Climate scientists baffled at La Nina's frequency and endurance. "The models predict more El Ninos"....

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
110,290
82,944
113
Something weird is up with La Nina, the natural but potent weather event linked to more drought and wildfires in the western United States and more Atlantic hurricanes. It’s becoming the nation’s unwanted weather guest and meteorologists said the West’s megadrought won’t go away until La Nina does.

The current double-dip La Nina set a record for strength last month and is forecast to likely be around for a rare but not quite unprecedented third straight winter. And it’s not just this one. Scientists are noticing that in the past 25 years the world seems to be getting more La Ninas than it used to and that is just the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say should be happening with human-caused climate change.

“They (La Ninas) don’t know when to leave,” said Michelle L’Heureux, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecast office for La Nina and its more famous flip side, El Nino.

An Associated Press statistical analysis of winter La Ninas show that they used to happen about 28% of the time from 1950 to 1999, but in the past 25 winters, they’ve been brewing nearly half the time. There’s a small chance that this effect could be random, but if the La Nina sticks around this winter, as forecast, that would push the trend over the statistically significant line, which is key in science, said L’Heureux. Her own analysis shows that La Nina-like conditions are occurring more often in the last 40 years. Other new studies are showing similar patterns.

What’s bothering many scientists is that their go-to climate simulation models that tend to get conditions right over the rest of the globe predict more El Ninos, not La Ninas, and that’s causing contention in the climate community about what to believe, according to Columbia University climate scientist Richard Seager and MIT hurricane scientist Kerry Emanuel.

What Seager and other scientists said is happening is that the eastern equatorial Atlantic is not warming as fast as the western equatorial Atlantic or even the rest of the world with climate change. And it’s not the amount of warming that matters but the difference between the west and east. The more the difference, the more likely a La Nina, the less the difference, the more likely an El Nino. Scientists speculate it could be related to another natural cycle, called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or it could be caused by human-caused climate change or both.

“At this point we just don’t know,” L’Heureux said. “Scientists are watching and I know, are actively studying. But it’s really important because of regional conditions. We need to get this right.”

 

thewop

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jun 27, 2002
17,068
14,096
113
Here's the shocking truth.

Climate change is natural and has happened for eons. It's still happening.

There probably isn't much we're going to do to change that. We're going to have to adapt.

I know nobody wants to hear that.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
66,804
49,686
113
Here's the shocking truth.

Climate change is natural and has happened for eons. It's still happening.

There probably isn't much we're going to do to change that. We're going to have to adapt.

I know nobody wants to hear that.
That's neither "shocking" nor "truth". Two for two. You are correct that nobody wants to hear it. Kudos on the one score.

1) The current warming is in no way "natural". It is almost entirely driven by human input into the atmosphere. That's not even debatable at this point. The more worrisome part is we are quickly reaching a point where that will no longer be true. Natural feed backs will begin to contribute to warming at rates that will make what we do about CO2 meaningless absent some as-yet unknown technology that can quickly and efficiently remove gigatonnes of carbon from the atmosphere..


2) There's no adapting to a 3°C warmer world - and we could be there before the end of the century - unless by "adapt" you mean basic survival.
 

thewop

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jun 27, 2002
17,068
14,096
113
That's neither "shocking" nor "truth". Two for two. You are correct that nobody wants to hear it. Kudos on the one score.

1) The current warming is in no way "natural". It is almost entirely driven by human input into the atmosphere. That's not even debatable at this point. The more worrisome part is we are quickly reaching a point where that will no longer be true. Natural feed backs will begin to contribute to warming at rates that will make what we do about CO2 meaningless absent some as-yet unknown technology that can quickly and efficiently remove gigatonnes of carbon from the atmosphere..


2) There's no adapting to a 3°C warmer world - and we could be there before the end of the century - unless by "adapt" you mean basic survival.
The ice age never happened? It's a fabrication?
 

Colonoscopy

HR MVP
Feb 20, 2022
1,650
1,718
113
50
Here's the shocking truth.

Climate change is natural and has happened for eons. It's still happening.

There probably isn't much we're going to do to change that. We're going to have to adapt.

I know nobody wants to hear that.
Yeah, it's been changing forever. Rate and cause of change with (anthropogenic) warming is the worry.

So you have natural change, and then whatever we're contributing.
 

Colonoscopy

HR MVP
Feb 20, 2022
1,650
1,718
113
50
Yeah, it's been changing forever. Rate and cause of change with (anthropogenic) warming is the worry.

So you have natural change, and then whatever we're contributing.
f0pwsd5hcph31.png
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
110,290
82,944
113
Okay, so back to the point.

