Climatologists Got It Wrong with El Niño

[Uncensored2008]

Your article is old. Sierra snowpack is currently at 105% as of Tuesday. Which means it's just an average year, not the El Niño above well average probability given last year.

As I said, we are in for some HEAVY rain starting this weekend. The issue, as I said previously, is that it may be too warm to build the snow pack. And California is WAY too stupid to capture runoff.

And BTW - you'll be lucky to get 2" of rain in the next week. Then more dry Santa Anas.

{
A series of winter storms expected to begin this weekend could bring significant rainfall to Southern California over the course of the next week, forecasters said.

Satellite images on Saturday morning showed a series of Pacific low pressure storm systems moving into the region, likely impacting the state through much of the first work week of the new year, according to the National Weather Service.

Forecasters predicted the first storm would hit Sunday night, bringing light precipitation and snow to levels between 5,000 and 6,000 feet through Monday.

Then, the region would be drenched by likely heavier rainfall.

From Tuesday through Friday, additional storms have the potential to bring heavy rains to drought-stricken Southern California, according to the weather service. At other times, the area would be soaked by widespread moderate precipitation.

The wet and stormy weather could bring significant rain totals of 2 to 4 inches to many areas, while forecasters expected local accumulations of up to 6 inches on south-facing slopes.}

Series of Storms Expected to Drench SoCal With Widespread, Potentially Heavy Rains Next Week

 

[jc456]

Your article is old. Sierra snowpack is currently at 105% as of Tuesday. Which means it's just an average year, not the El Niño above well average probability given last year.

As I said, we are in for some HEAVY rain starting this weekend. The issue, as I said previously, is that it may be too warm to build the snow pack. And California is WAY too stupid to capture runoff.

And BTW - you'll be lucky to get 2" of rain in the next week. Then more dry Santa Anas.

{
A series of winter storms expected to begin this weekend could bring significant rainfall to Southern California over the course of the next week, forecasters said.

Satellite images on Saturday morning showed a series of Pacific low pressure storm systems moving into the region, likely impacting the state through much of the first work week of the new year, according to the National Weather Service.

Forecasters predicted the first storm would hit Sunday night, bringing light precipitation and snow to levels between 5,000 and 6,000 feet through Monday.

Then, the region would be drenched by likely heavier rainfall.

From Tuesday through Friday, additional storms have the potential to bring heavy rains to drought-stricken Southern California, according to the weather service. At other times, the area would be soaked by widespread moderate precipitation.

The wet and stormy weather could bring significant rain totals of 2 to 4 inches to many areas, while forecasters expected local accumulations of up to 6 inches on south-facing slopes.}

Series of Storms Expected to Drench SoCal With Widespread, Potentially Heavy Rains Next Week

well I hope you get it, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Your article is old. Sierra snowpack is currently at 105% as of Tuesday. Which means it's just an average year, not the El Niño above well average probability given last year.

As I said, we are in for some HEAVY rain starting this weekend. The issue, as I said previously, is that it may be too warm to build the snow pack. And California is WAY too stupid to capture runoff.

And BTW - you'll be lucky to get 2" of rain in the next week. Then more dry Santa Anas.

{
A series of winter storms expected to begin this weekend could bring significant rainfall to Southern California over the course of the next week, forecasters said.

Satellite images on Saturday morning showed a series of Pacific low pressure storm systems moving into the region, likely impacting the state through much of the first work week of the new year, according to the National Weather Service.

Forecasters predicted the first storm would hit Sunday night, bringing light precipitation and snow to levels between 5,000 and 6,000 feet through Monday.

Then, the region would be drenched by likely heavier rainfall.

From Tuesday through Friday, additional storms have the potential to bring heavy rains to drought-stricken Southern California, according to the weather service. At other times, the area would be soaked by widespread moderate precipitation.

The wet and stormy weather could bring significant rain totals of 2 to 4 inches to many areas, while forecasters expected local accumulations of up to 6 inches on south-facing slopes.}

Series of Storms Expected to Drench SoCal With Widespread, Potentially Heavy Rains Next Week

Two storms, 2" total for Yorba Linda.
Watch and check back on Tuesday when it's sunny.

 

[RollingThunder]

Your article is old. Sierra snowpack is currently at 105% as of Tuesday. Which means it's just an average year, not the El Niño above well average probability given last year.

As I said, we are in for some HEAVY rain starting this weekend. The issue, as I said previously, is that it may be too warm to build the snow pack. And California is WAY too stupid to capture runoff.

And BTW - you'll be lucky to get 2" of rain in the next week. Then more dry Santa Anas.

{
A series of winter storms expected to begin this weekend could bring significant rainfall to Southern California over the course of the next week, forecasters said.

Satellite images on Saturday morning showed a series of Pacific low pressure storm systems moving into the region, likely impacting the state through much of the first work week of the new year, according to the National Weather Service.

