Talk:El Niño/Archive 2

Screwed-up chronological postings hard to follow

Lost for responses because of non-chrono postings.

Utter confusion is inevitable...

Yes. Consider please as viable model, NOAA's multiple pages aimed at public education.

Please consider that these pages AT NO POINT introduce marginal and advanced concepts, but rather focus on big picture, which itself is somewhat complex.

However, the term quasi periodic linked to Enso article, has zero legitimate sources as Wikipedia article. This draws much into question the term itself in Enso article, and more obviously, the basic legitimacy of quasi periodic Wikipedia article.

Very narrowly, in terms of ENSO article lede, the term [[quasi periodic] illuminates nothing, and creates needless static and doubts in what should be a spare and very clear lede paragraph.

A simple description of temporal cycle is useful, if one regards the work of various professional NOAA editors as good model.

Psuedo-jargon linked to dubious Wikipedia article(s) adds nothing but uncertainty and confusion.

Definitely include among useless jargon, Spectral density, principal component analysis, and various other doubtful yet perhaps remotely relevant concepts, that could be wisely and profitably left out of lede.

This stuff belongs in obscure climate-science blogs -- definitely not in lede regarding ENSO definition.

Let us therefore PLEASE remove everthing along these lines.

Thank you.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I firmed up the sourcing of quasi periodic earlier today. Are you still asserting it is illegitimate in light of that?

Incidentally, I'd like to ask you to read WP:TP#Indentation and try to follow the style recommended there. Your use of indentation is rather... nonstandard, and itself confusing.--Father Goose (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Quasi periodic

You must be a scientist.

I made a few comments regarding quasi periodic on talk page there.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• While it is good to make sure wikilinked articles are understandable, I don't recall seeing anywhere within the Manual of Style (MoS) that descendant articles need to be of a certain quality, even if it might be preferable. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given ENSO article's existing and rather clear description of temporal cycle, a more relevant question here is whether "quasi periodic" is redundant and ill-defined phrase; one that serves to distract more than illuminate.

Following the well-reasoned admonishments of Strunk & White et al., to "omit needless words" (and avoid jargon when possible), one makes the case....

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As jargon goes, "quasi periodic" is not too bad an offender. Anyone who knows what the relatively common words "quasi" and "periodic" mean can make an educated guess, and as you point out, the quasiperiodic nature of ENSO is fairly well explained within the first paragraph, making it even easier to understand what those words mean by their context. Having the words "quasi periodic", and linking to quasiperiodicity in case readers want more information on it, is pretty justifiable use of a term of art in this instance.

An explanation about "power" and spectral density is still needed, however. Hopefully Boris, WMC, or someone else will do us the service of attempting an approximate explanation of the concept, even if only on this discussion page.--Father Goose (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Needless Terms

One could probably overlay any number of vaguely relevant, but needless terms on a basic explanation of ENSO in lede section... without actually adding anything intelligible to the description.

Truly the bane of good and plain writing, regardless of topic.

This practice only creates a needless burden on the reader, without providing further insight. It merely fogs up the writing.:It's a a bit like saying "The very tall man was seven feet tall" when to say simply "The man was seven feet tall" conveys same information.

To describe ENSO as "quasiperiodic" (or quasi periodic), and then describe its temporal cycle is similarly redundant.

Sadly, quasiperiodic may appear at a glance, more meaningful & significant than it actually is.

This causes readers to stumble without gain, over fancy term that in this context, adds no information despite its obvious pretense. I mean really...aren't there some impressive 12-syllable German words from meteorology we could throw in? Surely they've been published somewhere such that a citation is available!!

Quite similarly, an explanation about "power" and spectral density" is probably NOT needed, if one can use as a credible model, the many excellent and authoritative educational Web sites regarding ENSO sponsored by NOAA and various universities, etc.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else have an opinion on including the word "quasi-periodic" in the lede? I like it, but am not married to it. Let's get some new voices on this if we can.--Father Goose (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see why it seems repetitive, but wikipedia does force one to define a term when it is first used, so I see why quasi-period and 5 year cycle are both in the same line. Some wikipedia rules regarding what should lie within the lead of an article force repetition, which sometimes works against clear and simple text. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term adds no insight.

