Another El Nino predicted

[apothecary]

Do we believe the weatherman?

--------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1721155.htm

The University of Newcastle's climate centre is predicting a high likelihood of an El Nino this summer.

El Nino is the weather pattern that brings hotter than average temperatures and lower than average rainfall.

Associate Professor Stewart Franks says all the research data indicates the dry conditions affecting most of Australia are likely to continue.

He says Australia has not recovered from the El Nino event in 2003.

"And the outlook is that most likely we will have a reasonably deficient rainfall with the El Nino," he said.

"We might get lucky and the trends might go away - and even if there is an El Nino, it might only be a very weak one - but I think we've just got to be realistic of all the possibilities."

[Torsten]

do we really need this sensationalist crap in weather predicting in Oz? In the USA the weathermen suggest higher and higher incidences of certain events (eg hurricanes, tornados, etc) just so they can make a name for themselves. In Oz Channle 10 has been pretty good with that sort of stuff, but to now get this on the ABC

Australia goes thourgh a prolonged low rainfall phase after a severe el nino for a few years every 25 years or so. Fire records indicate this to be a reliable periodicity. Every 100 years or so it is extremely severe. This is probably just a normal cycle. And if it isn't nomrla, then it might be climate change, but it isn't el nino.

To be an el nino you need certain criteria, especially the warming of the central pacific sub surface temps. The possible lower rainfall in australia CAN be a result of an el nino, but isn't always, so it is silly to scream el nino just because we are a little dry. It is also silly to scream el nino just because one of several indicators leans towards el nino conditions. In this case the worrying trend is the SOI, but last year we had similar severe fluctuations, including the beginnings of a kelvin wave and severe lack of cloudiness around the dateline for several months. And yet there was no el nino, but also no rain in oz (well, we got flooded a few times, but we are special ).

So, if you want to know about the weather, then best to head to the BOM site and to ignore fame & fortune seeking second-rate-university professors.

The overall ENSO status remains neutral. Generally weak trends have been observed in the main Pacific climate indicators during the past few weeks, and the potential for an El Niño event to develop this year is still relatively low.

At odds with the mainly neutral setting is the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), which has dipped below −10 during the past week as a result of well above average air pressure at Darwin, and consistently below normal air pressure at Tahiti. This indicates a general weakness in the Pacific Walker Circulation. However, the Trade Winds have increased to somewhat above average strength during the past week after being suppressed for much of July. There was little response to the weakened July Trades in ocean temperatures, and these remain somewhat above average, both on and below the surface. Therefore there is only a slight risk that the Pacific will warm to levels high enough for an El Niño event to develop.

Most of the ENSO prediction models surveyed at the end of July showed a continuation of neutral conditions, although on the warm side of normal. Two of the twelve models suggested the Pacific may warm to El Niño levels by the end of the southern spring. However, a sustained warming beginning in August or September would be unusual, given that ENSO events typically begin to evolve between March and June.

[botanika]

do we really need this sensationalist crap in weather predicting in Oz? In the USA the weathermen suggest higher and higher incidences of certain events (eg hurricanes, tornados, etc) just so they can make a name for themselves. In Oz Channle 10 has been pretty good with that sort of stuff, but to now get this on the ABC

[/b][/i]

I visited North Dakota about 3 years ago in the winter (dont ask why). Everyone was verbosing about a blizzard. There was a measly 2 ft of snow on the ground and hardly any wind. Looked like pretty normal conditions for this part of the world to me. The news went on endlessly about it for days, ignoring all international news and most local news, excluding W Bush campaign wins and the Atlanta Falcons weekend play review. In fact the weather and news hosts seemed to be talking more about the fold up ear muffs they had all bought from a catelog. Too many worthless 'make you a lazy ass' inventions in america. Everyone invents something useless for humanity there. Admitedly the US has it pretty bad in regards to weather disasters but I think the american media helps disable people in knowing the difference in scale and frequency of their weather. If everyone stays indoors and starts ordering those fold up ear muff inventions I can see why. In australia, as we are increasingly urbanised, we ought to be careful we dont let sensational media coverage further disconnect us with our land heritage and future conservation goals.

