Guest essay by Larry Kummer, from the Fabius Maximus website
Summary: Climate alarmists have run wild with predictions about the “monster” “Godzilla” El Niño, a last throw of the dice before the COP-21 climate conference in Paris. Here is an example by Brad Plummer, with a little debunking. Gaia will have the last word about this El Niño. The latest forecasts of the major climate models suggest that it will disappoint activists.
When did we “pathologize” weather? When did commonplace weather become abnormal? The debates over the past and future of anthropogenic climate change are of great importance (climate change is ubiquitous in history). But the news increasingly describes normal weather as a kind of plague, something to fear.
For example see “El Niño, explained: A guide to the biggest weather story of 2015” by Brad Plummer at Vox. Plummer’s perspective is clearly stated by his tagline: “On the apocalypse beat, more or less.” His article is a masterpiece of propaganda, creating fear to advance his public policy agenda. A few excerpts, matched with reality, tell the tale.
“Now it looks like we’re in for a monster. The El Niño currently brewing in the Pacific is shaping up to be one of the strongest ever recorded.”
Plummer links to a page by the World Meteorological Organization, which gives different message. Their forecast is “placing this El Niño event among the three strongest previous events since 1950 (1972-73, 1982-83, 1997-98).” Plummer says “strongest ever recorded”, which suggests a long-term record. Unlike saying one of the four strongest since 1950, which is not alarming.
“El Niño has already helped make 2015 the hottest year on record …”
Plummer links to a NOAA page which says that September was a record, “beating the previous record set last year by 0.07°C (0.13°F) — and that the first nine months of 2015 were a record “surpassing the previous records of 2010 and 2014 by 0.12°C (0.21°F).” Neither of these tiny increments are statistically significant, especially given the uncertainty of temperature records assembled by each nation (many weather agencies are grossly underfunded).
Alarmists ran this scam with the 2014 “record” high. NOAA said 2014 had a 48% probability of being the warmest of the past 135 years, meaning “more unlikely than likely” (NASA gave it a 38% probability).
Also, neither of the two NASA-funded global satellite datasets shows record high temperatures in the lower troposphere (by Remote Sensing Systems and U AL-Huntsville).
To put this in a larger context, the world has been warming over the entire 136 year-long temperature record — and “human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010” (from AR5). It remains a point of debate if the world is warmer than during other warm spells during the past 3 thousand years.
“The last truly massive El Niño appeared in 1997-’98 and ended up causing an estimated $35 billion in destruction and 23,000 deaths around the world. “
This is a tactic loved by activists of Left and Right, stating a large scary number without context. The world had an annual income (GDP) of $107 trillion in 2014. $35 billion is 0.03% of that — a tiny fraction of the destruction from an average winter. As for the deaths, influenza kills 250,000 to 500,000 every year.
Rather than continue wading through this article, let’s ask a more interesting question.
Why do activists write these things?
After a 26 year-long campaign, few nations have adopted significant public policy measures to fight anthropogenic climate change. Key emerging nations, such as China, remain firmly opposed (willing to make big promises about future action, while rapidly building coal-burning power plants). The US public consistently ranks climate change at or near the bottom of public policy concerns.
Now activists’ bold forecasts are coming due, such as warning of more and stronger hurricanes after Katrina (which proved false). In the past few years they’ve bombarded the US public with forecasts of certain doom based on misrepresenting the worst case scenario used in the IPCC’s AR5 as the “business as usual” scenario. And abandoned the IPCC as “too conservative” (e.g., about the methane apocalypse). Plus falsely blaming climate change for an absurdly wide range of events, from flooding of Pacific atolls, to terrorism. Now activists see the tide of world public opinion turning against them — as more imminent challenges appear, such as terrorism and the economy.
So activists like Plummer have gone all in on the next El Niño. Last year they sounded the alarm about the “super monster” El Nino, which never came. This year they’ve sounded the alarm about the “monster” “Godzilla” El Niño. It’s their last chance to build support before the COP-21 Conference in Paris. Now Gaia appears to be disappointing them.
