This is the biggest El Niño on record, and a killer La Niña is coming

[EasyGoing]

Couple my last post with this ridiculous video. Does anybody actually have respect for Al Gore anymore? 3 minutes of bumbling excuses of ignorance.

https://youtu.be/ijQwncmQJdA

 

[EasyGoing]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/...te-alarmists-made-horribly-wrong-predictions/


Global warming predictions.

 

[Robrites]

 

[oldchuck]

So you think human caused global climate change is BS, Easy. Okay, doesn't really matter what you believe. I kind of hope you live in the south.

Where I am I know the climate is changing radically. Spring comes earlier and autumn later. I remember how it was and excess CO2 and methane is the only rational explanation.

 

[EasyGoing]

lol. You hope I live in the south.... lol

Gotta love the Global Warming religion of hate. Anybody says anything even remotely showing that man made global warming might be BS, and the religious zealots come out.


OldChuck......... Been many times in the past where CO2 levels where 5 times as high as they are now, but no temp difference...... What gives?

 

[DocTim420]

Actually, imo--it is not whether we have a thing called "climate change" (something that many of us call "weather" and/or "four seasons")...for that is just a rhetorical game (I say toe-mato you say tah-mato).

Rather it is the leap that "Robin Hooding" $100 billion of wealth (taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have nots"--which the Paris Accord does) will actually reduce the temperature of Earth by an an amount that can be detected (above the Margin of Error...MOE).

According to researchers at MIT, if all member nations met their obligations, the impact on the climate would be negligible. The impacts have been estimated to be likely to reduce global temperature rise by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius in 2100.”

Sorry, 0.2 degree measurement is within the MOE...which means "climate change" has nothing to do about our environment, rather it is all about MONEY and empowering the elites!

 

[trichrider]

https://dailycaller.com/2014/08/25/...ice-accused-of-manipulating-temperature-data/

Australia Government Climate Office Accused Of Manipulating Temperature Data

Australian scientists with the Bureau of Meteorology have been accused of manipulating the country’s temperature record to make it seem it’s gotten warmer over the decades, The Australian newspaper reports.

Dr. Jennifer Marohasey claims the BOM’s adjusted temperature records are “propaganda” and not science, according to the Australian. Marohasey said she analyzed raw temperature data from places across Australia and compared them to BOM data.
The result: the BOM’s adjusted data creates an artificial warming trend. Marohasey said BOM adjustments changed Aussie temperature records from a slight cooling trend to one of “dramatic warming” over the past century.

BOM disagreed with Marohasey and told the Australian that the agency “used world’s best practice and a peer reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.”

The process used by the BOM is called “homogenization” which corrects for anomalies in the raw temperature data. The agency said it was “very unlikely” that “data homogenisation impacted on the empirical outlooks.”

“All of these elements are subject to change over a period of 100 years, and such non-climate *related changes need to be *accounted for in the data for *reliable analysis and monitoring of trends,” the BOM told the Australian.

But Marohasey said she found instances where the BOM made “no change in instrumentation or siting and no inconsistency with nearby stations” but added there was a “dramatic change in temperature trend towards warming after homogenisation.”
Marohasey is not the first to find inconsistencies between raw temperature records and “homogenized” data.

Climate blogger Steven Goddard has criticized U.S. government scientists for manipulating the raw temperature record to show a rapidly warming trend.

“Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models,” writes Christopher Booker for the Telegraph.

“The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data,” Booker writes. “In several posts headed ‘Data tampering at USHCN/GISS,’ Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time.”

“These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on ‘fabricated’ data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century,” Booker adds.

 

['Boogieman']

I wouldn't mind being able to grow long flowering sativas in my climate.

 

[Water-]

weath·er
ˈweT͟Hər/
noun
1.
the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.
"if the weather's good, we can go for a walk"
---
cli·mate
ˈklīmit/
noun
the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
"our cold, wet climate"

 

[DocTim420]

Yes Water we know the difference...problem is,

1. All the examples used by climate changers point to things that you and I refer to as "weather". (Rain, hurricanes, droughts, snow, etc).
2. Data comparisons made my climate changers are seldom over a long period of time--rather they cherry pick short intervals and ignore cycles.
3. This Climate Change "science" is driven more by "politics" than it is by "science".

