibility: In one tactic, they used a compilation of 38 different models. In the other, they re-ran a single model 30 times. The more similar the results, the more sure the researchers were of the finding.
Weather pendulum
The models showed that in the future, assuming emissions continue to increase, California seasons will exhibit more excessively wet and excessively dry events. These results suggest that the frequency of droughts could double and floods could triple between the early 20th century and late 21st century.
“By 2100, we see more — and more extreme — events. Flooding and droughts will be more severe than they are currently,” said Yoon.
But why? Yoon suspected the El Nino-Southern Oscillation. Every two to seven years, El Nino comes in and warms up the tropical Pacific Ocean a few degrees, increasing winter rain and snowpack in California. On a similar schedule, La Nina cools things off. Both disrupt regular weather in many regions around the globe.
To explore El Nino’s connection to California precipitation, Yoon and colleagues ran a climate model with and without El Nino. In both simulations, they ramped up the concentration of carbon dioxide by 1 percent every year for 150 years. In just one of the runs, they removed El Nino’s cyclical contribution by programming the sea surface temperatures to reflect only steady warming.
Without El Nino and La Nina, the frequency of extreme precipitation in California stayed constant for the simulation’s century and a half. With ENSO, simulated California experienced wide swings in rainfall by the end of the period.
The results suggest that even though researchers expect rain and snowfall to increase as the climate warms, the manner in which the water hits California could be highly variable.
The El Nino-Southern Oscillation is still a bit of a mystery, said Yoon. Scientists only know El Nino and La Nina years, named for the Spanish terms for boy and girl, are coming by sea surface temperatures and other weather hints. Studies that investigate what controls the unruly children could help scientists predict unruly weather in the future.
###
This work was supported by the Department of Energy Office of Science.
Reference: Jin-Ho Yoon, S.-Y. Simon Wang, Robert R. Gillies, Ben Kravitz, Lawrence Hipps, and Philip J. Rasch. Increasing water cycle extremes in California and relation to ENSO cycle under global warming, Nature Communications, Oct. 21, 2015, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9657.
What about 2016?
These will of course be sand floods, in keeping with the drought conditions.
g
By Oct 22 2015 we will have flying cars and hoverboards.
Well actually:
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/montreal/montrealer-sets-world-record-for-farthest-flight-by-hoverboard-1.3085052
As for flying cars, they have been around for a very long time, just not the Jetson mobiles some folks think of.
Have a good day.
We will be able to afford them too !
I’m waiting.
Wayne, I’m more inclined towards the floating cars and surfboards.
http://dailydimmick.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/car-boat-1.jpg
Farsightedness or hypermetropia or hyperopia is a defect of vision in which closer objects appear to be blurred.
Whadya mean ” appear ” to be blurred pardner ??
They ARE blurred; as in out of focus.
So what the hey is presbyopia ??
g
A normal eye can adapt its lens profile to form sharp retinal images of objects at infinity, and also objects at a ‘near point’ typically 250 to 300 mm. And by inference, all points in between, but of course, not all at the same time.
So eye optical defects can cause either of those two extreme focusing situations, to either focus too close to the eye, or too far from the eye (never focus at all in the case of the infinity focus.).
Unaided, my eyes can’t form a focused image anywhere from zero to infinity. Some Asians, can’t sharply focus on anything beyond some shorter distance than infinity.
That leads to the DWA syndrome, because of the thick negative lenses they wear. It’s not their fault; they are born with it.
g
g
Great comment, Vukcevic. Or how about next week or the week after?
They can’t be bothered with 2016 because the “proof of their forecast” would be too soon upon them. But what I can’t figure out – considering the headline on this – HOW do you have more severe drought AND flooding in the same year? Is AGW going to divide CA into two parts, flooding only one half and giving no water at all to the other?
tom
Look at the first few paras: –
could … suggests … could
likely … might
“but it’s not clear if a warmer world will make droughts worse, more frequent or perhaps even improve the situation” [aka – we don’t have the faintest idea, but send grant money n o w !] … suggests … could
suggests … wondered
I mean – real hard, data backed double blind science.
