Four possible consequences of El Niño returning in 2023

submitted by [deleted] from (theconversation.com)

all 23 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Thinger 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years... and suddenly the weather is scary.

[–]Alphix 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well yeah... There is a wave of dust from the galactic current sheet that hit the solar system starting from 1859 and we are pretty much in the thick of it. This galactic dust accretes on the Sun, changing its properties, triggering a slew of weather phenomena on all the planets through interaction with each planet's magnetic field, upper atmosphere and other things. Uranus and Pluto had their atmosphere collapse, Jupiter's big red spot is changing, etc.

OBVIOUSLY the Earth isn't being spared this unusualness. Nothing to do with us, but the guvmints and Lizard Klaus will take advantage of ANYTHING to take us down as many pegs as they can. It's called oppression of the masses and it's been ongoing for thousands of years. Just now they're using climate change because it's happening, even though it has nothing to do with humans.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Like dinosaurs, or what is your point ?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're not aware of the science or impacts of climate change?

The world is warming, due to increases in greenhouse gasses due to human activity .It is now warmer than any existent species has experienced during its evolution. So many ecosystems are collapsing.

There are also impacts on agricultural and ocean productivity, and the sea level is rising, putting coastal property at increased risk of flooding or salination. Increased rainfall is also happening increasing inland flooding, and there's more energy in the systems that make the world's deserts, so they are pushing out, also decreasing agricultural productivity, and increasing fire risk.

[–]Alphix 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

A shitty summer here in Québec. Every single time this damned El Nino shows up, we get rain and clouds most of the summer. Sigh.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I read just yesterday that there already are some speculations that 2023 is 2024 in "light", so to say.

Some other people discussing this also believe that this incarnation of El Nino could last something like five years.

Combine this with increased sun-spot-activity, and you can imagine, what this decade possibly can look like.

Furthermore, I'm really disgusted by the fact that people living below the income median (the country doesn't actually matter) already are fulfilling the Paris climate targets for more than a decade, while on the other hand all those hyper-rich dumb fucks are the real source of most emission with their mostly completely stupid lifestyle decisions.

The cherry on top are the poor idiots shilling for Musk (e.g.) and his slavedriver-breed of ticks.

Or those people shilling for war. Wars obviously are an emission- and resource nightmare.

[–]Alphix 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Let's also reiterate actual science and facts: MODELS say that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas", but there is no proof, and the models are absolutely broken. The versions of climate models that are closer to actually working are those with very low CO2 sensitivity.

In other words: there is no evidence that CO2 warms the planet. There is tons of evidence however, that CO2 is plant food, which greens the planet and increases oxygen production... Hm...

Wait, they're burning forests to blame climate change and forcing CO2 levels lower... They are also cutting down on food production. Hm... Looks like a compounding effect to me.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

CO2 is a bit over 400 ppm, but many plants love CO2 levels up to 1600 ppm, and possibly higher. Balance the growth factors and most plants will experience accelerated growth and production with higher CO2 levels.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

(Mean) Temperatures worldwide are rising, for a fact. Just as the volatility of local weather extremes is on the rise, worldwide. So there is hard evidence that man-made exhaustion of CO2 and other carbohydrates has led to this. (Since this the only factor that changed, since humans believe, industrialization at all costs is a nice idea and implement this idea more and more). Plants and fungi themselves can't adapt fast enough, because this usually takes generations and not just some decades.

Human greed for profit has led to massive deforestation and loss of biodiversity worldwide.

Aside from that: You really wouldn't want oxygen to rise any higher than it is about now: This would lead to insects growing massively in size. These beings are limited in size mainly by the way, "how they breathe".

They are way better in turning carbohydrates into energy (glucose) than most mammals are (effectivity-wise considered). Their generations are relatively short, which implies they can adapt much faster to a changing environment than mammals can.

Just imagine a swarm of hornets, weighting kilos (or even only hundreds of grams) each, that decided you are their next meal.

Furthermore: Deforestation quite obviously frees carbohydrates into the atmosphere instead of producing oxygen, like you pathetically try to conclude.

But since you're quite entitled to your esoteric theories, I believe this argument to be pointless, no matter how we look at it.

Sadly or luckily, ignorance and stupidity aren't punishable.

I'm a fan of reading first and writing after that, but this gift seldom is given nowadays.

Canada itself is even sadder: Turning whole regions into barren deserts to harvest oil-sands. Should bring any person to think about it. Just by looking at pictures in a classical "before/after"-manner.