If we have a big drought this summer, it will likely be played out in the media just as badly as it has in the past. It usually starts off with angry farmers complaining to the governments about not spending tax payers money to help subsidise them farm marginal land. The drought is initially blamed on the labour or liberal party depending on which station or paper you view. Then 4 months into it the media will start doing stories on the aussie battler farmer. Dead Cattle displayed on prime time to conjour up donations. In suburbia angry residents will complain about not being able to wash their flat screen tv's and V8 commodores. After 5 months 'El Nino' is analysed and personified like a terrorist evil. Why not just call it 'Al Quaeda'. After another 6 months the media focus on the religous prayers to god for it to rain. Hungry families and the 'lord is our sheperd' splattered all over prime time to evoke donations to the church. The church are good at getting money from weather, they've been doing it for centuries. It takes 6 months to a year before the real issues of how we manage our land in context to our dynamic weather actually arises. And just as the media finally starts to show intelligent programming (because it has run out of all other sensationalist news and big brother no.23 is not out for another 2 months) - rain suddenly comes!!! We play in the rain and forget the whole process until it happens again. Heavan forbid is we go into an ice age anytime soon. Imagine 10,000 years of rubbish weather news.

Edited August 23, 2006 by botanika

[Maturin]

do we really need this sensationalist crap in weather predicting in Oz?

Yay! Someone whom I can agree with that weather is totally talked up/bulshitted about in the media.

I'm no expert, but I constantly hear people say stuff like, "you know, the weather is not what it used to be, it's definitely changing...blah blah, 'stronger storms', 'less rain' etc. media crap."

I mean, I'm 34, and what the hell is 34 years compared to, let's say, 3 BILLION years of weather on this planet? People think they can accurately describe climate change in their lifetimes which is effectively one millionth of a blink of the eye in the earth's existence?!?

Sure, the earth appears to be heating up. But the media only carries one side of the story, eg "it's global warming, we're all gonna die." They never show the scientists who describe how some parts of the earth are cooling, or climate change is not as drastic you might think. Or simply, we don't have all the answers yet, we really don't know whether this is natural or man-made.

Which sells more papers, "we're all gonna die from climate change", or "relax, stop stockpiling for the apocalypse, scientists haven't got all the answers yet"?

[Torsten]

My gripe is separate from whatever involvement climate change might have. I quite firmly believe that climate change is real and that we can't afford for the doubters to be wrong and hence I do not have a problem with climate change wake-up calls.

What I do have an issue is that scientists rarely predict a severe season of anything (fires, storms, floods etc), but the season after the disaster they always outdo each other with increasingly dire predictions, regardless of how little science there might be for it. Case in point the northern hurricane season. While a few scientists sounded cautious warnings about the 2005 season, no one predicted the severity of it. However, in 2006 they are all queuing up to give us the bad news ranging from 'almost as bad as 2005' to 'much worse than 2005'. And look at it - so far pretty well zip.

It's almost like the forecasters are helping the politicians to get as much milage out of a disaster as possible. ie, who wants the government to spend up big AFTER a disaster, if it is only a 1 in 100 year event? No one, unless the forecasters tell us next year will be even worse.

[Maturin]

Hehe, I believe climate change is real too. Climate change has always happened, change is constant. My gripe is with the media that insists it must be all bad. I just don't think we know all of the story yet. Certainly humans must stop pollution and other contributors to damaging the planet.

As for the hurricane thing, I read about this a few days ago -

http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/200...rmal-season.htm

It's just typical of the mainstream media not to report this rebuttal to all the talk last year of increasing hurricane strengths and occurences.

