Talk:El Niño/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Unreadable Jargon-Filled Article

This article may or may not have enlightening content but it cannot be read without extremely severe effort, due to its seemingly aimless and shameless jargon and poor organization.

Much of this article may (?) have been cribbed from the authoritative National Weather Service, where explainations of this nature often suffer from similar faults. Scientists do have their conclusions, apparently, but are fearful of obscuring the data and are proud of their jargon. Readers want conclusions, with data secondary.

Jargon (JA) on the whole (OTW) isn't useful (NU) in communicating with non-insiders (NI).

Given that El Nino is as of summer 2009 developing, timely attention (TA) should be paid (SBP)to improving (TI) this item (TI).

So just to recap, the JA you got OTW is NU for the NI and TA thererefore, SBP to TI.

OKAY? Wow, that was hard to write.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Typographical

Can someone who has the right replace draught with drought in second paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.122.153 (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, also, new comments go in the bottom of the page. Thanks for pointing out, Brusegadi (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Map temperature units

What unit are those teFUCK U mperatures in the map?

ºC, as stated on the German wiki image this was taken from: de:Bild:Ninjo_deprec.gif. I've changed the article and image description to reflect this. -- Rkundalini 01:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

La Nina diagram

I'm quite sure replacing "breakdown" with "eastward shift" in the LaNina.png caption is not correct, so I restored the "breakdown" term. The equilibrium state consists of the Walker circulation and the ocean circulation in the same direction at the surface. These circulations are self-reinfocing, the more the circulation concentrates warmth and moisture in the west, the more the pressure difference, and the more the circulation increases, driving it to the La Nina phase. At some point, for reasons that aren't clear, but probably due to the inability of the western warm pool to get rid of heat, the cycle begins to reverse, with westerly winds disrupting things. This is the beginning of El Nino, and it too is self-reinforcing. The less circulation, the less temperature difference, the less pressure difference, and thus less circulation. In other words, the circulation does not simply move to the east, it breaks down into smaller less effective cells, which allows the ocean temperatures to equilibrate. This is illustrated in the upper of the three NOAA pictures as well. (28 Mar 2005 User:PAR)

As you say, there is equilibrium in both locations, so nothing breaks. The heat and moisture over the warm pool creates the thunderstorms and drives the Walker circulation. I'm seeing the situation as being driven by the eastern edge of the pool where thunderstorms can form. The westward winds along the Equator push the warmth, but within hundreds of miles of the thunderstorm area the surface winds are toward such storms so they tend to cluster. When the east edge of the warm area extends far enough, thunderstorms begin forming further east. This pulls air from the west and the cool precipitation chills the westward-flowing ocean current. The warm pool happens as far east as conditions allow, with either warmer weather or slower equatorial winds allowing increased warming. (SEWilco 20:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Ok, I agree with that, but that means the Walker and the ocean circulation is weaker, disrupted by westward winds, etc. The phrase "eastward shift" gives the false impression that the strength and integrity of the whole thing is maintained and simply shifted to the east. Maybe "breakdown" is too simplistic, and we should replace it with some other term.

I was thinking of making a "El Nino" version of the La Nina diagram, and I had pictured it as having no particular ocean circulation, a number of smaller atmospheric circulation cells near thunderstorms distributed across the pacific. The water temperature and level would be nearly equal in the east and the west, and the thermocline would be nearly flat. What do you think about the accuracy of such a picture? PAR 20:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have a few issues. (SEWilco 05:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC))

• A Wiki style problem with the La Nina diagram is that it has English scribbled in it. I edited the NOAA diagrams to only have a few numbers (including using Zero Degrees to mark Equator so as to not use the word).

I understand the reason, but I think removing words would detract too much from the diagram.

• The scale across the bottom with E|W etc. is nice.

I think so too, esp. with the Darwin-Tahiti locations.

• The La Nina diagram also does not show the temperature contours which the NOAA diagram uses effectively to show the warm pools.

I will do that.

• I evaporated, so the Walker circulation could move the resulting warm wet air and warm water westward.
• I don't know if El Nino has "no particular ocean circulation". The Humboldt Current is suppressed and the South Equatorial Current is throttled. In El Nino, the Pacific Equatorial Counter Current gains strength. There also are significant deep counter currents, but I'm not aware of El Nino studies of them...I'm sure "interesting but not significant" is the description for what happens as this deep water

hits South America after mixing with the 200 m of El Nino warm water (maybe this reduces the northward spread).

• The deep ocean circulation loop doesn't seem to be as significant to El Nino. There are numerous slow flows in three dimensions, and the basin circulations take too long for feedback during the same year. The deep ocean circulation should not be portrayed in such a fashion so similar to the atmospheric.
• I think the El Nino temperature is actually warmer in the east (as opposed to "temperature anomaly" displays), so temp should not be nearly equal east and west.
• I don't know if an El Nino '''''''Pacific Ocean has a level surface. I've been looking at sea height anomaly displays and don't know true sea level. I think SST is more important than height... although warm water volume peaks before SST (!Maybe due to water bulge growing along width of Pacific — does volume drop when bulge leans against South America?).[1]
• The simplified thermocline is at least lowered in the east.''''''' I don't think flat is right, but I don't think we need the complex surface texture which it seems to gain. Maybe the Humboldt's inertia and source does keep it moving, but it certainly isn't pushing up compactly along the surface of the Peruvian coast.

With respect to the last few points, I would like a diagram to illustrate the mechanism of normal/La Nina, even sacrificing absolute accuracy for the sake of simple understanding, and ignoring any irrelevant factors. For example, if the sea level is not perfectly flat, but is reduced, and the reason it is not flat is due to, say, gravitational anomalies, or something like that, then I would want to make it flat. I'll think about this over the next week or so. PAR 15:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

La Nina diagram removal

I noticed that the image Image:LaNina.png was removed. The problems I have with the present images, which the removed image addressed are:

• The ocean circulation is not shownline is not labelled
• The Walker circulation is not labelled
• The ocean height variation is not illustrated
• The atmospheric water cycle is not as clearly shown
• The locations of Tahiti andDarin e not shown

I'm not sure of the drawback of the Image:LaNina.png except that it did not have accompanying images of the normal and El Nino phases. The present images (to me) are also too busy with three dimensions. Anyway, I would like to address the above problems. I can think of three ways.

• Improve the presently included images by adding some of the features of the old Image:LaNina.png image.
• Generate Normal and El Nino versions of the removed image.
• Some other possibility?

Any suggestions? PAR 22:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I only removed the diagram in the course of moving up the La Nina text. I don't object to you re-adding it. Also, I now think there is a that for ab it, so if you want to... William M. Connolley 22:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

From my layman's point of view, the Image:LaNina.png makes WAY more sense than any of images page. I expect t could easily be copied & edited to show normal Walker Circulation and El Ni. -- TheMightyQuill 12:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A sad situation

Fishing in warm water for cold-loving fish.

— It's a good thing Wikipedia doesn't support easily adding cartoon thought bubbles. (SEWilco 08:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Cyclones

Sciguy47 08:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC) There is no mention about the possible connection between tropical cyclones and ENSO.

When's spring?

The article currently says:

A rather weak El Niño began in September 2004 and ended in the spring of 2005

In the hemisphere where El Nino occurs, it's still spring. Has this weak El Nino just ended? We should say 'September' then, for the benefit of our northern hemispheric brethren. Or is this a badly-chosen word, and it actually means in the second quarter of the year? —[[User:Cassowary|Felix the usertalk">(ɑe hɪː jɐ) 05:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Since seasons are hemisphere dependant I would suggest changing any season reference to the corresponding months (unless it is a reference wo the season regardless of the hemisphere). Another such situation is in the following paragraph: Wider effects of El Niño conditions [...] Southern Brazil and northern Argentina also experience wetter than normal conditions but mainly during the spring and early summer. [...] I actually think this should refer to autum and early winter, as this is (based on my personal, non expert experience) the and april, which is definitely not common). Replacing season references with actual months should reduce the risk of confusion.

