Climate Change Clouds Future of El Niño Forecasting

In Central Texas, where water reservoirs sit at under 40 percent capacity, all eyes are on watch for El Niño, a global weather phenomenon that generally brings generous rain to the area. The National Weather Service predicts an 80 percent chance of a weak to moderate El Niño this fall, dampening hopes for a season of strong rains to alleviate drought across much of the southwest US.

But some scientists have warned that El Niño, itself poorly understood, cannot be well forecast amidst the effects of man-made climate change. As the global climate changes in reaction to increased manmade carbon emissions, forecasting global weather patterns can be difficult.

This map shows a very warm year with most measured temperatures well above average.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association / National Climate Data Center

This map shows a very warm year with most measured temperatures well above average.

In June, worldwide sea surface temperatures were higher than the 20th Century average by a greater margin than ever before. On land and sea, the month was the hottest June ever recorded, according to the most recent monthly climate analysis by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Predicting global weather year to year becomes increasingly tricky as the basic climate gradually changes. Some researchers say El Niño will come more often in the future. Others say it will be less frequent and more intense.

According to the NOAA report, global temperatures have been above average for 352 consecutive months – every month since February 1985. Measurements highlight a global warming trend.

This graph shows average global year-to-date temperatures fro every year since 1880.The crimson lines represent years 2013, 2010, 2005, 2003 and 1998; the green line is 2014.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

This graph shows average global year-to-date temperatures fro every year since 1880.The crimson lines represent years 2013, 2010, 2005, 2003 and 1998; the green line is 2014.

“Nine of the ten warmest Junes on record have occurred during the 21st century, including each of the past five years. June 2014 also marks the second consecutive month with record high global temperatures. With the exception of February (21st warmest), every month to date in 2014 has ranked among the four warmest for its respective month,” said the report.

El Niño occurs when patterns in Pacific water currents change. Warm water gathered around the Southeast Asian coast begins to flow eastward until South America exchanging the climates of generally wet Southeast Asia and the dry western desert of South America. Unusually warm waters alter wind patterns, warming air and creating convection currents that can affect the entire globe. Many global and local effects of El Niño have been repeatedly observed since 1950 but still cannot be explained.

This satellite image shows ocean topography, a good indicator of ocean temperature, during the 1997098 El Niño. The weather phenomenon is characterized by warm water in the Eastern Pacific and cool water in the West.

NASA / California Institute of Technology

This satellite image shows ocean topography, a good indicator of ocean temperature, during the 1997098 El Niño. The weather phenomenon is characterized by warm water in the Eastern Pacific and cool water in the West.

Even in Texas there is no consensus about El Niño’s effects and forecasters have predicted both above and below-average rain to accompany the phenomenon.

If El Niño comes and it brings extra rains to Texas, they won’t likely come until September.

Comments

  • rhjames

    Wow, clouds might effect weather – who would have thought?? I’ve been screaming for years that cloud science holds the key to understanding climate. Even the IPCC admits cloud science is poorly understood. Just feeling the effects of clouds passing in front of the sun should flag that this is a big influence. Instead of spending billions of dollars on studying things like cow farts and moose burps, a bit of cloud science wouldn’t go astray.

    • cowboyup

      could you say something about what you mean by cloud science?

      • rhjames

        Cloud science includes :
        1. Causes of cloud formation (eg cosmic radiation, now being investigated by the CERN testing)
        2. What influences cloud size and shape and area
        3. Effects from convective clouds on entrainment (eg rain) (This is a big one)
        4. What is the effect of increased temperature on clouds – eg more evaporation, higher humidity, more cloud, and cooling?
        5. etc

        The list is huge. It’s way beyond present knowledge and computing power, yet it’s effect on weather and climate is probably very substantial.

  • kcy2014

    Sometime in the future but we don’t know exactly when but it’s going to be later than we thought but when it does, it’s going to be really, really bad.
    So give us more money and we’ll give you back more guesses about how bad it’s going to be.

    • mustangeagle

      Or let’s give them no money and pretend the problem doesn’t exist. That will make it go away.

    • mbee1

      Actually the temperature per the IPCC consensus model will be about what it was in 1000 AD by 2100 AD so maybe the world will not be ending even if the ice which accumulated from the little ice age is a bit less, after all Greenland was warmer around the edges which is why the Vikings settled the place in 1000 AD. Since London and Paris are in the same spots they were in 1000 AD it is unlikely the rise in ocean level will flood them as it did not back then. The only places in trouble from an ocean rise estimated by NASA at 13 inches are those who chose to live on sand bars, former marsh lands and in flood plains. Those places should never have been built on in the first place. As far as carbon taxes fixing everything that is pure nonsense as 800,000 years of CO2 levels and temperature changes from the ice core studies show CO2 level changes never caused a climate change which is the same as the modern NOAA Mauna Loa study since 1959, zero correlation between CO2 level change and climate change.

      • mustangeagle

        If you look at the data from the Mauna Loa study, the running average CO2 concentration has jumped from 316 ppm to 332 ppm over a twenty year period. The conclusion of the study was that additional study was required to gather more data.

    • Jack

      Who is asking for money?

      • rhjames

        Universities, research organisations etc. For example, if someone wants to study “The Mating Habits of the Lower Mongolian Trotting Tadpole”, they won’t get a research grant. However, change the name to “The Effects of Climate Change on the Mating Habits of the Lower Mongolian Trotting Tadpole” and the money will flow forth.

  • charley williams

    Texas Reserves at 40% capacity ! But there is no change, nothing to worry about until their at least below 10 % ! LOL !

  • RHO1953

    A bunch of knee jerk morons. A decade of heat and they freak out. Man HAS to be the blame. Then two decades of basically static temps and they still lay it on thick. We never hear from them about the extraterrestrial factors, our magnetosphere, solar output, shifting poles, all kinds of stuff that have big impact on climate AND weather. It just HAS to be manmade, and the cure is ALWAYS more taxes, more government, more control, less freedom.

  • Floyd Howard Jr

    Merlins magicians keep trying to make gold out of climate change, global warming but keep coming up with lead!! Anyway Dems are trying to legislate a narrative change hurting the American people in the process! All Democrats and supporters here and abroad, are trying to flood the media with hysterical climate change & global warming alarms and fabricated evidence to take the heat off Dem candidates in the November 2014 and 2016 elections due to the train wreck of Obamacare! They shout, scream, cry, make outlandish claims and won’t stop till after the
    elections! Poor Democrats! The tsunami cometh! We Will Remember In November!

  • Scott

    El Niño, or no El Niño, these guys should have no problem of keeping their perfect forecast record intact, meaning they haven’t been right once. One would think the proverbial monkey will fall out of the tree sometime, and they will be correct eventually.

  • Penocea

    “But some scientists have warned that El Niño, itself poorly understood, cannot be well forecast amidst the effects of man-made climate change. As the global climate changes in reaction to increased manmade carbon emissions, forecasting global weather patterns can be difficult.”

    11,500 years ago, Greenland experienced an 18 degree F increase in 10 years at the end of the Younger Dryas period. Some how, homo sapiens developed into modern man without Scientists funded by communists telling them climate change was due to campfires and whoolly mammanth farts.

    • Quetzalcoatlus

      Isn’t it interesting how climate skeptics enjoy debunking science with science, and evidence with evidence, and don’t see any problem with that. Isn’t it interesting how they constantly confuse weather with climate, and again see no problem. Isn’t it interesting that they seem to claim some grand, global climate insight by sitting in their backyard drinking a Tab, that decades of ice core studies had surely missed? I have a question to you ladies: are any of you climatologists? I didn’t think so. No, you’re cranks. You used to believe the world was flat until you were proven wrong, and started making fun of people who believed the world was flat. Cranks’ self-celebrating ignorance and shrill contempt for dedicated researchers contributes absolutely nothing to society, in fact it’s thoroughly destructive. Sadly it’s all you know how to do, and you’ve discovered the internet.

      • Robert W

        Isn’t it interesting that climate skeptics enjoy debunking science with science; well that’s how it’s done. I also find it interesting that AGW cultists debunk skeptics with personal attacks and never touch the science. This is surely because the cultists don’t have the mental capacity or the facts to back up their dogma, it’s faith based.

