Forbes: Global Warming: Hot Sensations versus Cold Facts

[PeterMP]

What do you mean there's no evidence? AGW isn't even remotely powerful enough or at a rate to have any impact during a El Nino or La Nina event.

Transferring energy into space? :whoknows:

ENSO events shift wind patterns if that's what you're talking about....

Mainly though, I'm talking about the effects. They negate the effects of climate change period. They are themselves climate changing events far more poweful than anything humans are even remotely capable of and cause changes AGW never will be able to (well hopefully, that would be a scary day when humans have the technology to do what ENSO events do. And that certainly would require new technologies as greenhouses gases alone won't come close)

You can't negate the effects of AGW without transferring the additional energy trapped in the system via AGW to something else.

**EDIT**

ENSO events don't result in a reduction of heat from the Earth's system, which would be the negation of AGW, as far as we know. They do alter the distribution of the energy in the Earth's system. There is no subtraction (i.e. negating), but simply the altering there of. ENSO events happen in the context of the existing system, which includes AGW, and there is no reason to believe that they are context independent (in fact, since all ENSO events are different, as you've pointed out, there is every reason to believe they are very context dependent).

Read this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/nature08316.html

[Skins24]

You can't negate the effects of AGW without transferring the additional energy trapped in the system via AGW to something else.

What? Sure you can. Especially since any effects of AGW are not in any way all that great while the effects of ENSO are.

Saying I'm pouring water from a 8 OZ water bottle onto the sand, then I dump water from a 2 gallon bucket onto the sand. Whatever changes the water bottle was causing would be overwhelmed by the water from the bucket and completely unnoticable.

If you shoot a bullet at point X while also setting off a nuke a point X, which will have the greater impact?

ENSO events don't result in a reduction of heat from the Earth's system, which would be the negation of AGW, as far as we know.

?

Explain further. No two years are alike. In any given year there can be a reduction of heat from the Earth's system. ENSO event or not.

That's why we haven't seen a steady increase in temperatures from year to year.

No the amount of heat that humans put up may not be decreased by ENSO events, but there isn't any evidence to suggest that heat is sufficient enought to alter or even have an impact on the ENSO event.

They do alter the distribution of the energy in the Earth's system. There is no subtraction (i.e. negating), but simply the altering there of. ENSO events happen in the context of the existing system, which includes AGW, and there is no reason to believe that they are context independent (in fact, since all ENSO events are different, as you've pointed out, there is every reason to believe they are very context dependent).

Are you talking occurence or impact? Occurence certainly is context independent (as they are cyclonic in nature.) Impacts are context dependent if you're talking about the strength and location of the ENSO event, and I guess the movement of the plates.

Read this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/nature08316.html

lol, they should have waited until after the 2009-10 El Nino (which was what? A WP?)

Anyway, let me see real data, not computer models. I look at models every day and know how accurate they are (not very.) There is extremely little data to come to any type of conclusion what any warming will do to El Nino events. Hence a study from last year (linked at the bottom of your link)

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/full/ngeo868.html

...Therefore, despite considerable progress in our understanding of the impact of climate change on many of the processes that contribute to El Niño variability, it is not yet possible to say whether ENSO activity will be enhanced or damped, or if the frequency of events will change.

[PeterMP]

Explain further. No two years are alike. In any given year there can be a reduction of heat from the Earth's system. ENSO event or not.

That's why we haven't seen a steady increase in temperatures from year to year.

No the amount of heat that humans put up may not be decreased by ENSO events, but there isn't any evidence to suggest that heat is sufficient enought to alter or even have an impact on the ENSO event.

Are you talking occurence or impact? Occurence certainly is context independent (as they are cyclonic in nature.) Impacts are context dependent if you're talking about the strength and location of the ENSO event, and I guess the movement of the plates.

lol, they should have waited until after the 2009-10 El Nino (which was what? A WP?)

Anyway, let me see real data, not computer models. I look at models every day and know how accurate they are (not very.) There is extremely little data to come to any type of conclusion what any warming will do to El Nino events. Hence a study from last year (linked at the bottom of your link)

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/full/ngeo868.html

That's true, but that still doesn't mean that ENSO events negate AGW. Volcanic eruptions negate AGW. Changes in solar output negate AGW. Things like that negate AGW. There is no evidence that ENSO events negate AGW.

