Climatologists Got It Wrong with El Niño

[Billy_Bob]

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.

DO you know what GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IS?

IT is the average of the real measurements not some computer derived crap you post.

 

[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.

DO you know what GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IS?
IT is the average of the real measurements not some computer derived crap you post.

Do you know how NASA computes the "GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE", Boobster? Of course not!

They use the "real measurements" collected at temperature stations and ships all around the world.

You are a denier cult loon!

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

DO you know what GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IS?
IT is the average of the real measurements not some computer derived crap you post.

Do you know how NASA computes the "GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE", Boobster? Of course not!

They use the "real measurements" collected at temperature stations and ships all around the world.

You are a denier cult loon!

You are a retard who cant even read your own graphs..

Do you know what the word "Anomaly" means? You and Crick must have taken the same graph reading course.. You dont even know what it is your posting..

 

[RollingThunder]

toiletpaper://toiletpaper://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12800238_10208888496752001_7889638654908237857_n.jpg?oh=6b383e2038c44d9986547a7ce55d18ec&oe=57652C7C[/IM

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.

DO you know what GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IS?
IT is the average of the real measurements not some computer derived crap you post.

Do you know how NASA computes the "GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE", Boobster? Of course not!

They use the "real measurements" collected at temperature stations and ships all around the world.

You are a denier cult loon!

You are a retard who cant even read your own graphs..

Do you know what the word "Anomaly" means? You and Crick must have taken the same graph reading course.. You dont even know what it is your posting..

Wow! You are really retarded, Boobles!

First you moronically claim that the surface temperature graph from NASA was based on "computer derived crap"....so I point out that that is bullshit and NASA uses actual instrumental temperature measurements.....for scientific purposes, the NASA graph compares current temperatures to the average temperatures of a selected base period from 1951 to 1980....the difference between the current temperature and the base period temperature is called the 'anomaly'.....and it is very obvious that you are the one who has no idea what the term means or why scientists often use anomalies in graphic representations of past temperatures....

The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.
Global Surface Temperature Anomalies: FAQ | National ...
National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) | NCEI offers access to the most significant archives of oceanic, atmospheric, geophysical and coastal data. › anomalies

 

[jc456]

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.

So again, where is the warmer parts of the planet at that gives you all this nonsense?

 

[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.

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.

Not quoting NOAA? The NOAA graphs (as in quoting NOAA) clearly state what their predicted probabilities were, and the results. Only one conclusion possible - climate predictions - that you cultists love spouting - are nothing more than tossing darts at a dart board.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Less than 0.5 inch total for SoCal. Real gully washer.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Less than 0.5 inch total for SoCal. Real gully washer.

LOL... Its real funny that they are now thinking of reclassifying this last event as a "Modoki-El Niño" (that was what I called it all last year and some here laughed at me for it) and one that can not create a step increase in Global Average Temperature (GAT) due to it's originating location and lack of depth. It also explains why we remained in La Niña atmospheric circulation patterns..

As it peaked 2 months before the average peak of most El Niño's, the GAT peak was most likely seen last month.

Were going to have some real disappointed alarmists if this next month drops to near normal GAT, as most of the current charts are predicting..

The fun is just beginning.. Inside of three to four months the pause will have returned with a vengeance..

 

[Crick]

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.

Less than 0.5 inch total for SoCal. Real gully washer.

LOL... Its real funny that they are now thinking of reclassifying this last event as a "Modoki-El Niño" and one that can not create a step increase in Global Average Temperature (GAT) due to it's originating location and lack of depth. It also explains why we remained in La Niña patterns..

As it peaked 2 months before the average peak of most El Niño's, the GAT peak was most likely seen last month.

Were going to have some real disappointed alarmists if this next month drops to near normal GAT, as most of the current charts are predicting..

The fun is just beginning.. Inside of three to four months the pause will have returned with a vengeance..

This is DEFINITELY a Billy Bob post to save.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Less than 0.5 inch total for SoCal. Real gully washer.

Here is an interesting link for you.. This shows the equatorial region and its air flows over heat concentrations. In side of six weeks Modoki-El Niño will be no more, at its current rate of decay.

Today; earth :: a global map of wind, weather, and ocean conditions

one month ago; earth :: a global map of wind, weather, and ocean conditions

You will also note that the flows are not responding to anything the Modoki is doing.