Forecasters predicted the first storm would hit Sunday night, bringing light precipitation and snow to levels between 5,000 and 6,000 feet through Monday.

Then, the region would be drenched by likely heavier rainfall.

From Tuesday through Friday, additional storms have the potential to bring heavy rains to drought-stricken Southern California, according to the weather service. At other times, the area would be soaked by widespread moderate precipitation.

The wet and stormy weather could bring significant rain totals of 2 to 4 inches to many areas, while forecasters expected local accumulations of up to 6 inches on south-facing slopes.}

Series of Storms Expected to Drench SoCal With Widespread, Potentially Heavy Rains Next Week

Two storms, 2" total for Yorba Linda.
Watch and check back on Tuesday when it's sunny.

Your idiotic thread got completely debunked, WitheredMan.

You're just making an even bigger fool out of yourself.

 

[Old Rocks]

UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for Feb. 2016: +0.83 deg. C (new record) | Roy Spencer, PhD.

Really?

Wider and wider swings? Nope

Overall Warming? Nope

Record Warm Weekend Brings All-Time Warmest February Temperature for North Dakota

Frankie Boy stupid? Yup!

 

[Old Rocks]

The impacts of warmer oceans in the eastern pacific have been opposite of what the climate experts predicted. Instead of storm tracks being centered upon SoCal they have risen above the Pacific Northwest. The result has been extremely dry conditions for SoCal this winter and below average snowfall for the Sierras.

If they can't even get close to telling us the climate just a few months in advance, how can they justify telling us to change the economy for something they are predicting a century from now?

???

We are at 113% of normal rain for the year and expecting heavy rain starting this weekend.

My concern is that this is so late in the season that it won't be cold enough to build the snow pack.

Correct concern. Pretty damned warm for February and March. Hope that you get at least a couple of cold storms before April.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Your article is old. Sierra snowpack is currently at 105% as of Tuesday. Which means it's just an average year, not the El Niño above well average probability given last year.

As I said, we are in for some HEAVY rain starting this weekend. The issue, as I said previously, is that it may be too warm to build the snow pack. And California is WAY too stupid to capture runoff.

And BTW - you'll be lucky to get 2" of rain in the next week. Then more dry Santa Anas.

{
A series of winter storms expected to begin this weekend could bring significant rainfall to Southern California over the course of the next week, forecasters said.

Satellite images on Saturday morning showed a series of Pacific low pressure storm systems moving into the region, likely impacting the state through much of the first work week of the new year, according to the National Weather Service.

Forecasters predicted the first storm would hit Sunday night, bringing light precipitation and snow to levels between 5,000 and 6,000 feet through Monday.

Then, the region would be drenched by likely heavier rainfall.

From Tuesday through Friday, additional storms have the potential to bring heavy rains to drought-stricken Southern California, according to the weather service. At other times, the area would be soaked by widespread moderate precipitation.

The wet and stormy weather could bring significant rain totals of 2 to 4 inches to many areas, while forecasters expected local accumulations of up to 6 inches on south-facing slopes.}

Series of Storms Expected to Drench SoCal With Widespread, Potentially Heavy Rains Next Week

Two storms, 2" total for Yorba Linda.
Watch and check back on Tuesday when it's sunny.

Your idiotic thread got completely debunked, WitheredMan.

You're just making an even bigger fool out of yourself.

Debunked by morons who cherry pick data and use it has statistics?

Hilarious. Simply validates the cultists are just a bunch of stupid sheep.

 

[RollingThunder]

Your idiotic thread got completely debunked, WitheredMan.

You're just making an even bigger fool out of yourself.

Debunked by morons who cherry pick data and use it has statistics? Hilarious. Simply validates the cultists are just a bunch of stupid sheep.

Your moronic reply "simply validates" that you denier cultists are ignorant brainwashed retards.

As far as your idiotic claim about who debunked your drivel.....
Nope! Debunked by prominent scientists....like Dr. Bill Chameidesu, Dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University......something I posted in post #9 on page one of this totally fraudulent bullcrap thread......

....Like this...starting with the denier cult myth you tried to push in your demented OP.

If they can't even get close to telling us the climate just a few months in advance, how can they justify telling us to change the economy for something they are predicting a centurys from now?

Your OP is denier cult drivel that has nothing to do with the scientific facts about human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes and disruptions. It is based only on your abject ignorance and your anti-science distrust of scientists, plus a few crackpot conspiracy theories. Your moldy old denier cult myth has been repeatedly debunked for decades by almost every scientific organization on Earth that has anything to do with climate science. Your ignorance of that fact only highlights your complete ignorance about science, and climate science in particular.

In the real world....