First, ENSO event formation is context dependent or we'd see a regular cycle of El Nino's and La Nina's.

Second, the part you quoted doesn't support your conclusion. The inability to say if something is negligible due to issues with the existing data is not good evidence that it is negligible.

It is possible the effect of AGW will be negligible with respect to ENSO events, however, your claim is that IS negligible, though I would bet against it.

***EDIT***

La Nina event appear to cause cooling because temperatures are based on surface levels; not complete system levels.

[Skins24]

That's true, but that still doesn't mean that ENSO events negate AGW. Volcanic eruptions negate AGW. Changes in solar output negate AGW. Things like that negate AGW. There is no evidence that ENSO events negate AGW.

Sure there is. Simply from the fact that AGW is again, no where near the rate or anywhere close to as powerful as ENSO events.

Again, if a bullet and nuke hit the same spot at the same time, which will have the greater impact?

ENSO events have more of a global impact than the vast majority of volcano eruptions. And just because volcanoes and changes in solar output may make the Earth cooler, while ENSO events may change the temperature either way, that does not mean the effects of AGW aren't still negated. Any warming we see during ENSO events is caused by the ENSO event itself, not AGW or any climate change. As quoted there is no evidence at all to support AGW or any warming enhancing ENSO events.

First, ENSO event formation is context dependent or we'd see a regular cycle of El Nino's and La Nina's.

Yeah I guess. If the universe was more precise, we would. Like solar minimums. They don't always occur when they're "supposed" to, but they're still cyclonic enough.

Second, the part you quoted doesn't support your conclusion. The inability to say if something is negligible due to issues with the existing data is not good evidence that it is negligible.

The part I quoted was directed to the link you posted.

In your link, through models they were predicting that because of warming there would be more central based El Ninos. My quote simply states there is currently no evidence that warming will have any impact on El Ninos at all.

It is possible the effect of AGW will be negligible with respect to ENSO events, however, your claim is that IS negligible, though I would bet against it.

I'm stating that based on what we can actually see, and the fact that AGW is simply not that great (compared to even a weak ENSO event.)

The record cold weather and snows the industrialized (funny how that is) world has seen over the past two winters certainly hasn't been caused by AGW

***EDIT***

La Nina event appear to cause cooling because temperatures are based on surface levels; not complete system levels.

Are you talking SST or air temps? La Ninas are cooler sea temps off the coast of South America but they don't necessarily cause cooler air temps (look at this past summer for example.)

[PeterMP]

Sure there is. Simply from the fact that AGW is again, no where near the rate or anywhere close to as powerful as ENSO events.

Again, if a bullet and nuke hit the same spot at the same time, which will have the greater impact?

ENSO events have more of a global impact than the vast majority of volcano eruptions. And just because volcanoes and changes in solar output may make the Earth cooler, while ENSO events may change the temperature either way, that does not mean the effects of AGW aren't still negated. Any warming we see during ENSO events is caused by the ENSO event itself, not AGW or any climate change. As quoted there is no evidence at all to support AGW or any warming enhancing ENSO events.

There are three problems with your analogy:

1. It forces me accept the relative strengths of the two effects. You talk about the rate, but is the rate really relevant to the discussion? ENSO events aren't credited for things like large scale reduction of Arctic ice extent:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/oce/mholland/papers/Polyak_2010_historyofseaiceArctic.pdf

"On suborbital time scales, ice distributions varied in the Holo- cene, but no evidence exists for large, pan-Arctic fluctuations. Historical records indicate that Arctic sea-ice extent has been declining since the late 19th century. Although this decline was accompanied by multidecadal oscillations, the accelerated ice loss during the last several decades lead to conditions not documented in at least the last few thousand years."

2. There are no interactions between your two effects.

3. That isn't negating that is superseding.

You do understand the difference between the lack of data to prove a point and the effect being negligible, right? It is possible to look at something and say there is likely to be an effect here, but the data we have is insuffecient to show an effect.