Pronounciation?

How do you pronounce this? Is it El N-eye-no or El N-ee-no or some other spanish way of saying it? --antilived ^{T | C} 07:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The only pronunciation I'm familiar with is El Nin-yo, but dictionary.com says el-neen-yo; this difference is probably due to the differences between Australian and American short i/long e sounds, and corresponding differences in how we hear the Spanish i. The squiggle above the N makes the N sound more like ny; 'canyon' comes from a Spanish word spelt cañon, and there's also English '[[exact Spanish sound of the I is neither like a short i nor a long e, but it's the way English-speakers tend to hear it.)

So I spose, pronounce the -iñ- like you would in piñata. In any case, the ñ is meant to be -ny-, so saying it as El N-eye-no is wrong.

If you know IPA, I say it as /æl 'nɪnjəʉ/, but the American pronunciation is /ɛl 'ninjoʊ/; the Spanish pronunciation is /el 'niɲo/.

—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 12:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot. I never knew "ñ" had a "y" sound. --antilived ^{T | C} 04:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It may indeed be regional, but from my spanish education, an I in spanish translates basically to a hard e in English. I'd say that the i in words like pinata and even Florida have just become Englishized. I can't imagine those being that different around the world (though even the Spanish pronounciation I'm sure differs).
--- JeopardyTempest 09:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Nino

I took out Anti-Nino. It wasn't (IMHO) very important and wasn't very sourced. Apologies if anyone wants it, on "anti-nino enso" turns up 3 hits, I think all to the same paper. William M. Connolley 20:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

Page move to ENSO?

El Nino is merely a part of the system called ENSO. It would be more logical to have the main page as ENSO (or El Nino-Southern Oscillation if you insist...) and have El Nino redirect there. Opinions? William M. Connolley 20:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

OK... no comments?... I'm going to do this soon unless someone does comment! William M. Connolley 19:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A person wishing to understand El Nino should be able to read an article which gives an introductory explanation of El Nino without having to wade through a bunch of other stuff. I'm not sure what you are proposing. A simple name change to the article would be fine, if its technically correct, but to merge the article with something larger would not. PAR 21:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry: to explain. At the moment ENSO just redirects here (as does La Nina I El Nino redirects to it (as does La N). There is no page text to merge in/to, and I'm not proposing any immeadiate changes to the actual text at the moment. Its would be nice to update the causes of "El Nino"; that really equates to "the mechanism of ENSO" since it really is part of the coupled system. William M. Connolley 21:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

Right, I've now done it, and await the complaints :-) William M. Connolley 22:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not move this page to El Nino-Southern Oscillation itself? --AySz88^-^ 01:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - Full-name titles look better, and you just know some company out there is going to be called ENSO. Percy Snoodle

I agree it should probably be El Niño-Southern Oscillation, with ENSO as a redirect. Pages should probably only be acronyms if the acronym is more common than the actual name. While ENSO is used quite a bit in the field, I think most laypeople know it as "El Niño." So, "El Niño-Southern Oscillation" should please the laypeople and scientists alike. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to move it (again... :-) but to "El Niño-Southern Oscillation" or "El Nino-Southern Oscillation"? I'd prefer the latter - fiddly accents in page titles is a bit of a pain William M. Connolley 19:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...obviously with the tilde is more correct, but I agree that having it in the page title can be a pain. No matter what we call it, it's pretty obvious that most of the links to this page will be via redirects anyway. No strong opinion here; though I tend to like official names, I wouldn't be opposed to the tilde-less version for simplicity. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, done William M. Connolley 13:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed all the double redirects (about 17 of them, if I'm counting my contributions right), though I realized about halfway through that I should have gotten a bot to do it. Oh well. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha. Thanks. Just wait till we decide to move it to the tilde-version! William M. Connolley 18:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Then once I'm done fixing all those double redirects, outside forces will decide to move it back to El Niño, since its the most common name. ;o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Impenetrable jargon

Do you have any reference for the ENSO effects (signatures) on Atlantic? If there is not such a reference, please remove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooyan81 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cut from 2nd paragraph:

ENSO is a set of interacting parts of a single global system of coupled ocean-atmosphere climate fluctuations that come about as a consequence of oceanic and atmospheric circulation. ENSO is the most prominent known source of inter-annual variability in weather and climate around the world (~3 to 8 years), though not all areas are affected. ENSO has signatures in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans.

Would someone please translate this into plain English? The following terms are obscure and impede general understanding:

• coupled ocean-atmosphere climate fluctuations
• inter-annual variability
• signatures

Also, "ENSO" is not a familiar acronym. Unless someone rejects El Nino and La Nina for their Catholic connotations, I suggest we use these terms. --Uncle Ed 19:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I may have to revert you on this, but we can discuss it first... firstly, El Nino (or La Nina) are not synonymous with ENSO. ENSO is the whole atmos-ocean cycle; El Nino is the oceanic "signature" of one phase of it.

Do you really not understand "coupled ocean-atmosphere climate fluctuations"? That seems odd. It means, a mode that depends intrinsically on both the atmos and ocean, and the interactions between them.

"inter-annual variability" - variability between different years; ie the difference between summer temps from one year to the next

"signatures" - expression; manifestation

William M. Connolley 19:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Terms like "coupled ocean-atmosphere climate fluctuations" are not easily understandable by the general reader. Please translate your jargon into plain English. --Uncle Ed 18:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of a reply, I've restored the sentences, but wiki'd signature, and edited there William M. Connolley 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess the above wasn't a reply? Heh.

Here's more jargon to translate, cut from the intro:

a global coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon. The Pacific ocean signatures

Work with me, doc. --Uncle Ed 18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

southern huh?

Cut from article:

The atmospheric signature, the Southern Oscillation (SO) reflects the monthly or seasonal fluctuations in the air pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin.

Please define the following. Thank you. --Uncle Ed 18:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jargon file

• atmospheric signature - try reading the version I restored where signature links; please don't cut this out
• Southern Oscillation - read the bl**dy article; its in there.

Come on Ed. Edit for style, yes. Remove substance of something that by your own admission you simply don't understand no. William M. Connolley 18:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

More caution please

Ed, I wished you would have discussed this rather than reverted. Jargon, even if inpenetrable to you, is better than incorrectness. The version you have left:

El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) refers to major temperature fluctuations in surface waters of the tropical Eastern Pacific Ocean...

is simply wrong. The ocean sfc t is only one small part of the whole ENSO phenomenon. The inpenetrability of the jargon means you don't know what is going on here, so you should be being more cautious William M. Connolley 18:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ed has cut yet more "jargon" that he doesn't understand. I don't find this at all acceptable, so I've reverted his cuts. Please Ed you're going too far. One of the things you want to understand - signatures - was *in* my version and you cut it. How did that help? William M. Connolley 18:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal and "moving for repairs" are different. Please stop putting back jargon-laded text that no one but you can understand. It would be better to fix it, before putting it back. That's all I ask. --Uncle Ed 18:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that some of the jargon needs to be editted, but "among other things" seems a little wishywashy for a good entry. How about the following

El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a global phenomenon affecting both the ocean and the atmosphere. Its effects on the ocean, called El Niño and La Niña, are major temperature fluctuations in surface waters of the tropical Eastern Pacific Ocean. These names, from the Spanish for "the little boy" and "the little girl", refer to the Christ child, because the phenomenon is usually noticed around Christmas time in the Pacific Ocean off the west coast of South America. Its effect in the atmosphere, called the Southern Oscillation (SO), reflects the monthly or seasonal fluctuations in the air pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin.

And maybe a link to geophysics or earth science, whichever is more appropriate?