 

[Crick]

DIAGNOSTIC DISCUSSION
issued by
CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER/NCEP/NWS
and the International Research Institute for Climate and Society
11 February 2016

ENSO Alert System Status: El Niño Advisory



Synopsis: A transition to ENSO-neutral is likely during late Northern Hemisphere spring or early summer 2016, with a possible transition to La Niña conditions during the fall.

Indicative of a strong El Niño, sea surface temperature (SSTs) anomalies were in excess of 2°C across the east-central equatorial Pacific Ocean during January (Fig. 1). The Niño indices in the eastern Pacific declined, while Niño-3.4 and Niño-4 were nearly unchanged (Fig. 2). The subsurface temperatures in the central and eastern Pacific increased due to a downwelling Kelvin wave(Fig. 3), but toward the end of the month weakened again in association with the eastward shift of below-average temperatures at depth in the central Pacific (Fig. 4). Also, low-level westerly wind anomalies and upper-level easterly wind anomalies continued over much of the tropical Pacific. The traditional and equatorial Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) values remained negative but weakened relative to last month. Convection remained much enhanced over the central and east-central tropical Pacific and suppressed over Indonesia (Fig. 5). Collectively, these anomalies reflect the continuation of a strong El Niño.

Most models indicate that El Niño will weaken, with a transition to ENSO-neutral during the late spring or early summer 2016 (Fig. 6). Thereafter, the chance of La Niña conditions increases into the fall. While there is both model and physical support for La Niña following strong El Niño, considerable uncertainty remains. A transition to ENSO-neutral is likely during late Northern Hemisphere spring or early summer 2016, with a possible transition to La Niña conditions during the fall (click CPC/IRI consensus forecast for the chance of each outcome for each 3-month period).

El Niño has already produced significant global impacts and is expected to affect temperature and precipitation patterns across the United States during the upcoming months (the 3-month seasonal outlook will be updated on Thursday February 18th). The seasonal outlooks for February - April indicate an increased likelihood of above-median precipitation across the southern tier of the United States, and below-median precipitation over the northern tier. Above-average temperatures are favored in the North and West, and below-average temperatures are favored in the southern Plains and along the Gulf Coast.

This discussion is a consolidated effort of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NOAA's National Weather Service, and their funded institutions. Oceanic and atmospheric conditions are updated weekly on the Climate Prediction Center web site (El Niño/La Niña Current Conditions and Expert Discussions). Forecasts are also updated monthly in theForecast Forum of CPC's Climate Diagnostics Bulletin. Additional perspectives and analysis are also available in an ENSO blog. The next ENSO Diagnostics Discussion is scheduled for 10 March 2016 To receive an e-mail notification when the monthly ENSO Diagnostic Discussions are released, please send an e-mail message to: [email protected].


Climate Prediction Center
National Centers for Environmental Prediction
NOAA/National Weather Service
College Park, MD 20740
******************************************************************************

I notice the term "Modoki" does not appear in this text.

 

[Crick]

A proper explanation of El Nino-Modoki

El Niño Modoki Phenomenon in the Tropical Pacific

 

[Billy_Bob]

A proper explanation of El Nino-Modoki

El Niño Modoki Phenomenon in the Tropical Pacific

Too funny... You dont know shit about what it is or how it works and your trying to claim the moral high ground by being a total fuck wit...

 

[RollingThunder]

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.

Not quoting NOAA? The NOAA graphs (as in quoting NOAA) clearly state what their predicted probabilities were, and the results. Only one conclusion possible - climate predictions - that you cultists love spouting - are nothing more than tossing darts at a dart board.

Nope! Wrong again, little retard.

The difference between weather prediction and climate prediction was explained very clearly in post #9 on page one of this dimwitted fraudulent thread of yours, WitheredMan.

NOAA gave precipitation probabilities, not certainties, moron.

Your idiotic attack on the accuracy of climate science is entirely politically based and has nothing to do with the science. You know nothing about the actual science, as you have made very obvious.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Not quoting NOAA? The NOAA graphs (as in quoting NOAA) clearly state what their predicted probabilities were, and the results. Only one conclusion possible - climate predictions - that you cultists love spouting - are nothing more than tossing darts at a dart board.

Nope! Wrong again, little retard.