        • rhjames

          A very valid observation. What a foolish statement from Quetzalcoatlus – debunking science with science. Obviously he/she is lacking scientific understanding, and tries to debunk science with insults. I commonly find that alarmists, when faced with the scientific facts, resort to insults – basically a dummy spit.

      • Rich Balance

        Another scientifically illiterate, true believer spouts off their silly opinion. Many skeptics are scientists in related fields that understand the basic physics of climate. The science is not that difficult if you have the right background. Obviously, you are clueless.

        • Quetzalcoatlus

          So while climatologists are studying the collapse of the
          oceanic circulation system, retreating glaciers and thawing permafrost, you
          counter by openly mocking not just the data but also the scientific methods, by
          citing ‘newsfeed-infotained’ subjects like cattle farts? Quantifying methane
          production on Earth has critical implications to the climate. Mocking
          scientists for studying it is fratboy juvenile. It is not “how it is
          done,” it’s “ignoratio elenchi.”

          You question climatologists’ motives because you’re
          uncomfortable with their results. Yet did it occur to you that they never went
          into Climatology in order to be rockstars? They’d be delighted, well-funded and
          rather popular if their research indicated that everything was fine, and I’m
          sorry but the data says it isn’t. The High Sierras also says it isn’t, meteorological
          temperature extremes says it isn’t, flora and fauna shifts, CO2 levels measured
          daily since 1958, and broader records from ice cores says it isn’t. You people dismiss
          all this by bringing up things like cattle farts, and cherry-picking anomalous
          bits of data here and there buffet-style, to dismiss the data’s validity wholecloth. I’m
          embarrassed for you.

          • Jim Wright

            You are funny to laugh at and that is about it!

          • mbee1

            You are a cult worshiper, you cannot comprend the science so you go for the talking heads like AL Gore just like every religous nut blowing himself up for Allah goes to his cleric for the TRUTH. . The science does not support your cult which is why people deny CO2 is warming the planet and it is not all man’s fault. Mann is a principle cult head and has plenty of followers of his wacko science which claims among other things that the world has cooled for the last 11000 years except for the last 150 years which was warmed by man emitting CO2 from his activities. He says nothing about methane which is much more active than CO2. Cattle farts are a major source of methane as is human sewage and ant farts as ant bio mass is greater than humans. Elliminating ants would eliminate a major source of methane. This is the sort of science you love and worship which is to bad as every thing in your home and on your person was built by somebody who actually thought about science.

          • Quetzalcoatlus

            Look, when we talk about Climate Change, we’ve got to take the larger view and base it on statistics, aka: the record. We can share anecdotal experiences about this storm or that drought, and noone doubts that storms and droughts have occurred for eons, (or the ones recently seem particularly bad) but that isn’t really useful for either side’s position. What’s ultimately of value are the trends, both climatological and human. If someone is afraid of things like record-keeping, like compiling data into charts, then there really isn’t much I or anyone can do to convince them. It’s either a severe math phobia/dementia, high school pranksters or as someone else suspected, coordinated from a well-funded playbook. Whatever. As I was reminded, we don’t need absolute 100% consensus among a society peppered with lunatics in order to move toward a constructive solution, for ANY critical sociopolitical issue. (ref:”What if this is all a hoax and we create a better world for NOTHING!??”) In closing, if anyone’s interested in viewing a concise and non-shrill lecture on Climate Science, and a segway into the subject of Geoengineering, I highly recommend this JPL feed: (I can’t say I’m as relaxed as he is about the subject) http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/29293171

          • Rich Balance

            The record is important which is why the lack of warming over the past two decades is the key piece of data that people need to understand.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.67/plot/rss/from:1996.67/trend

            In addition, a statistical analysis of the last 150 years finds a solar-ocean driver to be much better CO2.

          • Quetzalcoatlus

            “Please read the notes on things to beware of – and in
            particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it’s easy to get misled – or worse, still to mislead others.”
            Thanks Rich!

          • Quetzalcoatlus

            This is hysterical! As an airtight rebuttal, you’ve sent me
            a link to an acontextural scribble. The website that host this chart specifically says NOT to (if I may paraphrase
            here) wield the raw, completely unvetted signals from the extreme noise as some kind of self-proclaimed, authoritative proof that you’re god’s own homeschooled,
            armchair messiah for modern climatology. The very website’s owner said for god’s sakes DON’T DO THIS!

            I can look at this scribble, it is raw data presumably, and draw a straight line from any arbitrary high point on the left to any arbitrary low point on the right, and claim that the trend of whatever the chart represents is down. Or conversely, I can do the opposite and claim that the
            trend is up. It’s a parlor trick by the ignorant. Hannity did this very same thing on his show, and iced the cake by saying,”it even SNOWED in Houston!” OMFG! Yeah, sorry for you to hear it from Jon Stewart, but it really is called winter.

            Trained contextural deconstruction is what is needed to derive meaning from raw data. Trained climatologists take this on its anecdotal merit, compare it to other indicators, apply some laws and principles (nothing terribly controversial) and perhaps draw some meaning from it which may bear some reference to the grander trends. It’s called research.

            I can read notebook after notebook that describes dirt, just
            dirt. And outside of any context it means nothing to me. Within some geographic framework, some established laws and/or principles, perhaps with a well-understood epoch and with some qualified training, things begin to change. I can deconstruct mere descriptions of dirt into a reasonably well-interpolated stratigraphic record. As I said; nothing terribly controversial, the Superposition Principal for
            example, complete with its menagerie of caveats. This is what happens when people educated in the specific field are able to infer useable information from raw data.

            I’m not a climatologist, and I’m sorry if it requires calling ‘bullhockey” here but obviously neither are you. We entrust
            professionals to act professionally in this field, no less so that we trust electrical engineers every day to make sure opposed directions in a city intersection won’t both be green at the same time. It’s really not that controversial
            a leap of faith. To say, “yeah, things that sedimented on top of other things tend to be younger than lower layers” is not any kind of brash allegiance to some cult.

            That, and these people are professionals in a sometimes
            palpably-hostile, competitive field which is inherently conservative about drawing direct causational conclusions; if they’re substantively wrong about anything, they’re personally and professionally screwed. And I don’t mean
            “NewsCorp screwed,” where at least there’ll always be ONE network that’ll meet your pay level to continue spouting nonsense. I mean screwed-screwed forever. Everyone’s cross-checking each other. It’s serious.

            We ultimately must recognize carefully-vetted conclusions
            from dedicated researchers as valid on their own merit. If you won’t then you’ve basically got a political issue with math itself.

            As for your broadside re: the feared collapse of the Atlantic ThermoHaline Circulation system: (THC) http://www.agu.org/books/gm/v126/GM126p0277/GM126p0277.pdf This is NOAA, WHOI, and contemporary European institutions pulling together evidence they’ve gathered. Last I read, of the twelve known locations for upwelling near Greenland, we were down to three. Now maybe that’s changed in detail, but again, they observe long-term trends and look for causation. The implications are massive. They’re not stupid.

            But you send me a link to a chart, raw data, completely unvetted, and I’m expected to recoil in horror? Dude, I respect the site well enough because a.) it knows the limitations of its own data, and b.) it knows the political football being played by the deliberate misuse of it. Nice link, thanks. But by the website host’s own caveat, your position is no more substantive by providing this chart link than Glenn Beck is any smarter by putting on a pair of glasses.

          • mbee1

            I might point out that basing trends on a short time period is foolish and not actually science as the noise makes any conclusion meaningless. The AGW crowd use data from 1951 in the IPCC fifth report while ignoring anything in the last 800000 years for which we have year to year reconstructions of CO2 and temperature.

          • Quetzalcoatlus

            Excellent point, mbee1. Thank you.

          • Robert Curtis Mace

            Are you actually trying convince us that scientist are gods?

          • Quetzalcoatlus

            That’s a straw man response. Noone is claiming any such thing.

          • ElChe

            Well said. I also am embarrassed for them.

          • Rich Balance

            Your first comment is silly nonsense as is the rest of your rant. There is no “collapse” of the oceanic circulation system. If you were stupid enough to fall fro that propaganda then you have already proven your are unable to separate fact from fiction.