WEATHER PREDICTION, CLIMATE PREDICTION. WHATS THE DIFF?
IF SCIENTISTS CANT ACCURATELY PREDICT THE WEATHER NEXT WEEK OR THE WEEK AFTER, HOW CAN THEY PREDICT THE CLIMATE IN 10 OR 20 YEARS? GOOD QUESTION. THE ANSWER LIES IN APPLES AND ORANGES.
Popular Science
By Dr. Bill Chameidesu
March 20, 2009
Scientifically speaking, the difference between weather prediction and climate prediction is the difference between an "initial value problem" and a "boundary value problem." Let's see if I can explain in English.

While weather and climate both focus on temperature, wind, cloudiness, rain or snow, the way these properties are used is quite different. The National Center for Atmospheric Research defines the two like so:

"Weather is the mix of events that happen each day in our atmosphere."

"Climate is the average weather pattern in a place over many years."

When Time and Place Are Critical

When you want to know the weather, time and place are critical. You are interested in what is going to happen in the immediate future (not sometime in the next month or two) and in your vicinity (not 1000 miles away).

If the TV weather person announced it was going to rain somewhere in your state sometime next month, I suspect you'd find that prediction a little less than satisfactory. But the latter is essentially what a climate prediction is, and the methodology to arrive at it is fundamentally different from predicting the weather.

What Goes into Weather Predictions

Imagine you are a center fielder on a baseball team. The batter hits a fly ball your way and it's your job to catch it. To do so, you need to figure where in center field the ball is headed and when it's going to get there.

If you're a good outfielder, a crack computer in your brain gathers up essential data -- like the speed of the bat as it hits the ball, the sound of the impact, and the ball's initial direction -- and in a split second calculates the ball's trajectory.

But to do this well, it's essential that the input into your computer what scientists would call the initial values is complete and accurate. If the glare of the sun or stadium lights obscure your view of the ball's initial flight, your ability to accurately predict where the ball is going and when it will get there is impaired.

Predicting the weather is similarly dependent on the initial values you specify in the computer model used to make the prediction. These initial conditions include temperature, wind speed, wind direction, and precipitation rates everywhere in your model essentially everywhere in the atmosphere. The values for these parameters can't be made up; they must come from real data. Today these data come from the global meteorological network run by countries around the world and largely coordinated by the World Meteorological Organization. This network includes surface meteorological stations, balloon measurements, shipboard measurements, and space-borne platforms.

Despite its very impressive size, the network is limited; we can only make meteorological measurements in so many locations and these measurements are not perfectly accurate. Thus, the initial conditions input into our weather models are imperfect, and so our weather predictions are inaccurate -- and would be even if our understanding of the physics of the weather were perfect.

Because the effects of imperfect initial conditions on weather simulations tend to grow, the longer the weather model is run into the future, the less accurate the prediction. Predictions of the weather just a week or two in advance, let alone decades, become highly problematic.

What Goes into Climate Predictions

Less concerned with exact time and place, predicting climate focuses on spatially and temporally averaged conditions.
Unlike the earlier example of the outfielder who must know exactly where the ball is heading and when it will get there, climate prediction is more akin to predicting at the beginning of the game how many times a ball will be hit to center field sometime in the first three innings. Initial conditions like the speed of the bat or direction of the ball as it leaves the first batter's bat are not going to help very much. The critical factors are the speed and direction of the wind, the properties of the ball and the bat, the strength of the pitcher and the batters, and the dimensions of the field factors that scientists call boundary conditions.

So while predicting the weather depends critically on getting the initial state of the atmosphere right, predicting the climate does not. Which is not to say that climate prediction is easy. It's not.

Predicting climate accurately depends on getting a host of those boundary conditions correct, many of which relate to the atmosphere's energy. They include the amount and strength of sunlight reaching the Earth, the reflectivity of the Earth's surface, the movement of heat in the oceans, and the opacity of the atmosphere to terrestrial radiation as a result of greenhouse gases. And for this reason, getting long-term, accurate observations of, for example, the variations in the sun's output of energy over time is critical for understanding past climate change. Uncertainties in how the sun's output will change in the coming decades limits our ability to predict future climate with complete confidence. However, such decadal variations in the sun's output are irrelevant to predicting tomorrow's weather.

There are other fundamental differences between weather and climate predictions. Some of these relate to mechanisms. For example, accurate weather predictions require a good simulation of the processes that lead to precipitation from a cloud since whether or not it rains at a specific location on a specific day is relevant. For climate predictions, the specifics of the cloud-to-rain process are less important. Far more important is getting right the reflective properties of the cloud since these affect the planet's long-term energy budget. Again, both of these inputs present difficult but different challenges.

And that's why comparing the limitations of weather predictions with those of climate predictions is a little or a lot like comparing apples and oranges.