How is it that the most-accurate climate models are getting the El Nino-Southern Oscillation so wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCHawk5

coloradonoles

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
10,007
4,134
113
Houston, TX
That's neither "shocking" nor "truth". Two for two. You are correct that nobody wants to hear it. Kudos on the one score.

1) The current warming is in no way "natural". It is almost entirely driven by human input into the atmosphere. That's not even debatable at this point. The more worrisome part is we are quickly reaching a point where that will no longer be true. Natural feed backs will begin to contribute to warming at rates that will make what we do about CO2 meaningless absent some as-yet unknown technology that can quickly and efficiently remove gigatonnes of carbon from the atmosphere..


2) There's no adapting to a 3°C warmer world - and we could be there before the end of the century - unless by "adapt" you mean basic survival.
What 3* C??

This thread needs more graphs!!! Where is Joe when you need him???

UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2022_v6-550x317.png


You could argue we are in a cooling trend over the last 6 years.
 
  • Love
  • Haha
Reactions: Flie and NCHawk5

NCHawk5

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Aug 7, 2019
7,581
5,477
113
Global warming is real. Doomsday is not. Yes, we should reduce carbon emissions in the long-term. No, we’re not all going to die if we don’t immediately change everything we’re doing.
 

Colonoscopy

HR MVP
Feb 20, 2022
1,650
1,718
113
50
Global warming is real. Doomsday is not. Yes, we should reduce carbon emissions in the long-term. No, we’re not all going to die if we don’t immediately change everything we’re doing.
How confident are you that we won't die if we don't make changes soon?

Here's the issue as I see it...

Given the severity of the outcome -- human extinction or nearly so -- even a very low level of confidence -- say, 5%, hell, even 1% -- would require action. I'm not terribly confident that calamity will ensue if we don't act by X date -- but I'm worried enough that it could.

Also: remember that the greenhouse effect is a runaway process with feedback loops. It's like with a disease as transmissible as covid. It's not too bad... and then all of a sudden it's a terrible mess and you have no chance.

So to me this is the ultimate better safe than sorry scenario. It's like a (potential) cancer or a (potential) viral outbreak. You have a short window to investigate and contain.
 

NCHawk5

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Aug 7, 2019
7,581
5,477
113
How confident are you that we won't die if we don't make changes soon?

Here's the issue as I see it...

Given the severity of the outcome -- human extinction or nearly so -- even a very low level of confidence -- say, 5%, hell, even 1% -- would require action. I'm not terribly confident that calamity will ensue if we don't act by X date -- but I'm worried enough that it could.

Also: remember that the greenhouse effect is a runaway process with feedback loops. It's like with a disease as transmissible as covid. It's not too bad... and then all of a sudden it's a terrible mess and you have no chance.

So to me this is the ultimate better safe than sorry scenario. It's like a (potential) cancer or a (potential) viral outbreak. You have a short window to investigate and contain.
So destroy entire economy on a hunch? How is it a runaway process? Like I said, responsibly reduce emissions. Not an oh well but not a stupid concept like everyone will die.
 

GOHOX69

HR Legend
Sep 26, 2009
13,136
16,088
113
There is a tipping point where counter measures will be no longer effective. That tipping point is generally accepted as a 3 celsius warm up. We are getting very close to the point of no return. The South Pacific (e.g. Solomon Islands and Kiribati) and Maldives are already dealing with the results.

 

NCHawk5

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Aug 7, 2019
7,581
5,477
113
There is a tipping point where counter measures will be no longer effective. That tipping point is generally accepted as a 3 celsius warm up. We are getting very close to the point of no return. The South Pacific (e.g. Solomon Islands and Kiribati) and Maldives are already dealing with the results.

What happens at the tipping point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GOHOX69

GOHOX69

HR Legend
Sep 26, 2009
13,136
16,088
113
What happens at the tipping point?
At that point, scrubbing carbon or stopping emissions etc won't do squat since the process of global warming/climate change becomes a runaway. Think of your car going up on a steep gradient. When you reach the top, you can still stop, then when it hits the other side, nothing you can do will slow the process. Once the Earth warms by 3C, there is enough latent heat to keep the reaction self-sustaining. Then as we in the science biz like to say, are truly f'd.
 

Colonoscopy

HR MVP
Feb 20, 2022
1,650
1,718
113
50
So destroy entire economy on a hunch? How is it a runaway process? Like I said, responsibly reduce emissions. Not an oh well but not a stupid concept like everyone will die.

AboutClimateChange-GFX-09_0.jpg


We're concerned about slowing the process above. It's a "runaway" if you get to the point you cannot.