[Rev]

I have 3 reactions to climate change

Point one is - yes its happenning. as its happenned before and will always hgappen on our shifting earth

no point denying we are in for a change

and i have no interest, even if i had the ability (which i dont), in preventing it

the world DOES need an Enema

that is Gaia's solution to globalism

Point two is addressing how that affects the now. so i buy water storage and retic, and design my food garden to address the worst case scenario i can afford to address

in short my 'ethnobotanical' collecting has climaxed in the way it used here, i know what the best plants are and i have most of them , however a new phase begins in the broad sense of the word, and not just germplasm but skills to use them too.

i mean how DOES plumbing get put together? how EXACTLY to you kill and dress an animal for the table? how do you make a cob wall? how do you plan a vegge garden so that you are well fed all year round? and i mean in a situation where theres no fallback...its interesting and elnightening to play such games and reveal how little you really know about living.

re plants..

there is a sweet irony in fact that the same plants that can ensure survival in an apocalypse also appeal to a high end of the market in good times. this is no end of amusemnet to me :D

its a win/win situation

point three is where to live.

i may change my view but for now i think the highlands of far north qld and the coast of SW tassie are the most secure places.

both house rare and primitive fana and flora that have shouldered climate change unparralelled venbe by what we are currently inflicting on the earth.

if ANY places on the continent will weather the storm well it will be those that have historically and prehistorically done so already.

short of migration to New zealand they are the safest options i think

Edited August 24, 2006 by Rev

[sobriquet]

i mean how DOES plumbing get put together? how EXACTLY to you kill and dress an animal for the table? how do you make a cob wall? how do you plan a vegge garden so that you are well fed all year round? and i mean in a situation where theres no fallback...its interesting and elnightening to play such games and reveal how little you really know about living.

re plants..

there is a sweet irony in fact that the same plants that can ensure survival in an apocalypse also appeal to a high end of the market in good times. this is no end of amusemnet to me :D

its a win/win situation

Bravo Rev. Shows an enlightened view for sure.

I have always had at least 4 weeks supply of water and basic consumables in order to be able to move if the time should come.

I have 4 jerry cans of petrol in stock that would get me as far as I need to be in reserve.

In the case of the times suddenly changing I believe there's one thing you haven't addressed fully in your post though you alluded to it. That is that the real currency becomes as it always has been - who is armed vs who isn't. A rifle and 10 000 rounds of .22 ammunition can kill you alot of animals and keep you relatively safe. When and if the time comes it will be the haves vs the have nots and the biggest reverser of fortunes will be firepower.

That's one thing the US had right all along. That men have the right to bear arms. Who is going to defend you if you can't defend yourself?

[Legba]

Source

BRING ON GLOBAL WARMING!

What is wrong with a hotter climate? This article explores the upside of a pleasantly warmer world..

The global warming doomsayers have predicted that increased temperatures of 2degC per century will inflict tropical diseases upon the world. A 1995 report by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that more heat waves will cause more deaths from cardio-respiratory complications, vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue and yellow fevers. They neglect to mention that those diseases--such as malaria, cholera, and yellow fever--were widespread in the colder 19th century and their absence today is due to modern sanitation and a healthier lifestyle which prevents microbes getting a foothold. It is contrarily warmer along the Gulf Coast, which is free of dengue fever, than on the cooler disease ridden Caribbean islands. And inhabitants of Singapore, which lies almost on the equator, and of Hong Kong and Hawaii, which are also in the tropics, enjoy life-spans as long as or longer than those of people living in Western Europe, Japan, and North America. Because of sanitation, both Singapore and Hong Kong are free of malaria, but mosquito-spread disease ravages nearby regions. The IPCC report correctly acknowledged that global warming would result in fewer cold-related deaths. If winters are not as cold, fewer people die. A 1992 IPCC report found that over last century, in much of the world, winter and night temperatures rose while summer temperatures have fallen, meaning that global warming appears to mainly cause warmer winters. So is this not desirable?

Even deaths traceable to respiratory and heart diseases peak during winter months, not summer months. Pneumonia and influenza are a particular problem. Except for accidents, suicides, and homicides, which are slightly higher in the summer, death rates from virtually all other major causes rise in winter months; and overall mortality in the three years 1987 to 1989 was 16 percent greater when it was cold than during the warm season. Based on an analysis of data on mortality, illness and wage rates, if temperatures rose 2.5 degrees Celsius, deaths in the United States from all diseases would drop by an estimated 40,000 per year and warming would reduce medical costs by $20 billion annually. Since Americans prefer warm climates and will accept lower pay to work in those areas, they would value a warmer climate at between $40 billion and $61 billion.