            Did you know a recent paper found that when permafrost melts the land forms small lakes which then absorb CO2? The result was deemed “unexpected”. What it shows is the science of climate is very primitive. They’ve been using permafrost melting in climate models to increase CO2/CH4 levels.

            Oh wait, here I am up-to-date on the scientific literature and you are spewing silly nonsense that you read from some propaganda source. How telling.

          • Quetzalcoatlus

            “Unexpected” but doesn’t do anything close to offset. The hope was that a presumably-greening polar region would absorb more CO2, and it kind of does but nowhere close to net zero, and the increasing methane release is a huge concern. You’re cherry-picking again, mister up-to-date.

        • Jim Wright

          Exactly…The lib arts college morons do not have a clue!

          • Quetzalcoatlus

            (School night, Jim. Trolling annoys the grown ups. Go to bed.)

      • Jim Wright

        Do you have a single credit hour in Science?

        • TruGhost OfBo

          Yeah, he watched Bill Nye the pseudo science guy. swallowed NPR’s koolade and will PBS…..

      • bernard townsend

        Some of these people do appear to be sponsored, and appear to be reciting from a well prepared text, a glint of a science paper from 40 years ago is the norm, Washington State is currently on fire, California planted less than 40 percent of its potential crop, beef is six dollars a pound, all the cows that died in an October snowstorm really is having an effect on the market, the corn market is going nuts, seems the areas that planted a lot of corn, have been systematically been getting hit with “unusual” widespread hail storms that wipe out a lot of crops,
        Things are just getting started, the imbalances in the weather are going to be getting a lot more intense as time goes on, like an ever increasing speeding roller coaster, a one way ticket to oblivion.
        It will be interesting to see the denialists jump ship en masse only when it is too late to do anything.

  • Rich Balance

    This gets more ridiculous every day. Just this week another paper came out stating that the cause of “the pause” (lack of warming over the last two decades) was too few El Niño events. Now this article states climate change might effect El Niño. But shouldn’t this already be happening. We are told it is daily. If it happening and the result of climate change is fewer El Niño events, then it must be counteracting the warming. A negative feedback.

    If this is true then the future will warm much less than they have predicted, the seas won’t rise, the weather won’t get worse, the ice won’t melt, etc. These buffoons don’t even realize when their propaganda doesn’t support their goals.

    • SayWhat

      “These buffoons don’t even realize when their propaganda doesn’t support their goals.”

      No no no, you’re so wrong about that. They are pushing hard to get CO2 regulation in place very soon. Once they are in place, it’s a win-win for them, no matter what the climate does.

      If it cools, the regulations worked, and the skeptics get the boot.
      If it warms, we need MORE regulations, and the skeptics get the boot.

      It’s perfect, the sheeple will eat this up!

  • bgreen2266

    The difference between believing and knowing is that knowledge is truth that is purified through Scrutiny. When the the Scientific Method is applied to a belief and it stands the test of scrutiny it becomes knowledge. It is transformed from something that we believe to something that we actually know to be true.

  • bernard townsend

    The Arctic area is going to be the biggest troublemaker, with the warming taking place, the ice melts and the water evaporates, the warmer air can carry more moisture, now this is where things get interesting, the atmosphere is much thinner over the Arctic than it is over the Equator, the air circulation systems of the planet, when the air from the south comes into the arctic region, the Arctic air is lifted up over the surface air, to really high levels, and the moisture in the warm clouds is transported like a conveyor, way up high in the atmosphere, away from the Arctic to areas that least expect it. Massive rain and flooding events are happening all over the Northern Hemisphere.
    When the upper air moisture is carried to the area where the wind stops its momentum, or a surface disturbance opens a tear into the air mass, the torrential rains and snow, if it happens during winter, and the inevitable push of Arctic air following behind, sometimes taking several days to pass over.
    The melting Arctic is not a matter of the water levels going up, and then gradually bringing up the sea level, the water is carried by the clouds, to just about every country in the Northern Hemisphere, and the system is getting more pronounced as the feedback loops get more strength in the passage of time, Wider areas of flood, larger amounts of water, I had a conversation with a friend about these observations, and rather than the Polar Vortex, as it is called in winter, she called it the “Arctic FedEx Express”, delivering sea level rise, to your doorstep.

    • Rich Balance

      One major problem … the sea ice in the Arctic hasn’t shown any decrease in over 7 years. The first leg of your chain of events is not taking place.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2007/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2007

      And, the sea ice in the Antarctic is steadily increasing.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:2007/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:2007

      Back to the drawing board.

      • mustangeagle

        Both of those graphs are worthless because there is no value on the y-axis. The only thing they prove is that it’s colder in the winter than in the summer. If you go back to the NSIDC (the original source of the data), it shows that artic ice loss was about 21 percent faster in July 2014 than over the historical norm. However, one year does not a trend make. The real question here is whether we should continue research to determine how much of this trend is due to manmade contributions.

        • Rich Balance

          What the graphs show is the trend has leveled off.

          I don’t know where you are getting your data but the ice in the Arctic has NOT melted 21% faster this July. It may be 21% below the average but that is the result of the melting of multi-year ice that occurred previously (before 2007). It appears like the ice has leveled off. BTW, this would be expected if the sea ice level is actually driven by the AMO.

          • Jim Wright

            On the rise now…

          • mustangeagle

            I got the data from the same website that was used to create the graphs in the first place. Check the NSIDC website

          • mbee1

            Apparently you are in the business of lying as the data on the website is the same data you claim to be looking at. Black is white and up is down in your world.

        • mbee1

          Did you bother to look at the source data for the graphs? Those are the government funded research studies which have the data for a lot of things including sea ice levels. If you read the left side of the grafts that is the extent of the ice, the bottom is the years.

    • Robert W

      “Massive rain and flooding events are happening all over the NH” ROFLMAO, these have NEVER happened before. These new events you call floods sure sound really scary. And these floods caused by the melting of SEA ICE cause sea level rise, BRILLIANT! You should publish your ideas they are so BRILLIANT!

      • bernard townsend

        Floods in florida, Canada, china, Russia, Germany spain, india, England, the floods in Siberia last fall covered an area 425,000 thousand square miles up to 25 feet deep, that’s an equivalent size of texas and California combined, then theres the Serbia floods a few wekks ago, and the recurring china floods going on now, again, and Siberia, again, wow, where do you get to be so unaware of the news?
        There is a lot going on in the Arctic, influencing everyone.

        • Jim Wright

          Where do you think energy goes into space?

        • Rich Balance

          There are floods every year. What is the global trend fro the last 60 years? Oh, you don’t have a clue do you. Pfffft.

          • bernard townsend

            out of balance, duh, just wait til Siberia gets to freezing, Or Alaska, Or Canada, Or Russia, the winter is being substantially altered by all the warming that is taking place all through the summer months north of the Arctic Circle, when the freezes do happen, the month is January, the Arctic lakes and rivers flow freely with ducks and birds frolicking in the unfrozen lakes and ponds and rivers, well into January.
            It wont be long, the residual heat that permeates the Arctic, keeps the area nice and unfrozen year round.

        • mbee1

          Apparently the reinsurance industry never heard of those flood since their latest report on the last year shows the insurance payouts are below average. Maybe you have confused the flooding on Mars with earth.

          • bernard townsend

            mbee, the internet gives access to places all around the planet, China, Siberia, India, England, South America, Africa, Greenland, Canada and points everywhere, you should get out of the three or four websites you visit and look around.

      • bernard townsend

        robertw, not all the news around the world is owned and operated by the people that own you.

    • Jim Wright

      Arctic ice is growing too… so much fore your nonsense!

      • bernard townsend

        When the summer arrives in a few weeks to the Antarctic, the collapsing central core of Antarctica will become apparent, the ice shelf that breaks off from the island, will be tremendous. It is inevitable, you should look up ice quakes and ice dynamics, some very interesting reading by people that know what they are talking about.

        • Rich Balance

          Pathetic nonsense from an obviously scientific illiterate. Please take at least one science course before making another comment.