You could go into a lot more detail, but this is the gist of it. Positive feedback loops here. There are also negative feedback loops. (not depicted) The idea is that the variable that humans introduce (C02) is what knocks us out of balance... our previous configuration of feedbacks maintained a steady state of human habitability. With the introduction of extra C02 by human activity the existing balance is disrupted.

If so... the question becomes... how bad does it get? (after that runaway process finally slows down) And this is where we have lots of scientists saying that it might be very bad where human inhabitation is concerned.

So... it just becomes a question of research and confidence in analysis.

I think the question about tradeoffs is interesting. At some point, yeah, if the risk is fleetingly small, and the present day harm incurred by going after the risk is bad enough, it would make sense not to try. To use another cancer example... some slow growing non aggressive cancers aren't treated in older patients because of loss of quality of life and the fact that they're more likely to die from other causes before the cancer would get them.

But... destroy the economy? Sure, you would if you believed the imminent threat -- no more humans or economy -- was large enough.

Realistically I don't think we're talking economic destruction, anyway. Probably massive government spending & incentivization. Think a war-time like effort. Immediate construction of nuclear power plants and other green energy sources. Ramping up production of electric vehicles and likely subsidizing them heavily. Generous buyback programs on fuel inefficient vehicles. Income/training support for those who industry was disrupted. Rolling back red tape and regulations where needed to make it happen.

I agree some of the rhetoric around global warming in the media is stupid. I'd rather they frame the discussion moreso like I just did.
 

Mayland

HR All-State
Mar 22, 2006
509
440
63
It would be interesting to model the degree of increasing crop yields to increased CO2 levels. Crop scientists have attributed all of the gains to improved genetics and management practice, but some of that increase has to be attributable to CO2.
 

Hawk_82

HR All-American
Sep 17, 2006
3,612
2,495
113
Something weird is up with La Nina, the natural but potent weather event linked to more drought and wildfires in the western United States and more Atlantic hurricanes. It’s becoming the nation’s unwanted weather guest and meteorologists said the West’s megadrought won’t go away until La Nina does.

The current double-dip La Nina set a record for strength last month and is forecast to likely be around for a rare but not quite unprecedented third straight winter. And it’s not just this one. Scientists are noticing that in the past 25 years the world seems to be getting more La Ninas than it used to and that is just the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say should be happening with human-caused climate change.

“They (La Ninas) don’t know when to leave,” said Michelle L’Heureux, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecast office for La Nina and its more famous flip side, El Nino.

An Associated Press statistical analysis of winter La Ninas show that they used to happen about 28% of the time from 1950 to 1999, but in the past 25 winters, they’ve been brewing nearly half the time. There’s a small chance that this effect could be random, but if the La Nina sticks around this winter, as forecast, that would push the trend over the statistically significant line, which is key in science, said L’Heureux. Her own analysis shows that La Nina-like conditions are occurring more often in the last 40 years. Other new studies are showing similar patterns.

What’s bothering many scientists is that their go-to climate simulation models that tend to get conditions right over the rest of the globe predict more El Ninos, not La Ninas, and that’s causing contention in the climate community about what to believe, according to Columbia University climate scientist Richard Seager and MIT hurricane scientist Kerry Emanuel.

What Seager and other scientists said is happening is that the eastern equatorial Atlantic is not warming as fast as the western equatorial Atlantic or even the rest of the world with climate change. And it’s not the amount of warming that matters but the difference between the west and east. The more the difference, the more likely a La Nina, the less the difference, the more likely an El Nino. Scientists speculate it could be related to another natural cycle, called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or it could be caused by human-caused climate change or both.

“At this point we just don’t know,” L’Heureux said. “Scientists are watching and I know, are actively studying. But it’s really important because of regional conditions. We need to get this right.”

These models are educated guesses at best. Humans need to stop thinking they know everything.

Historically, it is likely/possible co2 reached as high as 4000 ppm millions of years ago. Now this would likely kill all humans and most currently living creatures, but think about the growth opportunity for new species. Lets talk about that.;)

If humans stopped destroying our world, mother nature would likely repair itself.

But as long as the rich get richer, then eff the world. Because money is the reason we polute and destroy our world the way we do.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
66,804
49,686
113
What? If the models are wrong about ENSO, what else are they wrong about?

We're embarking on a worldwide revolution on the basis of these models.
The 8 hottest years on record occurred in the last decade. It's already looking like 2022 will make it 9 out of the last ten. That's not a model. The western megadrought isn't a model. Record ice melt in Greenland and the western Antarctic isn't a model. Increases in intense storms, flooding, and extreme weather of all kinds...not models. But all of it is predicted by the models. The only thing you can point to fuel your call to inaction is ENSO and the only glitch there is that the eastern equatorial Pacific isn't warming as fast as the western equatorial Pacific. That both are warming isn't in dispute...it's just occurring at rates different than the models currently predict.
 

