Comment by pelasaco
20 hours ago
A modern 1877 scale event would probably immediately fuel (pun intended) a furious climate change debate, even though attributing the existence of the El Niño itself to fossil fuels would not be scientifically justified... or maybe was the 1877 El Niño caused by fossil fuels (so many Wars happened in those years) ?
Nobody in planet modelling has ever suggested that the 3 phase El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) exists because of fossil fuel usage.
An extreme swing, here and there, has always been part of its nature.
The observed change is more and more extreme swings, greater amplitude, higher frequency.
> Nobody in planet modelling has ever suggested that the 3 phase El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
We saw already around 2020 or so that specialists opinions didn't really matter. Feelings and politicians opinions were more relevant... so "nobody in planet modelling" means nothing if Politicians and Activists tries to create this link..
Al Gore, if I remember correctly, and António Guterres, i think last month, tried to create this link already.. probably others too?
I can't speak to what former US vice presidents and UN politicians may or may not have said, I've not seen Gore's movie, I don't watch UN speeches.
I have spent a few decades in exploration geophysics at world scale; gravity, tides, radiometrics, upward & downward continuations of magnetic fields, etc is more my speed.
I suspect you may have some confusion, trapped heat from the sun's visible light drives ENSO (a kind of delayed oscillator with noise) and so human added insulation trapping more heat drives ENSO harder (like pushing a kid on a swing harder) but human activity didn't create ENSO - the atmospheric climate cells and swing sets were already there long before humans first planted crops.
It honestly blows my mind y’all are still around and up to the same ol tricks. Let me guess: you’re still mad about the hockeystick?
The most anti-facts and anti reality bulshit comes from people who mock feelings and opinions while framing themselves as factual and u biases.
Especially in climate change "debate".
4 replies →
in one hand i wanted to highlight that if it was today, we - as civilization - would definitely create a link between the events, based on our "feeling"
in another hand, i question if we really could rule out, since back in the days, everything that we have was coal.
If you care to get analytic, it's related to the insulation factor of the atmosphere, fairly consistent amounts of sunlight in (subject to know solar variation and orbit) that heats land and sea surface radiating thermal energy out to space with a "small" amount trapped to maintain a globally mean amount of energy that powers climate cells and cascades into other forms.
The global amount of coal use in the 1880s was non zero, sure, but overall the CO2 emissions from those tonnages were minuscule compared to modern emissions within the past 50 years .. and we have direct libraries of atmosphere created since the early years of the Cold War and many pocket captures for the past 200 years, with proxies (such as ice core bubbles) going back far longer.
ENSO predates heavy coal use - so it's not something created by human activity, and as noted the first uses of coal were barely enough to move the needle (recall that collieries kept records so we have a fair handle on tonnages extracted).
And you're saying that, based in you "feeling"? Nice.
1 reply →
Okay, brainiac. How do you know what the ramp up to „the strongest ever” looked like?
Near as I can parse that question, I'd suggest you start with intro calculus and physics, look into heat equations, springs and pendulums.
Level up into delayed oscillators, then look into those models with added noise.
It's a big field.