My post from a different thread--

Sometimes I hate being right. I have always said the NOAA adjustments to the temperature data set were suspect (hence NOAA refused to release certain information requested under FOIA)...and now my suspicions are confirmed with a new study. I guess we can call certain climate change "facts" to be now "fake news".

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.

Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.

In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.

“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”

“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.

Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

Based on these results, the study’s authors claim the science underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases “is invalidated.”

The new study will be included in petitions by conservative groups to the EPA to reconsider the 2009 endangerment finding, which gave the agency its legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Sam Kazman, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), said the study added an “important new piece of evidence to this debate” over whether to reopen the endangerment finding. CEI petitioned EPA to reopen the endangerment finding in February.

“I think this adds a very strong new element to it,” Kazman told TheDCNF. “It’s enough reason to open things formally and open public comment on the charges we make.”

Since President Donald Trump ordered EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to review the Clean Power Plan, there’s been speculation the administration would reopen the endangerment finding to new scrutiny.

The Obama-era document used three lines of evidence to claim such emissions from vehicles “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”

D’Aleo and Wallace filed a petition with EPA on behalf of their group, the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC). They relied on past their past research, which found one of EPA’s lines of evidence “simply does not exist in the real world.”

Their 2016 study “failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.”

“In sum, all three of the lines of evidence relied upon by EPA to attribute warming to human GHG emissions are invalid,” reads CHCC’s petition. “The Endangerment Finding itself is therefore invalid and should be reconsidered.

Pruitt’s largely been silent on whether or not he would reopen the endangerment finding, but the administrator did say he was spearheading a red team exercise to tackle climate science.

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry also came out in favor of red-blue team exercises, which are used by the military and intelligence agencies to expose any vulnerabilities to systems or strategies.

Environmental activists and climate scientists largely panned the idea, with some even arguing it would be “dangerous” to elevate minority scientific opinions.

“Such calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate,” wrote climate scientist Ben Santer and Kerry Emanuel and historian and activist Naomi Oreskes.

“They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science,” the three wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed.

“Frankly, I think you could do a red-blue team exercise as part of reviewing the endangerment finding,” Kazman said.

Though Kazman did warn a red team exercise could be a double-edged sword if not done correctly. He worries some scientists not supportive of the idea could undermine the process from the inside and use it to grandstand.

Source: https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

Abstract from study:

ABSTRACT
The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global
Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA,
NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global
average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate
modeling and policy analysis purposes. The relevance of this
research is that the validity of all three of the so- called Lines of
Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding require GAST
data to be a valid representation of reality.
In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment
issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported
historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of
GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend
over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by
systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature
pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data
measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.
As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of
GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best
documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere
as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive
global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and
urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having
cross checks with Balloon data.
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data
sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of
their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical
temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and
credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to
conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years
have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting
warming.
Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for
EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these
research findings.

Actual study: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

And to breathe life in my old argument--why is NOAA withholding data and methodology from numerous Freedom of Information inquires? What are they hiding? They are not hiding "science"....rather they are most likely hiding some "political" discussions, you know, those embarrassing disagreements that scientists always have.

 

[EasyGoing]

Oh snap!

 

[EasyGoing]

Wow, Al Gore is a tool. I really can't believe people like or believe in this guy.


http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...-al-gore-and-shuts-down-global-warming-claim/

Tells fisherman science is hard to explain to a normal person........ Normal person says he has been fishing in that area for 30+ years with zero sea rise..........

 

[DocTim420]

From a report titled, Al Gore's Inconvenient Reality: The Former Vice President's Home Energy Use Surges up to 34 Times the National Average Despite Costly Green Renovations that was issued this week... ww.nationalcenter.org/NPA679.html
(add w to make link read "www.")

Conclusion

Upon winning the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Gore stated, "The only way to solve this [environmental] crisis is for individuals to make changes in their own lives."39 Judging by his own home electricity consumption, Gore is failing to live up to the standards he expects of everyone else.