What do you say? -- TheMightyQuill 19:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if that's how we're going to define it, the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) section should maybe be moved up to #2 in the Contents list. Also, from what I can tell,Western Hemisphere Warm Pool and Atlantic effect should be full-fledged sections, not subsections. -- TheMightyQuill 19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for writing that. I replaced the first 2 paragraphs of the intro with it. --Uncle Ed 20:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Most recent?

The SOI section lists two "most recent" El Ninos, with different years. "Most recent" is probably a idea anyway. I'm going to add a list of Major Enso Events tomorrow. -- TheMightyQuill 19:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Old requested move

El Nino-Southern Oscillation → El Niño-Southern Oscillation … Rationale: The spelling without the ñ is incorrect and uncommonly used, even in English; 9 of the first ten Google hits return versions using the ñ in English. However, the latter page already exists as a redirect. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 27 April 2006 @ 16:06 UTC

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 27 April 2006 @ 16:06 UTC
• Oppose: "El Nino" is much more common in English. Jonathunder 17:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Not according to Google. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 30 April 2006 @ 00:31 UTC
• Support: reasons stated above. - TheMightyQuill 09:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• oppose as per Jt —Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs)
• Support: El Niño is correct, so why not use it? I don't really see that there is a problem with having the tilde in the title, as the redirect will always exist. --Pak21 20:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - current title is common use. Thumbelina 23:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, per Pak21. jareha ^(comments) 01:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Pak21. --AySz88^-^ 01:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most English speakers would know the title from discussions in English-language newspapers and similar media which do not use the tilde in their spelling of the term, so it shouldn't be there according to WP:NC. Andrewa (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• As a note, this was last discussed not too long ago (see Talk:El_Nino-Southern_Oscillation#Page_move_to_ENSO.3F). At the time we decided to move it to this version because tildes and such can cause problems in titles. I'm not saying I'm opposed to moving it again, just a heads up on the previous conversation. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This has become kind of messy, there's another rename proposal below, this time to El Niño. Andrewa (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Some artefacts in page formatting

I'm newb in wiki and don't know how to fix it. May be somebody know?

In Russian interface (may be in english too) you can see bug in edit link.

--MaratIK 18:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Weird. There might just be too many pictures crowded into one space. -- TheMightyQuill 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it must be right of chapter "Southern Oscillation Index (SOI)", but not the lower. --MaratIK 21:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Moreover it positioned in other section "Niñо Conditions". --MaratIK 19:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

la nina

perhaps somebody could include something that makes the difference between el nino and la nina a little clearer?

For better presentation, I have written a separate La Niña article, as due to the growing amount of information on El Niño and the Southern Oscillation, anyone looking for La Niña effects has to search well to find just a few bits of information. I have incorporated all reliable information from the El Niño page, and added some information found on the site of the Climate Prediction Center, which is a part of NOAA, such as recent occurrences of La Niña. I think the subject of La Niña is much easier to understand now for someone who quickly wants to know what it is, and I have added sufficient links for anyone who wants to know more technical stuff or its relation to ENSO. Any additions to the new La Niña page are welcome and appreciated.

I hope this will make the difference between El Niño and La Niña much clearer than could ever be achieved without writing a separate article. --Andreas Willow 11:11, 04 September 2007 (UTC)

It's already written, look in section # 1 El Niño and La Niña: In the Pacific, La Niña is characterized by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific, compared to El Niño, which is characterized by unusually warm ocean temperatures in the same area. --MaratIK 19:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I, too, share the same concern. A clear definition probably should appear earlier rather than at the tail-end of the section. Moreover the parenthetical syntax is somewhat confusing in the following statement (which does appear early): "When the +0.5°C (or -0.5°C) condition is met for a period of less than five months, it is classified as El Niño (or La Niña) conditions. If the anomaly persists for five months or longer, it is classified as an El Niño (or La Niña) episode." My first cursory reading gave me the impression that La Niña is somehow a synonym for El Niño. I think articles in references like Wikipedia are expected to be read quickly and not necessarily in full. A-giau 05:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I edited it; maybe a bit better? --AySz88^-^ 05:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Still really unclear and hard to follow the differences between El nino and La nina.Arthurian Legend 03:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting the edit by 81.247.118.241

I reverted this edit. In my opinion it makes no sense as written, even as I understand what the author meant, because:

• El Niño is not a local phenomenon; therefore no part of Earth can be "in a constant state of El Nino",
• even the whole planet being in an El Niño state does not increase global warming; however it can make some continents warmer/colder or dyer/wetter,
• all above cannot "fortify El Nino" in any meaningful way.

This does not change the fact that more global warming can set the planet into a constant El Niño mode. This would really influence the climate of various continents (or their parts) in a varied and complicated way further destabilizing the climate we got used to in recent centuries. User:81.247.118.241 probably meant the results of the following two papers:

• Wara, Ravelo & Delaney 2005,
• Fedorov et al. 2006.

Possibly we could add to the article something better edited on the topic. --Friendly Neighbour 14:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - its not clear at all. I would suggest even a different page for La Niña, but with links to the El Niño page, as they are in similar regions etc. I would do it, but I can't get it to create a page because it redirects from La Nina to El Nino automatically now. Can someone who can do that???—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.199.22.106 (talk • contribs) .

I thought the same. Therefore, I will for now remove the automatic redirect from the La Niña page to the El Niño page, and make a basic start on La Niña. As I am not a top expert on this subject, I will only use the information currently found on the El Niño page regarding La Niña for now. I will not change the El Niño/ENSO page. --Andreas Willow 09:01, 04 September 2007 (UTC)

Separate articles for El Ninos?

Should El Ninos, or at least major ones, have separate articles? Like 1997-98 El Niño and 1982-83 El Niño for instance. CrazyC83 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably better to add text here till it gets big enough to split off William M. Connolley 21:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Added source for 1997/8 El Niño being a high one.Babakathy 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming is an invalid and unimportant concern?

"While ENSO is a global and natural part of the Earth's climate, whether its intensity or frequency may change as a result of global warming is an unimportant concern, because global warming is itself an invalid and unimportant concern"

Could the editor elaborate on this ?

Oops... just vandalism, now reverted William M. Connolley 20:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

El Niño Translation

The names, from the Spanish for "the child" and "the girl", refer to the Christ child, because the phenomenon is usually noticed around Christmas time in the Pacific Ocean off the west coast of South America

Every Translation i've seen has "El Niño" as "the boy". A location of this source would be at least nice.--Dk69 15:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like that's been done. Also it was put forward by Glantz in Currents of Change: El Niño's Impact on Climate and Society. The except also appears in this article.
+mwtoews 23:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, the write was referring to the individual WORDS. He/She was saying "El Nino means the child and La nina means the girl." Both of which are true.

The term "El Niño" (i.e. in upper-case) refers to "the Christ child". The term "el niño" (i.e. in lower-case) refers to "the boy". The term "La Niña" and "la niña" both mean "the girl", as Jesus was not a girl (obviously). The ocean phenomenon is always referred to in the capitalized form. Iceberg007 (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

El Nino? Or Southern Oscilation?