Update on the El Niño
Every month the IRI/CPC (Columbia U and NOAA) publishes a plume of forecasts about the temperature anomaly in the Pacific’s Niño3.4 region. The November plume shows the anomaly as 2.5°C in October. The average of dynamic models predicts 2.6°C in the Nov-Jan quarter, then a rapid fall. Statistical models predict 2.5°C in Nov-Jan, then a rapid fall. Neither suggests a long or “Godzilla” El Niño. Time will tell if these forecasts are accurate, too high, or too low.
What if the “Godzilla” El Niño is a dud, in the sense of failing to meet the expectations of disaster created for the public? Will another blown forecast by activists make a difference?
For More Information
For more details about this cycle see Bob Tisdale’s Is the Current El Niño Stronger Than the One in 1997/98? Also see El Niño, The Media Star: Separating Hype from Probability from the Browning World Climate Bulletin.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The tagline would more correctly read: On the apocalyptically off-beat, more or less.
Doesn’t make any difference to CAGW. One failed prediction is as good as any other. It’s the shock value that counts. That’s right, tell me how hot I am when it’s 50 f when it should be 100. Be sure to hand out ice cream as well.
Well, we know its not the science. What keeps this NWO control game in play is ignorance about HUMAN physiology and CO2. People confuse CO2 with poop. (and with CO–they’re not chemists, not even at the H.S. level).
Poop is dangerous because of bacteria (and other microbes). Urine is almost sterile. There are not the same risks, and it can even help one survive a bit longer in desert conditions, but ultimately, we do need to excrete most of that. Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of metabolism, but NOT a waste product in the same sense as some other metabolites.
CO2 is more like heat–you MUST have enough and not too much. It makes the blood’s main pH buffer and probably has 1000 other uses in metabolism as it has been around as long as cells. We are evolutionarily adapted to it. It helps us get more oxygen, because we can breathe better if CO2 levels are higher.
We’ve all heard of photosynthesis and many people understand that CO2 is plant food. But I would sacrifice plants for human health.
It has to be good for endangered species by providing more food. But humans above birds and bugs, I say.
The evidence is very weak, but it suggests that people will live LONGER and healthier with more CO2 in the air. And getting THAT across is most likely to save the economy from climate alarmism. And maybe prevent World War 3. Such horrors tend to happen after an economic collapse of the magnitude the alamists have wrought.
El Niños are a release of heat from the oceans. Of course it spikes the atmospheric temperature as the heat escapes to space. Look at the UAH temp data. The temps go right back to where they were once the El Niño is over.
Do they actually realize what they’re doing and saying?
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/think-this-is-hot-warming-climate-points-to-heatwaves-worsening-in-nsw-20151120-gl3nwt.html
First up the usual warning-
“NSW will experience more frequent and longer heatwaves in the future as the climate warms with the worsening extremes dependent on whether carbon emissions continue to climb, according to research from the government and the University of NSW.”
Then wait for it folks-
“In general, coastal regions will fare better than inland ones because of the proximity to sea breezes. While the phenomenon is evident even on Friday – with the CBD recently at 30 degrees while Penrith to the west was more than 40 degrees – the research indicates some interesting microclimates may develop around Sydney.
As the city sprawls to the north-west and south-west to accommodate 1.5 million more people in the two decades to 2031, western Sydney and the Hawkesbury will experience five-10 more hot days by 2030, a related OEH report said.
The replacement of vegetation such as forest and grasslands with concrete can raise morning summer surface temperatures by an average of 12.8 degrees – underscoring the importance for city planners to retain or introduce more green spaces in their designs.
“The more green cover you have in urban environments, the cooler the conditions,” Mr Riley said, noting that funds are available to aid councils to reduce the so-called urban heat island.”
But trust them they know how to pick a long term hockey stick out of that lot and only around a 100 years of Stevenson Screens that never change their surroundings. And I’m supposed to be the one in denial about the science of all this?
Oh, I wish there was global warming. 7-8″ snow storm a week before Thanksgiving here in the Chicago area. Snow and cold are not uncommon here in this area but seems like a week early this year. This is the kind of weather that makes skeptics and why nobody take climate change seriously, except our political paid puppets.