After the embarrassing revelations that his home wolfed down nearly 20 times more electricity than the average American household, Gore made updates in an effort to make his home more energy efficient. Even those costly measures could not prevent his home energy consumption from rising even higher.

This year, Gore's electricity consumption averages 19,241 kWh per month, or more than 21 times the typical usage in an American home. That is a considerable increase from Gore's 2007 home energy consumption of about 18,400 kWh per month, which spurred a six-figure green renovation of the house.40

Gore apologists blame the size of Gore's home – a mansion, by any measure – for his extreme electricity use. That argument does not stand up to the facts. According to standards of energy efficiency, an "efficient" home burns between five and 10 kWh of electricity per square foot each year. Gore's home annually burns nearly 23 kWh of electricity per square foot.

Other Gore supporters claim that his rooftop solar panels offset the home's energy use. That assertion is simply false. Gore's solar panels produce only 5.7% of his total energy usage. In other words, the solar panels provide less than three weeks' worth of electricity over the course of an entire year.

Finally, some assume that, since Gore donates to NES's Green Power Switch program, he receives only clean, renewable energy to his home. In truth, the energy pouring into Gore's house is the electricity that all TVA customers receive – the majority of which comes from nuclear and coal–fired power plants. Only 3% of the electricity going into Gore's home comes from a renewable source such as solar or wind power.

Al Gore has attained a near-mythical status for his frenzied efforts to propagandize global warming. At the same time, Gore has done little to prove his commitment to the cause in his own life. While Gore encourages people throughout the world to reduce their carbon footprint and make drastic changes to cut energy consumption, Gore's own home electricity use has hypocritically increased to more than 21 times the national average this past year with no sign of slowing down.

Fucking elites, they always think they are above the rules that us "common folk" follow.

Go here https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/23/al_gore_my_house_runs_on_100_percent_renewable_energy_i_do_walk_the_talk_there_is_still_hope.html?_escaped_fragment_=#!

to hear AlGore say in 2016: "It's not unusual to see attacks on a messenger by people who don't like the message. I don't own a private plane. My house runs on 100% renewable energy. I do walk the walk," Gore said.

Liar, liar, liar...pants of fire!

 

[EasyGoing]

So to be clear, the sea rise which was once calculated by math by land, is now being done by satellite. Al Gore's scientists say the sea level has risen by 1/16-1/8 of an inch, the thickness of a dime. Yet the island he claims is disappearing a result of rising sea levels, is 4 ft above sea level, and 2/3 destroyed. Guy in video says it's due to erosion, duh. Al Gore says it's due to 1/8 of an inch is sea rise, which is now being calculated by satellite, which must have some degree of variance from the man on land method.

Is it just me, or we at the point where this should seriously be challenged. Trillions of dollars on the line, and Al do as I say not as I do Gore is leading the way.......

 

[oldchuck]

Well, Robrites it appears your weather thread has been taken over by the trolls. How are things in Oregon now?

 

[Robrites]

Well, Robrites it appears your weather thread has been taken over by the trolls. How are things in Oregon now?

Except on the coast, most places were 100 or better today. 102 here.

 

[HHILL]

Nice here in the SF bay, hoping for an Indian summer for a vintage crop here. Of course, if the temps are too high, the Terps evaporate...

Wish everyone a great team filled harvest and cure!

 

[EasyGoing]

I harvest in 100+ degree weather, and my terps remain just fine.

Trolling by posting weather in the weather thread?

 

[DocTim420]

Let me troll this (lol)....

Let me troll this (lol)....

https://patch.com/california/hollywood/fido-fluffy-are-hurting-environment-ucla-study-says

Fido And Fluffy Are Ruining The Environment, UCLA Study Says

America's beloved dogs and cats play a significant role in causing global warming, according to a new study by UCLA.

LOS ANGELES, CA — When it comes to global warming, Fido and Fluffy are part of the problem, a new study by UCLA indicates.