The difference between weather prediction and climate prediction was explained very clearly in post #9 on page one of this dimwitted fraudulent thread of yours, WitheredMan.

NOAA gave precipitation probabilities, not certainties, moron.

Your idiotic attack on the accuracy of climate science is entirely politically based and has nothing to do with the science. You know nothing about the actual science, as you have made very obvious.

Not my fault nor problem the CLIMATE CENTER at NOAA created and released the graphic you want to whine about.

You really do need to get out of the cult and join the real world.

 

[RollingThunder]

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.

Not quoting NOAA? The NOAA graphs (as in quoting NOAA) clearly state what their predicted probabilities were, and the results. Only one conclusion possible - climate predictions - that you cultists love spouting - are nothing more than tossing darts at a dart board.

Nope! Wrong again, little retard.

The difference between weather prediction and climate prediction was explained very clearly in post #9 on page one of this dimwitted fraudulent thread of yours, WitheredMan.

NOAA gave precipitation probabilities, not certainties, moron.

Your idiotic attack on the accuracy of climate science is entirely politically based and has nothing to do with the science. You know nothing about the actual science, as you have made very obvious.

Not my fault nor problem the CLIMATE CENTER at NOAA created and released the graphic you want to whine about.

You really do need to get out of the cult and join the real world.

Further demonstrating your blind idiocy, WitheredMan, you poor bamboozled retard.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Not quoting NOAA? The NOAA graphs (as in quoting NOAA) clearly state what their predicted probabilities were, and the results. Only one conclusion possible - climate predictions - that you cultists love spouting - are nothing more than tossing darts at a dart board.

Nope! Wrong again, little retard.

The difference between weather prediction and climate prediction was explained very clearly in post #9 on page one of this dimwitted fraudulent thread of yours, WitheredMan.

NOAA gave precipitation probabilities, not certainties, moron.

Your idiotic attack on the accuracy of climate science is entirely politically based and has nothing to do with the science. You know nothing about the actual science, as you have made very obvious.

Not my fault nor problem the CLIMATE CENTER at NOAA created and released the graphic you want to whine about.

You really do need to get out of the cult and join the real world.

Further demonstrating your blind idiocy, WitheredMan, you poor bamboozled retard.

My NOAA Climate Center graphics vs your childish personal attacks.

Guess which one science stands with.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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

Yorba Linda is 60% of normal, and you got a whopping 0.36 inches this weekend with another 0.5 inch gully washer on the way. And the pathetic storms are not linked to El Niño, they are the typical PNW spinning down to SoCal systems.

Yeah, the climate folks AND the forecast folks keep getting it wrong.

 

[RollingThunder]

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.

Not quoting NOAA? The NOAA graphs (as in quoting NOAA) clearly state what their predicted probabilities were, and the results. Only one conclusion possible - climate predictions - that you cultists love spouting - are nothing more than tossing darts at a dart board.

Nope! Wrong again, little retard.

The difference between weather prediction and climate prediction was explained very clearly in post #9 on page one of this dimwitted fraudulent thread of yours, WitheredMan.

NOAA gave precipitation probabilities, not certainties, moron.

Your idiotic attack on the accuracy of climate science is entirely politically based and has nothing to do with the science. You know nothing about the actual science, as you have made very obvious.

Not my fault nor problem the CLIMATE CENTER at NOAA created and released the graphic you want to whine about.

You really do need to get out of the cult and join the real world.

Further demonstrating your blind idiocy, WitheredMan, you poor bamboozled retard.

My NOAA Climate Center graphics....

.....that show about the probabilities for the weather systems that develop in a three month period - Jan, Feb, Mar - from the El Niño conditions in the Pacific....and that have no connection to long term climate prediction, you poor bamboozled idiot.

Moreover, their weather predictions were not that far off.....the snowpack is currently over 105% of normal....rainfall is increasing....major El Niño storms are hitting Southern California.....your OP was insane and has been repeatedly debunked....weather predictions have almost nothing to do with the very different climate predictions...as was explained in detail in post #9 on this thread.

Traffic Collisions Spike as Heavy Rain Soaks SoCal; Stronger Storm System Approaching
KTLA 5 News - Los Angeles
MARCH 6, 2016
The first of two El Niño storms forecast to hit the Southland this weekend brought heavy rain to the area overnight, wreaking havoc on local roads as the number of crashes spiked, according to California Highway Patrol statistics. CHP reported 150 collisions in Los Angeles County from 10 p.m. Saturday to 4 a.m. Sunday, 85 more than occurred in the same period last weekend.