[Mods – that is /SARC].
Auto, still toiling for a living.
Couldn’t the money spent by this research been spent better on almost any other science? I am sick of seeing these ridiculous studies that seem to be a major part of our science spending. It’s making me think scientists are idiots. Anybody can see how transparently stupid this is. Nobody would spend a dime on such a ridiculous study to look at what models say in 100 years which aren’t right now. I can’t believe these things are funded.
This global warming has given the press the ability to create stories that are pure speculation and apparently some people read them. I wonder if you asked 100 people if they think this article has any merit? I think many people aren’t smart enough to figure out exactly what is wrong with the article but they know that such articles are not worth spending 2 seconds thinking about. Others like myself are constantly astounded that the press has such an easy time putting out crap built on crap built on crap. Climate models built on assumptions built on incomplete information, on top of fudged data and inaccurate hand selected proxies of 1 tree someplace in Siberia. From all that you can conclude the history of the earths temperature and future history. They can say virtually anything because nobody seems to question the premise that the models are fallacious. So, every article is : The models say this will happen (which is purely impossible for them to be right except by sheer luck.) and we can deduce that since technology won’t change and people won’t respond till the danger is so great we will all die or whatever consequence they project they assume this will be hugely bad.
I guess the best example is the food prediction. The IPCC says in 2080 food production will decline. One reason is that people will not adjust to the new open growing regions and longer growing season fast enough so food production on existing land will decline and we will starve. This is NOT a climate issue. The basis of the conclusion people will die is based on the erroneous assumption people won’t adjust growing regions fast enough. In any case that is not a global warming problem it is a political or other problem. One that almost certainly won’t actually turn out to be true. It also assumes technology between now and 2080 for growing plants won’t change when every year we are learning more and getting better at productivity of plants. All these “consequence” have the same set of problems.
1) THe problem is projected based on fallacious models which means in fact the problem is not actually known if it will happen.
2) The impact of the problem is overstated because people will know about these problems far in advance and adjust
3) The technology is changing so rapidly that it is impossible to state if the problem will cost 2Cents to fix or a billion dollars or even benefit us if it is a problem.
For now while AGW still has not completely lost credibility the press can lean on the models and others can keep using them as a basis of incredible wild fancy. They can use them to generate money for fun interesting fantasy ideas. I sincerely look forward to the day when everyone admits the models were huge failures. It may take until 2099 for them to finally admit that in the last year before 2100 the temperature probably won’t climb two degrees in one year and the models were wrong. That means we have to wait another 84 years.
My Theory:
It will rain more.
It will rain less.
It will be hotter.
It will be colder.
It is irrefutable.
Hey, you forgot to ask for funding.
Exactly.
It’s more output from the Ouija board.
“To find out, the researchers looked at what happens to California in global climate models.” Never mind that climate models are inaccurate predictors of future climate. Count the “could” instances, what a load…
What sticks in my crawl is phrases like “Our study shows that…”
These “studies”, if it is even truthful to call them that, do not “show” anything.
They merely make very expensive speculations.
Yes – and the rest of us speculate for free – all the while being more accurate 😉
My studies show that drinking more beer in the evening makes one thirstier in the morning.
Then again, that’s based on actual observation, not prediction.
[1] – Regional climate model forcasts as stated in 2014 “Time series models perform strongly, and structural deficiencies in the AOGCM forecasts are identified using encompassing tests. Regional forecasts from various GCMs had even more deficiencies.
Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change. Int J Forecast (PDF Download Available). Available from: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/227417764_Validation_and_forecasting_accuracy_in_models_of_climate_change._Int_J_Forecast [accessed Oct 22, 2015].
[2} – But Obama made a deal with China to limit CO2 growth. Are they saying that was a “Few Effort”?
[3] – All simulation. Who here lives in SimCity World?
{4} – Best get started on some technology to store some of the flood waters to use during the drought years. Maybe we can call it a Dam.