"Wikipedia rules regarding what should lie within the lede" don't require such terms.

Remove the term, and no information is lost.

See Strunk & White, Section III Chapter 13 "Omit needless words"

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

While this is preferable in good writing, wikipedia insists otherwise. If the term quasi-periodic is going to be used more than once in the article, it needs to be defined in its first occurrence. The lead is supposed to be able to stand alone as a summary of the article below, per the Manual of Style. If this leads to some repetition, so be it. Strunk and White does not overrule Wikipedia, which operates by its own set of rules. Be very careful with the edits made to the article because it's easy to slip into the WP:OWN rabbit hole. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't notice that term was used more than once.

Need it be used once, more than once?

Question is, if so, why?

What idea, or insight, does it add??

In my view, it adds no insight. Nobody seems to be saying otherwise.

If there is no contrary argument presented, then may I please just remove it?

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I ultimately endorse your earlier removal of the mention of power/spectral density, as it was not explained and thus not really useful. However, "quasi periodic" is explained both in the paragraph where it appears and in the article the term links to. Furthermore, the term is used in mainstream publications in reference to ENSO ([1]), and using the term helps to emphasize the nature of its recurrence -- neither regular nor random. I feel its use in the article, even in the lede, is justifiable.--Father Goose (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Major minor edits to lede

I retained the term "quasi-periodic" but it now refers to "interval" rather than "pattern." This may be more logical, as peroidicity and interval are more closely related than periodicity and pattern. Edit also removes initial definitional "load" from term "ENSO," making for easier (better clarity) initial read.

Moved practical consequences of ENSO much higher, on theory that what it's best-known for should be more immediately referenced in lede.

Some relatively other minor other stuff. If there are factual problems or other difficulties I've introduced, please make edits.:

Cut sentence on Atlantic lag. It lacks citation; moreover, intuitively seems wrong.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

confusion

There has been NO content change regarding lede, I don't believe.

What it says, is now slightly more clear....& otherwise unchanged.

However, it isn't clear.

Is the pattern continuous? That is, during this four-to 12-year period, is there always either El Nino or La Nina taking place?

How long does it last???? this period, quasi-period, comma, episode, interval or whatever it is.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 predictions and diagnosis

Annual predictions are issued by the Climate Prediction Center (CPC) of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
ref: CPC-NOAA: EL NIÑO/SOUTHERN OSCILLATION (ENSO) DIAGNOSTIC DISCUSSION The annual predictions from the CPC are collaborative input and effort from NOAA’s National Weather Service, their funded institutions, and oceanic and atmospheric conditions, which are updated weekly.

2010 Prediction

"EL Niño is expected to continue at least into the Northern Hemisphere spring 2010."

Summary for January-March 2010

With the strengthening of EL Niño during December 2009 and with above-average sea surface temperatures (SST) of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean regions, EL Niño will continue pushing increased moisture and temperature into North America. The above-average precipitation for the southwestern region of the United States with below-average precipitation in the Pacific Northwest and in the Ohio and Tennessee Valleys. Howerver, there will be below-average snowfall and above-average temperatures through the central northern region of the US (excluding New England), with below-average temperatures are estimiated for the south-central/eastern US.

For Indonesia and central tropical Pacific Ocean, there will drier-than-average conditions over these regions and which will estimated to expand eastward and effect portions of the eastern equatorial Pacific region including the coastal sections of Peru and Ecuador.

The above text was removed by user:Atmoz for reason WP:NOTNEWS... which in many cases reasonable. BUT, since the CPC put out periodic updates on forecasting, this would most appropriate for Wiki. Persons looking for current CPC information would have to do a number of web searches to fine this information, having it here would be most informative. This type of updates on news or weather history is no different than daily updates during Shuttle missions from launch to landing... no different than news or history of aircraft or rail/train accidents or crashes..... sporting events like the Super Bowl or World Series...

Let's discuss this added and periodic text to enhance El Niño-Southern OscillationEl Niño-Southern Oscillation and other weather related articles; and provide a historical record of forecasting and improved encyclopedic value to wiki articles. Respectfully submitted... LanceBarber (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Am somewhat neutral on this question and do find the information valuable and interesting.

However, the text in question refers to January 2010 in future tense.