Once upon a time, there was not enough evidence to prove that HIV could cause AIDS, however, even at that time, the relationship between HIV and AIDS were not negligible.

Also, there is some evidence. There are models that suggest that there will be alterations, and there is a trend in the nature of ENSO events in the 2nd have of the 20th century.

It isn't really great evidence, but it is better than no evidence and is really the best evidence that we have.

Read the line above the one you quoted from the paper:

"Year-to-year ENSO variability is controlled by a delicate balance of amplifying and damping feedbacks, and one or more of the physical processes that are responsible for determining the characteristics of ENSO will probably be modified by climate change."

Now, it is possible that those changes will cancel out leaving with no effect, or that our current understanding of ENSOs and climate change is wrong as our understanding of ENSOs and their interactions with climate change aren't great, but that isn't no evidence.

[Skins24]

1) Sure the rate is relevant. The rate in which the globe is warming. What El Nino can do in months would take the earth hundreds of years to do (and that's assuming AGW.)

2) Models are not evidence at all. And that "trend" during the second half of the 20th century may not have been a trend at all. There is not enough evidence to support that it was (especially seeing the '00s buck that trend)

3) Perhaps a better analogy is on one side of your face someone is tickling you with a feather, and on the other side someone punches you extremely hard. Your body will respond to the punch. It would no longer feel the feather even though the person may still be tickling you. Now when the pain subsides your body will feel the feather again, but when it hit that punch negated the feeling of that feather. Go ahead and experiment! Any volunteers? Alexey?

[alexey]

3) Perhaps a better analogy is on one side of your face someone is tickling you with a feather, and on the other side someone punches you extremely hard. Your body will respond to the punch. It would no longer feel the feather even though the person may still be tickling you. Now when the pain subsides your body will feel the feather again, but when it hit that punch negated the feeling of that feather. Go ahead and experiment! Any volunteers? Alexey?

I don't want you to tickle me with feathers. Get away you freak

[PeterMP]

1) Sure the rate is relevant. The rate in which the globe is warming. What El Nino can do in months would take the earth hundreds of years to do (and that's assuming AGW.)

Again, this isn't true. They don't even do the same things. There are things that AGW does that ENSO will never do.

2) Models are not evidence at all. And that "trend" during the second half of the 20th century may not have been a trend at all. There is not enough evidence to support that it was (especially seeing the '00s buck that trend)

Models are evidence. They are the built based on our best understanding of the climate system. I'd agree with respect to ENSO and the total climate system that are understanding isn't very good, but if you take all of the information you have and build a model, then that is the best evidence you have.

The 00's don't buck the trend. Even if the most recent El Nino was an EP- El Nino

And, again, I'm not claiming the evidence is good, but they are supportive.

Let's start with a hypothesis: AGW affects ENSO.

The null then is that AGW doesn't affect ENSO.

What would support the null over the real.

1. If climate models suggest (which represent are best understanding of the climate system) that AGW doesn't affect ENSO. We past that test.

2. If ENSO events aren't changing in recent time as AGW has increased. Again, we past that test (we also have things like this http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/95GL03602.shtml and http://www.ivanhoe.com/science/story/2010/04/701a.html).

It isn't great evidence, but it is evidence. We have conducted two tests and each time failed to support the null. In addition, there is no other real mechanistic hypothesis that supports the current changes in ENSO events. It is possible that is natural variation, but even natural variation most have a mechanism.

Even more important, your original claim was that the effect was negligible (and even "absolutely nothing"). If you want to back up from that to there isn't really good evidence that AGW is affecting ENSO, then that's better IMO. I'll even admit that the evidence isn't great, but the evidence out there doesn't support a negligible effect.

3) Perhaps a better analogy is on one side of your face someone is tickling you with a feather, and on the other side someone punches you extremely hard. Your body will respond to the punch. It would no longer feel the feather even though the person may still be tickling you. Now when the pain subsides your body will feel the feather again, but when it hit that punch negated the feeling of that feather. Go ahead and experiment! Any volunteers? Alexey?