Yes, I didn’t think it would be long before the words ‘global climate models’ appeared. And there endeth the interest.
yes it is brilliant!!
There will be weather and it will all be worse than we thought!
“could”,Should Won’t”
Weasel words.
“Suggest” and “could ” , here we go.
So how did the model runs go for the 20th c. part of that experiment? Did they produce a reasonable replication of El Nino patterns.
No, of course they didn’t, since we have no idea what causes it. All the models do is insert some noise and pretend that it is “simulating” ENSO.
come back when you have a model that works for the last 100y ( especially the earlier half of 20th c. At such a time I may be interested in what your model runs do for the next few years.
If they get that right, you’ll probably get a Nobel prize. ( This time for a science subject, rather than politically correct ideas ).
There’s white noise, brown noise, pink noise – all kinds of noise colors. Among many problems, one problem with these weather models is that the designers of the models do not have appropriate knowledge of the types of statistical distributions required for modeling chaotic phenomena like the weather.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they use some simple expression involving a random uniform distribution. Does anyone know this “noisy” part of their modeling code?
I think the worst is green noise!
+100 auralay
Is brown nose [sic] the most common?
So the year 2100 will be like that NON man made 240 year long drought that started in the year 850?
Right, some “oscillation”. ie it seems totally random variation which we can not predict until it’s already started to develop but we’ll call it an “oscillation” and then we have already planted the expectation that it’s some kind of climate pendulum and it’s net effect is zero.
Thus without the need for any scientific messing around we can tidily dismiss it as cause of long term warming, which as we already decided before we started is due to AGW.
See how powerful semantics are. No need for messy peer (pal) review and tedious papers. Just call it an “oscillation” and it simply disappears in a puff of odourless, invisible, non toxic gas.
SEE, then all we need is some intern to write press release and introduce a paragraph entitled: “Weather pendulum” and even skeptical sites will reproduce it for us, helping with the propaganda effort of inserting this phenomenon as net zero effect on climate.
Neat , huh?
Oh my.
Good thing there’s another call for a DOJ RICO .
Bernie Sanders wants Exxon investigated.
Eeeek!
I weep. Could have used the money to buy ice cream. Not wasted that way.
Who’s going to confirm the accuracy of this prediction? Will anyone care? Will anyone remember? This is nothing more than a 4-year old saying, “Look at me! Look at me!”
However, research also suggests future rain will come down more as light drizzles and heavy deluges and less as moderate rainfall.
Do these fools even listen to themselves? They cannot predict if it will rain at all eight days from now but can not only predict but characterize the kind of rainfall eight decades hence.
They amy as well just sung; Oh Susanna.
More profit sees of the future.
Now I seem to remember some past studies pointing to some very long duration droughts in California, including one during the Spanish era.
This is science?
Or just good enough for government?
Wouldn’t more droughts and more floods cancel each other out?
Heh.
I keep expecting to see a study showing that days and nights cancel each other out but that they’ve spotted a very near annual trend in the data regarding variations in each and need more money to study it and see what it portends for the future…
Actually, this will be their reasoning if we don’t end up having more floods and droughts…they’ll just have happened at the same time, and cancelled each other out. They’ll have happened just as predicted…we just won’t be able to see it, because natural variation just accidentally lined things up. Perfectly. For a century.
Only if you build the infrastructure to capture the water and distribute it when its there.
Who’s stole California’s rain ????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCLdjS4JfJw
“The El Nino-Southern Oscillation is still a bit of a mystery, said Yoon.”
Yet it is the crux of this “research”?
What a load of hogwash. If they are so clever as to being able to predict the climate in 2100, why aren’t they selling their services for lotto numbers or smashing the derivatives market instead of plundering taxpayers pockets.
could… suggests… could… likely…not clear… perhaps… suggests… wondered…MODELS… results suggest… reflect… mystery… unruly children…
and the money grub– “studies could help scientists predict…”
———————
These “studies” all sound alike, with the same weasel- word press releases.