There are other, more immediate benefits of a hotter environment. Warmer winters will produce less ice and snow to close highways and shipping lanes, facilitating commuting and freight. Families will have less need to invest in clothing - heavy parkas, bulky jackets, earmuffs, mittens, and snow boots. Airline passengers, who often endure weather-related delays in the winter, would gain from more reliable and on-time service. A warmer climate would reduce heating bills more than it would boost outlays on air conditioning. If the US enjoys the weather predicted for the end of the next century, expenditures for heating and cooling would be cut by about $12.2 billion annually.

Global warming could open up now-treacherous sea routes such as the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route, which parallels Russia, for shipping and resource exploitation. Marine access to oil, gas and mineral resources would improve as sea ice retreats. Opening up new oil wells could relieve shortages and bring down petrol prices. With such benefits of a planet warming it is easy to see why oil companies simply don't like the idea because it would cut into their profits. It is in their vested interests to spread the fears about a warmer world.

Oil barons are not the only ones who stand to lose financially from a warmer world. While the scientific community is divided over many aspects of the global warming theory, the effect of global warming on precipitation levels is not one of them: Global warming would mean more evaporation followed by more condensation producing more and/or heavier rains. Global warming, as described to be happening, could offer the answer to the water scarcity problem that the World Watch Institute has been seeking. According to the World Bank, one-third of the world's population already suffers from chronic water shortages. The World Watch Institute predicts that this situation will be exacerbated further by the addition of an estimated 2.6 billion people to the world's population over the next 30 years. By 2025, the group claims, some three billion people -- or 40% of the world's population -- could be living in countries without sufficient water supplies, leading to crop failures, diminished economic development and even to regional conflicts as nations find it necessary to fight for control over scarce water resources. A warmer world would reduce that, effectively alleviating poverty and removing the cheap workforce in the countries of the third world. Is that what western capitalism wants to encourage? Hardly.

Global warming could also mean greater agricultural productivity. Between the 10th and 12th Centuries, when the temperature of the planet was roughly 0.5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today, crops in North America and Europe flourished and the southern regions of Greenland were free of ice, allowing cultivation by Norse settlers. Evidence of this was found in 1993 when scientists from the National Science Foundation-sponsored Greenland Ice Sheet Project II extracted an ice core from Greenland's ice sheet that spanned more than 100,000 years of climate history. Samplings from the core suggest that a Little Ice Age began between 1400 and 1420, blanketing the Vikings' farms in ice and forcing them to abandon their farms in search of more hospitable climates. Prior to the onset of this Little Ice Age, temperatures were comparable to the temperatures that general circulation models used by the IPCC have projected for 2030-2050. We have been having global warming since the last Ice Age, which does raise the interesting question as to how the Earth orchestrated it all by itself without the assistance of humankind's CO2 input.

A warmer Arctic could extend the growing season for wheat in Canada and increase the number of some species, such as the Arctic Char, a fish. Much has been made of polar bears dying out or looking emaciated, but this is not because of scarcity of ice but because of the relatively recent moratorium on hunting them which has led to over population of the species and the resultant scarcity of food. Polar bears in all warmer climates when moved there don't appear to be sweating profusely – just go to your local zoo and see.

CO2 acts as a fertilizer on plant life while reducing plant transpiration (the passage of water from the roots through the plant's vascular system to the atmosphere). With global warming, agricultural output will increase while making less demands on the water supply. The result - greater water conservation. But according to climatologists, the villain causing a warmer world is the CO2 pumping into the atmosphere. As high school biology students worldwide know, plants absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen and virtually all plants will do better in a CO2-rich environment than in the current atmosphere, which contains only trace amounts of their basic food. Plants also prefer warmer winters and nights, and a warmer world would mean longer growing seasons. Combined with higher levels of CO2, plant life would become more vigorous, thus providing more food for animals and humans. Given a rising world population; the prospect of longer growing seasons, greater rainfall, and an enriched atmosphere could be just what is needed to stave off famine and want. In NZ the greatest threat to our economic wellbeing is from colder conditions, because of loss of productivity from absenteeism due to winter colds and flu. But snow-caused lamb losses and hail damage to fruit crops also loom large, without forgetting that the biggest danger affecting the wine industry is the onset of sudden frosts.

