|
|
Post by commonsense on Aug 23, 2011 1:13:38 GMT
Or, should I ask: would this ENSO only be 'record breaking' if we tie it directly in with AGW? Is that the ticket? That seems to be the only way to get you baby boomer careerist AGW 'warmists' to accept the fact that humanity has no control or influence over the Earth's global climate and weather. That was quite a long, rambling, insulting, and incoherent post. I'll just comment on the above snippet. Understanding AGW and its ramifications has little to do with ENSO, though ENSO events affect the weather over the period of a few years. Thus, events like the recent La Nina can mask the effects of AGW for a while. ENSO has two phases. To call an ENSO pair "record breaking" implies that one or the other phase, or perhaps both, were deeper and/or longer than any other pair of phases. Clearly, that is not true in this case. Perhaps we could move this thread a bit away from witchcraft more towards the actual science of ENSO forecasting. Here's some quotes on the subject: www.usc.edu/org/seagrant/Education/elnino/quotes.html |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Aug 23, 2011 3:41:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 23, 2011 4:00:55 GMT
Or, should I ask: would this ENSO only be 'record breaking' if we tie it directly in with AGW? Is that the ticket? That seems to be the only way to get you baby boomer careerist AGW 'warmists' to accept the fact that humanity has no control or influence over the Earth's global climate and weather. That was quite a long, rambling, insulting, and incoherent post. I'll just comment on the above snippet. Understanding AGW and its ramifications has little to do with ENSO, though ENSO events affect the weather over the period of a few years. Thus, events like the recent La Nina can mask the effects of AGW for a while. ENSO has two phases. To call an ENSO pair "record breaking" implies that one or the other phase, or perhaps both, were deeper and/or longer than any other pair of phases. Clearly, that is not true in this case. Perhaps we could move this thread a bit away from witchcraft more towards the actual science of ENSO forecasting. Here's some quotes on the subject: www.usc.edu/org/seagrant/Education/elnino/quotes.htmlFor one, I am not in need of being tutored what ENSO is as I am fully aware of the climate event as I forecasted this most recent ENSO. If anyone requires instruction, it would be you. Moreover, there was nothing 'rambling' about my post. Deal with what was written should you want to debate this subject of which I am an expert. If you cannot do so, then perhaps you should go play elsewhere so you can pass off your uninformed opinions as fact without anyone with intelligence knowing the difference. Other than that, learn more than you express because so far you have not shown much intelligence on that which you choose to comment. There is no such thing as La Nina 'masking' AGW. That is a load of bullshit since the greenhouse effect as said to be caused by humanity is mathematically impossible to take place on Earth because it violates the laws of physics and thermodynamics. No amount of obfuscation, junk science, AGW alarmism or fuzzy math will change the physical laws that regulate the climate on Earth. Also, what you erroneously call 'witchcraft' are the very origins of the science of what was known as weather prophecy - called in our post-modern times climatology and meteorology - invented by astrologers. Get the history and your facts straight kiddo. Just because you lack knowledge of astronomic forecasting does not mean that you are in a position to debase it. That reeks of ignorance and frankly is a stupid thing to do. Quit trying to find ways to label something negative just because you are unlearned in the subject. Not only is it intellectually dishonest but it will not progress your understanding of your own planet's climate one bit and is the sign of an immature mind at work. Get a grip and begin to use more than 10% of your own brain's capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 23, 2011 10:34:49 GMT
There is no such thing as La Nina 'masking' AGW. That is a load of bullshit since the greenhouse effect as said to be caused by humanity is mathematically impossible to take place on Earth because it violates the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
The greenhouse effect does not violate the laws of physics and thermodynamics. You keep repeating this ignorant claptrap - always without evidence.
As for ENSO. We know ENSO 'cycles' exist. Judging by your posts over the past couple of years ENSO is a fairly unfamiliar concept to you.