Why doesn’t anybody believe them? The hurricane predictions were, well let’s say the insurance companies made out. And no more snow, but then global warming was shown to cause more snow. And who knows what will happen in 2200? And the Arctic is ice free, right, in 2013? And any day now the Antarctic ice sheets will melt and flood the world. What will happen in California? Rain?! This has never happened before. I wonder if there will be flooding and mud slides. Oh, the horrors of global warming. I’m sure government was never warned that there would be flooding. That’s why they haven’t prepared for it. Let’s build in flood prone areas, areas where it’s known to be a fire hazard, in areas where it’s 1 foot above sea level, on hills that are unstable when it rains, build in areas with no water resources, and the call it climate change when something happens.
(Sarc)
Thank goodness you ended with (sarc). I was becoming worried.
Climate predictions for 85 years from now are meaningless and unscientific Their only possible purpose are for political propaganda.
They re-ran the same model 30 times, and the more consistent the results were the more sure they were correct?
That works when you’re collecting actual data. When you’re running a computer model, it’s GIGO. Consistent garbage is still garbage.
Isn’t that the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
It’s precise, but that doesn’t prove that it is accurate.
A team of monkeys could do what they did, and come up with the same nonsense. Could have saved a boatload of cash, too.
A team of monkeys would actually produce better results as such that they would be unbiased. In order to get so many predictions wrong is beyond statistical probability or random chance. CAGW has an amazing ability to forget. Who is going to hold them accountable when their predictions fail? They are arguing for drastic changes in society based upon these predictions. Including changes in the way a democracy works, up to and including charging everybody on here that has critiqued CAGW with criminal charges.
The best any skeptic could have hoped for in 2004 was the hurricane season remained the same or somewhat lower. The best was that it somehow didn’t stop snowing or ships were not sailing the Arctic in January. Now they are pushing the time line out so far as to the odds of anything happening are 50/50. It could or it could not. Anything can happen in a wide enough circle of probabilities. I could hit the lotto by 2100, it could happen, but I’m not quitting my day job.
“To understand how well the simulations worked, they used two tactics to show reproducibility: In one tactic, they used a compilation of 38 different models. In the other, they re-ran a single model 30 times. The more similar the results, the more sure the researchers were of the finding.”
If these nitwits were running a computer program 30 times to produce a trial balance for their monthly accounts, I would trust their results from just 1 run. Similarly, if they ran a program to see if the bridge they have designed is safe in all conditions 30 times, I would trust their results. But when it comes to the predictions of a climate model, I would not trust the results from a million runs.
I never got to most of those “could.. would.. should…” weasel words. I stopped in the 7th paragraph, at the 2nd and 3rd uses of that ultimate weasel word “Model”.
“In one tactic, they used a compilation of 38 different models. In the other, they re-ran a single model 30 times. The more similar the results, the more sure the researchers were of the finding.” it says. So one model verifies the other. Why wait a century for data?
Right on Rich. Give them hell.
As we have seen in Climate research it is the models are facts and the data is theory. If the data shows them wrong it only means the data is wrong. Science on its head.
However, research also suggests future rain will come down more as light drizzles and heavy deluges and less as moderate rainfall……”
Is it just me, or are these “studies” getting funnier as the get more numerous? I think I’m getting a side ache.
Very few people nowadays understand what the word “average” really means.
Well what do you expect. NO physical system, responds to “average” including all of our senses.
So nobody ever experienced average, so how would they know anything about it.
Average is ALWAYS computed after the fact, so it is far too late to experience it, in real time. It’s like Monday morning quarterbacking. Easy to do; if you know how to do 4-H club arithmetic, but way to late to influence the outcome of the game.
g
That sentence is exactly where I had to stop reading.
All drizzle and deluges!
I am continually amazed that they keep figuring out news ways to continue to be amazingly stupid.
I’ve definitely thought that. I usually chuckle when I see these stupid articles. Then I think of the real science that could have been done with that money if this bozo hadn’t been paid to study this maybe some physicist or medical research could have been done that actually was science.