Well, this is better, but now let's pretend, you've been being tickled for so long that it has had an effect (Let's say you've peed your pants. As they guy goes to hit you, he steps in the puddle and that causes him to slip and the punch lands off target and with a different degree of power as compared to if he'd hit you when you weren't standing in a puddle of pee from being tickled).

Now, at a very local level, sure the effect appears to be the same. You've been punched in the face, and yes in the context of tickle vs. the punch, the tickle and even the pee probably aren't noticable, but if we have a history of this guy punching you in the face before and after being tickled (and peeing), then we could start to say, hey the tickling is having an effect on the punching.

Now, can it is also possible that the punches changed for some other reason. Maybe the guy is getting weaker. Maybe he's not eating the same stuff as before.

Of course, these would be other mechanisms that could be tested. However, with respect to changes in ENSO there is a lack of other suggested mechanisms (other than the good old natural variation).

[Predicto]

As an aside, here are a couple of illiminating photos.

The polar ice cap in January 2000.

The polar ice cap in January 2010.

Here is an overlay showng the amount of icecap lost in only those ten years.

[twa]

as another aside

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/271218

article imageOpinion: Antarctic ice cap 'growing' and aren’t theories misunderstood?

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/271218#ixzz1AHAC68Ug

The Antarctic effect, however, is sending mixed signals. Unlike the Arctic, the Antarctic is a land mass. It contains 90 per cent of the world’s ice, and 80 per cent of the world’s fresh water. A desalination effect takes place during the calving of ice.

However, despite some spectacular calvings, drilling of ice cores at Australia’s Antarctic base Davis has established that the “fast ice” is in fact thicker than the average since the 1950s.

This is where the mixed signals cut in.

(This case demonstrates where agenda based theory always fails. I think that the problem with the debate has been too many people offering opinions where the tendency is to elevate opinions above facts that haven’t been fully studied. This is much too complex for guesswork, let alone mindless political point scoring among the rubble of the global environment.)

Both poles have shown a tendency to produce local effects which are outside the models. The Arctic produced a sudden series of local events which were later shown to be a result of movements of pack ice, not a melt.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/271218#ixzz1AHAUHYAb

[Skins24]

Again, this isn't true. They don't even do the same things. There are things that AGW does that ENSO will never do.

I'm talking about massive changes in the SST which cause wind and pattern shifts. Anything else AGW does is irrelevant (to this discussion)

Models are evidence.

I perdict person X will assult person Y in the year 2042.

Do you think that would hold up in court in convicting person X?

The 00's don't buck the trend. Even if the most recent El Nino was an EP- El Nino

The most recent wasn't even an EP

But there is still no evidence of any trends. Especially given the small sample size.

And, again, I'm not claiming the evidence is good, but they are supportive.

Supportive of what exactly? There is no actual evidence of AGW or warming period affecting ENSO events. No matter how good they may be, models predicting the future can not be used as current evidence.

Let's start with a hypothesis: AGW affects ENSO.

The null then is that AGW doesn't affect ENSO.

What would support the null over the real.

1. If climate models suggest (which represent are best understanding of the climate system) that AGW doesn't affect ENSO. We past that test.

We can use the best models in the world...

Same conclusion

it is not yet possible to say whether ENSO activity will be enhanced or damped, or if the frequency of events will change.

Why? Because we don't have enough data to support that and not a large enough window of time accurately measure changes.

2. If ENSO events aren't changing in recent time as AGW has increased. Again, we past that test (we also have things like this http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/95GL03602.shtml and http://www.ivanhoe.com/science/story/2010/04/701a.html).

LOL wow..

1st link - If any ENSO changes where even partly as a result of increased greenhouse gases, then....what happened? Greenhouse gases haven't decreased so why haven't those changes held up? Trying to artificially create trends based on a few years out of thousands is not a good look....

2nd link - Not even close. ALL El Ninos in recent years have continued to produce very little hurricane activity. There has been no change at all whether EP, CP, or WP in terms of hurricane formation or frequency. I'd really really like to know what he's looking at.

It isn't great evidence, but it is evidence. We have conducted two tests and each time failed to support the null.

??

What tests?

