Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol, do you know wtf you're talking about?
It's all the same publicity, El Nino, global warming, and climate change are all spewed by the same politicians and liberal media. If El Nino was a proven fact it would be rainy in Arizona and California would be flooded.
If global warming and climate change was factual there wouldn't be arctic weather in the high plains and east. Those areas had some of the coldest winters in the last 2 years.
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and don't always believe everything ya see on the news or the web. Grow a brain and think for yourself.
I agree with you on global warming and climate change. El Niños have been known since either the 1600's or 1700's. They come in a variety of flavors. Forecasting their exact impacts is hardly an exact science. For example 1972-3 was a relatively strong El Niño, which is supposed to favor warm, dry weather in the Upper Midwest and Great Plains. Yet they had some historic cold waves. Also the New York City area had some rather brutal cold waves, but almost no snow. Most El Niños are either cold and wet (examples being 1977-8 and 2009-10) or warm and wet (examples being 1982-3, which had a historic snowstorm, and 1997-8) in the New York City area.There are other oscillations that affect the Pacific Coast in particular, such as the PDO or Pacific Decadal Oscillation. That can either be negative or positive. There are other factors that can push rains further north, such as seems to be happening this winter.
On the other hand, global warming/climate change is likely Kool Aid. That doesn't mean climate doesn't change. It means that man has little or no effect. That is poison to those who would run everyone's lives but can't run their own.
2009-2010 was warm as well here. Its relative lack of snow is reminiscent of this winter. I'm not responding to your global warming comments as its off topic for the thread
For global warming to be true doesn't require regions of the globe to never have cold, it only requires the global average temperature to rise.
I am very suspicious when the areas of the world said to be experiencing warming are uninhabited or sparsely inhabited. The historical weather records are what is called "proxy data" such as tree rings or ice core samples. This is problematical, especially when the data is spliced onto more modern, actual temperature records. We simply have no way of knowing whether, before industrialization the Arctic was consistently in the -40 range (Fahrenheit and Celsius are equal at that level) or if there were warm spells with rain or freezing rain interspersed among the cold weather, much as there is now. I will not simply take some group of scientists' word as to historical conditions in the absence of actual data.
If there were actual warming they'd show us data from London or New York City that has been continuously maintained for centuries, or even agricultural areas. Remember, farmers keep meticulous records of conditions. This data would be trumpeted.
Aside from its affects on California, has anyone heard the news that the most recent ONI values (3-month averages for SST Anomalies) for Nov-Dec-Jan put this current El Niño at the strongest on record?
"Record" doesn't mean too much IMO, since we only have records back to 1950. What's interesting is that the last 6 Strong to "Super" El Niño's have progressively become higher in values.
6 Strongest Niño's and their Peak ONI Value.
57/58 - 1.7
65/66 - 1.8
72/73 - 2.0
82/83 - 2.1
97/98 - 2.26
15/16 - 2.31 (Didn't beat it by a wide margin at all, hence the extra decimal).
They also get progressively further apart. 8, 7, 10, 15, 18 years respectively. Probably doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, but any sort of pattern can be interesting to note.
Why do you selectively omit other strong Niños such as 1991-3 and 2009-10, both of which peaked well below the preceding super El Niños? As for their distance apart, your omission of 1986-7 and 1991-3 reduce the intervals significanly. Also moderate El Niños such as 1994-5 need to be considered. In fact there are cyclical periods such as 1947-77, in which Niños are rare and periods such as 1977-2007 (some say 1997 but I go with 2007) where Niños are closely spaced and common. The latter are "warm phases and the atmosphere does take its time cooling off from then. On the other hand as "cold phases" end there are often a series of brutal winters, such as 1976-7, 1977-8 and 1978-9, or 1917-8 which are abnormally cold. It takes a long time to turn around an ocean liner.