Most of us who read this blog regularly were aware that, some time ago, you were predicting that the 2009/10 EL Nino would continue for a further 18 months (when most of us realised it had already ended). Just after this, you stopped posting for a while before returning to claim that the then established La Nina was part of the continuing El Nino and that your prediction had been validated. It was utter crap.
commonsense has stated that the effects of a La Nina can mask the underlying global warming trend (let's leave aside the reason for the warming for now). This is clearly true. The transisition from EL Nino to La Nina can result in a ~0.5 deg drop in surface air temperatures. This is bound to influence the short term trend. However, over the longer term, the warming trend continues.
In 1986/88 there was a fairly intense El Nino. Note El Nino conditions started in mid-1986 and continued thoughout 1987.
The average UAH anomaly for Jan-Jul 1987 was -0.0014 deg
In 2010/2011 there was a strong La Nina which has just entered a mildly neutral phase, but 2011 has been stongly affected by La Nina conditions.
The average UAH anomaly for Jan-Jul 2011 is 0.1215 deg
In other words the troposphere is now warmer during a La Nina than it was during an El Nino 24 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 23, 2011 19:14:23 GMT
There is no such thing as La Nina 'masking' AGW. That is a load of bullshit since the greenhouse effect as said to be caused by humanity is mathematically impossible to take place on Earth because it violates the laws of physics and thermodynamics.The greenhouse effect does not violate the laws of physics and thermodynamics. You keep repeating this ignorant claptrap - always without evidence. As for ENSO. We know ENSO 'cycles' exist. Judging by your posts over the past couple of years ENSO is a fairly unfamiliar concept to you. Most of us who read this blog regularly were aware that, some time ago, you were predicting that the 2009/10 EL Nino would continue for a further 18 months (when most of us realised it had already ended). Just after this, you stopped posting for a while before returning to claim that the then established La Nina was part of the continuing El Nino and that your prediction had been validated. It was utter crap. commonsense has stated that the effects of a La Nina can mask the underlying global warming trend (let's leave aside the reason for the warming for now). This is clearly true. The transisition from EL Nino to La Nina can result in a ~0.5 deg drop in surface air temperatures. This is bound to influence the short term trend. However, over the longer term, the warming trend continues. In 1986/88 there was a fairly intense El Nino. Note El Nino conditions started in mid-1986 and continued thoughout 1987. The average UAH anomaly for Jan-Jul 1987 was -0.0014 degIn 2010/2011 there was a strong La Nina which has just entered a mildly neutral phase, but 2011 has been stongly affected by La Nina conditions. The average UAH anomaly for Jan-Jul 2011 is 0.1215 degIn other words the troposphere is now warmer during a La Nina than it was during an El Nino 24 years ago. What is 'utter crap' GLC is this continued bullshit of AGW being inserted into any and every single climate/weather event - that's the 'utter crap' - as AGW - once more - cannot take place on Earth because it is mathematically impossible. AGW violates the laws of physics and no amount of AGW crap is going to change the mathematical facts. Period. You can espouse AGW make-believe with made-up fuzzy numbers until doomsday but it will not make AGW anymore real whatsoever. At all. Why will you not accept the laws of physics? Why won't you get both your oars in the water? History will prove and show the world how those pushing AGW into every subject by means of blaming humanity was not only stupid but very expensive. The resources wasted on so-called 'climate change' are so vast as to boggle the mind. And it's all bullshit, to simply line the pockets of groups who cannot forecast and who have made a mockery of climate science. Until you learn to respect the laws of thermodynamics and physics and quit drinking that AGW kool-aid you will get nowhere even close to truly understanding the Earth's climate. Pass over the AGW ideology and do yourself a favor, and you will then be able to accept the truth that it is the Sun, Moon and planets that regulate and force the Earth's climate and weather - not humanity. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 24, 2011 9:21:38 GMT
AGW violates the laws of physics
Again - no evidence. Could you attempt to provide a simple explananation of why you think AGW "violates the laws of physics".
