After all, El Niño is the most influential weather phenomena on Earth and it should be a vital component in making valid climate models. But, despite massive research into the El Niño phenomena and its index or what it is also called ENSO “El Niño southern Oscillation”, the forecast capability of dynamic and statistical ENSO models is limited to only a few months, at the most.
However, ENSO has a semi oscillation dynamic feature. The basic mechanism of ENSO is that heated surface water is drifted by wind and sea currents to the western tropical Pacific Ocean where warm water over time accumulates down to several hundred meters beneath the surface creating. This over time, forms a pocket of warm water. Normally the trade wind is blowing in an easterly direction pushing up the sea level about half a meter in the Western Pacific. Eventually, the trade wind in the western part of the tropical Pacific slackens or change direction. This then push back some of the warm water which then moves under the surface to the east. After about 2 to 3 months this warm water may resurface at or near the South American coast which then act as a fuel for an El Niño.
Scientists use buoys that are positions along the equator to monitor movements of this water and can therefore make predictions a few months in advance what is likely going to happen. But, sometimes this water is dispersed and never reach the surface.
El Niño thus act as a ventilation mechanism, releasing heat which originate in the western pacific by moving this warm water to the eastern pacific surface. This heat then warms the atmosphere over the pacific. The conclusion made by scientists working is this field is that the triggers for ENSO variations is caused from chaotic weather fluctuations, which can’t be predicted.
This is talked more about in this Congressional briefing. At about 26 minutes in this video Clara Deser declares that long term ENSO forecasting is impossible.
However, her conclusion is wrong. Don’t get me wrong, the dynamic models are working quite well in describing the dynamic features of ENSO. It’s just that they don’t include the triggers. They don’t have a clue, yet these triggers are the dominant underlining drivers of ENSO variability.
Who has discovered what triggers ENSO variations?
I have!
Here is my latest ENSO forecast, based on my findings.
The main drivers are a combination of strong tidal pulses and variations in electromagnetic variations.
You find more information about my discovery here!
The question then arises, why haven’t they discovered these fundamental drivers, despite all the money and manpower used in El Niño research?
I think, that one reason is that these drivers which are external to internal dynamic weather fluctuations is outside the area of expertise for most climate scientists.
Also, it appears that it is a sort of taboo to look for outside forces relating to gravitational and solar effects.
Both dynamic ENSO and climate models are suffering from what I call “the black box syndrome”. What I mean with that is that they ignore data coming from outside of Earth. In other words, their models are incomplete and thus wrong. It doesn’t matter if they use more powerful computers with smaller increments in both time and space. They still get the wrong answers.
Because they have missed to discover these drivers for ENSO, the questions become why haven’t they included these forces in GCM climate models that are supposed to calculate global temperatures 100 years into the future?
When I started to consider climate science I noted their reliance on computer models. But for me, because of my background, I have built computer models in other fields, the idea that these models were reliable seemed to me to be a bit bizarre. There are too many unknown factors for that. It took me a long time before I realized to computer models for most people means something reliable and trustworthy and that these models are one reason that so many people believe in the dangerous human caused global warming theory.
Computer models can’t be wrong, can they?
There are other reasons for many people to believe in AGW, trust in authority. Also people need paychecks, especially in academia.
It’s not a smart career move in academia to put a question mark of the validity on the theory dangerous human caused global warming. Your academic credibility then will become in question.