I haven't heard the term 'El Nino' applied to this phenomenon in about five to ten years. The media in Australia refer to it as the SO only. In international media I've noted also that SO is surpassing EN's usage. Is this a growing trend and is El Nino falling into disuse? If so? Why? Is it because SO is more international? Is it because EN is embarassing to say in public with non-Spanish accentuation? Is it because SO sounds more scientific? 211.30.71.59 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree with you about the use of the name changing. In all the international media I've seen, El Niño is used far more often. Checking on google news, for example, gives over 1000 results for "El Niño" without "Southern Oscillation", whereas "Southern Oscillation" only occurs in about 50 articles in total. Are you sure it's not just an Australian thing? --David Edgar 11:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

La Nina causes wetter than normal conditions in Australia, so...

can the article please mention this. Thanks, Codman 12:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Little

"El Niño" means 'the boy.' To say 'the ittle boy' as in the article you have to use an adjective as in 'El niño pequeño' or you could even say 'El Niñito.' I just thought we could change "the little boy" as it appears in the article to just 'the boy.' Brusegadi 21:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to keep the adjective, for clarity, since age terms don't always correspond exactly between languages. It's quite normal to refer to, say, a 15-year-old as "a boy" in English, but never (except insultingly) "un niño" in Spanish. FWIW, my Spanish dictionary defines niño as "(small) boy", i.e. the noun needs to be qualified, either by an adjective or by context. Vilĉjo 13:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought 'boy' in English referred to "niño" and 'teen' to the 15 year old. But, I was merely pointing that out. My experience with the little thing in English is not high. Sorry. Brusegadi 18:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My experience in English is that we continue to use the word "boy" to describe young adults in secondary school, and even in college. Many Americans in their early twenties refer to themselves as "boys" and "girls" rather than "men" and "women". -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Perdonen que escriba en spanish porque es mi idioma natal, no quiero tener problemas con el tema idiomático y quiero ayudar arreglando ciertos errores, como sugerencia pueden traducir este texto en Google Translator, algunos textos se traducen simplemente señalando el cursor sobre el texto gracias a un plug-in del Firefox, El Niño, literalmente se interpreta como "The Child" (Children), Niño/Cria, "The Boy" (Chico, pre-adolescente), "The Little Boy" (El pequeño niño, ¿Niñito?), "Teen" (Adolescente), "Adult" (Adulto) en si, los comentarios arriba son aceptables. Opto por "Child", pero como me dedico a traducir en ingles/español para la Wikipedia, ustedes tienen la palabra, si me mandan un mensaje por favor a la pagina de usuario en la versión española, 98% de los casos reviso constantemente la de mi idioma. --GuiaMartinez (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Creo que la solucion al aparente problema de traduccion resulto ser idiosincratico a la disciplina de ciencias climaticas. Por lo tanto, no era tanto de traducir el nombre si no de explicar por que se le llama de esa forma; lo que se debe a que el fenomeno aparece durante diciembre asi como "El Niño" Cristo. Cualquier cosa me puede preguntar en mi pagina de discusion aqui o en la wiki en Español (tengo el mismo nombre de usuario en ambas. Nota: Siempre trate de colaboarar o preguntar en el idioma de la wiki en que se encuentra. :) Note: Always discuss topics in the language of the wiki in which you are in  :) Adios y cuidese, Brusegadi (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move the page to El Niño, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I have no preference for a move to a title "El Niño" over, say "Southern Oscillation", but the current title is in violation of at least three clauses of WP:MOSTITLE. Happy‑melon 09:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Which three clauses? Have a look at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/ for what in my experience is the normal Australian usage. I like the current title of El Niño-Southern Oscillation, but if it really is in violation of the MoS then that should be looked at of course. Andrewa (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR may apply. Brusegadi (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(;-> But that leaves at least another two clauses to find... unless of course we ignore the rules of arithmetic... I guess WP:IAR sanctions that too... Andrewa (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

NB there is another Requested move section with an open WP:RM poll above... make sure you edit the right section...! Andrewa (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Support I always ignore the Manual of Style; but in this case, I see no advantage to having two names when either one would be better (with a redirect from the other). Of the two, I would prefer El Niño. One of the violations involves whether the connector is a hyphen or an en-dash; I don't care, but it is an inconvenience to the reader to have to remember which, and an inconvenience to the encyclopedia to include all possible redirects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Isn't this the common name? If there are two common names, then you put the article at one and a redirect at the other. Vegaswikian 20:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to go through this move, but I think something needs to be checked. Doesn't Southern Oscillation include both El Niño and La Niña? Are we unnecessarily excluding the second from this article's scope by moving the page to the first? This has been suggested in previous move summaries. Dekimasuよ! 07:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A distinct point; it may be best to have three articles: Most of this article will be El Niño; some will go in La Niña, which already exists; and Southern Oscillation will be, even more than it now is, essentially a dab page. (And someone will have to look at the indicated source to see which one are referred to in Major ENSO events have occurred in the years 1790-93, 1828, 1876-78, 1891, 1925-26, 1982-83, and 1997-98. The requested move should probably be a step in here anyway, to keep as much as possible of the edit history together. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose move, at least without more clarification as discussed above. I don't think that this is a case of two names for the same thing; it looks pretty clear that the "Southern Oscillation" part is broader than "El Niño", what isn't really clear (to me, it might be poissible for someone to figure out from the articles) is whether "El Niño" always goes hand-in-hand with Sourthern Oscillation, and what also isn't clear is the extent of usage untainted by Wikipedia of the combination terms now in the article title, and also of the combination acronym ENSO and any discussion of what effect that should have on the article name. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support We already have articles on the Southern Oscillation and La Niña, the latter much better than the few sentences here. Most of this article is about El Niño specifically, and the rest is redundant with the other articles. I therefore propose to make this article El Niño, by trimming a few sentences and adding more visible crosslinks to the other two articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I haven't been available to take care of this (you can check my contributions and see how inactive I've been for the last week). I do agree that, given the existence of the other two articles, it makes sense to move this to El Niño. Can you do the editorial redistribution if I do the title change? Dekimasuよ! 01:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be largely moving a few sections to Southern Oscillation and rewriting the lead. No problem; if I neglect it more than a day after the move, remind me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

History

Before the current name was adopted "teleconnections" of climate were described in the 19th Century by Henry Blanford in India and Charles Todd in Australia. Between 1910 and 1930 another Australian, Edward Quayle, published a series of papers on the link between weather and what is now called the SO.[2]. Would it be appropriate to incuse them?Bebofpenge (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned the SO, so maybe that belongs in the SO article. The name of this article might have changed under your feet while you were standing in it. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead not focused

The lead seemed to be talking about more than just El Niño (including La Niña, ENSO and SO). I think it should be edited to be more centered around El Niño. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

El Niño & La Niña

There seems a considerable overlap between these articles. I would favour their integration to avoid content forking, but the current situation - with La Niñas being covered in two places - is certainly not ideal. The two phenomena are end members of the same system, and one cannot be explained without reference to the other. Therefore it makes sense to just have one article; is there any reason not to merge? Verisimilus T 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I feel that the entire ENSO system could be merged into one article without significant loss of information. This would help avoid overlapping. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. It doesn't make any sense to have two separate articles. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh good Lord, I just noticed there's a third article on the Southern Oscillation! That makes even less sense. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Earth

Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. --Iwilleditu^{Talk :)Contributions} —Preceding comment was added at 15:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Added Link to PDO

Link to PDO was missing so I added one. Yabti (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I'm proposing that La Niña and Southern Oscillation be merged into the present article, which would be retitled El Niño-Southern Oscillation. (Note the lede already defines the article as covering El Niño-Southern Oscillation). There would be redirects from La Niña, El Niño, ENSO, and Southern Oscillation to here. These all result from the same physical phenomenon. It would make for a stronger, more coherent, and more maintainable article if we don't have bits scattered all over the place. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. There was some move/merge stuff around Jan 2006, see above William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree to the motion as well. It makes the most sense, as all of these topics are very closely related to each other. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It would be good for the readers. I might also suggest that Pacific decadal oscillation be merged as well (or at least mentioned). ~ UBeR (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. Go ahead and do it! Verisimilus T 18:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Supported. Title of El Niño-Southern Oscillation should be retained. Babakathy (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

El Niño vs. El Niño phenomenone

The artical does not seem to point out that El Niño accors every year around December in Peru. The El Niño phenomemnone, however, is when it is much stronger (the trade winds slacker more) and lasts much longer than normal.--Ortho (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it? the tables on pages 24 to 26 of [3] seem to indicate as many negatives as positives for December. If temperatures are compared to average, how could it occur every year? I guess the 'phenomemnone' translates as episode which is explained under first heading. Does that need to be improved to indicate it is 5 overlapping 3 month averages per page 21 of above link? crandles (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

el nino has killed a lot of people,

is this true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.96.113 (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's as true as the heat of summer killing people annually, and the cold of winter killing people annually. It would be fair to say that the climatological anomalies associated with El Nino/ENSO lead to deaths. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Positive events (El Nino) are associated with drought in southern Africa and consequential food shortages. Refs:

Makarau, A., Jury, M.R. 1998. Predictability of Zimbabwe summer rainfall. International Journal of Climatology, 17, 1421-1432

Mason, S.J. 2001. El Niño, climate change, and Southern African climate. Environmetrics, 12, 327 – 345.