I love these. Make a prediction about something that will happen so far in the future, nobody will even remember when the time comes and people are supposed to listen to it like it is worth something.
The people are supposed pay taxes to prevent that “something” that’s far off in the future. If none of those taxpayers are around to remember what is supposed to happen, who will play with that pile of money? Oh, of course, money attracts, like flies to honey.
Was the big mudslide near Tehachapi, California last week exacerbated by the areally extensive earthworks associated with the big windfarm that straddles Highway 58 at that location?
Well Tehachapi is actually at the top of the pass, so don’t see how anything would come down on top of it.
All of the news bulletins I heard on the radio and TV seemed to imply it happened on highway 5, 40 miles north of LA, which would be somewhere around Magic Mountain.
Didn’t here about highway 58 till way later. Gose from Bakersfield to Mojave; but also right on out to the coast in the other direction.
A pass, pretty much by definition, means a saddle in the mountains. That is, the hills rise on either side of the road, even if that is the highest point that the road reaches.
By 2300, California will/may separate from mainland U.S. I’ve studied past earthquake in U.S. and planetary alignments for the last 4,000 years of data. See, I can make a prediction or maybe it is a projection.
I don’t think any of the climate models account for California sliding into the Pacific and heading west, kokoda, but I could be wrong. Right now, I’m fairly certain that they assume that California will be in the same place in 150 years, but that means their rainfall projections are for where California is now and not for where California might actually be.
Not to worry, though. Throw another shovel or two of grant money their way and they can re-run the simulations with California located somewhere west of its current location. Then we can pretend we know what the rainfall on California will be while we pretend we know where California will be.
I would love to see these modeled rainfall events in 2100. “Oooh, here’s a sprinkle on June 12th! Ooooooooh, it’s an intense one on August 28th!”
Um, they didn’t happen to know next week’s lottery numbers by any chance, did they?
Were we where. http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19830404,00.html
And were we are now. http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19830404,00.html
Even if all human emissions ceased, catastrophic weather would not. And even if we were able to eliminate all human emissions, alarmists would find something else humans do to blame.
Wouldn’t GLOBAL warming dampen ENSO (e.g. by making the cold phase less cold) meanwhile making El Nino like conditions more common, at the expense of La Nina?
Bummer Man. What about 2525?
Ha ha ;-P
Cut and paste forecasting for the year 2100 that has been going on for decades now. It is curious that the forecast horizon has remained at 2100 and has not moved forward with time even though we have made no progress toward the forecast condition.
Pick a year. Here’s one: 1862
The Great Flood of 1862 was the largest flood in the recorded history of Oregon, Nevada, and California, occurring from December 1861 to January 1862.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1862
If they really want to test the reality of their models, I would suggest that they produce a three month forecast for us so that we can see how accurate their thirty modes are!
S/b thirty models are!
Any thoughts on the rather cold BLOB in the eastern Pacific ocean wrt the el nino?
My thought is, we’ve been in a PDO mode that is biased negative for several years. El Nino has a difficult time getting established in this environment. The past few El Ninos were duds that died out prior to the core portion of the rainy season. If the current one fails to sustain past December it too will be a dud.
By 2100…the great Earthquakes should have destroyed Seattle and Portland(if nor southern Cal). Man does not control.
I weep silently. How the somewhat reasonable at PNNL have fallen.
For a few years some decades ago, I worked in the meteorological department at Hanford Laboratories, Richland Operations Office of the Atomic Energy Commission (thence becoming PNL, then PNNL after Hanford ceased being a defense programs operation). I arrived there only 16 years after the “original sin” of Enrico Fermi’s activation of B Reactor.
Back in those days, dinosaurs were rare, although General Electric was in fact the prime contractor for the laboratory operations in Richland. JFK was not to be found on the political radar.