    • mbee1

      Where do you come up with this nonsense. Do you stay up nights thinking of silly posts. The atomsphere is not thinner over the Arctic so the first leg of your silly posts falls flat. Tear in the air mass? Another totally nonsense claim. You really should at least wiki the subjects before typing.

      • bernard townsend

        Aviation weather, Arctic Weather, you should look it up, it explains the information to pilots travelling across the Arctic, and you should look at and try to read the returns on your search, and next time An arctic push passes over your location, if the floods don’t kill you or something like that, try and take a few minutes to look up and identify the clouds outdoors, then look up stratospheric clouds on a picture search, if you had any idea of what you are talking about, you would really not depend on anything you read by way of wiki.

  • SayWhat

    But some scientists have warned that El Niño, itself poorly understood, cannot be well forecast amidst the effects
    of man-made climate change

    The poorly understood El Nino is hard to forecast because of the poorly understood effects
    of man-made climate change? How can they say that with a straight face?
    It’s sounds like something my grandkids would come up with…

    As the global climate changes in reaction
    to increased manmade carbon emissions, forecasting global weather
    patterns can be difficult.

    The poorly understood global weather
    patterns are hard to forecast because of the poorly understood effects
    of man-made climate change?

    So it sounds like all they know for SURE is “global climate changes in reaction
    to increased manmade carbon emissions”. I wonder how that plays into the 17 year Pause in warming?

    • bernard townsend

      NASA has a website called Eyes on the Earth, a real time and interactive view of the information from numerous American sponsored satellites, Eumetsat, is real time data telemetry from numerous European satellites in orbit, rather than wasting time of others with your pathetic silliness, get some real information about what is going on. Canada has some really good information, Environment Canada.

      • SayWhat

        “… rather than wasting time of others with your pathetic silliness”

        Pathetic silliness? Sorry to waste your time, but if your time is so so valuable, why did you bother to respond to my post?

        If you would have spent any amount of time reading my post, you’d notice I was commenting on how poorly our scientist understand ENSO, and how they blame man-made climate change for confounding their forecasts.

        They absolutely know for sure that the rise in temperature IS from man-made CO2, but don’t know how short term climate events work. There is NO mention of the 17 year Pause in warming, does that clear things up for them?

        BTW, Eyes on the Earth is visually cute, but pretty much useless for any real data.

        • Rich Balance

          “cute” is pretty much all the scientifically illiterate supporters of AGW can understand.

          • SayWhat

            Honestly, I was expecting more from the NASA link, it’s pretty much a propaganda piece, and couldn’t even hope to provide any data other than grade school visuals.

            The Eumetsat site was setup to provide data, and looked like a good resource for raw data.

            The Environment Canada didn’t have much on climate, other than the usual “Man causes everything” meme.

          • bernard townsend

            Are you paid for your indifference to facts of any kind? You’re not making a lot of sense.

          • SayWhat

            “Are you paid for your indifference to facts of any kind?”
            That really doesn’t make a lot of sense, but I suspect the answer is no.

            And what “facts” have I shown indifference to? Please be so kind as to point them out for us.

            “You’re not making a lot of sense”
            Neither do any of your posts. A bit more substance, and far less ad hominem, would be a good start.

          • Quetzalcoatlus

            SayWhat: where is your reference that there is a 17 year pause in warming? Let me start there.
            Second, you’re very quick to knock climatologists for not knowing everything about everything, yet you mock them when they make any inference at all from the data they have, calling it “propaganda.” You’ve set up a dis-cognitive shell around yourself, ready to refute anything you don’t like to hear using the same two (very) tired, conceptually-opposed cudgels. Basically you cannot engage in any conversation meant to reach a consensus at all. It’s willful ignorance laid bare.
            Third; you “expecting more from NASA”???? Excuse me, but do they check with you first to make sure their research conclusions meet with your approval? That’s quite a throne you’ve got there. And “grade school visuals”? It’s people like you they’re hoping to convince, and apparently they know you better than you think.

          • SayWhat

            “where is your reference that there is a 17 year pause in warming”

            It’s all around you, every climate data set shows it.
            Here is a published paper that explains the reason for it;
            http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/%7Egang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthropause.GRL.final.13.6.14bbis.pdf

            “calling it “propaganda.”
            I think you’re mistaken, can you find where I said that?

            “ready to refute anything you don’t like to hear”
            I suppose you just accept what you don’t want to hear?

            “Basically you cannot engage in any conversation meant to reach a consensus at all”
            That’s certainly not true.

            I think you might have your threads mixed up?

          • Quetzalcoatlus

            Don’t think so:
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/
            “We’ve found some of the missing energy in the deeper parts of the ocean, and that’s the part that relates to the hiatus,” he said. “What has happened in the last decade or so is more heat is going into the ocean.”

            http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/12/14/faux-pause-climate-contrarians-lose-favorite-talking-point/
            “Contrarians focused on the rate of warming since 1998, which was an exceptionally hot year due to climate change and El Nino. This makes later years appear to be relatively cool, and is a form of lying with statistics.”

            ….and check your comment from 5 days ago.

          • SayWhat

            “We’ve found some of the missing energy in the deeper parts of the ocean”

            That’s the latest theory, but we have limited data on ocean temperatures at depth.

            “Contrarians focused on the rate of warming since 1998, which was an exceptionally hot year due to climate change and El Nino”

            And 16 year later, we’re at the same temperature. And since CO2 is at record levels, El Nino year…

            “.check your comment from 5 days ago”

            And I’ve posted quite a few on many articles, care to quote my words?

          • SayWhat

            “where is your reference that there is a 17 year pause in warming?”

            I know you’ve heard of it before, So pick any climate dataset, they all show a pause in warming.

            “you’re very quick to knock climatologists for not knowing everything about everything”

            I never knocked them for not knowing everything, I knocked them for saying, with absolution, that they know the answer when they clearly do NOT.

            ” yet you mock them when they make any inference at all from the data they have, calling it “propaganda.”"

            Where did I call ANY data “propaganda.”? I defy you to find it.

            “ready to refute anything you don’t like to hear”
            Any you just accept whatever is thrown at you?

            “you cannot engage in any conversation meant to reach a consensus at all”

            Is that so? Should all conversations end in a consensus agreement? Is it so wrong to admit there are two sides to a debate?

            ” but do they check with you first to make sure their research conclusions meet with your approval”

            No, they don’t need to check with me, but I AM entitled to my opinion. Is that okay with you? Maybe if you read the posts a little deeper; a link was provided to NASA “data”, and that turned out to be a page of propaganda, no data.

            “That’s quite a throne you’ve got there”

            Sorry to step on your toes there your Climate Highness.

            “And “grade school visuals”?”
            Did you look at the visual presented by the NASA website? Did you read the narrations? Yea, grade school level.

            BTW, what’s your take on NOAA/NASA adjusting historic climate data, are you cool with that?

          • Quetzalcoatlus

            “I know you’ve heard of it before, So pick any climate dataset, they all show a pause in warming.”
            No, they do not. since 1998 the global LAND temperatures have shown an increase at a decreasing rate. Regardless, heat records continue to be broken with frightening regularity.
            Incidentally, there has been no such “increasing at a decreasing rate” of the ocean’s rate of acidification. That rate keeps on going up and up, and there is no cyclical precedent that climate skeptics can point to for that.

            You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The data is ominous and the implications are frightening, so yes, a consensus would be nice. But it isn’t mandatory. The Flat Earth Society didn’t keep us from landing on the Moon.

            “Where did I call ANY data “propaganda.”? I defy you to find it.”
            (snore) Same article, above a bit from here. Don’t hurt yourself looking.

            Climatologists have been getting steadily more convinced with every new way of modeling the climate. This is Earth Science, the most complex, complicated dataset anyone can imagine. But they’ve been crunching a lot of numbers for a long time, and are not knee-jerk reactionaries for reasons I’ve explained before. In fact, according to the JPL presentation I provided a link to earlier, climatologists turned out to be too conservative with their predictions, specifically the timelines of when benchmarks would occur. So yeah, they’re pretty sure we’re screwed.