Dunno as one goes to a so-called encyclopedia for a weather forecast -- even one that is (already somewhat) outdated.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Major El Nino or not....?

[from the last revert]...Father Goose (talk | contribs) (→Cultural history and pre-historic information: you'll need to add a new source that affirms that the 2009 Nino is "major") ..... well, visit the NOAA/CPC, would be a good source.LanceBarber (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just add the source. It's problematic when new claims or numbers are added to existing cited statements, since it makes it seem like the old citation supports the new info, when it doesn't. A new citation needs to be added along with the new info.--Father Goose (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)... I concur, thank you.LanceBarber (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

List of la nina isn't good

Quote from wikipedia:La Niñas occurred in 1904, 1908, 1910, 1916, 1924, 1928, 1938, 1950, 1955, 1964, 1970, 1973, 1975, 1988, 1995.

According to http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf, the list of la nina event isn't good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.17.130 (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Northmideast/Northmidwest United States

The terms "Northmideast" and "Northmidwest" are not found in common usage with respect to the United States. I'm not sure which areas these terms were intended to denote, but "Midwest" encompasses the twelve states in the north-central United States (see Midwestern_United_States). If the northern half of this region is intended, we should revert to "upper Midwest" or use "northern Midwest". Anovstrup (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

History of science of...

Apparently: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=ENSO JD Neelin, DS Battisti, AC Hirst, FF Jin, Y Wakata, T ? - Journal of Geophysical ? - agu.org

Beginning from the hypothesis by Bjerknes [1969] that ocean-atmosphere interaction was essential to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon, the Tropical Ocean-Global Atmosphere (TOGA) decade has not only confirmed this but has supplied detailed theory for ...

William M. Connolley (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nutrients

Can someone please clarify the piece about the nutrient rich warm surface El Niño water replacing the nutrient rich cold upwellings? I understood that one problem with the El Niño conditions was that these warm currents were not nutrient rich and therefore had a negative effect on the fishing industry. Is it that that they are just less nutrient rich? EcoMindfulness 16:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugene Kelly (talk • contribs)

El Nino Malaysia

if u noticed the el nino effect thing about malaysia, it never happened. i have deleted that part. PearlBeatz (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

neutral phase???

does this effect ever have a neutral phase, or is it either in la nina/el nino phases?Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

Fom Talk:War#potential resource SciAm and Science News ... From Talk:Politics of global warming#SciAm resource and Talk:Effects of climate change on humans#El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Civil disorder resource ...

• El Niños may inflame civil unrest; Climate pattern correlates with increased risk of conflict By Janet Raloff October 8th, 2011; Vol.180 #8 (p. 16) Science News, regarding Solomon Hsiang of Princeton University and his coauthors at Columbia University report in the Aug. 25 Nature (journal), with comments by statistician Andrew Solow of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts and Neil Johnson of the University of Miami and Yaneer Bar-Yam of the New England Complex Systems Institute in Cambridge, Mass; excerpt ...

  About every seven years, climates in tropical regions swing between conditions dominated by an El Niño and those moderated by a La Niña (cooling in equatorial Pacific waters). During El Niño years, the likelihood that a new civil conflict would erupt in equatorial nations was roughly 6 percent, or twice that for La Niña periods.

Related to Talk:Intertropical Convergence Zone#What it rong with the external link *ITCZ in March 2011 Scientific American ?

99.109.124.130 (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification requested

Currently paragraph 2 of the lede begins

ENSO causes extreme weather (such as floods and droughts) in many regions of the world.

But ENSO is defined as a climate pattern, not a specific extreme portion of the pattern. Shouldn't it say something like the following?:

The extremes of this climate pattern's oscillations cause extreme weather (such as floods and droughts) in many regions of the world.

Duoduoduo (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Rename?