Most cat or dog lovers would say they can't imagine living in a world without pets, but as the threat of global warming increases, environmentally conscious pet lovers may need to make some tough choices, according to the study.

Pet ownership in the United States creates about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, UCLA researchers found. That's the equivalent of driving 13.6 million cars for a year. The problem lies with the meat-filled diets of kitties and pooches, according to the study by UCLA geography professor Gregory Okin.

Dogs and cats are responsible for 25 to 30 percent of the impacts of meat production in the United States, said Orkin. Compared to a plant-based diet, meat production "requires more energy, land and water and has greater environmental consequences in terms of erosion, pesticides and waste," the study found.

And what goes in, must come out. In terms of waste, Okin noted, feeding pets also leads to about 5.1 million tons of feces every year, roughly equivalent to the total trash production of Massachusetts.

"Given the significant environmental impact of meat production, the contributions of our omnivorous and carnivorous pets deserve special attention," according to Okin's study, published in the journal PLOS ONE. "The U.S. has the largest population of pet dogs and cats globally, with an estimated 77.8 million dogs and 85.6 million cats in 2015."

While previous studies have examined the impact of pet ownership on carbon use, water quality, disease and wildlife, Okin's study delved into its impact on total U.S. energy and meat consumption and the environmental impact of that consumption.

"This analysis does not mean to imply that dog and cat ownership should be curtailed for environmental reasons, but neither should we view it as an unalloyed good," Okin wrote in the study. "It is clear that a transition to pets that eat less meat, and therefore have less environmental impact, would reduce the overall U.S. consumption of meat."

Okin's report notes the social and emotional benefits of owning dogs and cats, insisting the study is intended to increase the awareness of the impact such pets have on the nation's meat-production industry and its environmental effects.

"Additional research is needed to evaluate the animal content and human-edibility of ingredients in dog and cat food after processing, but the calculations presented here indicate that these pets comprise a significant proportion of U.S. energy and animal-derived product consumption, with the consequent environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emission and feces production," he wrote.

Okin noted that the pet food industry has made advancements in manufacturing, product design and alternative protein sources, but more can be done.

Simple measures like feeding domestic dogs and cats nutritionally appropriate amounts will certainly reduce their environmental and energetic impact, Okin wrote. "However, without large-scale reduction in their number and changes to the food system that drastically reduces the per-capita animal product consumption, the environmental and energetic impact of these animals will remain significant."

Methinks that AlGore and Company have finally crossed the line: "...as the threat of global warming increases, environmentally conscious pet lovers may need to make some tough choices...". Nope, no tough choices need to made here!

Why are liberal elites on a mission to change everyone's human behavior?

I believe this: Fuck with my women or my dogs, someone is going to bleed.

 

[Water-]

"The latest weekly Niño index values were near +0.5°C in the Niño-4 and Niño-3.4 regions, and closer to zero in the Niño-3 and Niño-1+2 regions [Fig. 2]. The upper-ocean heat content anomaly was above average during June [Fig. 3], reflecting above-average sub-surface temperatures across the central and eastern Pacific [Fig. 4]. In the atmosphere, tropical convection was suppressed over the west-central tropical Pacific and enhanced over the Maritime Continent [Fig. 5]. The lower-level and upper-level winds were near average over most of the tropical Pacific, and the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and Equatorial SOI were slightly negative to near-zero. Overall, the ocean and atmosphere system remains consistent with ENSO-neutral.

Some models predict the onset of El Niño (3-month average Niño-3.4 index at or greater than 0.5°C) during the Northern Hemisphere summer [Fig. 6]. However, more than half of the models favor ENSO-neutral through the remainder of 2017. These predictions, along with the near-average atmospheric conditions over the Pacific, lead forecasters to favor ENSO-neutral into the winter (~50 to 55% chance). However, chances for El Niño remain elevated (~35-45%) relative to the long-term average. In summary, ENSO-neutral is favored (~50 to 55% chance) into the Northern Hemisphere winter 2017-18 (click CPC/IRI consensus forecast for the chance of each outcome for each 3-month period)."

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml


last winter got super dry after christmas until may. great growing conditions where I live.

hoping for the same this year