The research in atmospheric physics we did at Hanford then was VERY data intensive. I earned an MS while I worked there. That fairly ordinary piece of arduous work included a few pages of calculus and algebra, then a lot of work to show how the calculus actually fit real life data. Those data came from many intense hours of data collection, and many more hours of tedium known as “analysis,” which amounted to converting analog signals into numeric symbols. No computers, only Marchant calculators, magnifying glasses, pencils, paper, and erasers (no delete key, you see).
Real data, published in a real journal. No models. Merely a beginner’s attempt to put real life together with real (but difficult) measurements. Not very important, but clearly data driven.
Yoon’s paper sounds nothing like the work I did there.
Yoon and colleagues apparently point to a contemporary infatuation with handwavium. This well-known element is wildly popular in DC today. Among other things, it can convert political connections into pocket money for a few people. Especially with the utterly magic (anti-science, that is) incantation, “global warming.”
What will PNNL meteorologists discover next? Poetry? I would like to be (or see) a peer reviewer for that. /sarc/
wth
At that point, I stopped reading.
It’s not the researchers who are ultimately making these predictions, it’s the models. Let’s bear that in mind.
Having read prior PNNL stuff, I would have filed this in the round file before reading. This appears to be the same old same old from this group. They have traction amongst their wet (sic) coast followers and many believers. Rightly or wrongly, I am not one of them. Too much bad advice.
” the manner in which the water hits California could be highly variable”
OMG, highly variable rain? That sounds horrible! Somebody better open a 3 or 4 letter international group to do something.
‘in the year 2100’
Your should always give credit where it is due , and it think that despite their many, many faults climate ‘scientists’ have learnt one thing , to make their prediction for so far ahead in time they will not be around to be reminded of them and asked why they got it so very wrong ‘again ‘
Meanwhile my models tells me by 2100 their will be a president of the USA whose name beings with the letter ‘D’ , given my prediction is as good has their I look forward to my fat grant cheque, anyone know when it will be posted ?
“in the year 2525 …”
That’s an easy prediction. California droughts and floods were worse in the past, long before the evil and toxic pollutant CO2 was emitted by disgusting human beings. To predict a return to that is easy, and blaming it on CO2 emissions is simply how they operate.
True. We really could be entering into a mega drought similar to ones that manifest in the paleo climate indicators.
” re-ran a single model 30 times. The more similar the results, the more sure ”
Another group of fools who don’t know the difference between accuracy and precision.
I have two models for the addition of 1+1. One of the models gives the answer 2, the other an answer of 10. By combining the outputs of the two models I can be certain that 1+1=6.
I don’t think I have made any mistakes but please post any corrections.
p.s. sarc by the way.
We still don’t know what causes the ENSO cycles, but we know with great certainty that CO2 will make them more intense.
Sheesh, these guys are getting desperate.
Apparently running the same model 30 times and getting the same results is an example of reproduciblity. Kind of like the more times you enter 2+2 into a calculator makes the calculator results more reliable. Imagine how accurate your calculator would be if you entered 2+2 60 times!
Using different models is an improvement.but the problem is the same. Like the calculator programmed to produce 2=2=4, the models can be programmed for a certain result. Models are programs, programmed by humans, computers are stupid; they just do what you tell them to do. Reproducibility is really irrelevant until real world results prove the hypothesis and assumptions that go into the models.
Since the computer models and computer model runs don’t correctly forecast the future, and don’t agree with each other, the article’s claims are exactly equivalent to the following.
It’s strange how closely post-modern science resembles pre-modern non-science.
Study, Research, Global Climate Models… One of these things is not like the others.
Call me a pedant, but only a model could fit a frequent drought and and a frequent flood into the same year, or even the same decade.
It’s a new thing called a “droughtflood”.
Britain CLAIMED to be preparing to invade mainland Europe from Essex and Suffolk in 1944. The claim was made to German spies. Can’t for the life of me understand why Omaha beach was in Normandy…….
We stared into our crystal ball and it showed us that lots of Very Bad Things will happen. Be afraid. Oh, and send money.