I can't think of any reason for this to be hyphenated. "Niño-Southern" is not a compound. This article should probably move to El Niño Southern Oscillation. I think someone meant something like "El Niño, Southern Oscillation" or "El Niño – Southern Oscillation" or "Southern Oscillation of El Niño", but none of that contortion is really necessary. And why is "Southern Oscillation" capitalized? Are meteorological oscillations always treated as proper nouns? If not, then this article should really be at El Niño southern oscillation. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

El Niño is the common name of the Southern Oscillation, and El Niño-Southern Oscillation (with the hyphen, dash, or some other short horizontal line) is a term commonly used in the scientific literature (e.g. [2]). "Southern Oscillation of El Niño" would be incorrect. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is there such a difference in naming between La Niña and El Niño-Southern Oscillation? --Lee (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I just came here to see if there was any explanation for this cryptic name, too, as the hyphen makes no sense at all. Sources include phrases like "El Niño‐Southern Oscillation" (with hyphen), "the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO)", "El Nino: Southern oscillation and climatic variability", "El Niño southern oscillation phenomena", "El Niño–Southern Oscillation" (with en dash), "El Niño/Southern Oscillation", "El niño and the southern oscillation". These are often adjective phrases modifying event, cycle, phenomenon, etc., but also often are found alone as noun phrases. It's clear the punctuation means "and", or "also known as", and connects the two parallel terms "el niño" and "southern oscillation". So the hyphen needs to be an en dash, per MOS:DASH, to conform to our styling guidelines. All case variations are commonly found, but capitalized "El Niño" has been dominating in recent years [3]; similarly on Southern Oscillation. So, I'd say either just change the hyphen to en dash, or rename the article El Niño, which is clearly what it's most commonly called. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I switched it to the en dash for now. Bigger changes will need more support. Dicklyon (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 12:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

---

El Niño–Southern Oscillation → El Niño – [1] Per WP:TITLE, article titles should be "no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects", and the current name is needlessly long, convoluted, and not concise (most readers will look for "El Niño", not for the more complex form of "El Niño–Southern Oscillation" as it stands now); [2] per WP:UCN, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural", and a web search shows that "El Niño" is used by Reliable English language sources from 3x to 10x more often (3,190,000 times to be exact) than the more complex forms of "Southern Oscillation" (1,070,000 times), "El Niño Southern Oscillation" (332,000 times), and "El Niño–Southern Oscillation" (332,000 times). Specific searches at Google Scholar ([4] vs. [5]), Google Books ([6] vs. [7]), and Google News ([8] vs. [9]) yield similar ratios; [3] Per WP:CRITERIA, titles should be "consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles", and this article's title is not: the first other article that comes to mind is named in a very simple and natural fashion ("La Niña"), and the El Niño article should be named similarly. Mercy11 (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Easy support per WP:TITLE. Well nominated. Red Slash 10:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Titles should always be the most obvious, simple, best-known term unless there is a very good reason why not. Tannin (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. mgeo talk 10:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Commonly known just as El Nino. Apteva (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support – Surprised it's not already named as such. --Article editor (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Broken links

All of the links in footnote 12 are broken, including those that utilize the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.Duaneediger (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Update needed

Australia had some of its greatest flooding ever in 2010-2011. According to various pages on the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website (www.bom.gov.au) , a major cause of these was the very strong La Nina of the time coupled with a very strong Indian Ocean Dipole. Surely this has to be worth including? Old_Wombat (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC) OK, I have done this myself now. Old_Wombat (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Under the heading "The "Modoki" or Central-Pacific El Niño debate", the statement "The first recorded El Niño that originated in the central Pacific and moved toward the east was in 1986." needs an update to account for more recent research that has demonstrated that the 1982-1983 event was forced from the west as well, as demonstrated by Roundy, Paul E., George N. Kiladis, 2007: Analysis of a Reconstructed Oceanic Kelvin Wave Dynamic Height Dataset for the Period 1974–2005. J. Climate, 20, 4341–4355. This work demonstrated that the roughly 20 cm rise in sea level height at Christmas Island near 157W July 1982 was associated with an oceanic Kelvin wave that arrived in the region from the west, triggered in association with a Madden Julian oscillation event over the western Pacific Ocean June 1982. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.e.roundy (talk • contribs) 16:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Article has a bad slant

As a climatologist I have to take issue with the tone of this article comparing El Niño and La Niña as flip sides of the same coin. This is not true at all. This article needs a major re-write and as we are likely heading into at least an event, it should reflect our currently state of knowledge. I'll do as much as I can.Bwtranch (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Problems created by name change and the solution