In addition, there is no other real mechanistic hypothesis that supports the current changes in ENSO events. It is possible that is natural variation, but even natural variation most have a mechanism.

Who's to say there isn't one? :whoknows:

Like..the wind maybe?

http://ecosystems.wcp.muohio.edu/studentresearch/climatechange03/elnino/Pacific%20shift.pdf

Also, who's to say any changes in the '90s were unusual? What if it was the '70s that was unusual?

Even more important, your original claim was that the effect was negligible (and even "absolutely nothing"). If you want to back up from that to there isn't really good evidence that AGW is affecting ENSO, then that's better IMO. I'll even admit that the evidence isn't great, but the evidence out there doesn't support a negligible effect.

How about I change it to: We have yet to see any physical, measurable evidence that AGW is affecting ENSO events, therefore until proven otherwise we can currently say that warming does not have an affect on ENSO events.

That better?

Well, this is better, but now let's pretend, you've been being tickled for so long that it has had an effect (Let's say you've peed your pants. As they guy goes to hit you, he steps in the puddle and that causes him to slip and the punch lands off target and with a different degree of power as compared to if he'd hit you when you weren't standing in a puddle of pee from being tickled).

Now, at a very local level, sure the effect appears to be the same. You've been punched in the face, and yes in the context of tickle vs. the punch, the tickle and even the pee probably aren't noticable, but if we have a history of this guy punching you in the face before and after being tickled (and peeing), then we could start to say, hey the tickling is having an effect on the punching.

Now, can it is also possible that the punches changed for some other reason. Maybe the guy is getting weaker. Maybe he's not eating the same stuff as before.

Wha? :whoknows:

However, with respect to changes in ENSO there is a lack of other suggested mechanisms (other than the good old natural variation).

And since natural variation is currently the only proven mechanism that causes changes in ENSO, that's pretty important mechanism right?

[PeterMP]

I perdict person X will assult person Y in the year 2042.

Do you think that would hold up in court in convicting person X?

No, but you don't need some evidence to convict a person. You need evidence that results in a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, the quality of the prediction is the result of the information you used when making the prediction. If you have absolutely no reason information backing your prediction, then that isn't much information, however, the climate models don't have no information backing their prediction, they have the best information we have at this time backing their prediction.

The most recent wasn't even an EP

But there is still no evidence of any trends. Especially given the small sample size.

It is a trend not an absolute conversion, and yes there is as the peer reviewed published paper that I linked to stated. The fact that the 2010 ENSO wasn't an EP doesn't mean that there isn't a trend, just like the fact that every year isn't warmer than the previous year doesn't mean that there isn't a warming trend.

LOL wow..

1st link - If any ENSO changes where even partly as a result of increased greenhouse gases, then....what happened? Greenhouse gases haven't decreased so why haven't those changes held up? Trying to artificially create trends based on a few years out of thousands is not a good look....

2nd link - Not even close. ALL El Ninos in recent years have continued to produce very little hurricane activity. There has been no change at all whether EP, CP, or WP in terms of hurricane formation or frequency. I'd really really like to know what he's looking at.

it is not yet possible to say whether ENSO activity will be enhanced or damped, or if the frequency of events will change.

Why? Because we don't have enough data to support that and not a large enough window of time accurately measure changes.

Nobody is claiming that only green house gasses affect ENSO. Nobody is saying that only green house gasses affect any part of the climate.

The fact that the amount of data that we have is very short is why the evidence isn't very strong. But the WP hasn't been observed until recently. Now, there might have been other factors that led to that, but there might not be.

If you'd have started by saying there are issues with respect to the nature of the evidence to allow us to draw conclusions about the effects of AGW on ENSO, then we I probably wouldn't have said anything, but that's not what you said. You said there were no effects, which you then modified to they are negligible. The quote you are taking from that paper are just as consistent with their being very significant affects.

Who's to say there isn't one? :whoknows:

Like..the wind maybe?

http://ecosystems.wcp.muohio.edu/studentresearch/climatechange03/elnino/Pacific%20shift.pdf

Also, who's to say any changes in the '90s were unusual? What if it was the '70s that was unusual?