Babakathy (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Southern Oscilliation Link

This was at the bottom of the article - removed it as it just redirects back to the same article. Assuming there was some merge or similar and no one changed the link. Danny252 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Double of La Nina Diagram

is in the article twice, and instead of removing it i was wondering which copy should be removed. And Sugestons Snoozer (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed one of the instances. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

el nino in spanish means little boy the reason they named it that is because during thee el nino time that was said to be the time when Jessus was bornso basiaclly around Christmas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.31.64 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thousands of people died. It got its name when they saw a dead boy underwater and they named it El Nino.  :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.188.23 (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

New El Nino Announced

I noticed under external links a link to NOAA press release about the 04 El Nino. Should we include the press release NOAA issued 09 July 2009 about the arrival of the new El Nino? He Flips (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC) There are several places in the article that list 2006/2007 as the most recent el nino, includiong the lead.He Flips (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Jargon

I added new announcement Flips mentioned.

Aimless and impenetrable jargon makes this article truly unreadable.

I hacked through a few lines of it with my sub-par copy editing skills, but it seems nearly hopeless.

I would love to learn something about El Nino and I expect the information could be unlocked from existing content here.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Intro is far too long

Somebody please do something. Have genuine interest in topic but article is unreadable.

I gather from edit history nobody much cares.

Defaming of article

This article may or may not have enlightening content but it cannot be read without extremely severe effort, due to its seemingly aimless and shameless jargon and poor organization.

Much of this article may (?) have been cribbed from the authoritative National Weather Service, where explainations of this nature often suffer from similar faults. Scientists do have their conclusions, apparently, but are fearful of obscuring the data and are proud of their jargon.

Comitting to a weather forecast is understandably scary and not really possible.

But readers DO need at least some simplified conclusions, with data info and theory secondary.

Jargon (JA) on the whole (OTW) isn't useful (NU) in communicating with non-insiders (NI).

Given that El Nino is as of summer 2009 developing, timely attention (TA) should be paid (SBP)to improving (TI) this item (TI).

So just to recap, the JA you got OTW is NU for the NI and TA thererefore, SBP to TI.

OKAY? Wow, that was hard to put together. My hat is off to scientists who try writing.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

03:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Point out 10 cases of unreadable jargon, and I'll try to fix it when I can. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Defame?

An editor used this word to re-headline my earlier comment.

Is it slander to mention the article is relatively disorganized and marred with jargon? Does the article in fact have a "reputation" or fame? Definitionally speaking, the editor's intended meaning is wrong or unclear.

And if a particular editor is unable to independently recognize jargon, then ----WTF?

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but this is just uncalled for. While the article does need to be improved in terms of accessibility, it is still after all about a technical topic, so some jargon is inevitable (otherwise, the quality of the prose would be rather poor). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 11:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed about the snark.

Specialized terms and jargon have some overlap --- but aren't the same thing.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

LEDE

Made further edits to lede. May have over-simplified. Other editors can address this, hopefully not by reverting.

I'd advise saving complexity for the body of the article, and then using a cautious and conservative approach.

Also, in current lede, the second-to-last sentence I assume (?!?) has some valid content, but may be inappropriate for introduction and reads somewhat like gibberish. Terms, when introduced, must be defined.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It is why the wikilinks to those terms exist. I have to admit, clarifying those terms will substantially increase the size of the lead, and since they aren't tackled within the article below, would be a definite problem for the lead. While I appreciate the lead simplification, completely excluding La Nina from the lead is a mistake. ENSO is about both El Nino and La Nina climate-related changes. The lead is also meant to be a summary, not an introduction, per the Manual of Style. It is meant to be a stand-alone summary of the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to fix the La Nina issue.

Okay, the lede a summary, but best if easily comprehended and fairly brief.

I think current version maybe needs a little more content, drawn, I suppose from article body.

Off top of hed, the Atlantic line just comes from the blue & needs to be set up maybe, with a sentence about worldwide effects....The stuff about eastern and central Pacific as it stands, may not be very enlightening. Might be replaced with more generalized info about forecasting. Am thinking just off cuff & dunno really.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. That said, the primary reason the Pacific is pointed out so much is that it is the primary means of identification of an ENSO event. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Article reorganization

I just reorganized the article structure and added several references. Several redundancies previously within the article have been removed. I'm sure more organization is required, but this is a good start. If not, speak up. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Work might be especially timely, if current ENSO becomes severe and relatively high traffic comes to this article as a result.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the extraordinary recent work by Thegreatdr!! Readers including me, will benefit.

06:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

STILL NOT GOOD?

I've worked on this article and improved in in some ways, and perhaps messed it up in other ways.

I don't think, as of now (or previously) that an interested general reader can easily obtain a very clear and useful idea of what ENSO is from this work.

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

History to bottom

Interesting segment but really of least relevance.

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems with images

The images in this article are essentially unreadable and meaningless, and have little or no comprensible connection to text.

They are messing up the typography and I am not able to fix this, nor inclined to learn how to fix this.

Since they are nearly meaningless in current format, one might suggest they be deleted.

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Causes

Improved the language somewhat I think, and added two good and fairly simple sources. But not sure if I've improved comprehesibility much. May have removed some stuff I shouldn't have. In particular I cut stuff about volcanoes, as it seems a bit fringe, or at least not central to generalized understanding.

It remains by my lights, not highly useful or readable. I may do more on it if I locate a good source.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of my current [QUESTIONS] about this important section, which I don't understand........YET WHICH I'VE TRIED TO EDIT.....

QUOTES to be read in conjunction with current article:

Several mechanisms have been proposed where warmth builds up in the equatorial area, then is dispersed to higher latitudes {NORTH?] By an El Niño event. [WHAT MECHANISMS? IF WE DON'T WANNA TALK ABOUT THEM, THEN LET'S NOT MENTION THEM].....Also.......[HOW IS BUILD-UP AND DISPERSAL RELEVANT.......what is it?]

This line was wrong. It has to do with ocean mixing, not transport to higher latitudes. It has a ref now too. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The cooler area [WHERE IS THAT?] then has to "recharge" warmth for several years before another event can take place.[citation needed]

The ocean surface. Hopefully the text explains this better now. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones north and south of the equator that may play a role in ENSO are caused by the westerly flow between the areas of low pressure induced by a Madden-Julian oscillation.[4] [WHAT DOES THIS MEAN??]

Since the Madden Julian Oscillation induces westerly flow in the tropics, this helps develop low pressure areas in both hemispheres simultaneously in months such as May and November. These systems, in turn, also increase the westerly flow between them as they intensify. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

....Such wind may counteract the typical easterly flows across the Pacific and create a tendency toward continuing the eastward motion.[citation needed] [A COUNTERACTION OF EASTERLY FLOWS CREATES TENDENCY TOWARD EASTWARD MOTION?? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN???]

Eastward-propagating oceanic Kelvin waves can be produced by Madden-Julian activity, which may in turn be influenced by a developing El Niño, leading to a positive feedback.[5] [HOW IS THIS PRODUCED, HOW IS THIS INFLUENCED?}::

Only want to understand.