The lead is crap, and the article should be under ENSO William M. Connolley (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should be called ENSO, EL Nino is just confusing since the topic also covers La Nina - both part of ENSO. Please go ahead WMC. prokaryotes (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed last year in the talk page, with the discussion lying just above. I agree with William's assessment -- this article was about ENSO as a whole when I edited it a few years ago, but it became very El Niño heavy. El Niño is the most common name related to ENSO as well -- both of the above prompted the move. Wikipedia doesn't care who or what is right, just what's more popular. Information on La Nina was minimized out of necessity since it is no longer the topic of this article, with the removed content preserved in the La Nina article. The ENSO article has reappeared, which summarizes the content of the El Nino, La Nina, Gilbert Walker, Walker circulation, Southern Oscillation, and MJO articles. I think we might be better off, the way this is turning out. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What a frikkin' mess! A combination of improper copy-paste move with undiscussed topic split. Someone who knows how should try to sort this out. Dicklyon (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Bias

The section on a possible link to Global Warming seems biased to me. The existence of Global Warming IS in dispute and yet the article discusses a possible link between El Nino and Global Warming as if Global Warming definitely exists for a fact. It does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.248.241 (talk • contribs)

Disputed by who? By oil companies and people with a vested interest yes. By climatologists and people who actually study and research climate its essentially unanimously accepted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggilicious (talk • contribs) 13:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

hardly. when you adjust climate change predictions for el nino variance, it makes them even better than the already significant predictions. also, some weird person thinks the "original research" tag should be used for non-review primary literature, when it's for asserting facts without citation. most technical references are not to review articles (which are generally not considered primary literature). this is a fairly amazing misunderstanding. i'm presuming it was ok to remove the complaint until this person can find sufficient primary literature to warrant a requirement for adjudicating review articles, and then work out what the correct tag is to use for complaining about that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.57.184 (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed the statement on coral bleaching, since it is very off topic, and the reference given did not conform to the statement that was made here. Cormagh (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

2016

Is there an article about the 2015 El Nino? 203.97.184.160 (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Not yet - but I have been thinking that one should be started, under the title 2014-16 El Niño event.Jason Rees (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That would be good. Specific impacts in SE Asia, coral bleaching, weather events, the unusual Pacific and Indian ocean tropical storm season and other things all deserve note but don't fit within this article. 203.97.184.160 (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously people are coming here looking for information about the current El Niño so Wikipedia should really have that page soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.147.214 (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC) You should probably create an article about the current El Nino. It has been happening for months, and it's almost 2016

@Jason Rees: I got 2 things here: 1) Why name it 2014-16 El Nino? Isn't it suppose to be 2015-16? It says [10] that the red (which means the start of the El nino episode/season) started during the FMA months of 2015. 2) In this article, I believe it's more better to rename the article to 1997-98, instead of 1997-1998, which looks weird to me. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: I would name it 2014-16 because certain meteorological agencies such as the JMA, classified it as an El Nino event during 2014. Its also worth noting that the El Nino conditions emerged last year.Jason Rees (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Could 2015–2016 El Niño event be what you were looking for? It's very summary however. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

La Niña?

You've let the global warming folks get out-of-hand by separating this from La Niña, giving the impression the one doesn't alternate with the other, and now that in the past few years, swings have become more frequent, as well as, that they always have the same effects when they don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.26.8 (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on El Niño. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/media/icestorm98/icestorm98_elnino_link_e.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I checked it; the bot did OK, but didn't fix the whole problem caused by the last human, so I reverted to before that. He can try again. Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Graph request

Using this public-domain data: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml we could make an awesome graph like the one on: https://wunderground.atavist.com/el-nino-forecast -- Beland (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, actually we already have File:Soi.svg. -- Beland (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Er the SOI and El Nino are two different things - so we do not have a chart.Jason Rees (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, to clarify, El Niño–Southern Oscillation says "The Southern Oscillation is the atmospheric component of El Niño." -- Beland (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Relationship to extreme weather results

I heard a report that a strong El Nino doesn't produce more extreme weather events, but rather more predictable extreme weather events. It would be interesting to hear if there's any scientific consensus on this question at the moment, and how this study fits in. -- Beland (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on El Niño. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/media/icestorm98/icestorm98_elnino_link_e.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)