You do realize you just posted a paper that reaches conclusions based on models, right?

And that the author has written a book on Monsoons where he spends quite a few pages talking about the interactions between them and the ENSO, and the potential implications of global warming:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yRT57TENzT8C&pg=PA288&lpg=PA288&dq=%22Bin+Wang%22+%22climate+change%22+ENSO&source=bl&ots=JOSZ2ZX_Nx&sig=ykMhca060LoypjyEiQdLxx986Dw&hl=en&ei=NwsmTcjYCcP38AaZneiTAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=global%20warming&f=false

(See the summary on page 649 and remember monsoons affect ENSO as laid out in other parts of the book.)

And what causes winds to change?

How about I change it to: We have yet to see any physical, measurable evidence that AGW is affecting ENSO events, therefore until proven otherwise we can currently say that warming does not have an affect on ENSO events.

Well, that is at least better. You should add though there is an issue with respect to the lack of data to conduct the tests to the level that you would consider proof. You can't suggest a test that is possible to conduct given the current state of the data that would indicate that AGW is affecting ENSO (that doesn't result in a rejection of the null hypothesis) to your satisfaction.

And since natural variation is currently the only proven mechanism that causes changes in ENSO, that's pretty important mechanism right?

Again, natural variation isn't an explanatory mechanism. What causes natural variation?

(At its root, natural variation is likely to be caused by a combination of stochastic processes, but it isn't at all clear what the causes vs. effects are and without a testable hypothesis this offers no explanitory power).

[Skins24]

It is a trend not an absolute conversion, and yes there is as the peer reviewed published paper that I linked to stated. The fact that the 2010 ENSO wasn't an EP doesn't mean that there isn't a trend, just like the fact that every year isn't warmer than the previous year doesn't mean that there isn't a warming trend.

Not a good comparison. They are taking a couple decades (the '80s to mid '90s) out of (x),000 years in which a few (not all!) ENSOs were CP and trying to say it's a trend? Umm...no. That's like saying because it rained on Jan. 30th for 3 years out of 5, then it must be a trend that it'll rain on Jan. 30th for the foreseeable future. You can't say that.

Also, what about the years following '95?

'98 - the strongest El Nino on record was EP. '04 was weird, but more EP than CP. '06 the same, More EP than CP. '09 was WP.

Since 1995, only '02 was the only true CP. Is this a new trend? That's 10+ years.

Nobody is claiming that only green house gasses affect ENSO. Nobody is saying that only green house gasses affect any part of the climate.

Going by what your link said.

This opens up the possibility that the ENSO changes may be partly caused by the observed increases in greenhouse gases.

*insert 'Price is Right' fail buzzer here*

If you'd have started by saying there are issues with respect to the nature of the evidence to allow us to draw conclusions about the effects of AGW on ENSO, then we I probably wouldn't have said anything, but that's not what you said. You said there were no effects, which you then modified to they are negligible.

I didn't modify. I said ENSO events render AGW or any warmng negligible and so the effects thereof (of the warming) become nonexistent. Until proven otherwise with actual data and not model projections of the future, that still stands.

I would have no problems retracting if in the future it's proven otherwise, but as of this current moment here in 2011, I'll stick to that.

You do realize you just posted a paper that reaches conclusions based on models, right?

Yep

And what causes winds to change?

The sun

Again, natural variation isn't an explanatory mechanism. What causes natural variation?

God

[PeterMP]

Not a good comparison. They are taking a couple decades (the '80s to mid '90s) out of (x),000 years in which a few (not all!) ENSOs were CP and trying to say it's a trend? Umm...no. That's like saying because it rained on Jan. 30th for 3 years out of 5, then it must be a trend that it'll rain on Jan. 30th for the foreseeable future. You can't say that.

Also, what about the years following '95?

'98 - the strongest El Nino on record was EP. '04 was weird, but more EP than CP. '06 the same, More EP than CP. '09 was WP.

Since 1995, only '02 was the only true CP. Is this a new trend? That's 10+ years.

Their analysis includes everything up to 2007.