Calamitybrook (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Kelvin waves are subsurface waves, per your reference, which are set in motion eastward by strong pulses in the Madden Julian Oscillation which typically precede El Nino events. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand MJOs are on a 60-day cycle. I don't think their role in ENSO is adequately explained in the article, and if they aren't a "cause" then......it becomes that much more difficult.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

They're either a precursor or a cause. I believe people just think they're a precursor. By the way, the way you're looking at this article and trying to interpret it could pass for peer review, which is great actually. If someone not well-versed in meteorology is able to understand the article, mazel tov. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"Such westerly winds counteract the typical easterly winds across the Pacific and create a tendency toward continuing their eastward motion across the ocean.[citation needed]"

Also: "Jacob Bjerknes in 1969 helped toward an understanding of ENSO, by suggesting that an anomalously warm spot in the eastern Pacific can weaken the east-west temperature difference, disrupting trade winds, which push warm water to the west. The result is increasingly warm water toward the east.[5]

In the article preceeding this sentence there is reference to east-west pressure differences. This is first mention of east-west temperature differences. One needs to introduce the concept with an explaination.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My entries are too numerous and confusing but am presently focused on this problematic sentence in "causes:"

"Several mechanisms have been proposed where warmth builds up in the equatorial area, then is dispersed to lower depths by an El Niño event.[7] "

There is no discussion of "several mechanisms" and therefore the phrase is distracting and unenlightening with regard to remainder of sentence.

How is warmth dispersed to lower depths? I thought ENSO was related to surface temps....The "equatorial area" is --- global? throughout the pacific? Eastern tropical pacific? Somewhere else?? Calamitybrook (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand, the underwater Kelvin waves transport warmer waters eastward. Increasing oceanic mixing in any manner (other than upwelling) would increase water temperatures where sea surface temperatures are normally cool due to upwelling (caused by sustained offshore winds from a continent) such as across the eastern tropical Pacific. Vertical mixing of warm waters within a patch of ocean would also cool surface temperatures away from upwelled waters, which would then take a while to recover to their former temperature profiles. For example, tropical cyclones along their track vertically mix water to a depth of at least 30 meters, which increases the temperatures below the surface and cools the surface temperatures. In the case of TCs, it takes weeks for those waters to return to their former temperature distribution. When you're talking of a longer duration climate anomaly such as ENSO which helps sustain itself for 1-2 years, it can be years before the ocean temperatures at the surface and below return to their former state. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Volcanic

I removed vulcanism from introduction and think I earlier removed reference to this in causes.

I assume nobody thinks volcanoes are a central cause of ENSO. If wrong, please correct.

A mention of this could be made somewhere, but its likely significance should be indicated rather than merely included in a laundry list of possibilities.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This can't be assumed, since the passage did have a reference associated with it. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"No Cause"

To say ENSO has "no cause" I'd guess isn't strictly true, but it's a rather obscure question that can be validly approached from physics or logic and philosophy.

It doesn't need to be introduced. Credible sources discuss ENSO causes. I'd remove the statement, especially if unsourced.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We could reword the section as Early Stages, which would eliminate this debating point. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

GAN will not be coming soon due to the shortening lead

We have 5 passages/paragraphs left to be referenced, and the lead may need expansion to cover the general content below, but I believe this article is fairly close to consider its sending through GAN once those issues are taken care of. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's getting there. I've tried to sort out the confusion between ENSO and El Niño and some other factual errors (though a Good Article assessment focuses mostly on formatting and the like, not factual accuracy...) The lede perpetuates this confusion - it should better reflect that ENSO includes both the warm and cold phases. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've seen GA sort out factual accuracies before. I've pointed them out when I've done GAN reviews. If there are inconsistencies between the lead and body of the article, which can be due to factual issues, they do show up in the GAN process. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

lede problem: Final sentence is sourced, but my reaction is "HUH?" and "WHA??"

" Recent research suggests that treating ocean warming in the eastern tropical Pacific separately from that in the central tropical Pacific may help explain some of these variations.[4]"Calamitybrook (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I've now dealt with the "HUH?" and "WHA?" problem in the lead, by defining ENSO as periodic warming/cooling of the eastern AND central tropical Pacific, which covers the El Nino 3.4 region. The last line should now be clearer, as it is discriminating the central tropical Pacific FROM the eastern tropical Pacific. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've nearly had it with this article. The lead keeps getting overly shortened, to a point which will not pass GAN because it is not an overview of the article. Maybe in several months to a couple years, I'll take another crack at this article. It's slipping farther and farther away from being submitted for GAN. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor point

One of my pet peeves regarding terms acceptable to the National Weather Service and I suppose, NOAA, is the term "normal."

As used by NWS, what is actually meant is "average" rather than "normal."

At least, that's what I gather.

One example: It's normal during warm phase of ENSO for surface water temps in eastern tropical pacific to be higher than average. But NWS would say these are higher than "normal."

Another random example: It's normal in an average winter in Chicago, for temperatures to frequently fall below average.

It would be quite foolish to say it's normal for temperatures to be below "normal." But this is apparently acceptable to NWS.

I just applied this language view to part of ENSO article.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Examples of needless words

I removed, then restored one sentence in lede that contains an idea that is not part of an "overview,' and nowhere explained nor developed. (Sentence began with "Recent research....") I suggest it be introduced and at least minimally explained, somewhere appropriate within body of article.

It's now last sentence of lede, and remains unenlightening.

Other than that, the current lede has ALL content of old, with removal needless words. Same thing; fewer words. If I've cut something besides needless words, let me know. Already, I can see words I missed.Calamitybrook (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

---

OLDER, more wordy version of lede

(compare with current version; it's exactly the same content.)

Niño-Southern Oscillation is a periodic change in the atmosphere and ocean of the tropical Pacific region. It is defined in the atmosphere by changes in the pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin, Australia, and in the ocean by warming or cooling of surface waters of the tropical central and eastern Pacific Ocean. El Niño is the name given to its warm phase of the oscillation -- the period when water in that region is warmer than average. La Niña is the name given to the cold phase of the oscillation, or the period when the water in the tropical Eastern Pacific is colder than average.[2] The oscillation has no well-defined period, but instead occurs every three to eight years. Mechanisms that sustain the El Niño-La Niña cycle remain a matter of research.

The El Niño-Southern Oscillation is often abbreviated in scientific jargon as ENSO and in popular usage is commonly called simply El Niño. The name is Spanish for "the boy" and refers to the Christ child, because periodic warming in the Pacific near South America is usually noticed around Christmas.[3] Conversely the name for the cool phase of the oscillation, "La Niña," is Spanish for "the girl."

El Niño is associated with floods, droughts and is linked to other weather disturbances in many locations around the world. El Niño's effects in the Atlantic Ocean lag behind those in the Pacific by 12 to 18 months. Developing countries dependent upon agriculture and fishing are especially affected. El Niño's effects on weather vary with each event. Recent research suggests that treating ocean warming in the eastern tropical Pacific separately from that in the central tropical Pacific may help explain some of these variations.[4] Calamitybrook (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The older lead is more indicative of the content below than the current lead, and was essentially negotiated between the much longer, disjointed version originally in the article and what currently lies at the top of the article.. The lead from last month even defines El Nino and La Nina, and differentiates between the two, which is not done explicitly enough in the current lead. Developing countries is too vague...Bangladesh and Haiti fishing are not impacted by the SST variation in the eastern Pacific. It might be time to reference the Science article which talks about the treating the central and eastern Pacific warm pools separately, if it has been published yet. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no content, no information, NONE, that has been lost or removed from the earlier lede.

There are fewer words, which are therefore quicker and easier to read.

I've isolated a couple of examples.

Older:

Niño-Southern Oscillation is a periodic change in the atmosphere and ocean of the tropical Pacific region. It is defined in the atmosphere by changes in the pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin, Australia, and in the ocean by warming or cooling of surface waters of the tropical central and eastern Pacific Ocean.

Newer

El Niño-Southern Oscillation is defined by periodic changes in the atmospheric pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin, Australia, and concurrent warming or cooling of surface waters of the tropical central and eastern Pacific Ocean.

Fewer words; same information.