State of Iowa

Scout Team
Aug 26, 2018
126
152
43
How confident are you that we won't die if we don't make changes soon?

Here's the issue as I see it...

Given the severity of the outcome -- human extinction or nearly so -- even a very low level of confidence -- say, 5%, hell, even 1% -- would require action. I'm not terribly confident that calamity will ensue if we don't act by X date -- but I'm worried enough that it could.

Also: remember that the greenhouse effect is a runaway process with feedback loops. It's like with a disease as transmissible as covid. It's not too bad... and then all of a sudden it's a terrible mess and you have no chance.

So to me this is the ultimate better safe than sorry scenario. It's like a (potential) cancer or a (potential) viral outbreak. You have a short window to investigate and contain.
It’s not just the extreme “human extinction” that should factor into people’s thinking and consciousness. There are all kinds of issues related to a warming planet. Increased human displacement and migration is already happening, and it’s destabilizing — especially when a society is ill-prepared. Less-predictable and more volatile planting and growing seasons turn food production into a disaster waiting to happen. On and on… the issues pile up and the net is always destabilization. Wars are typically associated with a fight for access to natural resources, and/or markets. Expect more of that. Wars for oil become wars for good soil, or potable water, or other basic necessities.

Big picture is bleak, despite this being an issue that could not only unify people, but actually help rethink our societies towards a higher quality of life, one that isn’t so obsessed with consumption and consumerism. We’re seeing it already on a small scale — more and more people scaling back, planting gardens to return their hands to the dirt and away from computer keyboards and touchscreens, whether personal or community gardens. There are positive indicators. But there is such a fight by people for whom the status quo fuels and rewards their insatiable greed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colonoscopy

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
110,290
82,944
113
more and more people scaling back, planting gardens to return their hands to the dirt and away from computer keyboards and touchscreens, whether personal or community gardens.

I garden because fresh veggies taste better than the crap you get in the store. It has nothing to do with trying to escape modern society or fighting climate change.
 

State of Iowa

Scout Team
Aug 26, 2018
126
152
43
I garden because fresh veggies taste better than the crap you get in the store. It has nothing to do with trying to escape modern society or fighting climate change.
Good for you. I’m sorry that you seem to feel threatened somehow by the implication that your gardening is connected to something you probably think is “leftist” and thus, you know, like existential crisis-level stuff.
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
110,290
82,944
113
Good for you. I’m sorry that you seem to feel threatened somehow by the implication that your gardening is connected to something you probably think is “leftist” and thus, you know, like existential crisis-level stuff.

Not threatened at all. Just being real.

Hey, if it helps the climate somehow, that's great. No reason to feel bad about that.
 

State of Iowa

Scout Team
Aug 26, 2018
126
152
43
Not threatened at all. Just being real.

Hey, if it helps the climate somehow, that's great. No reason to feel bad about that.
Well that’s awesome. Your reaction sure seemed defensive, though. Like, woah woah there buddy, I ain’t gardening because of no leftist dogma crap, nope nuh uh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SolarHawk

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
31,502
65,156
113
These models are educated guesses at best. Humans need to stop thinking they know everything.

Historically, it is likely/possible co2 reached as high as 4000 ppm millions of years ago. Now this would likely kill all humans and most currently living creatures, but think about the growth opportunity for new species. Lets talk about that.;)

If humans stopped destroying our world, mother nature would likely repair itself.

But as long as the rich get richer, then eff the world. Because money is the reason we polute and destroy our world the way we do.
Educated guesses at best - that's probably why the guy who made the first one won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2021. They typically give those things away for guessing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DFSNOLE

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
110,290
82,944
113
Good for you. I’m sorry that you seem to feel threatened somehow by the implication that your gardening is connected to something you probably think is “leftist” and thus, you know, like existential crisis-level stuff.

By the way, there are tens of thousands of right-wingers who garden because they're preppers.
 

Colonoscopy

HR MVP
Feb 20, 2022
1,650
1,718
113
50
It’s not just the extreme “human extinction” that should factor into people’s thinking and consciousness. There are all kinds of issues related to a warming planet. Increased human displacement and migration is already happening, and it’s destabilizing — especially when a society is ill-prepared. Less-predictable and more volatile planting and growing seasons turn food production into a disaster waiting to happen. On and on… the issues pile up and the net is always destabilization. Wars are typically associated with a fight for access to natural resources, and/or markets. Expect more of that. Wars for oil become wars for good soil, or potable water, or other basic necessities.

