The Feb 2016 temperatures show that AGW is real and is happening.

Anything else is just stubborn, ideological resistance with no validity to it.





Apparently you can use real photos of and accuse members of rooting their living (and 10 year dead) dogs here and not be punished. Much else in that foul avatar is offensive and abusive. But is OK, apparently.

lee wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 6:32pm:


You fail to understand the whole concept of El Nino when you talk about its "effects" in this way.

El Niño and La Niña are associated with complex weather patterns resulting from variations in ocean temperatures in the Equatorial Pacific. El Niño episodes have prolonged (over 8 months) negative SOI, meaning there is lower pressure over Tahiti and higher pressure in Darwin.

The SOI is a measure of the intensity or strength of the Walker Circulation.

It is calculated using

SOI      =  (Standardized Tahiti MSL pressure - Standardized Darwin MSL Pressure)/ Monthly standard deviation.

where Standardized Darwin = (Actual Darwin SLP - Mean Darwin SLP)/ Standard Deviation Darwin

and Standardized Tahiti = (Actual Tahiti SLP - Mean Tahiti SLP)/
Standard Deviation Tahiti

You could say that the prolonged SOI is caused by the Walker Circulation or you could just as easily say that the SOI is caused by the prevailing weather pattern.

So what causes what? Neither. Instead of talking about the effects of the prevailing SOI, it's safer to talk about certain weather patterns being associated with An El Nino episode.

Saying that temperatures are caused by an index is a bit like saying that the BHP share price is caused by the ASX200 dropping.  It's a real howler.   

You can predict weather patterns in coming months to a limited  extent from EL Nino phase, but it's like alchemy.

Lee,

These are effects _associated_ with the El Nino episode as a whole, but the different phases have different associated weather phenomena. You were talking in terms of cause and effect. 

Your statement didn't make any sense.


Tell me, do you believe that climate models cause weather patterns too?

lee wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 8:18pm:


The irony 

So the fact that El Nino is essentially a very basic climate model goes right over your head.

lee wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 8:33pm:


Whatever you're talking, you're getting into it very deeply, and it smells.
The forecast "effects" of an El Nino phase are not based on empirical measurements at all. The forecasts are based on past seasonal data and a great deal of interpretation.

Quote:


In a word, they use models.

https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/index.html

lee wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 8:44pm:


You were talking about effects as if the El Nino episode itself was the cause. 

Rainfall probability is the number one "effect" associated with an El Nino phase. Note that we're talking about a particular phase of the El Nino Episode, not the El Nino Episode itself. 
Quote:

Incidentally, the phase of the SOI for January- February was "consistently negative". The BoM have a map showing the probability of exceeding median rainfall based on what the model tells us about that phase.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/rainfallprobability/co...

In the current ENSO wrapup, the BoM have this statement:
Quote:


It is very ironic that you place your faith in a model with such a low probability of being correct at this time of the year, yet you choose to ignore long term temperature modelling based on fundamentals.

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 8:50pm:



Really? I used "effects", I didn't use cause. Can it be both cause and effect?