Bill Chameides
Dean, Duke University
Nicholas School of the Environment | www.TheGreenGrok.com

 

[Weatherman2020]

Back for another beating I see.
They got it wrong.
Get a life. We know little how the climate works.

 

[RollingThunder]

Back for another beating I see.

You're back to keep making an even bigger fool out of yourself.

They got it wrong. We know little how the climate works.

Nope! You got it wrong.....your claims were proven false, your point was debunked......you are a brainwashed, anti-science moron who just got his lying ass kicked to the curb....

 

[Weatherman2020]

Back for another beating I see.

You're back to keep making an even bigger fool out of yourself.

They got it wrong. We know little how the climate works.

Nope! You got it wrong.....your claims were proven false, your point was debunked......you are a brainwashed, anti-science moron who just got his lying ass kicked to the curb....

What universe do you live in?
This is mine.

 

[RollingThunder]

They got it wrong. We know little how the climate works.

Nope! You got it wrong.....your claims were proven false, your point was debunked......you are a brainwashed, anti-science moron who just got his lying ass kicked to the curb....

What universe do you live in?
This is mine.
View attachment 6502 View attachment 6504

This is the universe you live in, WitheredMan....

....and the source of all of your lies and misinformation.

 

[Weatherman2020]

They got it wrong. We know little how the climate works.

Nope! You got it wrong.....your claims were proven false, your point was debunked......you are a brainwashed, anti-science moron who just got his lying ass kicked to the curb....

What universe do you live in?
This is mine.
View attachment 6502 View attachment 6504

This is the universe you live in, WitheredMan....

....and the source of all of your lies and misinformation.

Interesting, now you call NOAA liars because they present evidence you're an idiot cultist.
Most interesting indeed.

 

[RollingThunder]

They got it wrong. We know little how the climate works.

Nope! You got it wrong.....your claims were proven false, your point was debunked......you are a brainwashed, anti-science moron who just got his lying ass kicked to the curb....

What universe do you live in?
This is mine.
View attachment 6502 View attachment 6504

This is the universe you live in, WitheredMan....

....and the source of all of your lies and misinformation.

Interesting, now you call NOAA liars because they present evidence you're an idiot cultist.
Most interesting indeed.

NOAA is fine, retard. You are the loony liar!

 

[jc456]

They got it wrong. We know little how the climate works.

Nope! You got it wrong.....your claims were proven false, your point was debunked......you are a brainwashed, anti-science moron who just got his lying ass kicked to the curb....

What universe do you live in?
This is mine.
View attachment 6502 View attachment 6504

This is the universe you live in, WitheredMan....

....and the source of all of your lies and misinformation.

Interesting, now you call NOAA liars because they present evidence you're an idiot cultist.
Most interesting indeed.

NOAA is fine, retard. You are the loony liar!

please explain, cause your just stated a hypocritical statement. How can he be lying if you agree NOAA is fine?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Stop insulting each other and stick to the topic

 

[RollingThunder]

They got it wrong. We know little how the climate works.

Nope! You got it wrong.....your claims were proven false, your point was debunked......you are a brainwashed, anti-science moron who just got his lying ass kicked to the curb....

What universe do you live in?
This is mine.
View attachment 6502 View attachment 6504

This is the universe you live in, WitheredMan....

....and the source of all of your lies and misinformation.

Interesting, now you call NOAA liars because they present evidence you're an idiot cultist.
Most interesting indeed.

NOAA is fine, retard. You are the loony liar!

please explain, cause your just stated a hypocritical statement. How can he be lying if you agree NOAA is fine?

He is NOT quoting a NOAA climate prediction. NOAA's actual predictions stress the uncertainty in unfolding weather events due to the many factors involved. They did not say that it would be certainly more rainy in Southern California because of the El Niño this January, they said it would probably be more rainyThey can't say with precision, weeks in advance, that: 'it will rain heavily on March 14th'....because that is weather prediction....but they can say with great certainty that it will get hotter in the summer this year and colder in the next winter....because that is climate prediction.

You denier cultists have swallowed an idiotic propaganda meme that is based on not understanding the difference between weather prediction and climate prediction. That got debunked in post #9 on page one of this demented thread.

 

[Billy_Bob]

 

[RollingThunder]

Your demented source is lying to you, Boober....you poor delusional denier cult retard.

1996 was actually not very warm, globally. Average Earth temperature was .4 degrees C. above the 1951-1980 base period average. By 2016, global average temperature has increased by almost one full degree C. above the base period.

Global Temperatures
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
(See data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp for details and data.)
2016/02/12

Recent surface temperature in different temporal resolution. PDF (Data through January 2016 used. Now with GHCN V3.3.0 and ERSST v4. Last modified: 2016/02/12.

 

[mamooth]

It's raining hard in middle and northern California now, with rain moving towards SoCal now. And heavy snow in the mountains.

Great predictions, Weatherman.