Why do you selectively omit other strong Niños such as 1991-3 and 2009-10, both of which peaked well below the preceding super El Niños? As for their distance apart, your omission of 1986-7 and 1991-3 reduce the intervals significanly. Also moderate El Niños such as 1994-5 need to be considered. In fact there are cyclical periods such as 1947-77, in which Niños are rare and periods such as 1977-2007 (some say 1997 but I go with 2007) where Niños are closely spaced and common. The latter are "warm phases and the atmosphere does take its time cooling off from then. On the other hand as "cold phases" end there are often a series of brutal winters, such as 1976-7, 1977-8 and 1978-9, or 1917-8 which are abnormally cold. It takes a long time to turn around an ocean liner.
Like I said, take it with a grain of salt. It was just an observation.
The reason I chose those six were because they were the only ones that managed to reach the "Strong" or "Very Strong" category. Of course others have come very close, but it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Anyway, the point of my post was the new record, the rest was just a thought.
If El Nino was a fact there'd be flash flooding all over California and Arizona. It's been 88 in LA and 86 in Phoenix with clear skies and single-digit humidity. These are facts my dear friend.
The problem I have with your analogy is your insistence that El Niño is non existent, when in fact there is a strong El Niño in place. All the charts, graphs, and maps are proof of this. The reason I started this thread was not to argue about the existence of El Niño, but to bring out how much ridiculous hype there has been over this weather phenomenon. I completely agree that there should have been significant precipitation (and even flooding) across our region by now ... and I blame NOAA/NWS & the news media for getting everybody's expectations up over long range weather outlooks which were virtually promised to be true, but never came to fruition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFX
I had hoped that my description of the lack of snow and cold for the northeastern US would have made the sarcasm obvious.
Clearly I wasn't over the top enough.
Sorry, I missed the sarcasm ... especially based on how so many posters have been so quick to balk at my skepticism over the last couple of months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCMann2
Way back on page 5 I mentioned that models/predictions are not 100% accurate. That is still true. "A near certain probability of above normal precipitation in southern CA and the SW" =/= "a 100% chance of above normal precipitation in southern CA and the SW."
Their models are rarely ever accurate, and NOAA even surprisingly admitted on one of their forecast discussion pages that their models have had a very poor track record. I don't expect perfection, but I do expect a much higher amount of accuracy from an agency filled with supposedly educated, highly skilled & knowledgeable meteorologists ... especially when they stated with high confidence that this winter would be not only wet & stormy across CA & the SW, but there would likely be record precipitation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCMann2
Data and models are only tools that help us get a better understanding of which scenario is more or less likely given the conditions that are being observed. Climate systems are enormously complex with hundreds if not thousands of different variables coming into play. As many other posters in this thread have stated, NOAA's predictions regarding the effects of the current El Nino have been pretty spot on; it seems that SoCal and the SW in general are an anomaly. Why is this? I have no idea, but the data that is currently being gathered from this El Nino event will certainly help scientists have a better understanding of why it's not playing out down there the way they expected it to.
Well, I've been clearly pointing out that the NWS was incorrect about their long range outlook for a wet winter in our region even back in December when I started this thread. I realize hindsight is always 20/20, but NOAA should have NEVER EVER made such wild & crazy predictions to get people's hopes up for a wet winter & major drought relief.
I say this especially after NOAA made the prediction that the winter of 2014-2015 would be wetter than normal in CA & the SW, but the complete opposite happened. Gee, wouldn't you think that an agency which is funded with billions of dollars of our tax money, and has advanced technology & data at their fingertips could at least be smart enough to not rely on inaccurate models, and would have learned a lesson from what happened last season???
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCMann2
That in no way should translate to "heads should be rolling by now," which is a ridiculous thing to say.
Let me put it this way: if a major corporation were to make hyped up statements about their product line which turned out to be highly exaggerated or untrue, and negatively affected a lot of people, just about everybody would be calling for the people involved to be heavily reprimanded or fired ... and rightfully so. The same scenario can be applied to NOAA and their highly confident predictions of a very wet winter & drought relief across CA & the SW. Their highly exaggerated predictions have not come true, and they have caused a lot of people to be negatively impacted (or extremely disappointed at the very least). Why isn't anybody at NOAA being held accountable for this??? Actually, I'll answer my own question: it's because NOAA is a government funded agency, and gov't employees will always be employed no matter how badly they screw up!
