written by Mark Fischetti. As usual the benefit reading the text tends to nil. But before this is discussed, the author demonstrates that he understands little of its trade. He really claims that “the whole atmospheric system is so complicated that it never changes in the same way”. If that is the case, why paying for climate research? Obviously Fischetti does not know that the entire weather system is run by the laws of physics. Whether it is easy to understand, or difficult to analyze, the laws of physics determine the state of weather. Such a dumb assertion as published in a top journal, would presumably not possible, if science would be able and willing to give the term “weather” and “climate” a scientific reasonable meaning, e.g. as this site suggest: 1ocean-1climate. They ignore this paramount scientific duty .
The current El Niño active since summer 2015, is one of the three strongest ever recorded, as long as one reduce the observation period to the last couple of decades. However we know that there was a El Niño during the first winter in World War II (WWII). In Europe the winter was the coldest for more than 100 years. (HERE) In the U.S. a number of States experienced an extraordinary dry and warm autumn 1939, and record cold in January 1940 as well. But why should a US Journal and M. Fischetti take note of this event and explain. The following images are self-explanatory:
Journalists report the weather and climate because it provides a stream of lurid stories (always a disaster or record in some form, somewhere) that we enjoy reading. They increasingly rely on activists (often amateur activists) for alarming — entertaining but often misleading — sound bites. Which is why the news media are among our least-trusted institutions, and their profits are melting like this winter’s snow. Journalists — and citizens — interested in accurate information can turn to reliable and clear articles from NOAA. NOAA had a good 2015. They accurately predicted this would be among the 3 strongest on record, contrary to the hysterical predictions of a “monster” or “Godzilla” El Niño. And it appears to have peaked as their models predicted in early December, although the strongest impacts on the weather lie ahead in January and February. Continue reading: HERE
The failure of climate research is incompetence or unwillingness of the scientific community. If there have been two strong El Niño winters as now and 76 years ago in winter 1939/40, but the outcome is completely different, it should be the first obligation to annualize and explain the difference. (see Chapter B Part I & Part II) In the case of WWII it is even more an ultimate requirement, as it might prove the case that warfare has generated the cold winter. Presumably a too shocking aspect for CO2 and Greenhouse claims. But foremost the Journal Scientific American should stop to publish such stupid sentence as:
“The whole atmospheric system is so complicated that it never changes in the same way”.