I didn't modify. I said ENSO events render AGW or any warmng negligible and so the effects thereof (of the warming) become nonexistent. Until proven otherwise with actual data and not model projections of the future, that still stands.

I would have no problems retracting if in the future it's proven otherwise, but as of this current moment here in 2011, I'll stick to that.

That's not all you said though. In fact, I agreed with that right from the start (i.e. in the context of an El Nino vs. La Nino AGW is negligible). You have also essentially said given a similar ENSO events, nothing that AGW doesn't matter. However, that is wrong if AGW alters ENSO events so part of the differences between the ENSO events is AGW.

ENSO events are context dependent and AGW is part of that context. The existing evidence, while not strong, suggest that the AGW part of the context can alter ENSO events.

(And you have modified, but people can read your posts and easily see how your argument has evolved from no effect, to a negligible effect, to a lack of good evidence of an effect.)

The sun

And other things:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010EI351.1?journalCode=eint

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014423.shtml

God

Now, there's a nice testable hypothesis.

**EDIT***

I also want to make a statement about the models. They aren't JUST predictive, they also describe what is happening right now based on our best information, and even what happened in the past. The models DO NOT JUST say that AGW will affect ENSO in 20 years. They indicate that RIGHT NOW AGW is affecting ENSO. Now, there are good reasons to be dubious of the models, especially with respect to geographically and temporally local phenomonea, but they are based on our current best evidence.

The current evidence is not strong enough to say that RIGHT NOW AGW is affecting ENSO beyond a reasonable doubt, but most people studying the issue agree there is enough there to issue a susponea, which is why it gets mentioned in books and things like that.

[Wrong Direction]

I looked for the ClimateGate thread, but I couldn't find it. Too old maybe?

In any event, here's a YouTube video about what the scientists did to hide the decline.

http://blog.american.com/?p=28608

Just wow.

[Nerm]

My uneducated take is that global warming is real and that humans are making a significant contribution to this. I also think the consequences of this could be substantial. When I say my thoughts are "uneducated," I mean that I’m not really in a position to judge the science, but I accept that most of the people who do understand the science are in strong agreement with this.

However, I’m having a hard time getting behind any specific solution to these problems. It seems to me that a lot of the solutions proposed, such as cap and trade, are not going to be effective and will cost Americans dearly. Why stop using coal plants if other countries will use them and have a huge economic advantage over us? I would hate to see the US throw itself off the cliff if other countries are just going to "make up" for what we are sacrificing.

[PeterMP]

I looked for the ClimateGate thread, but I couldn't find it. Too old maybe?

In any event, here's a YouTube video about what the scientists did to hide the decline.

http://blog.american.com/?p=28608

Just wow.

The only point I'd make is that we have some ideas of why the tree rings proxies go down recently even though temperature goes up.

The issue even has a wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem

[China]

Some People's Climate Beliefs Shift With Weather

Study Shows Daily Malleability on a Long-Term Question

Social scientists are struggling with a perplexing earth-science question: as the power of evidence showing manmade global warming is rising, why do opinion polls suggest public belief in the findings is wavering? Part of the answer may be that some people are too easily swayed by the easiest, most irrational piece of evidence at hand: their own estimation of the day’s temperature.

In three separate studies, researchers affiliated with Columbia University’s Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED) surveyed about 1,200 people in the United States and Australia, and found that those who thought the current day was warmer than usual were more likely to believe in and feel concern about global warming than those who thought the day was unusually cold. A new paper describing the studies appears in the current issue of the journal Psychological Science.

“Global warming is so complex, it appears some people are ready to be persuaded by whether their own day is warmer or cooler than usual, rather than think about whether the entire world is becoming warmer or cooler,” said lead author Ye Li, a postdoctoral researcher at the Columbia Business School’s Center for Decision Sciences, which is aligned with CRED. “It is striking that society has spent so much money, time and effort educating people about this issue, yet people are still so easily influenced.” The study says that “these results join a growing body of work show that irrelevant environmental information, such as the current weather, can affect judgments. … By way of analogy, when asked about the state of the national economy, someone might look at the amount of money in his or her wallet, a factor with only trivial relevance.”

Click on the link for the full article