Older:

El Niño is the name given to its warm phase of the oscillation -- the period when water in that region is warmer than average. La Niña is the name given to the cold phase of the oscillation, or the period when the water in the tropical Eastern Pacific is colder than average.

NEWER:=

El Niño is the warm phase of the oscillation. La Niña is the the cold phase.

Etc.

The same editing principle has been used throughout, and all information is preserved.

Please note, for example, that "warm phase" and "cold phase" has already been defined as concerning surface waters of tropical central and eastern Pacific. Repeating this as in earlier version, adds nothing.

But point to information that I've removed, then we'll put it back in. Calamitybrook (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Warm phase and cold phase is too generic for the lead. Be more specific about where it is warm/cold between El Nino/La Nina. The lead is supposed to stand alone as a summary of the article below, and be clear. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Currently reads

El Niño-Southern Oscillation is defined by periodic changes in the atmospheric pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin, Australia, and concurrent warming or cooling of surface waters of the tropical central and eastern Pacific Ocean. El Niño is the warm phase of the oscillation. La Niña is the the cold phase.[2]

(Warming or cooling of surface waters is defined; Warm & cool phases can only refer to "warming of surface waters" in aforementioned regions.)

To follow this with the "Warm phase of the oscillation is when the temperature of surface waters in the tropical and eastern Pacific become warmer than average" and the "Cold phase of the oscillation is when the temperature of suface waters in the tropical and eastern Pacific become warmer than average" .......is to employ A LOT of unneeded words....given that the gist is already understood from first sentence.

It adds no information, but only tires the reader unnecessarily.

If, on the other hand, you are asking for more details on the warm and cold phase than was previously included in the lede, that's a different kettle of fish.

Please do go ahead and add it.

I'll remove the needless words, and leave all the new information and citations.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede currently introduces same idea twice, in first two sentences

Regarding latest changes "to fix choppy writing:"

A topic sentence should introduce an idea, and be followed (if needed) by information that develops this idea in subsequent sentences

Instead we've got needless redundancy reintroduced...."is a periodic change" in pressure and surface temps; "is defined by period changes" in pressure and surface temps.

This can be dealt with in one sentence.

Also, "Is" and "Is defined by" aren't differentiated, and might reasonably appear to the reader to be the same thing as the lede currently reads.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC) !!!!

Commons

A lot of pictures, but nothing at commons. --Saperaud 2 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)

What about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:ENSO? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Lede again

That's better, but "is" and "is defined by" remain unclear and repetitive terms.

ENSO "is" probably a worldwide phenomenon rather than local to Pacific.

In a sense, it's defined by phenomena of the tropical Pacific.

I won't try to suggest more than that at the moment. Really, I don't know what's correct.

Pleased to see my editing is mostly holding up on second round.

I would continue to suggest that lede's final sentence doesn't help sum up the article, nor does it stand alone. The citation, which may indeed be valuable, is nowhere expanded on nor explained lower down within the article. It's utterly vague and really, not comprehensible. What we'd call a "throwaway sentence."

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a phrase to help out. It isn't clear what the final line is talking about when it refers to "these variations," because variations aren't talked about in the previous sentence. This sentence and the one two sentences before need to be placed closer together, which would resolve the problem. Thegreatdr (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent Research

"Recent research suggests that treating ocean warming in the eastern tropical Pacific separately from that in the central tropical Pacific may help explain some of these variations."

The sentence seems to say that an explanation of variations (in ocean warming in eastern tropical Pacific vs. central tropical Pacific,) may be helped, by treating these variations separately, according to recent research.

So really, all the sentence says is that:

If these two variations were '"treated" separately, they might be better understood.

What is the "explanation" to be helped?

What are these variations?

Who "treats" these variations together?

What is the aim and nature of this treatment, and/or, of the alternate proposed treatment?

What is current understanding that may be improved?

What is the nature of this research?

How does all this related to a "stand-alone overview" of the article?

In other words, to repeat my point above, it's just not saying anything at all, as currently written.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Am proposing the sentence is moved to body of article and vastly improved. Or at minimum, that a rationale is presented for retention in lede, with serious improvement.

I am myself unable to make improvements, and based on this, would opt to remove.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed sentence after three days without discussion. Restore if you like, but please justify in light of above argument.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a general comment... recent research should be avoided. Sometimes it takes awhile to realize it's not right. -Atmoz (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you, wikipedia as a whole, and the global warming article in and of itself, don't recognize this problem fully nor constrain themselves to the use of this idea. The non-use of blogs tries to take care of the issue, but you know as well as anyone that blogs are sometimes used within certain articles which are considered FA quality, when they really shouldn't be. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking very generally, some "recent research" is more significant & some less.

Incomprehensible "content" in article is my issue, anyway, with the above stuff.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Teleconnections

Hmmm, no mention of the possible effects of Teleconnections on the El Nino event. Perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge than me could remedy that?

The referenced material, contained in the scientific journals, is specific and detailed. The experimenters are the experts on this topic. They follow the Scientific Method.

Those who modify (re-interpret) the Journal Articles, without actually having knowlege about the subject, and without ever publishing a serious scientific article, are only pretending.

Their Wilkopedia comments are ,by most,invalid.

Many of these "re-mixes" are ludicrious, misleading, and full of errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.125.3 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandals

Lately the article has been visited by a number of vandals. Myself and others have corrected various things, but it now needs a highly careful reading with reference to sources.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Remarkably sustained attacks by vandal adolescents. A high school assignment?

Thanks for vigilant reverts.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been true of a lot of articles lately. I believe the topic was broached in the latest Wikipedia signpost page. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Layperson reference

I'd like to recommend removing the "but the phenomenon was largely unknown to the layperson until 1997" from the opening paragraph. William Burroughs (William James Burroughs, 2003, Weather Cycles: Real or Imaginary, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press) says "it was not until 1982/83 that El Niño started to become part of popular culture." This matches my layperson's experience in the Western U.S. No doubt awareness differed in different places. Perhaps best just not to mention this at all.John_Fleck

I agree. The 1982/1983 El Nino certainly made television and magazine articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead contradicts article

The lead says "El Niño-Southern Oscillation is a periodic change in the atmosphere and ocean... El Niño is the warm phase of the oscillation and La Niña is the cold phase."

The Southern Oscillation section says, "The Southern Oscillation is the atmospheric counterpart of El Niño."

Either the SO section is correct in distinguishing the SO from El Nino, in which case the lede should do the same, or the SO section is making an incorrect distinction between the two. Anyone feel up to the task of resolving this?--Father Goose (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oy. This should be clarified. This is why El Nino - Southern Oscillation is hyphenated. El Nino is the oceanic response while the Southern Oscillation is the atmospheric response. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Have tried a rewrite, Babakathy (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Better, but it needs a touch more work. "The Southern Oscillation is defined as the sign of the pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin in the atmosphere." What does that mean?--Father Goose (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it, mostly, to show my opinion. I won't care too greatly if you re-revert. Most of the text you edited was fine before, and (IMO) better before. In particular the two phrases above apparent contradiction can be removed by adding "oceanic" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask you to try to explain to me what "the sign of the surface pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin" means? In particular I don't understand what "sign" means in this sentence -- does it have some specific technical meaning in this context?--Father Goose (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah sorry. I wonder who wrote that - hopefully not me. I've removed it. The SOI is just the pressure difference (though sometimes you only care about the sign). Is that clearer? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have put in a line to say SOI is the atmo counterpart to EN/LN, since we have something to define EN and LN. Babakathy (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Prompted by that, I've hacked around the lead some more William M. Connolley (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Progress

We're down to 7 unreferenced paragraphs within the article. We need a non-scientist to review the article to check for jargon. An article like this is probably jargon-filled, which is an issue I've been trying to tackle on and off the last couple months with the low-pressure area article. Once these issues are addressed, a GAN attempt would be attempted. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, given that ENSO often makes the news and such we really need an article that the average person can understand. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the reason why CalamityBrook took on this article improvement challenge in the first place. The article is in much better shape than it once was. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

'ello Boris. Seen a decent picture of ENSO spectral power around? Or is that too much of a minority interest William M. Connolley (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a thorough analysis here[4] but it's way too complicated for this article. The figure in Geert-Jan van Oldenborgh's article a few years ago would be good because it gives the cycle length in years, which I think is what we want for a layman-oriented article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why it's no good

"Coupled ocean-atmosphere mode of variability" is a needless clunker of a phrase. It beats reader over the head and shouts "GO AWAY!!!"

