My understanding is that El Nino reduces the chances of the Atlantic hurricanes so a mild Atlantic and Gulf Hurricane season is probably the most direct affect on Houston. The biggest region of the US affected by El Nino is the West Coast leading to much heavier precipitation and that is the case this winter. In the upper Midwest El Nino causes a mild winter, in 1998 when the last massive El Nino that was a very mild winter too and so far and this has been a very mild winter this season.
I wonder if there is any analysis on things like "weather variability" as having increased in the last few decades. We seem to be getting very cold winters and then some very mild ones. It was 66 in NYC yesterday.
This is very much a layman's understanding. What I have read is that yes the increased heat retention is increasing weather variability. The weather is a very dynamic system and retaining more energy in it is likely to increase the amount of dynamism in it.
Good grief now it's all about "dynamism". Do you know how ridiculous you sound? So we've gone from "global warming" to "climate change" to "dynamism". What's next, the Boogeyman?
Yeah I can see where you'd need to try to jump in to help your fallen comrade. Dynamism. Sounds *mystic*!
Ah, what a noble technique we see on display. An old and bloodied playbook opened once more. (1) locate a non-expert who is just honestly trying to think about and contribute to a conversation (2) quote that person as if they speak for "the opposition" (in this case climate scientists) (3) ridicule semantics, (as opposed to engaging intellectual content) (4) tacitly suggest that your opponents' view (in this case anthropogenic warming) is silly / a hoax / fake / a bad idea. (5) repeat. Shocked to see such dishonest and dubious strategy employed so clumsily here on the CF.
You know what's a joke, Bieber-Bob? Tracking a single year's winter and equating it to (or trying to justify) "climate change". Surely your scientific background can acknowledge that, I would hope.
the thread title is quite oxymoronic. regardless the weather, nor the climate is getting warmer. even if the planet was getting hotter, the billions of humans on this planet would have zero capacity to impact said climate in any way. you win.
If you are responding to my above post on the oxymoronic nature of the thread title: Besides not mentioning "weather" in the title, how should we measure climate change without observation of weather systems?
To repeat what I wrote earlier and what have stated several time. Any single weather phenomena like a snow storm isn't itself indicative of climate change. While this has been, up until this week, a remarkably warm winter in much of the US that itself isn't proof of global warming. What matters are the trends which would be looking over a longer term period than just one winter. Especially when these threads have been primarily focused on looking at seasonal weather in only a part of the planet. To put it in other terms this would be like determining whether there is a bull or bear market by looking at stocks in one sector over one day.
Bull and bear markets run over 8 or 10 years, to plot climate, the shortest trend lines, as I understand it, are about 50 years, better over a hundred and really attributable over a thousand. But there is always a disconnect from the short term thinkers and the long term thinkers, whether next quarters profits and bonuses are the most important factor or the long term health of the company for generations is the most important factor. The strange thing is, the same people that say, the deficit is burdening our children and grandchildren don't see climatic upheaval as having the same effect. This is an interesting Winter though and perhaps a foreshadowing of a future Dynamism. Maybe it's worth investing in science and taking the conservative approach to address the issue. "Conservative" you know err on the side of caution.
Lot's of records being broken here. I'm not saying it's El Niño, but it's El Niño. http://www.weather.com/storms/winter/news/winter-storm-jonas-rank-in-history
So why do people fall for Bloomberg's **** when he blames the devastation of Sandy on climate change instead of his and the local/federal governments incompetence in preparing for a storm through better infrastructure? We could have another one next year or not have one for 100 years. They were caught with their pants down not preparing one of the most expensive and populous pieces of land and everyone blamed climate change.
I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. Are you saying that Climate Change isn't happening and that Sandy was just a failure of poor planning? Or are you saying that people are basing their belief in Climate Change on what Bloomberg said? While Bloomberg did blame the amount of devastation from Sandy on Climate Change I think most people agree that there were failures due to poor planning and infrastructure. I doubt many are basing their acceptance of climate change primarily on what Bloomberg said. This isn't really an either/or situation. Climate Change very well could've exacerbated the damage from Sandy and NYC had planned poorly.
Uh-oh, Spaghetti-O! Turns out there was a pause/hiatus after all. Can't wait to hear from the flat-earthers. [rQUOTEr] Global warming ‘hiatus’ debate flares up again The latest salvo in an ongoing row over global-warming trends claims that warming has indeed slowed down this century. An apparent slowing in the rise of global temperatures at the beginning of the twenty-first century, which is not explained by climate models, was referred to as a “hiatus” or a “pause” when first observed several years ago. Climate-change sceptics have used this as evidence that global warming has stopped. But in June last year, a study in Science claimed that the hiatus was just an artefact which vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected1. Now a prominent group of researchers is countering that claim, arguing in Nature Climate Change that even after correcting these biases the slowdown was real2.[/rQUOTEr]