[–]Alphix 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No, it's NOT A FACT that they're rising. It all depends on what is the baseline year you are talking about. "But records only began in 1800" or whatever year is a bullshit argument. Geology goes back billions of years. And a century or two is a blink of an eye in the history of our planet. IT MEANS NOTHING.

About the volatility: there are EXTREME weather phenomena on ALL THE PLANETS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM. The atmospheres of Pluto and Neptune have just collapsed. They had atmospheres AND NOW THEY DON'T.

Is it human activity doing this? You'd have to be pretty ignorant and delirious to say yes.

And my point about rising CO2 means rising O2 as a consequence is simply that there are mechanisms of action that counteract each other. THE MODELS DO NOT WORK and all the BS you're spouting is based ON THESE MODELS. How about you read about THAT aspect of things before writing fiction.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It is nonetheless. Since these data are publicly available, temperatures are on the rise.

My most favourite (Swiss, fyi) meteorologist stated not long ago, that 3.7.2023 was the hottest day ever recorded, worldwide.

He even wrote an article.

Guess what: On 4.7.2023 he stated the same thing (with proof, of course).

And just to show you, how this dog runs: Why should I give a rat's ass about temperatures on Venus (e.g.) ?

This is just whataboutism on your end.

[–]Alphix 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah a century or two is barely the blink of an eye in the overall history of our planet. IT MEANS NOTHING.

Go back a few million years: you will see EXTENDED periods of much warmer than this and extended periods of colder than this. YES THE CLIMATE CHANGES ALL THE TIME. Who knew? Everybody with a few working brain cells.

Your pea brain can't understand that I'm not talking about just one planet, but ALL OF THEM. I guess I'm going to block you because you are too dumb to talk to.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Surely. If we're all dead rather sooner than later, because Elon needs his helicopter to visit his local Target, it maybe doesn't mean anything to you.

But to me, it does. Since he is the guy trying to sell me his bullshit smartphone as a car.

Just stop fighting. I "won" two comments ago. With a classical artillery shell-shock that bricked you quite well. Even your whataboutism didn't help after that.

So why should it help now ?

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just stop fighting. I won two comments ago. With a classical artillery shell-shock that bricked you quite well.

He's right. You're retard tier, and childish enough to be some kid under 40.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So there is hard evidence that man-made exhaustion of CO2 and other carbohydrates has led to this.

This is the false part. The rest is mainly true.

like you pathetically try to conclude.

Oh, you're one of those.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Elaborate, then, instead of pointing.

Elaborate your point as well, as I did mine, and maybe I'll even take you serious.

Because quite obviously you are one of those. (Just to keep your nonsensical level)

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not worth it. If believing the narrative makes you happy, keep doing it. Just note that addressing less credulous people with "like you pathetically try to conclude" exposes your level of credibility.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

We are in for a uniquely extreme all-natural El Nino system, since we had such an extreme event of 3 consecutive years of La Nina. It will have world wide impact, like it always does.

Looking at recent global average surface temperatures is meaningless. They are only useful on million year time scales because you'll have nothing better than an entire global average based on some proxy sources.

You have to remember that even the ice age was mostly an impact of the upper hemisphere.

That, and it mostly just measures the impact of covering the Earth's surface with concrete, streets, buildings, and other heat trapping man made materials. That and the increasing inability to find a ground surface thermometer weather station location that isn't too close to this types of heat-syncs (all the US ground surface stations our way out of spec and useless).

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

We are in for a uniquely extreme all-natural El Nino system

You say that the El Nino is all natural this time.

But there's no basis in fact to claim that the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is independent of global warming. Modelling and historical evidence are consistent in implying that it is changing because of global warming, and intensifying is among those changes.

Now, however, it is apparent that models that best capture key ENSO dynamics also tend to project an increase in future ENSO sea surface temperature variability and, thereby, ENSO magnitude under greenhouse warming, as well as an eastward shift and intensification of ENSO-related atmospheric teleconnections — the Pacific–North American and Pacific–South American patterns. Such projected changes are consistent with palaeoclimate evidence of stronger ENSO variability since the 1950s compared with past centuries. - Changing El Niño–Southern Oscillation in a warming climate

Looking at recent global average surface temperatures is meaningless.

Surely looking at recent global average surface temperatures shows you recent changes in global average surface temperatures.

This is the part of global warming that we have the most measurements of, and the geographical pattern has meaning in understanding which models are working, and where predicted impacts are likely to happen.

Also from a basic physics perspective they show that the world is warming.