Do these writers not understand that I have to pay good money to a utility company to haul away my garbage? Please stop stuffing more stuff into my trash bin.
We don’t know (as this article) what causes ENSO cycles, but yet we can say with great confidence El Nino’s and global warming will both contribute in future? NONSENSE
Below gives us a better understanding in what causes ENSO cycles.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/SunSpots_v_NINO3.4Minrem_zpsjazoxqcs.png
While there is apparently an unknown cause there is also an unknown outcome, but above highlights an 85.7% presence that is difficult to ignore. We have only had global warming mainly due to increasing and stronger El Nino’s during the satellite era. When these had stopped becoming more frequent or as strong, global temperatures behaved with them, hence the pause. Only way it may resume again would be because of another continuous medium and strong El Nino. Relying on El Nino’s for global warming will have great limitations in future. This study shows nothing about the unknowns in the model, other than the conclusion seems to have been decided beforehand.
ENSO is driven by solar energy and nature’s way of building and releasing this Tropical Ocean energy in two different favorable phases known as La Nina and El Nino. Solar energy, global warming and ENSO are virtually the same thing in this context and the claim in this article is exactly circular reasoning.
ENSO also contributes significantly towards the Gulf Stream, where this energy moved northwards via the AMOC directly linked with the AMO and warms or cools the Arctic Ocean especially. Therefore if the ENSO has no/little contribution towards global temperatures then why does removing the AMO lead to a flat trend in global temperature?
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/RSS%20Global_v_RemovedAMO2_zpsssrgab0r.png
The fact that the AMO shows this provides the scientific evidence that ENSO has had a significant contribution towards global temperatures.
I challenge them to show scientific evidence that global warming had nothing to do with ENSO because the fact is it has. The global temperature rises up and down to the behavior of ENSO and is by far the major driver during the satellite era with far better observation techniques. With fewer La Nina’s global temperatures dip less often and with fewer El Nino’s global temperatures rise less often.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/RSS%20Global_v1997-01removal_zpszk83g0xi.png
Summary
Speculations from a model with circular reasoning, based on ocean mechanism they admit hardly know anything about. The irony global warming will cause worse floods and droughts when almost entirely dependent on ENSO.
The study is specious as increased forcing of the climate increases La Nina and reduces El Nino, it cannot increase the intensity of both.
A solar minimum begins in the 2090’s, which will increase El Nino and make California wetter, as the next ten years of this solar minimum will.
I agree 100%. The reason is that we now define a drought as a function of how it affects the human population. With an increase of population over the next 75 to 85 years you will put more demand on the precipitation, causing a shortage which will be a drought. The next thing to look at is today’s flood compared to the a flood in the future. The population will continue to accumulate in low lying areas and streams and rivers will occupy the flood plains at some time- more flooding. Also, if you look at the horrid management or our headwaters areas (ie. a forest policy that sets up for catastrophic fires and invasive weeds) we end up with typical rains causing untypical runoff. We keep looking at how nature affects the human and comparing to the past. How many more people are living is states that are subject to hurricanes than since Camille? The same storm we had 60 years ago; hurricane, tornado, downpour, or blizzard, now impacts many more people.
Claim:
“By 2100, we see more — and more extreme — events.”
Explanation:
If I can kick this down the road for the next century, I can give employment to my children, and to my children’s children.
R
Seems like a pretty easy problem to solve with the proper infrastructure, like building a dam or two to catch some of the excessive rain for use during the dry periods. And we have 85 years to do it!
And in 2101 California will break off from the US mainland, float south, and attach itself to Mexico.
No one in Mexico will notice because the official language of California since 2075 will have been Spanish
As usual, this horrific climate projection was brought to you using RCP 8.5 — the coal-burning, slow tech growth, high population growth scenario.
Note that the authors do not even attempt to justify their use of RCP 8.5, even by the typical hand-waving to it as a “business as usual” scenario. They present it as the future, without any relevant information or context.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151021/ncomms9657/full/ncomms9657.html