            Rich enjoys reminding everyone that it is he who is the one true science lord of the dance. I’m intrigued that people so confident in science would be so suspicious of the motives of the scientists. It borders on conspiracy theory. But there is something called peer review in science. Nothing gets announced before a ruthless vetting process combs the data and the ways it was gathered. I remember when it was just called “The Greenhouse Effect,” Walter Cronkite reported it on the CBS Evening News during that season before he retired. That was a LONG time ago, a LOT of research has gone on since then. I remember scientists wondering out loud whether it was a GOOD thing, because they thought maybe more northern latitudes could be used for agriculture. Well, we’re past that era of ignorance and irresponsibility from climatologists.

            So your criticism doesn’t wash. It just comes off sounding like a Homer Simpson,”scientists, ppfft, what have THEY done for us lately?” Don’t kid yourself; whatever limitations of knowledge they may presently have on the subject, yours is phenomenally, hilariously less.

          • SayWhat

            “Regardless, heat records continue to be broken with frightening regularity.”
            More cold records than warm recently. With NOAA playing with the data, it could be made to say anything.

            “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts”
            I’m okay with that, but the same must hold true for everyone for that to work.

            “The data is ominous…”
            What data is “ominous”? I’m sure you’re aware that the climate has cycles, and 1 degree per century isn’t the end of the world. What’s so ominous about that?
            It was warmer during the Medieval Climate Optimum, they survived. Actually Man flourishes during warm periods, and contracts during cold times. Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum, not good times.

            “and the implications are frightening”
            Yet how many have come to pass? NONE. The temperatures are projected to do nothing but increase, Nature trumped that.

            “The Flat Earth Society didn’t keep us from landing on the Moon”
            We’re not going to the moon are we. That’s a stupid analogy and has nothing to do with the discussion.

            “Where did I call ANY data “propaganda….Same article, above a bit from here. Don’t hurt yourself looking.”
            If you care to read the post, you’ll find that there was no DATA on the WEBSITE I called “propaganda”. A little reading comprehension please.

            “Climatologists have been getting steadily more convinced with every new way of modeling the climate”
            No, you’re wrong about that. Even the IPCC lowered their CO2 sensitivity number. Climatologists maybe be more “convinced”, but reality doesn’t match the models.

            “and are not knee-jerk reactionaries for reasons”
            What? How many alarmist press releases have we seen recently? They even try to link the record cold and snow to AGW. Remember Holdren and his “polar vortex” video?

            “climatologists turned out to be too conservative with their predictions”
            Change the timeline all you want, their predictions still didn’t come true. You’re confusing the output of climate models with reality.

            “I’m intrigued that people so confident in science would be so suspicious of the motives of the scientists”
            It’s not all scientist, but if you’ll notice, it’s just a few government backed scientist that control the shots.

            “But there is something called peer review in science.”
            But it’s been corrupted, now called “pal review”. Notice how skeptics are treated with ad hominem, and not facts?

            “I remember when it was just called “The Greenhouse Effect,” Walter Cronkite reported it on the CBS Evening News”
            We’ve had plenty of news reports through the years, how many have come to pass?
            Here is a list of news stories from the past. It’s a skeptic link, so ignore the opinions and focus on the data
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/29/a-brief-history-of-climate-panic-and-crisis-both-warming-and-cooling/

            ” scientists wondering out loud whether it was a GOOD thing”
            The Earth has greened, and we’re feeding over 7 billion people, that’s not a good thing?
            Ever wonder what the earth would be like if it cooled? Dalton Minimum, Maunder Minimum? We live in good times, warm times, enjoy it while it lasts.
            The Russian scientist are warning of cooling, should we ignore that? Solar cycle 24, lowest number of spots since the early 1900′s

            “So your criticism doesn’t wash”
            As you said; I’m entitled to my own opinion.
            If you disagree, post data to refute my claims.
            If you want to express your opposing opinion, I’ll gladly listen.
            If you don’t like what I say, don’t read my posts.

            We live in interesting times, and time will tell who’s correct on this topic.
            Hopefully you are, cold climate kills.

          • bernard townsend

            you are paid what? by the post? 6 cents a word?

          • SayWhat

            “you are paid what? by the post? 6 cents a word?”

            No, I have a real job. you?

            And as before, what “facts” have I shown indifference to?

  • u140904

    I read a couple of days ago in a Scientific Journal that there a thousands of climate models running. The believers cherry-pick the ones that support their nonsense and ignore the ones that don’t. Interesting……..

    • mustangeagle

      Care to identify the article?

      • DMN

        Yeah I read that one too but I just can’t remember the name of it.

  • Science Officer

    I think the Vikings are planning to start raising crops in Greenland, and the Romans want to make wine in Britain again, but only if the world warms up to where it was back in antiquity. Makes you wonder how they managed to survive the “frightening level” of temperatures back then, doesn’t it?

  • David Bartholomew

    Heat, shmeat. Who cares? 352 consecutive months above average? What was used to set the average? It was a pretty nice June in Missouri. July hasn’t been bad, either. So if June set a record for heat, it must have done it somewhere else. As long as we have food, water, and A/C, life is good!

  • Cahal the Mad™

    LMAO!! Eat it up climate cultists, eat up the lies and propaganda, and keep denying those scientific FACTS.

  • ashaff

    I know….let’s hope it is a rainy year. If you look at the rings on a Redwood tree, you will see that many years have gone by. Some were very rainy. Others were not. This was waaaay before they made up this idea about how to make money from stupidity and ignorance. If you buy an electric car the rings on those Redwood trees will probably be singing the same song decades from now.

  • xl500james

    um they better check their map again as it shows the Great lakes as being warmer than normal which is BS as weve had a very cold spring and summer so far by the lake

    • Pygmalion

      Silly! You are confusing “weather” and “climate” again.
      Weather caused the great lakes to freeze over.
      Climate allows us to claim they have warmed, despite evidence to the contrary!

      • DMN

        No he is not. Climate is a roll up of weather events. So if climate claims that temps are higher than “norm” (norm is a convention since nobody really knows what normal is, it is usually chosen over a certain period of time and declared so) then also individual temperatures measured daily should be higher than normal. As it happens the temperatures over a period of 6 months in that region were lower than normal then claimate should tell us that trends in the region are towards cooling. However, the map does not show that, why?

        • Pygmalion

          I was joking. When warming high-priests accuse rational people of “confusing weather and climate” I usually reply; “Weather is what you get when you stick your nose out of doors, Climate is what allows you to “deem” it to be something different.”

          • DMN

            Sorry I missread your comment.

          • dorman_c_do

            Misread*

    • Robert W

      It’s NOAAs climate division made up of C-Rate want-to-be scientists. They can’t find their arsehole but are experts in climate fiction. There will be a massive adjustment to their data in a few months making this June cooler to match the other datasets that use more reliable methods of data collection, but there will be no press release when they do.

      • Stacy

        Why do you say that? I don’t think you know anything about the research team at NOAA.

    • bernard townsend

      how is that water level? there has been a lot of reports of how far the water has gone down, are you aware of that?

      • xl500james

        Water level is UP … and dropping water level HAS LITTLE to Nothing to do with warming .. as it is tied to Overly DEEP Canal between the lakes and the REBOUNDING Crust from ICEAGE

  • McRae

    Oh man this is going to be great! A battle royale between Global Warming and El Nino!
    Who should we root for? They are both cunning and unpredictable and down right sneaky. But they both rely on heat. I was always a fan of The Ice Age from the 1970′s.
    Yeah, The Ice Age was one mean sombitch and it didnt need to warm up first….it just smacked you down with a coldness that was chilling.
    I would love to see The Ice Age take on both Global Warming and El Nino in a tag team cage match. Ooooh, it makes me shiver just thinking about it.

    • Ying

      You sound like Bill Watterson

    • Pygmalion

      The GW priests are not sweating it though, because no matter what happens they will say, “Just as we told you…”
      Of course it helps that they have the carbon exchanges stacked in their favor, and a US government ready to bypass democratic process to make sure you pay up.

  • howard patters

    If it’s too dry, it’s global warming. If it rains too much, it’s global warming. If it’s unseasonably warm, it’s global warming. If it’s unseasonably cool, it’s a polar vortex…

  • Pygmalion

    Could it simply be that long-term weather forecasting has always been something of a murky business?