Yeah Ryan check out Sydney temps for the week as Oz comes into summer and check out those maxm variations for different suburbs top right-
http://www.bom.gov.au/nsw/forecasts/sydney.shtml?ref=hdr
The catastrophists don’t get it but I get a real kick out of asking them to explain the current sea level rise of a very old geologically stable continent like Oz (vis a vis NZ still bubbling out of the sea) and that Hallett Cove geological record. Watch them squirm when you ask- You’re not denying the science are you?
It’s a me generation and it started when we flung open the doors of our Sandstones to every weak mind and then technology came along to put exceptional computing power and statistical packages in the hands of these scientific illiterates.
My dad saw a bumper sticker several years ago that said “Chicago welcomes global warming”
Agreed, I am 50 miles west of Chicago, and I had first 12 inches of snow, with a drop in temps after the snow to 8 degrees.
Kind of early for this…I hope this does not portend a rough winter !
Whitefellas rolled up in Sydney Cove in 1788 and they might have had a Farenheit mercury thermometer with them by then. What they didn’t know then before they started taking temp readings and marking tides was this in my neck of the woods (first settled in 1836)-
http://www.sa.gsa.org.au/Brochures/HallettCoveBrochure.pdf
In particular from the geological record at point 6 and plastered on Gummint signs for the benefit of visitors to a world renowned geological history site we have-
‘During the Recent ice age about 20 000 years ago,
sea level was about 130 metres lower than today
and South Australia’s coastline was about 150
kilometres south of where Victor Harbor now is.
The ice cap started to melt about 15 000 years ago.
Sea level began to rise and reached its present level
about 6000–7000 years ago’
That’s an average rise of 16.25mm a year for 8000 years compared to 1.6mm a year average over the 20th century here-
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
and why I guess geologists like Ian Plimer are climate realists and a wee bit skeptical that the 8000 years rise was down to aboriginal cooking fires and burnoffs to flush out game. Also why I’ll probably join him in stocking up on the woollies should sea levels start to drop 16mm a year for a decade or two.
As for you CO2 catastrophists you can please yourselves but for Sydneysiders a bit worried about UHI I can only say relax because you now know ‘that funds are available to aid councils to reduce the so-called urban heat island.”
excellent, thanks,
I remember doing the Hallet Cove tour as a schoolkid.
and yes:-) have been stocking up on woolies here too..
and insulating the house walls as well as ceiling space.
wont hurt either way.
but I dont see councils rushing to plant trees
cos?
a branch might fall in the distant future and hurt someone
or gumnuts and leaves make a mess..
idiots!
Well there are certainly questions about the size of this El Niño, how big the numbers really are.
The only reason there are questions like this now is because Tom Karl’s group at the NCDC has started screwing around with the ENSO numbers For the first time. They had left them alone before because of the long history of actual measurements in the region and the importance of this sector’s SST swings, but that is over now.
This is, however, a very big El Niño. It would be classed as a Super El Niño event going by the latest SST anomaly reports although the latest (again) mucking around with the numbers means we can’t be sure.
There is also a 3 month lag before the ENSO impacts North America and maybe only 2 months before Indonesia sees the impacts. Indonesia has been one big forest fire for the last month because of the reduced rainfall hitting the area lately based on the ENSO conditions of 2 months ago. It will continue to impact Indonesia and then Australia and get even more extreme in the months ahead yet.
North America from Alaska to Minnesota and perhaps northern Canada will see a much warmer winter in the months ahead. The US southeast will be colder than normal and the US mid-west and California will get increased rainfall. That is what an El Niño traditionally does. Very high correlations here.
This is a big event. The full impact will only be felt in the months ahead.
I think the El Nino is peaking about right now (and the peak impacts will be 3 months in the future) but it will be a LONG event because there is still a huge amount of excess heat in the under-current which has not surfaced yet and will take at least 2 months to get there. It will go on until February at least and there will be another 3 months after that of impact on the global climate.
Long Super El Niño is my call (and I have been watching this thing for about 32 years now).
That is interesting, as you know I am a relative newbie to all of this. Let me ask though, did you notice my thoughts on the interaction between changes in the sunspot count between the two hemispheres of the Sun and how they firmly appear to be the trigger for changes in the ENSO regions?