A slowly rising sea level constitutes the only significant drawback to global warming. However the best guess of the international scientists is that oceans will rise only 3 inches per century (this can be proven, see footnote below). In the US the question is whether the cost of building dykes and constructing levees to mitigate the damage from extremely slowly rising seas at less than $1 billion per year, can be favorably compared to the likely gain of over $100 billion for the American people as a whole.

Finally, most elderly retire to warmer climates. Retirees, at least, find that higher temperatures improve their welfare. Physicians sometimes recommend that patients escape to a warmer climate, never to a colder one. Rarely has research found preferences for chillier weather. Given the circumstantial evidence that people prefer warm climates over cold, it is somewhat surprising that the effects of warming on human well-being have essentially been ignored. According to a survey of people turning 50 in 1996, almost 40 percent plan to move when they retire and the most important criterion in selecting their destination (40 percent) is a "more favorable climate" (USA Today, May 13, 1996, p. B1). Most Americans and Canadians taking vacations in the winter head to Florida, the Caribbean, Mexico, Hawaii, or southern California. In NZ they head for Tauranga, Nelson and Kerikeri, and there is considerable competition among district councils of the warmer cities to promote their own towns as being the very warmest, to attract these retirees and tourists. Where once they were housed at the local airport, Napier, Kerikeri, New Plymouth, Kaikoura, Nelson and Wanganui all now have downtown temperature recorders. Other councils are considering it.

There is no doubt about it, hotter is in every way considered better. But the world's leaders stand poised to take dramatic steps to halt any further warming of the world. Realistically they should be stopped.

[Torsten]

Oh how short sighted. This article is mostly writtne from the perspective of a european or north american, but doesn't really take the majority of the world population into account.

Malaria is only 'under control' because of good drugs and good pesticides. Both have hit a dead end and we are slowly coming to the realisation that neither will work in the near future. Just speak to people in south america or parts of asia about this to get a different perspective. So, the extension of malaria areas is inevitable.

The author totally neglects the rise of sea levels and the destruction of not just many islands, but also many coastal cities. A 1m rise doesn't sound like much, but it is for example enough to incapacitate New Yorks sewer and drain system, essentially turning it into New Orleans (which incidentally won't exist by then either).

The misery, loss of culture and flood of refugees are just some of the consequences.

Trials have shown that a doubling of CO2 together with higher temperatures UNEXPECTEDLY has no net effect on plant growth. Anyway, CO2 is only one ingredient for plant health, the other being water, which will become more and more scarce.

Natural climate change happens slow enough for plant communities to migrate and improve the soil in the process. 25 or 50 years is not enough for that and will result in new rainfall areas being poor soil and the new desert being eroded.

Then there are other things we don't even know about yet. For example that the change in temperatures and hence salt concentrations may stop certain ocean currents and plunge us into an ice age.

The article is simplistic and shortsighted and does little to convince me that we are on the right path. While there might be some merits in global warming, this article does not cover them. What is does show is how people without a scientific background should not be allowed to make political decisions that require scientific understanding.

[occidentalis]

That article is ridiculous. Reminds me of something they'd print in Readers Digest and my grandma would tell me about.

Then there are other things we don't even know about yet. For example that the change in temperatures and hence salt concentrations may stop certain ocean currents and plunge us into an ice age.

Apparently this has been modelled fairly extensively and found to be an unlikely scenario.

[botanika]

Whichever way the weather goes, we'll have to make the most of it.

the world DOES need an Enema

that is Gaia's solution to globalism

Too true, nature has many ways of self correcting itself and our human history is littered with stories and legends of events likely based on real environmental disasters and rebuilding new civilisations (the antediluvian races and the great flood from the bible).

