Re: What's to Blame for Wild Weather? "La Nada"
Posted by
Conclue on 6/25/2011, 12:16 pm
Are you being sarcastic JAC? LOL
I'm not trying to argue anything other than this article currently... not taking anything else into consideration (what you all think is going on, AGW taking a drastic turn etc). I'm just basing off what I've learned. Climatic variability is my real interest in the Atmospheric Sciences with Hurricanes being a second favorite. I was like a kid in a candyshop when we first learned about these processes. It's this area of the field that is poorly understood and it's only been in the past 20 years that this branch of the field has been really growing in terms of knowledge, research and even application (long range forecasting).
I just didn't like his article because it makes no sense. If your ignoring the complextities I just discussed above for simplicity's sake, then I could unerstand that but it only offers more confusion.
I agree that teleconnections must be in a phase; however it is the frequency of specific amplitudes of these phases that govern how it may influence a specific pattern or favor a specific type of event from occuring. That is a massive undertaking of research to conduct and reference to; and it will be years before we understand a fraction of it.
I'm not claiming to know more than this guy because I certaintly don't. However, I would like to pick his brain more and have him discuss the complextiites associated with his conclusion of "La Nada" . Just because La Nina was phasing out doesn't mean it's influence on the atmospheric signal for the past several months have completely vanished. Everythign is perturbed and takes time to be balanced out so just because SOI goes to a numeric 0 doesn't mean it's influences from it's 1.0 a month ago are completely dissapated; especially when considering the influences upon teleconnection phases which act vary with synoptic flow; etc. |
62
In this thread:
Post A Reply
This thread has been archived and can no longer receive replies.