Perhaps my statement about "heads should be rolling" was a bit over the top, although it was merely an expression. I am, however, calling for NOAA/NWS to be examined more closely by either Congress or a watchdog type of committee. I'm even suggesting that a bill be introduced to either downsize and/or streamline the NWS & reduce its funding, or completely privatize the agency. Before you balk at this idea, something similar was introduced in Congress about a decade ago, which didn't get very far, but it gained lots of attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCMann2
Temperatures in the mid to high 80s in LA and Phoenix certainly aren't unheard of in winter. Even here on the north coast we broke a record high just this week, but we've still gotten roughly 35" of rain here since November. High pressure ridges can really be a bear.
These kinds of temperatures in CA & the desert SW are very very unusual for February ... more typical for April or early May. NOAA's wonderful computer models never predicted a February heat wave either. I will offer one bit of encouragement: there is a slim amount of hope that March could have a notable amount of precipitation across our region. I'm basing this on a number of years in the past when December through February was disappointing, but March turned out to be quite wet & stormy. I'm not holding my breath, however.
Like I said, take it with a grain of salt. It was just an observation.
The reason I chose those six were because they were the only ones that managed to reach the "Strong" or "Very Strong" category. Of course others have come very close, but it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Anyway, the point of my post was the new record, the rest was just a thought.
I get your point. But 2009-10 I believe was strong but not super, and moderate El Niños can pack quite a punch, particularly if based in the Eastern Pacific and not at the date line. I use anything from moderate on up for time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
Well, I've been clearly pointing out that the NWS was incorrect about their long range outlook for a wet winter in our region even back in December when I started this thread. I realize hindsight is always 20/20, but NOAA should have NEVER EVER made such wild & crazy predictions to get people's hopes up for a wet winter & major drought relief.
The winter has already given major drought relief where needed, in the mountains containing the reservoirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
Perhaps my statement about "heads should be rolling" was a bit over the top, although it was merely an expression. I am, however, calling for NOAA/NWS to be examined more closely by either Congress or a watchdog type of committee. I'm even suggesting that a bill be introduced to either downsize and/or streamline the NWS & reduce its funding, or completely privatize the agency. Before you balk at this idea, something similar was introduced in Congress about a decade ago, which didn't get very far, but it gained lots of attention.
At best the weather service should qualify the forecasts and make clear that they are likely to be accurate within 200-300 miles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
These kinds of temperatures in CA & the desert SW are very very unusual for February ... more typical for April or early May. NOAA's wonderful computer models never predicted a February heat wave either. I will offer one bit of encouragement: there is a slim amount of hope that March could have a notable amount of precipitation across our region. I'm basing this on a number of years in the past when December through February was disappointing, but March turned out to be quite wet & stormy. I'm not holding my breath, however.
When my wife, sons and I toured Stanford University, nearer to San Fransisco on March 1 or 2, 2013 the temperatures were over 80. And when I was job searching in Orange County in early March 1986 there were temperatures approaching 90. In fact it's midsummer that has a harder time warming up since the high pressure systems shift further north. In the early spring and late fall they can be perfectly positioned to create an easterly Santa Ana Wind.
I get your point. But 2009-10 I believe was strong but not super, and moderate El Niños can pack quite a punch, particularly if based in the Eastern Pacific and not at the date line. I use anything from moderate on up for time.
When you say it packs quite a punch, do you mean in terms of rainfall in CA? Because I'm referring strictly to the SST anomalies and not whether it's effects were severe or not. Either way, I know what you mean and agree.
09/10 was moderate, and SoCal received some above average rainfall that year (around 125%), however if I remember correctly, a very good majority of that came within a couple of weeks. For reference, the Niño's of 02/03 and 63/64 were almost identical in ONI values, peaking around 1.2-1.3.
Also, to elaborate on your point, even weak El Niño's can have huge effects on CA (Although the correlation is immensely stronger with the bigger Niño's). 04/05 was hardly anything special in terms of SST anomalies (ONI peaked at 0.7), but SoCal had its second wettest year on record since 1877.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
