UV-RAY
-
Posts
3,600 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by UV-RAY
-
-
http://forum.netweat...44#entry2859180
Well compared to the "it's behind you theory" hidden in the oceans then that's just as good a guess. But my own personal opinion is that we have just overestimated CO2 and underestimated natural forcings, or maybe that's to simplistic for some eh!
Are you saying then the paper is invalid, or at the very least, scientifically dubious. because in your opinion the PDO wasn't in a negative phase in 1999?
What Roy Spencer says is not very specific in that he doesn't attempt to indicate when the negative phase started, just we have entered...........
Yes because prior to that we had a couple of years of a cool phase before it switched back to a warmer phase. You sometimes see these small fluctuations prior to a longer term switch.
-
1
-
-
I think one of the main reasons of conflict with regards to the pause is that too many are trying to attach a reason for this without any evidence and for me that's what makes the whole debate fascinating, as none of us know where we are heading and so all we can offer is at best, a guesstimate. For anyone claiming to know otherwise is at worst a fabricator of stories or simply deliberately misleading, I certainly don't know whether global temps will rise or fall but one way or another we will find out and that's going to make those who proclaim to know the future look rather foolish I would imagine.
-
-
That constitutes a criticism of the paper does it? Give me strength.
Just from the abstract. Note the PDO went negative in 1999 not 2007.[/quoteIt didn't it was September 2007 before it was officially declared negative.
-
If you wish to converse in a sensible and scientific way then may I suggest we do it elsewhere as this thread isn't for this.
-
Simple if we are going to attribute the pause with the PDO then we also have to utilise its warming influence also. There's no deriding there just simple facts, I realise that it maybe hard to grasp for some but you cannot include one natural driver as and when it suites. Now you've put all of your toys back in your pram have you actually anything worthwhile too say, or is your argument based on your inability to converse with sceptics without the constant trolling and posts about Watts and co.http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-44#entry2859081Perhaps then the you could do us the courtesy of explaining what you find scientifically dubious about the Trenberth and Fasullo paper If you need any help I'm sure Four will be only too happy to oblige.it concludes:The PDO is essentially a natural mode of variability, although there are questions about how it is affectedby the warming climate, and so the plateau in warming is not because global warming has ceased. Theevidence supports continued heating of the climate system as manifested by melting of Arctic sea iceand glaciers, as well as Greenland, but most of the heat is going into the oceans and increasingly intothe deep ocean, and thus contributes to sea-level rise. The analysis in this article does not suggest thatglobal warming has disappeared; on the contrary, it is very much alive but being manifested in somewhatdifferent ways than a simple increase in global mean surface temperature.Another one of your famous non sequiturs of which you seem to have an endless supply. And actually the models did cover this, but that's by-the bye, the onus is on you to at least attempt some form of scientific reasoning when deriding scientists who know somewhat more than you on the subject. Quite frankly your feeble attempts to justify an entrenched ideology would make a primary school debating society look like the Oxford Union.
-
Why is so much time and energy spent finding snippets about a blog writer?
He doesn't even write the great majority of stuff there.
Seems disturbingly like stalking.
Unrequited love.
-
I assume you have just awoken from a comatose state as the subject has been discussed in fair detail on here ad infinitum, and in greater detail in various scientific papers such as for example the one above. To none of which do you have the courtesy to offer any semblance of scientific rebuttal but just resort to the same old mantra. I've met many closed minds before but never one that is hermetically sealed.
P.S. If you think the drivel from the Watts blog comes under the category of scientific opinion then that explains all.
And yet not one scientific explanation can really explain the pause, the PDO most certainly not as that only went negative in September 2007. The plain truth is that not one climate scientist saw it coming an yet now hundreds with hindsight can explain it away with bad science.
The onus isn't on me to explain to millions of taxpayers as to why the warnings were wrong, that should be up to your lot. Still playing lets find the missing heat content should keep you lot occupied for at least another decade.
-
2
-
-
Lol, humour isn't one of your strong points then. It was meant as a tongue in cheek reply for your constant drive for posting anything and everything against a sceptical opinion. If you wish merely to discuss scientific facts instead of cheap jibes then let's discuss the pause in global surface temps or how continuing rising CO2 levels aren't impacting as they were proposed to do.As usual when when you have nothing useful to say, you resort to cheap personal comments, which I might add could be upsetting to some people. Your ignorance is breathtaking.
Like your comments on climate misleaders? Which is far far more derogatory then anything I've seen posted anywhere else on any forum.I wouldn't worry overly Knocks?The folk who do the 'drive bys' to complain about the way folk behave in here do get to see such things and so must come to understand the type baiting that goes on in these threads ( which has nothing at all to do with the 'science'?) and so be more tolerant when we occasionally 'bite'?It is a shame that the mods end up clearing up such nonsense though?
-
2
-
-
Lol, best analogy of where we are what is required.wrt 1962, a lot can happen in two weeks but it would help if we had a nw/se jet and a euro trough as was the case back then. as the good lord says to the chap who asks for divine help to win the lottery : 'meet me halfway - at least buy a ticket' ! we are currently struggling to find anywhere to buy our ticket.
-
1
-
-
I'm not buying that December can be written off for any sustained cold spell granted with the first half you can, but we all know just how quick things can and do change even with the flattest of patterns. Yes it's looks unlikely but not impossible for the latter part of the month.
-
1
-
-
This week will be a chore for anyone broadcasting, with maybe some excitement for the weekend/start of next week
You could always do a forecast for the States Jo, plenty of interesting weather going on over there.