Big picture is bleak, despite this being an issue that could not only unify people, but actually help rethink our societies towards a higher quality of life, one that isn’t so obsessed with consumption and consumerism. We’re seeing it already on a small scale — more and more people scaling back, planting gardens to return their hands to the dirt and away from computer keyboards and touchscreens, whether personal or community gardens. There are positive indicators. But there is such a fight by people for whom the status quo fuels and rewards their insatiable greed.
Ah yeah, and there's that. We'll face hellish scenarios before we're dead or greatly reduced. Nothing but fun. Another argument for moving forward with a more aggressive solution.

I don't think the response to the problem is really even necessarily that damaging overall to the economy, moreso disruptive. Really, I think it's just a matter of making sure most people associated with the disruption are taken care of economically through the transition. I think you could capture pretty good public support if they gain confidence that their lives won't be turned upside down.

Agree on the greed of the people who are at the top of the economic foodchain with this. They're helping to maintain the status quo. Probably the most vexing problem here. One idea is to let them to continue to do their thing without using their stuff -- big oil marches on and we just stockpile it for a while. Or give them first shots at lucrative contracts in producing some of the green solutions. I'd be incredibly pragmatic. Whatever gets it done at this point.

I think there are some interesting secondary arguments that could be trotted out around health and well being if we were to live in a more environmentally cleaner state. I know lung cancer rates are positively corelated with cities with high auto traffic. Outdoors people appreciate clean waterways, etc etc.. so push those.

Have noticed an uptick in plant-rearing and gardening in general. This year I planted a bunch of sunflower (seeds) just to see what happens. Turns out most of them came up, so another excuse to mess around outdoors. Trying to turn the front-yard into a plot of prairie. (beats mowing)
 

State of Iowa

Scout Team
Aug 26, 2018
126
152
43
Ah yeah, and there's that. We'll face hellish scenarios before we're dead or greatly reduced. Nothing but fun. Another argument for moving forward with a more aggressive solution.

I don't think the response to the problem is really even necessarily that damaging overall to the economy, moreso disruptive. Really, I think it's just a matter of making sure most people associated with the disruption are taken care of economically through the transition. I think you could capture pretty good public support if they gain confidence that their lives won't be turned upside down.

Agree on the greed of the people who are at the top of the economic foodchain with this. They're helping to maintain the status quo. Probably the most vexing problem here. One idea is to let them to continue to do their thing without using their stuff -- big oil marches on and we just stockpile it for a while. Or give them first shots at lucrative contracts in producing some of the green solutions. I'd be incredibly pragmatic. Whatever gets it done at this point.

I think there are some interesting secondary arguments that could be trotted out around health and well being if we were to live in a more environmentally cleaner state. I know lung cancer rates are positively corelated with cities with high auto traffic. Outdoors people appreciate clean waterways, etc etc.. so push those.

Have noticed an uptick in plant-rearing and gardening in general. This year I planted a bunch of sunflower (seeds) just to see what happens. Turns out most of them came up, so another excuse to mess around outdoors. Trying to turn the front-yard into a plot of prairie. (beats mowing)
I’ve long-believed that part of big oil’s mis/disinformation strategy choice was simply to buy time. For what? Well, to develop the resources and tech and so on to remain big oil, just reimagined as big energy. Big oil essentially rules the world, like a nation-state. Their leaders have greater security detail than does our POTUS. And military? Well the cool thing, there, is they get to use our military to secure access to resources and markets.

Anyways, buy time to both reap as much from historical investments in the current model, and buy time to retain its power/standing as the producer of the new energy products.

Because nobody ever willingly cedes power. Ever.

Big oil knows this product is going to become replaced. They need it to happen later rather than sooner.
 

LuciousBDragon

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Aug 31, 2017
7,781
9,929
113
The American Southwest
Okay, so back to the point.

How is it that the most-accurate climate models are getting the El Nino-Southern Oscillation so wrong?
Because we understand a lot of it but not 100%. There is plenty we still do not fully understand. Of course we know that pumping lots of carbon into the air is not very helpful. But, overall, there is more to learn.

Just like my doc tells me, “that’s why they call it practicing medicine. Because there is a lot we still don’t know.”
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
110,290
82,944
113
Because we understand a lot of it but not 100%. There is plenty we still do not fully understand. Of course we know that pumping lots of carbon into the air is not very helpful. But, overall, there is more to learn.

Just like my doc tells me, “that’s why they call it practicing medicine. Because there is a lot we still don’t know.”

So we're supposed to RADICALLY ALTER how we power the world over incomplete and potentially wrong knowledge? Really????