Forecasters had predicted that back-to-back winter storms would bring "significant" rain to the drought-stricken region this weekend starting on Saturday.

By Sunday morning, more than an inch and a half of rain fell in Bel Air, and just over an inch was recorded in Ventura, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica, according to the National Weather Service.

The second storm, due to arrive by Sunday night, was expected to be a stronger system capable of producing short periods of moderate-to-heavy rain that have the potential to trigger mud and debris flows in recent burn areas, the service warned.

Other possible impacts included small hail and gusty winds.

Rain was expected to last throughout the night and into Monday, potentially affecting commuters during the morning rush hour, forecasters said.

Heavy snow and powerful winds were also predicted in mountain areas, where snow levels were expected to drop to 4,000 feet by Monday.

Guess which one science stands with.

No guessing about it....neither NOAA nor science "stand with" you or your demented anti-science delusions, WitheredMan.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Not quoting NOAA? The NOAA graphs (as in quoting NOAA) clearly state what their predicted probabilities were, and the results. Only one conclusion possible - climate predictions - that you cultists love spouting - are nothing more than tossing darts at a dart board.

Nope! Wrong again, little retard.

The difference between weather prediction and climate prediction was explained very clearly in post #9 on page one of this dimwitted fraudulent thread of yours, WitheredMan.

NOAA gave precipitation probabilities, not certainties, moron.

Your idiotic attack on the accuracy of climate science is entirely politically based and has nothing to do with the science. You know nothing about the actual science, as you have made very obvious.

Not my fault nor problem the CLIMATE CENTER at NOAA created and released the graphic you want to whine about.

You really do need to get out of the cult and join the real world.

Further demonstrating your blind idiocy, WitheredMan, you poor bamboozled retard.

My NOAA Climate Center graphics....

.....that show about the probabilities for the weather systems that develop in a three month period - Jan, Feb, Mar - from the El Niño conditions in the Pacific....and that have no connection to long term climate prediction, you poor bamboozled idiot.

Moreover, their weather predictions were not that far off.....the snowpack is currently over 105% of normal....rainfall is increasing....major El Niño storms are hitting Southern California.....your OP was insane and has been repeatedly debunked....weather predictions have almost nothing to do with the very different climate predictions...as was explained in detail in post #9 on this thread.

Traffic Collisions Spike as Heavy Rain Soaks SoCal; Stronger Storm System Approaching
KTLA 5 News - Los Angeles
MARCH 6, 2016
The first of two El Niño storms forecast to hit the Southland this weekend brought heavy rain to the area overnight, wreaking havoc on local roads as the number of crashes spiked, according to California Highway Patrol statistics. CHP reported 150 collisions in Los Angeles County from 10 p.m. Saturday to 4 a.m. Sunday, 85 more than occurred in the same period last weekend.

Forecasters had predicted that back-to-back winter storms would bring "significant" rain to the drought-stricken region this weekend starting on Saturday.

By Sunday morning, more than an inch and a half of rain fell in Bel Air, and just over an inch was recorded in Ventura, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica, according to the National Weather Service.

The second storm, due to arrive by Sunday night, was expected to be a stronger system capable of producing short periods of moderate-to-heavy rain that have the potential to trigger mud and debris flows in recent burn areas, the service warned.

Other possible impacts included small hail and gusty winds.

Rain was expected to last throughout the night and into Monday, potentially affecting commuters during the morning rush hour, forecasters said.

Heavy snow and powerful winds were also predicted in mountain areas, where snow levels were expected to drop to 4,000 feet by Monday.

Guess which one science stands with.

No guessing about it....neither NOAA nor science "stand with" you or your demented anti-science delusions, WitheredMan.

You continue to display your ignorance.
The climate center stated a high probability of the storm track shifting to SoCal. It instead rose above WA State. They got it wrong. If they can't come close in a 6 month window, what kind of moron would want to change the economy of the nation based upon what they say may happen decades from now?

And the current "storms" are not El Niño related, but instead the typical systems spinning down from the PNW. Leaving a whopping 0.6 inches in SoCal. Real gully washer!