Bill,
You post an almost identical comment on each of these threads. I’ll post the same reply.
(1) Who doubts that this is a strong event? This post makes that point repeatedly.
(2) “It would be classed as a Super El Niño event ”
“Classed” by whom? You appear to have made up the “class” of “super El Nino events”.
There is no definition for a Super ENSO event.
I consider anything that gets to +/- 2.8C in Nino 3.4 to be a Super event.
There has not been a Super La Niña event yet and only 5 Super El Ninos, 1862, 1877, 1891, 1982 and 1997.
The 1877-78 El Niño was the largest one in history and global temperatures rose about +0.7C above the background temperature of the time by April 1878.
Bill,
Also, what is the paper you are using as a source? It sounds interesting.
What does it use to estimate the temperature anomaly of El Nino events before 1950? I assume some proxy, such as the Southern Oscillation Index (shown from 1876 at the Aussie BOM).
I have never seen error bars for the modern regional Pacific average monthly (or weekly) sea surface temperatures, but I suspect they are are over 0.1C. The error bars for whatever temperature proxy is used for 1862 data are probably much larger.
I suggest skepticism when reading about such historical comparisons with modern temperature records.
I consider this long history to be more accurate than any recent reconstruction. Done by Trenberth.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/TNI_N34/index.html#Sec5
One can also use the numbers generated through the climate explorer.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectindex.cgi?id=someone@somewhere
Bill,
You must be kidding, saying that sailing ships and coal-powered steamships sailing commercial routes in the 1860s or 1870s measured the average surface temperature the Nino3.4 region of the Pacific to an accuracy of tenths of a degree C in a given month or quarter.
Too bizarre for comment.
@ur momisugly Bill Illis…thanks for the info on Super El Ninos. By my way of looking at what I am calling climate shifts the first date you show in 1862 would be 6 years into the warm trend from 185556 to 1885/86. The year 1877 is 8 years before the end of the same warm trend. The year 1891 is 6 years into the cool trend of 1885/86 to 1915/16. The year 1982 is 6 years after the start of the warm trend of 1976/77 to 2005/06, and 1997 is 8 years before the end of the last warm trend. I consider 2005/06 as the beginning of a cool trend.
Engineering science demonstrates CO2, in spite of being a ghg, has no effect on climate. Identification of the two factors that do cause reported average global temperature change (sunspot number is the only independent variable) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com (97% match since before 1900). Everything not explicitly included (such as aerosols, volcanos, non-condensing ghg, ice changes, uncertainty in measurements etc.) must find room in the unexplained 3%.
” His article is a masterpiece of propaganda, creating fear to advance his public policy agenda.”
Of course, there’s a name for people who use fear – and terror – to get what they want.
Chris
The real test of an El Nino lies in something more than a simple examination and comparison of the various indexes.
The test of the current 2015/6 Strong El Nino will be whether it results in a similar significant long term step change in temperatures as was coincident with the Super El Nino of 1997/8, or whether it simply results in a temporary blip that reveals 2015 and perhaps the first half of 2016 to be extremely warm (in relevant terms akin to the 2010 blips) but in the long term, following the next La Nina, temperatures drop back down to say around the 2001 to 2003 anomaly level such that by say 2018/19 the ‘pause’ will be over 20 years long.
In short will the ‘pause’ have been busted by the time AR6 is being prepared. If this current El Nino does not do that job, ie., if there is no long lasting step change in temperatures coincident with it, then whatever the various indexes say when compared to the 1997/98 Super El Nino, it will simply be Squidzilla, and not particularly memorable.
So what I am saying is that we can only judge this current Strong El Nino in say 2018. Then we will have a much better idea as to how it shapes up in comparison with the Super El Nino of 1997/98
Richard,
I agree, a step change would make this more than just another strong El Nino.
Also important, however, is the weather that results from this. Plummer gives scary numbers about the effect of the 1997/8 event, which are not substantial on a global scale. Will this event have smaller, similar, or larger effects on the weather? Too soon to say.