They are only useful on million year time scales because you'll have nothing better than an entire global average based on some proxy sources.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. "[Y]ou'll have nothing better than an entire global average based on some proxy sources" doesn't make sense. Proxy temperature sources give local temperature, not global average temperature. Inferring an average from mulitple proxies is how temperature reconstruction is done, and "have nothing better" makes no sense in this context. That's the only and best we have.

But none of that makes clear what you mean about only being useful on the million year time scales. The instrumental temperature record covers the anthropogenic warming period, which is the most important to understand. That's on a daily time step and covers 170 years.

You have to remember that even the ice age was mostly an impact of the upper hemisphere.

Upper? Do you mean northern? "The ice age" is ambiguous in geology. Technically we are in an ice age, and have been for 2.58 million years. Withing that there have been glacial periods that are less formally called "ice ages". The last one ended about 11,000 years ago.

But both of those affect both hemispheres. The ice age came with large ice sheets forming on both Greenland and Antarctica, and the last glaciation saw glaciers advance in both hemispheres.

That, and it mostly just measures the impact of covering the Earth's surface with concrete, streets, buildings, and other heat trapping man made materials.

No, that's not the case for most instrumental records. For data sets to be analysed in the field of global warming, which is all the global temperature data sets, the urban heat island effect is detected and removed, along with any anomaly that affects one station more than surrounding stations.

But there are papers that show that the overall impact of the urban heat island effect is small enough to be undetectable:

For instance: Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found

The observed warming in the globally averaged surface temperature is a real warming, increasing mostly from the anthropogenic increase in the greenhouse effect.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You say that the El Nino is all natural this time.

Yes, it is a well known, but hard to predict, natural phenomenon related to ocean and air temperatures cycle around the planet. Yes, people can form hypothesis predictions of how it might change, like one might attempt to predict the weather. Similarly to the weatherman, supported by a wealth of data and computation, but still rarely able to do more than come close, as the great many factors involved that are ignored, lead to wild and fanciful predictions.

Upper? Do you mean northern?

Yes. Please excuse my mistake.

"The ice age" is ambiguous in geology.

While ambiguous, we have well established historic start and stop points for communicating history and scientific comparisons.

No, that's not the case for most instrumental records. For data sets to be analysed in the field of global warming, which is all the global temperature data sets, the urban heat island effect is detected and removed, along with any anomaly that affects one station more than surrounding stations.

I was not talking about the urban island effect, as I explained in detail and will do so again...

Surely looking at recent global average surface temperatures shows you recent changes in global average surface temperatures.

We don't have a reliable way to measure surface temperatures in the US. Most other developed countries likely struggle as well. Measuring surface temperature accurately requires measurement stations reliably placed away from sources of heat and heat syncs (man-made materials that trap heat, ie concrete, buildings, etc). USGS standards require surface stations to be 30 feet from heat sync sources. Our last assessment of ground surface stations found that 90% of them were out of spec and likely to produce inflated values. This assessment was met with fierce opposition and stone walling. It resulted in a great embarrassment to the USGS, who was responsible for enforcing and evaluating their participating volunteer stations. Many of hem were so overtly terrible, such as being mere feet away from air condition heat outputs, in parking lots, and at hot water springs, that the their ineptitude led to a defensive response and further removal of transparency. We don't even get the data now, we get data after it is massaged by a formula meant to make the new 2000 stations added after the 2015 embarrassment, to be more like the bad data from the pre-2015 out of spec stations.

I am happy to help you understand these topics, as long as my extensive excretions of time are not in vein...

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, it is a well known, but hard to predict, natural phenomenon related to ocean and air temperatures cycle around the planet.

I linked you to a paper showing that it is intensified by global warming.

My point is that when you say its "All natural", you're wrong. It is intensified by human activity.

as the great many factors involved that are ignored, lead to wild and fanciful predictions.

The paper I linked showed that the majority of models align with palaeoclimate records that also "suggest a causal connection between vertical temperature stratification and ENSO strength."

So this is less "wild and fanciful" and more "predicted and also measured".

we have well established historic start and stop points for communicating history and scientific comparisons.

Are you talking about the Quaternary glaciation, or the Last Glacial Period?

Because they're both called "ice age" and they are different phenomena. One is still going on. One is finished. One started 25 times earlier than the other.

Hence the ambiguity.

I was not talking about the urban island effect, as I explained in detail and will do so again...

Okay

Measuring surface temperature accurately requires measurement stations reliably placed away from sources of heat and heat syncs (man-made materials that trap heat, ie concrete, buildings, etc).

That is the urban heat island effect.

Our last assessment of ground surface stations found that 90% of them were out of spec and likely to produce inflated values.

Link me to this assessment.

