Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 22 2019, @04:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the more-worse dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

El Niño events cause serious shifts in weather patterns across the globe, and an important question that scientists have sought to answer is: how will climate change affect the generation of strong El Niño events? A new study, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science by a team of international climate researchers led by Bin Wang of the University of Hawaii's International Pacific Research Center (IPRC), has an answer to that question. Results show that since the late 1970's, climate change effects have shifted the El Niño onset location from the eastern Pacific to the western Pacific and caused more frequent extreme El Niño events. Continued warming over the western Pacific warm pool promises conditions that will trigger more extreme events in the future.

The team examined details of 33 El Niño events from 1901 to 2017, evaluating for each event the onset location of the warming, its evolution, and its ultimate strength. By grouping the common developmental features of the events, the team was able to identify four types of El Niño, each with distinct onset and strengthening patterns. Looking across time, they found a decided shift in behavior since the late 1970's: all events beginning in the eastern Pacific occurred prior to that time, while all events originating in the western-central Pacific happened since then. They also found that four of five identified extreme El Niño events formed after 1970.

[...] "Simulations with global climate models suggest that if the observed background changes continue under future anthropogenic forcing, more frequent extreme El Niño events will induce profound socioeconomic consequences," reports Wang.

Journal Reference:
Bin Wang, Xiao Luo, Young-Min Yang, Weiyi Sun, Mark A. Cane, Wenju Cai, Sang-Wook Yeh, and Jian Liu. Historical change of El Niño properties sheds light on future changes of extreme El Niño. PNAS, 2019 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1911130116

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 22 2019, @06:59PM (13 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 22 2019, @06:59PM (#910491) Journal

    In what psychotic world is the 1930s the hottest decade on record? Every single one of the hottest years on record have been in the last 20 years, and 8 of the 10 have been in the last 10. Though admittedly #10 is only a year away from falling off that list.

    Your talking point was accurate in the 1990s. Half of all human origin carbon emissions have happened since then.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=3, Overrated=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:14PM (4 children)

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:14PM (#910501)

    I copied the phrase "hottest decade ever" into a search engine and received answers like:

    Across the globe, the past five years have been the hottest five years...

    and

    Temperatures on our planet Earth have been recorded since the year 1880. And believe it or not, since that time, the hottest decade ever was the last one we have lived in.

    I am unsure why the 1930's seem to be the decade people use when they pretend climate change is not real, but it is wrong, and seems to be provably so. We measure temperatures across the planet more accurately than ever.

    I expect it is another Fox News talking point.

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:32PM (1 child)

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:32PM (#910513) Journal

      The main thing is the US experienced a relative heatwave compared to the world in the 1930s, quite possibly in connection to the dust bowl, but I don't know that that cause is settled.

      But it was far from the hottest decade here, and very far from the hottest decade in global temperature average.

      • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday October 22 2019, @08:43PM

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday October 22 2019, @08:43PM (#910537)

        Based on a quick reading of the Wikipedia article about the Dust Bowl, the cause seems to be a combination of poor farming techniques and drought in an already arid region

        There is no mention of unusually high temperatures, but it is possible I suppose.

        Anyway, your point is still valid.

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 22 2019, @08:42PM (1 child)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday October 22 2019, @08:42PM (#910536) Journal

      across the planet...

      So! It is flat!

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @09:25PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @09:25PM (#910555)

        Flat, and yet quite bumpy in places. Go figure.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 22 2019, @08:52PM (7 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday October 22 2019, @08:52PM (#910540) Homepage
    Your nick oversells your English language comprehension skills.
    My question was: "[In that case,] why wasn't the hottest decade ever, the 1930s, full of monster El Ninos?"

    Were I to ask:
    Q: Why wasn't the olympic boxing champion, Cassius Clay, let into the dinner party in Louisville?

    Would your answer be:
    A: In what psychotic world is Cassius Clay the olympic boxing champion?

    Cassius Clay was the olympic boxing champion at the time of ejection, and the 1930s was the hottest decade ever at the time el ninos were failing to appear.
    These constructs are parallel. You've failed to read the correct aspect into one of them because you had presumptions about what was being said.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 1, Redundant) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 22 2019, @09:25PM (6 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday October 22 2019, @09:25PM (#910554) Journal

      My answer would be that you have just excellently demonstrated the fallacy of begging the question.

      My follow up would be to ask you when you stopped molesting small children.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 22 2019, @10:22PM (5 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday October 22 2019, @10:22PM (#910580) Homepage
        Not begging the question at all - which bit of the which presumed conclusion do you claim I have made an assumption?

        And your follow-up isn't even begging the question, so is an utter irrelevancy.

        Do you know how logical fallacies work?
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @11:56PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @11:56PM (#910606)

          Do you know how logical fallacies work?

          Ummm... that's a new one. Really? Do they work?

        • (Score: 1, Redundant) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 23 2019, @05:09AM (2 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday October 23 2019, @05:09AM (#910671) Journal

          which bit of the which presumed conclusion do you claim I have made an assumption?

          That the 1930's was the hottest decade. Clearly, it was not. [wikipedia.org]

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 23 2019, @10:32AM (1 child)

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday October 23 2019, @10:32AM (#910735) Homepage
            a) See my explanation to Ikantread, as you also kant read.
            b) That's not even a predicate that is being both presumed and concluded, so it's not the logical fallacy you claimed.

            You don't understand English, and you don't understand logic. Is there anything you do understand?
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 23 2019, @10:34AM

              by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday October 23 2019, @10:34AM (#910737) Homepage
              *and* c) it's not necessary for it to be a global maximum for my original point to hold, only a local one, anyway.
              Again, that's you not understanding deductive logic.

              So your argument is utterly contentless.
              --
              Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 23 2019, @12:46PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 23 2019, @12:46PM (#910771) Journal

          why wasn't the hottest decade ever, the 1930s, full of monster El Ninos?

          It's called a "loaded question" [wikipedia.org]. You assert as part of your question that the 1930s were the hottest decade ever. That assertion may well be true (because current efforts may have biased the data from that time, unintentionally or not), but it's not based on current data which doesn't show a particularly strong warming from the 1930s and hence no reason for monster El Ninos to exist.

          I find it interesting that you refuse to acknowledge, much less support, that you made the assertion that the 1930s were the hottest decade ever (in recorded history). Why that oversight?