Here is something that I have been wondering about. Take a look at how NCEP depicts the daily ssta. Note the broad painting of a large area of warmth. http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/rtg_high_res/
Then take a look at either Tropical Tidbits…http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
or Weather Zone…http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=global&lc=global&c=ssta
The question I have is this. Does NOAA use NCEP data in determining the values for ENSO? If the y do, then maybe that is why the current El Nino stands so high, but does not appear to having a normal effect elsewhere.
It appears that as a result of my pointing out the above discrepancy between the ssta data sets that WeatherZone has now changed their ssta page to subscription only. Either that or I am being blocked from opening their page as I can no longer navigate on their page.
And the answer is, I was attacked and had to restore my computer. The Weather Zone page loaded properly after that, and all is well in the world, well sort of.
A quote –
“To put this in a larger context, the world has been warming over the entire 136 year-long temperature record — and “human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010” (from AR5).”
And how does the author justify that statement? That’s his statement, not the statement of the article he is discussing. WHERE did the perfect knowledge that human activities caused more than half of the observed change in surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 come from? I really would like to know.
Tom,
The quote you provide gives your answer: from AR5.
Paris: Another opportunity for leftist parasites to feel smug and get all-expense paid trips to the city of lights.
They pump up the expectations by releasing “throw away” statements about the future that have enough wiggle-room to drive an 18-wheeler through.
In the distant past these people were called “witch doctors” and shook rattles and chanted strange unintelligible things over their stupid but hopeful patients.
Later, they were called “Snake oil salesmen” that peddled alcohol and opium laced remedies from town to town, keeping on the move so that they were gone by the time people wised up.
Now they are “Climate Scientists” that want us to believe they will save the world, just send money. Lots, and lots of money.
We are no longer fooled.
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png
The 2m temperature spike seems to have peaked
Thanks for the 404 link!
The alarmists are 0 for 2 097 583 049 348 765 023 975 in their predictions.
Getting one right would be news though…
The latest model results from NOAA’s Weekly ENSO update
It’s just one model, a straw in the wind. However, it’s run weekly, unlike the monthly output available from the IRI/CPC. This predicts that the El Nino3.4 temperature anomaly peaked in November at roughly 3.8C — and will fall rapidly.
See the full report: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Another typo: should be “peaked at roughly 2.8C”, not 3.8C.
This upcoming “Nel Nino” looks very stretched out, being so long and skinny. Too bad it can’t last until the next spell of global cooling set to arrive with the next brutally attenuated (brutal, but then by Nature, and not by ISIS) sunspot cycle.
La Nada disappoints we drought stricken Californians.
James,
Thanks for the reminder! I hadn’t checked that. Here is the December 2015 – January 2016 forecast from NOAA’s Weekly ENSO update. Above average for California, but not a lot more. Bad news for us.
Also, not a lot of extreme weather forecast for the US by the temperature and precipitation forecast graphs in this report. No “monster” or “Godzilla” effects in these 2 kinds of weather.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
So far the precipitation in California has been below average for the 2015/2016 water year. The current reservoir level is also only 45% of average. The Dec-Feb period typically produces the most precipitation for the water year.
Richard,
Yes, the reservoirs are in awful shape. The good news is that the water year that began October 1 looks OK so far (see the summary pages below). The bad news is that Oct and Nov mean almost nothing. As you said, Dec – Fed are the big months. Let’s hope that NOAA’s Dec – Jan forecast is wrong, and that we get lots of snow.
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/floodER/hydro/
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/cgibin/snowup-graph.pl?state=CA
These give regional totals only. I see no totals for all of California. The Dept Water Resources summary page has not been updated for the new year yet: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/snow/COURSES
Temperature correlations to an El Nino event (with a good lag built-in). The top chart is the temperature change from normal in C. (The bottom one is the degree of correlation). Alaska to Minnesota and northern Canada warmer than normal the most, the rest of the planet is mostly slightly warmer and the US south-east and northern asia is colder than normal.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/ENSO/regressions/diag.temp.regr.JFM.png
Precipitation change in an El Nino event. Indonesia, Australia, the Amazon, and South Africa is much dryer. The US south-east and California are much wetter. Note the small square in the middle of the Pacific. It rains every day in the central equatorial Pacific during an El Nino. The tropical convection storms/clouds in the central equatorial Pacific hold more heat in from the warmer than normal sea surface (rather than letting it just go out to space) and this is really how the ENSO makes the planet warmer in an El Nino. The fact that this cloud development takes time to build-up and then spread around the world through the typical atmospheric circulation patterns is why there is a lag before the impact occurs. The opposite happens in a La Nina.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/ENSO/regressions/diag.prec.regr.JFM.png
El Niño events are natural. They have nothin to do with the non-meteorological parameter – Carbon Dioxide. And that’s all there is to say about it.