We probably need such environmental stresses to activate our genetic evolution.

[Legba]

What is does show is how people without a scientific background should not be allowed to make political decisions that require scientific understanding.

i suspect that that was the point that was trying to be made. it continues...

Footnote: Sea level rise

Re sealevel rise; you would think it was well documented, considering they seem to be so sure that it is happening, but virtually nothing is to be found on the internet about the expansion properties of saltwater. But it is easy enough to work out. For whatever reason, let us suppose that the oceans are rising. Then we have the scenario of a body of salt water being heated from above, presumably by solar radiation from a supposedly warmer atmosphere, akin to a blowtorch held at the surface, therefore we are only talking about the top layer of ocean. Fresh water does expand about 3% in volume when heated from 20degC through to 90degC, which is through some 70deg. How much water expansion would take place in being heated only 2deg(the IPCC figure for warmer seas over a century) from about 20deg-22deg? It would be 2/70 of 3% which comes to 0.0008% or 8 in 10,000 by volume. Volume is proportional to height, meaning that if the sea was an average of 1km deep right around the globe( the NASA-derived figure) then expected global sealevel rise all around the world could only be 8cm (3 inches).

If it was the case that a body of water 1-2 km deep raised 2deg could change its level by an additional 65meters which is what the climatologists are alarming people about, then in a sea of depth 1km that is 65 in 1000, or 6.5%. Then raising through heating of 90deg would result in an increase in depth of nearly 300%, or 3kms. If that was the case then a single cup of water poured into an empty kettle would be all that would be required to result in a full kettle at boiling point.

Is water expansion uniform? Presumably it is exponential and greater the closer one gets to boiling, so the rise in height in a body of water would be much less at lower temperatures. Salt water is heavier therefore slower to expand when heated, further reducing expected expanding at the lower temp end. If seas were warmer then more evaporation would tend to occur, also significantly reversing sealevel increase. Therefore the very upper figure would be 3 inches per century, and probably far less. NIWA conducted an experiment in 1998 at Lyttleton Harbour and concluded that seas are rising there no more than1mm per year. This figure has not been revisited. It is also known that the Pacific is sinking, which includes Tuvalu. The study commissioned by the Tuvaluan government was carried out at Sydney University and made public three years ago but withdrawn after protest from the island population.

yes its happenning. as its happenned before and will always happen on our shifting earth

no point denying we are in for a change

and i have no interest, even if i had the ability (which i dont), in preventing it

the world DOES need an Enema

that is Gaia's solution to globalism

amen, Rev.

if the mammoth could have prevented global weather changes, where would we be now? more importantly, what effect would it have had on the earth?

[occidentalis]

The sea level rise issue is not primarily related to the expansion of water as it's warmed up, but to the addition of more water to the oceans as the polar icecaps and glaciers melt.

[Torsten]

Apparently this has been modelled fairly extensively and found to be an unlikely scenario.

New Scientist only covered this again a few months ago, so I doubt that's the scientific concensus. For those who don't know what we are talking about:

http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr03145.htm

[Torsten]

i suspect that that was the point that was trying to be made. it continues...

Footnote: Sea level rise

Interesting strategy to obscure the real cause of concern with something contrived. eg, the real concern for sea level rises is melting of ice caps, but this guy pretends that the concern is thermal expansion. Pretty clever.... if it wasn't so dumb.

[occidentalis]

New Scientist only covered this again a few months ago, so I doubt that's the scientific concensus. For those who don't know what we are talking about:

http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr03145.htm

Ok

I remember reading a short article, which may have been in New Scientist, claiming that this hypothesis had been discounted as a strong possibility. Just did a google news search and couldn't find anything.wo

I think it was just one modelling study that concluded that so don't know whether other researchers agree.

Here's what wikipedia has to say

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_t...ine_circulation

[botanika]

At least we can see the weather in australia. Heres a few snaps of the greenhouse just north of australia.

Edited August 28, 2006 by botanika