|
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Aug 24, 2011 11:02:38 GMT
glc writes "Again - no evidence. Could you attempt to provide a simple explananation of why you think AGW "violates the laws of physics". "
Let me put in my 2 cents worth. AGW does NOT violate the laws of physics. The explanation of how GHGs warm the atmosphere by changing the radiaion balance is just plain wrong. G&T have proved this. But G&T must be read, not as criticising the GHE, but as a criticism of the specific physics of how GHGs operate, as put out by the warmholics. GHGs must work by changing the lapse rate. How this happens I have no idea, but it is the only logical explanation. If this is true, then we have no idea by how much GHGs increaae surface temperatuyres. See what I wrote on the thread "Lapse rate".
This is part of my idea that GHGs work by inhibiting the rate at which the earth's surface transmits energy to those parts of the atmosphere where this energy is radiated into space.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Aug 24, 2011 17:48:31 GMT
I am not a forecaster, nor do I play one... like astromet. On the other hand, I was looking at a graph that astro quoted the other day. Page 27 here: www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdfAnd I noticed, one page away, page 28 seemed to be predicting something quite different... Help me out, why give two completely different predictions... I mean, the page 27 prediction, seems to tell us that we could be in either an el nino or la nina by SON(September, October, November), in a little more then a month, but most likely will remain neutral. Talk about helpful. Not. Heck Asromet or any of the AGW crowd could have made that prediction, (Whoops, Astro did use that in a prediciton), never mind. It is not falsifiable. El nino? predicted that. La Nina? Predicted that. Neutral, predicted that. It predicts EVERYTHING, but is not very useful... The other graph, on page 28 is a little different... Looks like a little girl to me... Maybe I should try my hand at making a prediction, after, the last one I made is looking good. Sorry 'met... I predict... Something will happen!!! And I'll be right. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 24, 2011 18:10:35 GMT
I am not a forecaster, nor do I play one... like astromet. On the other hand, I was looking at a graph that astro quoted the other day. Page 27 here: www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdfAnd I noticed, one page away, page 28 seemed to be predicting something quite different... Help me out, why give two completely different predictions... I mean, the page 27 prediction, seems to tell us that we could be in either an el nino or la nina by SON(September, October, November), in a little more then a month, but most likely will remain neutral. Talk about helpful. Not. Heck Asromet or any of the AGW crowd could have made that prediction, (Whoops, Astro did use that in a prediciton), never mind. It is not falsifiable. El nino? predicted that. La Nina? Predicted that. Neutral, predicted that. It predicts EVERYTHING, but is not very useful... The other graph, on page 28 is a little different... Looks like a little girl to me... Maybe I should try my hand at making a prediction, after, the last one I made is looking good. Sorry 'met... I predict... Something will happen!!! And I'll be right. Exactly, you are not a forecaster, nor are you versed in the principles that regulate the Earth's climate so rather than pine on endlessly why don't you do more listening and observing the climate rather than talking - because that is how you learn. I strongly suggest that you learn how to discern and read climate readings and 'product' graphs while at the same time learning not to make pronouncements and guesses based on them. That is not how to forecast. All you are doing is playing. As for NOAA - They did not forecast the most recent ENSO, so I fail to see as to why you place such confidence in their current 'predictions,' as you call it. I don't know how old you are dontgetoutmuch, however your comments show that you are inexperienced and lack knowledge of the climate and weather to the extent of quipping as if you do. Opinions are not forecasts. There are plenty of people out there claiming that they are knowledgeable, but in reality, few are even versed on the basics of the Earth's climate to be able to even offer up informed opinions. It is better for you to do less commenting and more learning so that when you post, you won't come off as ignorant of your own planet's climate system. It's the only planet you've got, so why not actually learn some truths about it rather than coming off as a smartass without a clue? |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 24, 2011 18:15:10 GMT
AGW violates the laws of physics Again - no evidence. Could you attempt to provide a simple explananation of why you think AGW "violates the laws of physics". Are you unable to read? We've been down this road more than once Glc, so why don't you go over what has been outlined to you and others repeatedly, rather than the need for you to waste more time? The problem with those who push the lie of AGW is that not only are they ignorant - and purposefully blind to the wealth of evidence - but also arrogant to tell others humanity is the cause of global warming when not only is that totally false, but also insults the intelligence of those who know better. The evidence that AGW violates the laws of physics is plenty. Try some real science: Physicists Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner clearly proved that AGW is mathematically impossible to occur on the Earth: 1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.