  • DMN

    OK so at first the AGW predicted strong El Ninos. Well nature did not cooperate again with the models, so obviously AGW will cause no El Ninos or very weak ones. Another nail that is all. Again proof that the hypothesis is unscientific, it is unfalsefiable.

  • John Jackson

    How ridiculous…”El Nino, which is poorly understood”. As
    opposed to “Climate Change” which is totally understood. How absurd!

  • Pete

    I know a guy who puts cheese on hamburgers, because he won`t eat “cheeseburgers” (too much cholesterol) There must be a Nobel Prize waiting for him ;- )

  • dscotthep

    Looks like the Church of Global Warming us having a good old fashioned Tent Revival! Everyone’s invited to come get saved!!

  • jabusse

    My understanding is that the only global warmist model that correctly predicted no el nino also predicts no appreciable effect of any warming. They would be better off and far more accurate if they just used the tried and true New Farmers Almanac. They might even learn how to remove the poo from their shoe.

    • DMN

      Yeah but you see according to them that model cannot be used for long term predictions even though it can predict the present. When asked why, the answer was. … ok they wouldnt say but it is because it does not support a political agenda of the left.

  • WaterGeek

    So every year seems to be deemed “the hottest ever” by the global warming alarmists, but today there’s an article touting that they finally have a theory to explain the “13 year pause in global warming”. Um, which is it, is every year the hottest ever or has there been a long pause in warming? Or do you make it up as you go along, depending on the audience of the day?

    • Escape76

      They claim it is the hottest ever, usually by hundredths of a degree over some other year. Then they say that the hot spots are places like Siberia, Kazakhstan, the Congo, Angola, Northern South America and other regions where they can basically make up the past temperature records because there are no reliable temperature records for those regions.

    • DMN

      It is the story that best supports a political agenda.

  • Robert W

    This article is garbage. First of all, nothing is scary about the current temperature of the Earth unless you are some mental midget cultist. Second, these C-rate scientists can’t predict their next meal let alone ENSO. Third, NOAAs climate division is trash and should be defunded. In a few months their numbers will be adjusted and this last June will be around the 3rd-5th warmest, just like most of the other data sets are saying, including the much superior RSS and UAH satellite datasets.

    • Jack

      A stunning sequence of sophisticated arguments.

  • http://about.me/zztwp1/ zztwp

    El Nino and La Nina were caused by the Government of the USA , testing H Bombs in the ocean and caused this weather nightmare ! Google it and you will see US and nukes testing ! they are trying to blame SUV’s for climate change , and make all of us pay for there stupidity !

    • Robert W

      El Nino and La Nina have been around as long as the Pacific Ocean has existed in its current state. Even the Incans and other Americans new of the phenomenon.

  • Dylan Baddour

    1. Maybe there is no irrefutable connection between humanity and the changing climate, but it’s the best hypothesis we have. The planet has warmed noticeably since the 1930s, and as thinkers we must assume that there is a reason. So far the most widely accepted reason proposed is decades of burning oil and coal and releasing the gases into our atmosphere. Very few other hypotheses have been proposed to explain the phenomenon.

    2. Greenhouse gasses do make the planet warmer – they hare heavier, foggier gases than most of our air. Imagine the Earth being wrapped in a slowly thickening blanket as it basks in the sun. When you put on a blanket you don’t feel warm in a second, but it takes time for your body heat to gradually build up until you feel cozy.

    3. True, the climate has changed dramatically countless times on Earth without human help. What did living things do each time that happened? Most of them died. Ice ages have happened before but it is in our deepest interests not to see one happen again.

    4. Living things have caused global climate change before. Over two billion years ago the polar oceans of Earth were warm to the touch and the planet was a misty greenhouse full of heavy gases. Then, some of the first plants – algae – developed a process called “photosynthesis” in which they consume carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Over the eons, oceans full of algae pulled CO2 out of the air until it couldn’t hold so much heat and the planet settled into what has been approximately our modern climate ever since.

    • Rich Balance

      1) No, it is not the best hypothesis. The solar-ocean theory has a .9 correlation with historic temperatures while CO2 is less than .5.

      2) CO2 is an invisible, odorless gas. The concentration has only gone up by .01% in the past 150 years. Not exactly like putting a blanket over you.

      3) The climate has changed more significantly in the last 10,000 years several times. There were no mass extinctions (although there were lots of deaths during cold periods). During the warmest of those times humanity thrived.

      4) You’re talking about changes of 20% vs. the current CO2 changes of .01%. They aren’t even in the same zip code.

      • Escape76

        Good answer. I mean, who in their wildest imagination would ever dream that the sun and the oceans have more of an effect on climate than humans.

      • Dylan Baddour

        I am unfamiliar with the solar-ocean theory and cannot find it quickly online. Can you send me some explainer?

        • Rich Balance

          I provided a reference above. Since I’m generally skeptical of any climate theory I tend to think of it more in simple terms. I don’t think anyone has the complete answer.

          However, it makes logical sense. The Sun, through variation in sunspots, provides a non constant flow of energy to our oceans. Since the oceans are continually in motion that energy is spread through the oceans over time. However, the THC circulation is believed to be 1000 years or more. It takes a long time for the ocean temperature to reflect the changes. In addition, other ocean phase changes such as the PDO and AMO alter how much energy is distributed from the oceans to the atmosphere They also cause changes in polar ice caps which provides yet another change in the amount of solar energy captured by the oceans.

          I believe the only way to really understand the state of our climate would be to measure the changes in ocean temperature over time. However, that is simply not possible with our current technology.

      • Dylan Baddour

        Rich can you please give me some info on the solar-ocean theory? I have still been unable to find a good description.

      • disqus_p6hJ2yoKYN

        Rich, the concentration of CO2 has DOUBLED in the last 150 years. Not only do you not know what you’re talking about, you can’t do math either.

        • Rich Balance

          No it hasn’t. You can look at it two ways. One is the change in actual concentration. That delta is about .01% (.04-028). The other is a percent of increase. That is actually less than 50% (.12/.28). I used the first technique since that is what is actually important to the environment. You botched the second. Another scientifically illiterate fool trying to sound important.

      • 46.5481.981321.97

        Dude you made ALL of those numbers up. In the last 10,000 there was a mass extinction of mammalian mega-fauna. The fact that CO2 is odorless and invisible is completely irrelevant. And what is this .01%? The amount of CO2 in the air has doubled since people started burning fossil fuel.

        And what the hell is solar-ocean theory? Shouldn’t you be baling hay or something? How did you even learn to use a computer?

        • Rich Balance

          The concentration has not doubled, But that has nothing to do with the point. The concentration has gone from around .03% to .04% which is a change in concentration of .01%. Exactly what I said.

          Get back to me after you’ve taken at least one science course.

    • DMN

      Read Rich comment, my words exactly.

  • Escape76

    “But some scientists have warned that El Niño, itself poorly understood, cannot be well forecast amidst the effects of man-made climate change. As the global climate changes in reaction to increased manmade carbon emissions, forecasting global weather patterns can be difficult.”
    Like they were really spot-on with their El Nino forecasts before climate change (which they claim has been occurring since 1880) started happening, and now it’s climate change that has disrupted this spot-on forecasting.
    It’s just one ludicrous assertion after another.

  • William Dixson

    How about elnino is simply a sign of the change to come like, a month of 70 degrees in feb. In wisconsin, a year plus with no hurricanes, tornados in very large quantity. Everything we study we have only been studing for a few centuries at best. WE KNOW NOTHING

  • disqus_p6hJ2yoKYN

    Ahhhhhh…………..it’s so good to see all the denialist nut jobs come out of the woodwork again. They know so much about climatic science. It’s always good to hear what they have to say. Not.

    • David

      It’s depressing and humiliating!

  • jim_robert

    Given that – according to the official Hadley, as well as the UK Met, and now even PC IPCC admits as much – that there has been zero global warming since 1998, guess this is just another scam warming article. Oh,wait! It’s global “change.” Right. Hint to you anti-science, big bucks leftist greenies. “Change” is the definition of climate.Not that you would care.