Furthermore, of the total amount of heat in the atmospheres approximately 5% is attributed to greenhouse trace gases, of which CO2 is the main one and is responsible for about 3.6% of the total amount of heat in the atmosphere, 95% of of the heat being attributed to water in the atmosphere.
The human contribution to atmospheric heat from CO2 emissions amounts to a ridiculously insignificant percentage … about 0.12%. It makes one wonder why the United Nations and its army of global warming alarmists are treating this as the greatest threat to the world! They’re insane!
Maybe you could consider insane yourself focusing on the greatest threat that could be global warming.. The threat is everything humans make.. Global warming only one of the possible consequences. Ocean acidification, insane also? deforestation, insane? lifestock disappearing, insane? you are insane.
In a previous thread that was devoted to the climatological ideas of the Fabius Maximus organization it was proved to Fabius Maximus that the climate models do not make predictions aka forecasts. Thus, it is disappointing to find them muddying the waters by claiming that the climate models do make predictions aka forecasts.
Terry,
When you have published your proof to widespread acclaim … then I’ll listen.
Also, these models work OK for the kind of short-term predictions discussed here (i.e., of an ongoing strong El Nino after the Spring forecasting “barrier”).
Terry,
I hit send before providing the link: “How Good Have ENSO Forecasts Been Lately?” by IRI Chief Forecaster Anthony Barnston, 26 Sept 2014.
Summary: “… the forecasts often provided useful information for the coming few months, but have more modest accuracy and value in forecasting farther into the future.”
http://iri.columbia.edu/news/how-good-have-enso-forecasts-been-lately/
Editor:
There is a logically important distinction between a “prediction” that is a kind of proposition and a “prediction” that is not. A model that makes “predictions” of the former variety is tied to logic. A model that makes “predictions” of the latter variety is divorced from logic. Barnston’s “predictions” are of the latter variety.
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website:
A peer reviewed proof is published at http://wmbriggs.com/post/7923/ . Can you refute it?
Terry,
It appears you have a different concept of “peer review” than the standard one.
As I said, “When you have published your proof to widespread acclaim … then I’ll listen.”
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website:
* My concept of “peer review” is the standard one of review by one or more peers and,
* In logic, whether there is “widespread acclaim” is irrelevant.
I forgot to include NOAA’s November update in my post: “November El Niño update: It’s a small world” by Emily Becker, 12 November 2015 — and this graphic…
Personally, I am hoping for a monster “Godzilla” el Nino if it brings some much needed rain to the western U.S. My lawn looks like crap.
This merely an off-topic reply because I seem to have lost contact with the expected emails that alert me to WUWT replies. I just hope to hear something in reply to this. Then I’ll know that it has been a temporary problem.
Robin
Spent Thanksgiving week in Phoenix with son and his wife. They are expecting a baby girl in May, their first child and our first grandchild.
One of our fun activities is visiting used book and thrift stores. On a previous trip I found a couple of interesting books on weather and climate. This trip among others I found “El Nino – Unlocking he Secrets of the Master Weather Maker” by J. Madeline Nash. Wow, fascinating reading. How the science behind el Nino developed, the scientist and organizations. Bjerknes, Leetma, CPC, PDO, AMO, Kelvin and Rossby waves, Rio Nido, etc. Published in 2002, 13 years after I first encountered AGW in 1989.
It’s El Nino, La Nina, PDO, AMO, wind and water vapor that drive the weather and climate, GHGs contribute nada, bee fart in a hurricane. But then many of you already knew that.