/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15971617
>yes, it absolutely is
No.
>everyone studying climate have noticed that fact
>noticed that fact
>fact

On what basis?
Please provide historical data for the ENSO for the last 10000 years.
And how the data is accumulated.
Please.

NOAA is only collecting data for Oceanic Niño Index since 2000.
Earlier data is not even available.

El Niño and La Niña events occur every two to seven years, on average, but they don't occur on a regular schedule.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html

Which is also a loveley meme.
So they say:
>its not regularly occuring
>but has some type of regularity
>over cycles from 2-7 years
>while this is a "fact"
>it cannot be also a "fact" that the ENSO can be used to establish a "pattern" and subsequent an "anomaly" in context of the existance of post ice age earth.

Then their data is only """acurate""" for the last 20 years.
And vagule accurate since the 70s.
And made up since the 50.
And before no data exists, because lol, they didn't measured it.

So in the worst case they have only acurate data for 20 years, from which you cannot establish a pattern of what is "normal" or what is to expect.
In the best case they only have data for the last 80 years.

And both is far from enough to establish something that may or may not be "normal" in the context of the age of the post ice age world.
Which is important to explain:
>Roman Warm Period
>Medieval Warm Period
So the Ice age ended ~11,500 years ago.
And from this time of considerable "climate change", we only are able to look at 20-80 years and from 0.69% of this time we have data, and you pretend that they can extrapolate from that what would be considered "normal" or a "anomaly" ?
Fuck you.