    • Buggerthat

      Only liars and fools use lying sock puppet talking points.

      105. “Temperature has been flat/cooling for the last x years.”

      This lie is the result of using a carefully selected starting point and simplistic, one-dimensional thinking to explain the behavior of a complex multivariate system. The total heat content of the Earth’s biosphere is defined by a set of parameters, one of which is the surface temperature. The vast majority of heat from global warming goes into the oceans, so ocean heat content is a more reliable indicator of climate than surface or atmospheric temperature. This data shows global warming has accelerated in the last 15 years. Satellite measurements confirm Earth is gathering heat at the rate indicated by ocean heat content. This can be expected to continue as atmospheric CO2 is currently at 400 ppm and rising (its highest level in at least 13 million years and well above the estimated safe level of 350 ppm). The disappearance of Arctic sea ice has accelerated dramatically, hitting record low minimum volume in 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2012. The four warmest years were 2010 (0.63°C), 2005 (0.59°C), 2007 (0.56°C), and 2009 (0.55°C). Every one of the 13 years so far in the 21st century is one of the 14 warmest (the other year being the cherry-picked outlier, 1998, required to start this lie).

  • John

    This article is an absolute lie. In the winter these same groups were screaming that a super el nino was coming because of global warming. Now that the prediction turned out to be false, the lack of a super el nino is caused by global warming. Great scam they have going on because regardless of what happens, it’s global warming’s fault. Besides, many people have criticized the claim that June was the warmest June ever because of manipulation of the data.

  • John

    I find it amazing that no one in the liberal mass media trumpeted that hundreds of cold temperature records were broken across the US in the last two weeks. In fact, a colder air mass is predicted for the end of July, the hottest period of the year. Had warm records been broken it would have been the lead story in print and on TV.

    • WilliamMcDavid

      For those who choose willful ignorance about human-caused climate-change, it is undeniable that mercury pollution (COAL) IS Human-caused, as are cadmium, SOx, NOx, Fly-Ash & Other types of pollution which cause serious medical conditions which cost our health-care system $Billions$.
      1-in-6 Women In USA has enough Mercury in her uterus to cause permanent mental deficiency in any child she may bear. Asthma, pertussis, COPD, lung cancer and other respiratory conditions, caused by air pollution, are epidemic in metropolitan areas.
      If fossil-fuel companies INVESTED half as much money to develop Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Tide/Wave & Hydrogen energy as they SPEND to lobby AGAINST it, they could STOP poisoning us all and our progeny in future generations.
      The solution to all these other types of pollution is the SAME as the solution to climate-change: CLEAN ENERGY!
      If you call yourself “Pro-Life” you should be pro-environment.

  • Jim Wright

    El Nino was already cancelled for lack of interest..

  • Buggerthat

    I guess it is time for another spew of Denialist lies and stupidity. Does Texas allow this stuff to be reported?

    • TruGhost OfBo

      English must be a second language. In order to deny something, that something, must exist, GloBULL is pseudo science, Alechemy, reductio ad absurdum

      ♫ When you want a name calling pseudo science believer in your neighborhood, Who ya gonna Call?????

      Snot nose and his GloBULLsters♫

  • mbee1

    More nonsense from the wacko crowd. El Nino is not coming this year per Peru and several other countries weather service. If the US weather service models are not working it is not climate change that is the problem it is the model as per the IPCC the worlds climate has not changed in 16 years as you can see for yourself by looking at the giss data set over at NASA. Texas just got hit with some record rains so maybe the drought is over or maybe not. The 1930′s drought lasted 10 years as did the 1880′s drought. The state is in a semi desert which is the reason most of it is not in forest cover. The only thing different about this drought is back in 1880 you did not have millions of people in the state.

  • WilliamMcDavid

    For those who choose willful ignorance about human-caused climate-change, it is undeniable that mercury pollution (COAL) IS Human-caused, as are cadmium, SOx, NOx, Fly-Ash & Other types of pollution which cause serious medical conditions which cost our healt-care system $Billions$.
    1-in-6 Women In USA has enough Mercury in her uterus to cause permanent mental deficiency in any child she may bear. Asthma, pertussis, COPD, lung cancer and other respiratory conditions, caused by air pollution, are epidemic in metropolitan areas.
    If fossil-fuel companies INVESTED half as much money to develop Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Tide/Wave & Hydrogen energy as they SPEND to lobby AGAINST it, they could STOP poisoning us all and our progeny in future generations.
    The solution to all these other types of pollution is the SAME as the solution to climate-change: CLEAN ENERGY!
    If you call yourself “Pro-Life” you should be pro-environment.

    • thompstl79

      Ok so clean energy is the answer how do you force a country to do it. If only the US try’s it’s best at a cleaner country by cutting out green house gases how do you make other country. When those country want what people in America have. But they can’t afford to have green energy plants solar wind ect…..

      • WilliamMcDavid

        Solar panels have dropped in price-per-KW by 90% in last ten years. At the rate of decrease in cost of clean energy and rate of increase in price of poison energy, clean energy will cost LESS than fossil fuels in-wait for it–2015!

        Fossil fuels are already dead as the Dodo/Dinos, only propped-up & kept alive by government subsidies (25 TIMES those for Clean Energy), AND by fossil fuel companies not being charged for the cost of the environmental damage they do, and the $Billions$ in costs they add to our health-care system.

        Add to those props the huge sums of money being spent by the most-wealthy corporations in the history of the world, to prevent governments from encouraging and subsidizing the development and deployment of CLEAN ENERGY, and you get zombie fuel sources still walking, and destroying, the Earth.

        Many 2nd- & 3rd-world countries (India, China, African countries, South American countries, etc.), are already realizing this, leap-frogging fossil-fuels and going directly to clean energy in under-developed areas.

        If you’re worried about whether clean energy can supply enough power to power the world, don’t worry. Just solar alone has tremendous capabilities.

        Enough solar energy strikes the earth EVERY HOUR as is used by the entire world in A YEAR!

        Add to that Wind, Geothermal, Tide/Wave and Hydrogen/Oxygen made with the surplus electricity that can be provided by massive deployment of clean energy, (electricity + H2O=H2+O2=Space-Shuttle Fuel) for storage & to power vehicles & conventional power-plants, and the standards-of-living of every human on Earth can increase exponentially without destroying our life-support system–the ONLY one we will EVER have.

        • thompstl79

          An this will help people that live off 1 dollar a day how? Solar power is awesome special when it fry’s birds as they fly over the big plants in ca. Or windmills that kill birds as those birds fly in to the windmill fields. Those country can say all they want. You can’t stop a farm who burns down the forest because that land he gets to raise his cattle on will help feed his family.

        • SayWhat

          “Solar panels have dropped in price-per-KW by 90% in last ten years”

          And yet they are still too expensive for most of the US, even WITH the 30% Federal subsidy.

          “At the rate of decrease in cost of clean energy and rate of increase in
          price of poison energy, clean energy will cost LESS than fossil fuels
          in-wait for it–2015!”

          Sure, right about the time the EPA jacks up the costs of reliable energy, and then it’s still doubtful.

          “Fossil fuels are already dead as the Dodo/Dinos, only propped-up & kept alive by government subsidies”

          Dead? What do you think powers us now? And what subsidies? You keep spouting that, but provide NO proof or citation.

          ” (25 TIMES those for Clean Energy)”

          Uh No, that’s per industry, NOT on per unit of energy. WInd & solar are single digit fractions of our total energy, do the math.

          “Just solar alone has tremendous capabilities.”

          Yep, but just during the daylight hours. Until there is MASSIVE storage in place, solar can NOT become a large fraction of our energy supply no matter what you think.

          “Hydrogen/Oxygen made with the surplus electricity”
          Oh, are you one of those clowns that think “surplus” wind is free energy? You do know the round trip efficiency of hydrogen is around 16%, right?

          And why convert “surplus” electricity to hydrogen? Use it directly in a BEV. Electrons to pressurized hydrogen is less than 50%, plus the capital costs are enormous.