But know that changes to surface stations are corrected for. From old buckets to high-tech buoys: why initial temperature data need to be adjusted

I am happy to help you understand these topics, as long as my extensive excretions of time are not in vein...

Good on ya mate.

So far I've pointed out that you incorrectly label the recent El Nino as "all natural".

And I've pointed out that the temperature measurements are not due to anomalous ground station measurements.

But I'd be interested in your assessment of global ground stations, so long as it's from a genuine scientific source: Obviously I'm not going to read some bullshit from Watts up with that?

But given the value you put on your time, I expect that you wouldn't be trying to pass that off as "analysis".

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My point is that when you say its "All natural", you're wrong. It is intensified by human activity.

This time around, it is intensified by having an unprecedented 3 years strait of cold ocean surface waters (La Nina). This is the swing back to warm ocean surface waters (El Nino). After one extreme swing, we can rationally expect a somewhat extreme swing back (actually this was heavily predicted ahead of time by almost every weather officiant). This is convenient for people misrepresenting causal relations, especially if they ignore the relation to the previous 3 years.

That is the urban heat island effect.

No, that is improper and out of specification USGS ground temperature stations. The urban heat island effect is when this effect is so concentrated that it extends past the 30 feet from a ground temperature statue the USGS requires. When you mount a ground temperature status in a parking lot or in front of an building's air conditioner's outside hot air blower, this isn't an effect, it is simply a mistake and a station that doesn't meet the USGS' requirements. In 2015, more than 90% of our stations were out of spec in this way, leading to an obvious incorrect inflation of flawed ground temperature readings, which likely grew slowly over 20 years as more out of spec stations were carelessly added. Our more recent attempts to fix this, came with sketchy and non-transparent algorithms which were expressly meant to mimic the value of these bad flawed stations...for some reason.

So far I've pointed out that you incorrectly label the recent El Nino as "all natural".

Yes, El Nino's are common and natural. They are a product of the Earths thermal air and ocean cycles.

And I've pointed out that the temperature measurements are not due to anomalous ground station measurements.

You've misunderstood, yet again, after I've explained going on 3 times.

But I'd be interested in your assessment of global ground stations, so long as it's from a genuine scientific source: Obviously I'm not going to read some bullshit from Watts up with that?

They did one in 2015, despite heavy push back. It was published and highly regarded, very embarrassing, and it is easy to find. This was the second one, which found that after the first embarrassment some years before, that things got even worse.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This time around, it is intensified by having an unprecedented 3 years strait of cold ocean surface waters (La Nina).

As the paper I linked provides evidence for, global warming is intensifying the ENSO. That includes both the El Nino and La Nina phases.

I'm not aware that a strong La Nina doesn't mean that a following El Nino will be strong, because of that. Can you link me to the research that establishes this causal link you're claiming?

After one extreme swing, we can rationally expect a somewhat extreme swing back (actually this was heavily predicted ahead of time by almost every weather officiant).

That's what you need to show.

The urban heat island effect is when this effect is so concentrated that it extends past the 30 feet from a ground temperature statue the USGS requires.

Nope. "Heat islands are urbanized areas that experience higher temperatures than outlying areas.". No minimum distance from a station required.

In 2015, more than 90% of our stations were out of spec in this way, leading to an obvious incorrect inflation of flawed ground temperature readings, which likely grew slowly over 20 years as more out of spec stations were carelessly added. Our more recent attempts to fix this, came with sketchy and non-transparent algorithms which were expressly meant to mimic the value of these bad flawed stations...for some reason.

I've show you a paper that demonstrates this effect to be small. But also urban temperature measurements are avoided or adjusted so as not to affect the mean temperature with purely local effects.

This article reviews the effects that urban heat islands may have on estimates of global near-surface temperature trends. These effects have been reduced by avoiding or adjusting urban temperature measurements.

The particular algorithms are generally available for a temperature data set you're looking at, if it's based on surface station data.

It was published and highly regarded, very embarrassing, and it is easy to find.

No it wasn't. Follow the money.

This was the second one, which found that after the first embarrassment some years before, that things got even worse.

Oh, boy, you've been drinking the cool aid.

There's scholarly papers on temperature measurements. There's no reason you need to drop down to paid advocates supporting the fossil fuel industry.

I've linked to some of them in this thread, so they're easier to find. Read them. You'll discover the instrumental temperature data is pretty good.

FFS, the temperature trend from satellite measurements is greater than that from the NASA GISTEMP: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1980/plot/rss/from:1980/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/trend

I assume you can work out that satellite measured temperatures aren't affected by your "temperature stations are inaccurate" bullshit?

Good.