2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the realm of pure science-fiction(a) There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects.
(b) There are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet.
(c) The frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly.
(d) The formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately.
(e) The assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical.
(f) Thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s scientific climate report is detailed at 115 pages and includes 144 equations, 13 data tables, with 32 figures and graphs as well as 205 references. The German physicists prove without a doubt that even if CO2 concentrations double - a prospect even global warming advocates admit may be many decades away - the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%. They show with facts that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the Earth works as an “open” climate system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving the physical laws of thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation. All through the paper both scientists clearly show how the greenhouse gas theory relies on 'guesstimates' about the scientific properties involved to 'calculate' the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers. "This thorough debunking of the theory of man-made warming disproves that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal 'forcing' effect on the warmer surface below.
To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. As there is no glass roof on the earth to trap the excess heat, it escapes upward into space. Thus we may conclude that the common sense axioms are preserved so that the deeper the ocean, the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED." See -> arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdfThe fact that some of you who buy into the AGW mania proves that you have much to learn about astrophysics and geophysics and the fact that the Earth, the planet you inhabit, lives in space. You've spent an inordinate amount of time (along with the other AGW alarmists) ignoring that which is obvious and that is the fact that AGW cannot occur on the Earth - period. The fact that the greenhouse effect is mathematically impossible is something that has been discussed and outlined here on this board and on this thread many times. It is a 'simple' thing for you to discover the physical laws that make AGW impossible on Earth rather than to close your eyes and stick your head in the sand to principles that are not going to change for anyone - including you. You can argue until you are blue in the face - but that will not alter, nor change one bit the laws of physics that make AGW mathematically impossible on Earth. The fact that you (and others) either don't want to, or refuse to accept this speaks volumes for intellectual dishonesty and proves that not only do you not have a clue as to the workings of the climate but would rather live in a fantasy world which has nothing to do with the realities and science whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Aug 24, 2011 18:40:03 GMT
Astromet, does this mean that you are standing by your prediction that we will not see La Nina reemerge this fall? I'm just wondering how that is working out for you?
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 24, 2011 18:42:54 GMT
Astromet, does this mean that you are standing by your prediction that we will not see La Nina reemerge this fall? I'm just wondering how that is working out for you? Considering the fact that the fall season in the northern hemisphere is a month away and not here yet, I'm just wondering if you can read a calendar. We are past the worst of the 2009-2011 ENSO. You can play with 'products' from models all you want, but the fact remains that until you open your eyes to the natural world - that is the real world of climate and weather - you're only going to continue to fail to get both your oars in the water and all 52 cards in your deck. This is why I am so stringent on taking conventional 'forecast models' at more than just an arm's length. Those calling for another full-blown La Niña is not confirmed. If you look at what they are saying with the so-called 'forecast models' you will note that it is all uncertain and quite mixed. The majority of them are only "suggesting a double-dip La Niña," but they are not forecasting. They are waiting for "additional data before increasing the odds of a return to La Niña." Translated it Means This - All 22 major climate centers, including NOAA did not forecast this ENSO, nor have they scored above 10% in their seasonal forecasts stretching over the last decade. The modelers continue to confuse their research with forecasting - these are not the same. Moreover, since they did not predict the recent 2009-2011 ENSO, nor the arrival of La Nina on the back of El Nino, nor did they forecast the strength of ENSO when it was apparent to all that it had arrived in mid-2009 - they are now wishcasting La Nina to