          Great ideas, if it wasn’t for reality getting in your way…

          • Quetzalcoatlus

            Hi SayWhat, glad I found you by following the shrilling upstream. Allow me to provide you with the proof of citation you hoped someone wouldn’t find: (it’s somewhat old but still valid overall)

            http://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/docs/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf

            I hope this addresses your “plus the capital costs are enormous.” comment. Capital costs are presently capital-costing us by doing nothing, get it? So capital costs for alternatives become WORTH it if they’re a BETTER idea. Let that sink in.

            And hitting your points with broadstrokes:

            -Solar and wind are indeed free energy. Storage is just a matter of pushing the technology toward increased efficiency. Hydrogen storage of solar PV is not efficient now, based on a full closed-cycle calculation. But again, research is pushing that efficiency higher just as research tends to do. But using free energy (PV, wind) to create storable energy (ie: hydrogen, batteries, etc) fundamentally makes perfect sense. It provides, besides supply during down-times, a transportable energy resource which our mobile infrastructure desperately needs. It’s the “gas tank” component of our economy, which electricity alone does not address.
            As for efficiency, here is only one of many avenues of research into the subject:

            http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/science/new-research-may-be-a-step-toward-solar-fuel.html#more

            -And another point about efficiency: carbon is priced as being free, even though the impact costs of its use are mind-bogglingly huge. So when you talk about say, solar “efficiency,” implying a comparison be made to oil or coal, the response to that is logically: compared to free? Carbon pollution being declared free is not a math equation, it’s a policy.
            So when you talk about efficiency this way it’s inherently deceptive. Carbon is presently not priced fairly compared to all other energy resources. Once it DOES, once the negatives in the ledger get taken FULLY into account, then fossil fuels are obviously a dead-end. Willfully ignoring that fact is, well, willful ignorance.

            -Obviously solar only works in daylight hours. Thank you for your research conclusions there, skippy.

            -Renewables are assuming more of a chunk of the national power grid. Obviously natural gas is taking the lead due to fracking, and obviously oil & coal are presently the highest supplier. That’s what happens with a century-long head start.

            http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/01/renewable-energy-provides-37-of-all-new-us-electrical-generating-capacity-in-2013

            -Re: cost of solar panels: “And yet they are still too expensive for most of the US, even WITH the 30% Federal subsidy.” Awww, don’t woowy there, SW. The price will come down whether you buy them or not. Y’know, it almost sounds like you’re advocating that the subsidy be higher. (!) Naaaw. Something tells me you wouldn’t install them even if they were free.

            -Re: ” Until there is MASSIVE storage in place..” Hey everyone! SW
            advocates massive municipal energy storage! Lucky for you, Elon Musk is
            on the case.

            http://www.technologyreview.com/news/522226/solarcity-using-tesla-batteries-aims-to-bring-solar-power-to-the-masses/

            -Re: “solar can NOT become a large fraction of our energy supply no matter what you think.” Actually, a mix of renewables makes the most sense, coupled with a secondary fallback source group (oil, coal, nuclear) only when all the front-runner sources cannot meet the remaining fractional demand. This is presently our least-worst scenario, and provides the incentive to develop the renewables as primary sources as much and as quickly as possible.
            So when you say “no matter what you think,” I think of Germany. Wow, that was easy!

          • SayWhat

            Hey Quetzalcoatlus, nice graphs, but really valid at all. I’m sure you know that renewables are a small fraction of our total energy usage. Find a chart that shows subsidies per unit of energy,

            “-Solar and wind are indeed free energy.”
            Then so are oil and gas. It’s right there for the taking, no? You need a way to capture and use solar, just as you need a way to capture and use oil, where is the difference?

            You can argue hydrogen all you want, that doesn’t change the equation. You’re much better off skipping the 2 extra conversions steps and using the electrons directly. What benefit does hydrogen bring to the table?

            “Renewables are assuming more of a chunk of the national power grid”

            Yea, maybe you should read the stats a bit closer:
            6% is not a “chunk”. It barely makes up for transmission losses.

            “Renewable energy sources now account for 15.97 percent of total
            installed U.S. operating generating capacity: water – 8.44 percent,
            wind – 5.20 percent, biomass – 1.36 percent, solar – 0.64 percent, and
            geothermal steam – 0.33 percent.”

            “Something tells me you wouldn’t install them even if they were free”

            Actually not, I’ve been pricing a 5kW system for about 5 years now. I just can’t make a business case that has a 10 year payback. I have the yard space for a ground mount, but even a $1 per Watt falls short.

            BTW, my home is nearly 100% LED, and I heat over 7,000 sq/ft with a 60K BTU input boiler. (zone 5) That same boiler does my domestic hot water too. So don’t preach to me about efficiency.

            “Actually, a mix of renewables makes the most sense, coupled with a
            secondary fallback source group (oil, coal, nuclear) only when all the
            front-runner sources cannot meet the remaining fractional demand.”

            Well that shows you know little about the US grid. Who pays to keep the coal, oil, and gas plants spinning while we’re waiting for the sun to come out or the wind to blow?

            The UK is burning more coal now than before renewables, and their energy prices have doubled.

            I think you live in a fantasy world.

  • Stanley

    EL nino and and La nina is climate change not made by man. Just goes to show you there is no consensus on man made climate change. Talk to a weather man about the weather.

  • Ray Del Colle

    “97 percent of top climate scientists and every major National Academy of Science agree that man-made carbon pollution is warming our climate.” http://clmtr.lt/c/J310cd0cMJ

    • TruGhost OfBo

      You have to remember that throwing 3 virgins into a volcano, was once considered to be the scientific method to stop drought or flood by 99.99% of the scientific community. The .01% that disagreed were the family of the virgins and of course the virgins themselves.

      • WilliamMcDavid

        You’re talking about the RELIGIOUS community, NOT the scientific community, you know, those folks who created the Dark Ages & ended ALL scientific endeavor by persecuting scientists as “heretics”.

        • TruGhost OfBo

          No, they were considered the enlightened scientists, practicing the GloBULL of their day, Peer Reviewed, consensus, pseudo science, Alchemy, Reductio ad Absurdium. Nice try at selective amnesia….

          • Quetzalcoatlus

            Soooo, in your mind, 21st-century climatologists take the rap forrrr….16th-century pre-colonial, pacific island volcano-diety priests? Mmmmmkay. In this, well, colorful, model of the world, do you, TruGhost OfBo, consider yourself, um, a virgin, symbolically or otherwise?

    • Rich Balance
    • grant

      that 97% of top scientists amounts only to a handle, and most of the original have left the IPCC and no longer believe in the Ideals of the IPCC. Many scientists names used in the percentages did not want their name used and associated with the IPCC either.

      The lies of the Global Warming Alarmists get weaker and weaker as their lies catch up to them.

      None of their predictions have come true yet. the last 10 years we were supposed to have had real bad hurricanes because of the rise in co2 and their theories, yet it did not happen. Since 1998 the Global temp has not risen yet they keep saying the Global temperature keeps rising. They lie to you. They say they compare it to 2000, but that is deceiving. If you read between the lines an look at the real data, they are deceiving you. Their true agenda is carbon taxing. Thier insistance on unrealistic goals has made 3 countries, Canada, Japan and now Australia to back out of the Kyoto Protocol.

  • skipgainer

    I am so sick of these so called experts, every time they get a little new gadget to work with and show off some pretty pictures they drive me crazy with their maybes. We better start cleaning up our oceans or I don`t give a dam how hot it gets because we will be long dead and buried!

  • juancarnuba

    El Nino looks doubtful this year.

  • disqus_p6hJ2yoKYN

    John, how many times do you have to be told that denial ain’t just a river in Egypt?

  • Jack

    Who makes money from global warming?

  • Rich Balance

    Natural gas companies, environmental groups, environmental NGOs, carbon traders, wind energy, solar energy, electric car manufacturers, climate scientists, Al Gore, …. Do I really need to continue?

  • Jack

    So I guess that a lot more (and more powerful) interests make money by convincing people there is nothing to worry about. You know, oil, coal, power plants, the military and anything that finances large scale manufacturing today. Did you ever think Rich that people could be buying your beliefs?

About StateImpact

StateImpact seeks to inform and engage local communities with broadcast and online news focused on how state government decisions affect your lives.
Learn More »

Economy
Education