Apart from being unpleasantly awkward, it's not defined, & is thus meaningless to many (probably most) readers.

It therefore lacks utility in present context. To plunge into a definition of a definition in the lede would be to become immediately lost in the weeds.

Paraphrasing NOAA's lay description, or something similar, is probably a good idea here. One can get more fancy lower down in article.

When possible jargon should be avoided, and when needed (not often), must be immediately defined. This is basic, non-controversial approach to writing for a general readership.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, mode of variability is now linked. Does that help? If you want to have a clue what ENSO is, you can't avoid the ideas William M. Connolley (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If I handed you a Greek-English dictionary...and copy of an Athens newspaper...."Does that help?"

Goal is not to produce a research project for the reader, but rather a useful piece of writing in plain English.

Even a good piece of writing. (Or at least to avoid when possible, poor writing.)

Actually, digging through the NOAA ENSO "educational resources" page, one sees the term is little used, if at all.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC) "El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a quasi periodic climate pattern that occurs across the tropical Pacific with a roughly 5 year cycle.

coupled ocean-atmosphere mode of variability

That is ill-defined jargon and not appropriate for lede.

Let us PLEASE use simple and very plain English when possible.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes. If you don't understand "jargon" please ask for an explanation, as we can try to work on the text. But pretty well by definition, if you don't understand it you're not able to edit it into shape. ENSO is *not* periodic for example William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

May I ask you to try to rewrite the text in the lead in a way that would be understood by a lay reader (i.e., less jargon, more basic explanation of the terms and phenomena)? This is an article that's going to be visited by quite a few lay readers, given how much press El Niño has gotten over the years.--Father Goose (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've made an attempt to start the article mode of variability, which hopefully will not earn me a scolding for anything I got wrong. But I would appreciate any fixes or expansion. 2010! Wow, it's the future.--Father Goose (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That was a good idea. I've commented over there (slightly negatively, but nicely I hope) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Also made and linked Quasi periodic William M. Connolley (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I see what was confusing me earlier about the lede:

the "Southern Oscillation"... is measured as the surface pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin, Australia... El Niño is manifested by warming or cooling of surface waters of the tropical central and eastern Pacific Ocean.

It was describing the the Southern Oscillation index, not the SO itself, then going on to describe El Niño in real-world terms.

The whole lede was pretty incomprehensible, disorganized, and redundant, so I just made a stab at rewriting it altogether. If I fucked up any technical aspects, hopefully they can be fixed in place instead of needing to revert everything.--Father Goose (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Powerful," "Quasi periodic "short period"???

What value does "quasi periodic" add to first sentence?? Three sentences later it says

"The oscillation does not have a specific period, but occurs every four to twelve years, with most power at around 5 years. Mechanisms that cause the oscillation remain under study."

Our lede goes on to say:

"ENSO is the most "powerful" short-period climate pattern worldwide...."

Well, is it short-period, or quasi periodic? Both? What is "short-period?"

Why is the simple description of the temporal cycle inadequate?

The linked article on "quasi periodic" has but a single source, in which term in question is nowhere to be found. Perhaps a similar article on "short period" should be worked up....

Also, the terms "power" and "powerful" are ambiguous, not least because it's linked to Wikipedia article on Spectral density, which mentions nothing about weather, is focused on electronics and is unlikely to be of value to the general reader, having been culled, seemingly, from engineering textbooks.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the ambiguity of "powerful", but I don't have the technical knowledge to explain what "powerful" means here in simpler terms, so I left it untouched.

"Quasi periodic" is not too hard to infer as just meaning irregularly periodic (unlike, say, the annual cycle, which occurs exactly every 365.24xxx days). So a "short [quasi] period" is an irregular period that happens on a short timescale. I added the word "short" to distinguish it from various long-period events like ice ages, which I assume are more powerful in their net effect. But perhaps this can be explained even more plainly than it is now.

As for the simple description of the temporal cycle, are you referring to the "roughly 5 years" in the opening sentence? I feel the additional explanation is necessary because it's quite rough. Going by the occurrences listed on this page: [5], El Nino occurred with the following periodicity across a 50 year span:

2 4 8 4 3 5 5 4 5 3 3 years

La Nina was even more irregular:

5 15 3 2 13 11 years

Plus, the intensity is very different from event to event, adding to its irregularity. And the use of the term "quasi-periodic" (perhaps we should add a hyphen) is pretty well established in reference to ENSO: [6].

Still, if you've got ideas on how to make anything plainer, I'd like to hear 'em.--Father Goose (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I cut short period. I think it is a mistake (also ambiguous; I guessed you meant ice age before I read the above, but I doubt many would). I think it is wrong: don't mistake *power* for amplitude (or persistence). It isn't really needed either; no-one is going to need ENSO and iceage type stuff disambiguated William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Father Goose (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Short, quasi, roughly powerful, Spectral Density

These are unexplained, needless terms for lede!!!

Rather than illuminate a brief summary description, they create confusion and uncertainty, and seriously detract from article's basic credibility

Pretty poor stuff actually, as far as the fairly low Wikipedia standards go.

Goal should be kept in mind. Certain obscure concepts may be relevant to sophisticated understanding of ENSO, but that's not aim of lede.

Fool with this stuff (very carefully please) in body if you like.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be unnecessarily combative (as well as usuing excess indent). Short is gone. Quasi is explained, powerful is linked. Methinks you do protest too much William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with WMC on that. I agree with your (Calamitybrook's) overall goal: the article, and especially the lede, should be completely clear to the general reader, with all jargon avoided or explained in-place. However, you're taking a pretty argumentative approach to that goal, which is setting your cause back.--Father Goose (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, am indeed sorry, but that's what I think. Reasons provided above.

All essential ideas in lede can be easily be expressed in very simple plain English.

Some editors prefer to cloak and camoflage this content, based on their personal notions and training, with various and in some cases, highly dubious jargon.

This is loss to general reader.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the underlying science and math is hard to put into "very simple plain English." For example, in this case "most powerful" really means "the leading principal component of the monthly time series of sea surface temperature in the tropical Pacific Ocean." How do we say that in a way that the average person can understand? It's easy to give an explanation that is correct but complicated. It's also easy to give a simple but wrong explanation. But it's very, very difficult to give an explanation that is both correct and easily understandable to the average person. This is not a criticism of anyone here, just a statement that we're dealing with a really hard problem. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

At a minimum, we should have "powerful" link to a page where the concept is explained in an accessible, if lengthy manner. Spectral power Spectral density is not that page. Principle component analysis isn't either. By comparison, quasi periodic does a good job of explaining that particular term. It may be hard to explain "power" in this context in an accurate and accessible manner, but we should still attempt to do so.--Father Goose (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed but is, for example content of Wikipedia article Spectral density relevant to your definition of "powerful" regarding ENOS?? How??

Is WP article quasi periodic sourced adequately, such that has slight legitimacy (nope).

Who do ya'll suppose is reading this article on ENSO and why?

Why do you suppose the various NOAA pages aimed at public education are utterly successful in avoiding these topics?

What is purpose of this article?

Is it primarily a medium to remind a few advanced climate scientists of latest, relatively obscure definitional uncertainties regarding Short, quasi, roughly powerful, Spectral Density????

ENSO, broadly, has been relatively well defined by many good sources, and is indeed explicable in rather simple terms, to an interested lay audience.

Why should not Wikipedia's lede on the subject meet these various professional standards?

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)