return. This, when even most of their 'models' show a return to neutral La Nina values you continue to have 'forecasters' who depend wholly on them guessing. That's not forecasting. Again, since I was the only forecaster who forecasted ENSO before it arrived I think I might have a decent idea as to when ENSO is over don't you think? I continue to state that the worst of the recent ENSO is past us. We are entering the last phases of solar-forced global warming with about six (6) years to go. The climate will be mostly drier (extreme in some regions with drought) and warmer generally. This is the last cycle of global warming as we transition into a new climate regime. We will not see another significant ENSO until after 2017 according to my long-range astronomic calculations. |
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Aug 24, 2011 21:16:04 GMT
Astromet, does this mean that you are standing by your prediction that we will not see La Nina reemerge this fall? I'm just wondering how that is working out for you? Considering the fact that the fall season in the northern hemisphere is a month away and not here yet, I'm just wondering if you can read a calendar. We are past the worst of the 2009-2011 ENSO. You can play with 'products' from models all you want, but the fact remains that until you open your eyes to the natural world - that is the real world of climate and weather - you're only going to continue to fail to get both your oars in the water and all 52 cards in your deck. Does this mean that you are standing by your prediction that we will not see La Nina reemerge this fall? P.S. Please don't tell us what 'products' you play with... We don't want to know. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 24, 2011 21:26:25 GMT
Considering the fact that the fall season in the northern hemisphere is a month away and not here yet, I'm just wondering if you can read a calendar. We are past the worst of the 2009-2011 ENSO. You can play with 'products' from models all you want, but the fact remains that until you open your eyes to the natural world - that is the real world of climate and weather - you're only going to continue to fail to get both your oars in the water and all 52 cards in your deck. Does this mean that you are standing by your prediction that we will not see La Nina reemerge this fall? P.S. Please don't tell us what 'products' you play with... We don't want to know. No, I'm not standing by my prediction. I'm just playing around as I sit here in my mom's basement... Listen kiddo, you do realize that this is a pro board, yes? You are talking with an expert forecaster so respect that before you come off with pithy 'predictions' and half-assed NOAA climate products you spout here on the board. Exactly what are you trying to prove with these 'products?' If you are from Alaska, then you should know better than to depend on conventional forecasters who have not forecasted a single ENSO event in advance. Not one. Climate science and meteorology is not a game, though you and some others continue to stomp on it as if it is some kind of playground. We're not babysitters here. You get my meaning? Wise up. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Aug 25, 2011 1:19:39 GMT
No, I'm not standing by my prediction. I'm just playing around as I sit here in my mom's basement... I'm stunned, I can't remember you ever telling the truth before... Listen kiddo, you do realize that this is a pro board, yes? Yes, which makes us all wonder what you are doing posting here. You are talking with an expert forecaster so respect that before you come off with pithy 'predictions' and half-assed NOAA climate products you spout here on the board. Dude, you should probably have thought about that one before you typed it out... Yes, the models that NOAA has are crap, we can agree on that, but I wasn't spouting the model, I was spouting about how wrong your ENSO prediction is starting to look, and I was wondering if you would admit that your "expert" forcast was just as wrong, if not more so then the NOAA prediction that you are insulting. And yes, you can go back and delete your prediction, but you can't delete it where it is quoted by another poster can you? Exactly what are you trying to prove with these 'products?' Nothing, other than they are crap, but not as crappy as your stuff... If you are from Alaska, then you should know better than to depend on conventional forecasters who have not forecasted a single ENSO event in advance. Not one. Which is why you need to put up or shut up. Because you are doing worse than the guys you are insulting. Climate science and meteorology is not a game, though you and some others continue to stomp on it as if it is some kind of playground. We're not babysitters here. You get my meaning? Wise up. Thanks. I agree, we are not babysitters here Astroboy. So stop your bed-wetting, and stop your childish holier then thou attitude and offer something to the conversation other then arrogant asstrogass tripe that contains a lot ego stroking and insults, but very little substance. |
|