-
2
-
-
Lol, funny and so true and one were climate manipulators try to deceive the public on historical climate data with fanciful graphs and amusing rhetoric.Lines and deniers
-
It's that UV fluctuation and how that correlates with the Hadley pressure cell, not just now with low solar output but one has to look at the last 100 years when solar output was at its highest and how UV output pushed the Hadley pressure cell polewards Aside all of that, a good post BFTV.But they haven't missed that either. Lots of research has been done and is currently being done on the effects of solar activity, with the Met Office being at the forefront, especailly investigation the impact of UV fluctuations. In their report on the slowdown, they sayIt is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming solely by reductions in the total energy received by the planet, i.e. the balance between the total solar energy entering the system and the thermal energy leaving it.Indeed, if we do see cooling on a climatological scale, then the influence of CO2 will certainly have to be reassessed. But for now, short term fluctuations in surface air temperatures say nothing either way about the validity of AGW, as there are many things which have a much bigger influence in the short term than CO2. In a similar way, if we see a warming trend in the CET over the next two weeks, it doesn't cast doubt of the theory of seasons or how they influence temperatures, it just shows that on short timescales variability in the weather can dominate over seasonal cooling.
-
1
-
-
They didn't say the PDO. There is more going on in the Pacific than that, ENSO, IPO etc. Before the AGW, they would have caused slight warming and slight cooling, but, because of us, it's either fast warming or slow warming.
It's nice to see you now admit that we've only seen a slowdown in surface air warming though, shows your not completely incapable of changing your opinion
Indeed, but they have and continue to miss the biggest player of them all and that is the big ball of fire in the sky. As for the slowdown, well a pause is a pause and the official stance remains that of no further warming for 17 years. Of course warming may well resume at some point, but if it doesn't or temps start to decline whilst CO2 continues to rise then there really is nowhere to hide and no amount of find the missing heat content will alter the fact that some scientists have way overestimated the importance of CO2. Food for though BFTV and if we do see global temps rise then obviously sceptics are wrong and the theory is sound.
-
1
-
-
Indeed, I remember the week on week predictions of a back to zonal weather in the summer that never came. Well it did eventually after a month or so. Still, a stopped clock is right twice a day. The models are showing boring but not mild scenario atm but seem to prolong the high moving it about a bit, but not really sure what the next move is and where its coming from.
Will be interesting to see if in a couple of weeks, now the sun has calmed down a bit if the jet stream starts getting all wobbly again. That's my own theory anyway so don't shoot me down http://www.solen.info/solar/
Not at all as I believe there is a correlation within a correlation if you know what I mean as going of the previous few years there has been a lag time of around 2-4 weeks when there has been a change in output of this cycle, nothing scientific to back up such claims merely casual observations.
-
2
-
-
I'm perfectly calm, which is quite remarkable in the face of such a remarkable ego. The arrogant manner in which the undisputed rise in temps since the Industrial Revolution, rise in sea levels, glaciers melting, ice sheet mass balance loss over 150 odd years is casually dismissed, and NASA accused of fudging the figures, beggars belief. And just for the record I'm not the who has accused NASA of fudging the data without any supporting evidence.
And unlike SI I have read what the METO had to say. Hope he doesn't mind a link.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF
Best summed up.........
But you are right Tamara. Time to draw a line under this exercise in futility.
Lol, ignoring your remarks about my ego ( humour really ) what the MetO has to say as a causation is pretty damming in their own defence of the theory. The reason being that you cannot attribute the PDO for a pause in the warming when a. The PDO didn't change to negative until September2007 and b. If we can attribute the PDO for causing a slowdown, then why can't we say it's mainly responsible for the warming of the last 30 years, combined with a solar cycle that has been one of the strongest in over a 100 years?
-
Lol, sorry Miss but he started it.Boys! (all of you) calm down and be nice to one another
-
1
-
-
Mid century pause Lol, care to look back further just in case you've missed something. Let's deal in the here and now, we have and again I may have to SHOUT this as the facts don't seem to be sinking in. 17 years and counting of no further warming in the global surface data sets, now are you accusing the MetO of having a cooling agenda or as most proponents of the science do accept this as a fact. Take your time I realise how difficult this question regarding the pause is for you.
-
I'll go with what the MetO and the official sources say not some fudged data young man, global surface temps have stalled for 17 years, no amount of lies and deception will alter those facts.Still awaiting the explanation. Don't leave it too long as I'm nearly 72. Oh and I see the goal posts have moved to 20 years now.Source: NASA
-
MOD thread is now being serviced until further notice, or when that big spoiler the PV decides it's outstayed its welcome.
-
2
-
-
Of course you are not taken in. You have a perfectly rational scientific explanation for the undisputed rise in temps since the Industrial Revolution, rise in sea levels, glaciers melting, ice sheet mass balance loss, etc. Do please share. Oh and this.
What about the big white elephant in the room, you know that one what says what warming........ Yeah that one which is knocking on 20 years. Still keep the scare stories coming they do amuse me and that I'm eternally gratefully for.
-
Sorry sceptical inquirer but the first part of that post was quoting knocker in the other thread so your response was more directed to him,lol
Lol, and I was thinking I was responding to knocker previously........ It's been a bloody long day that's my excuse.
-
If you take a look at Wetterzentrale, archives that gives you synoptic charts going back to the 19th century. I've had a quick look at the January 1984, the PV was pushed south by higher pressure out of the Arctic before edging away to the ne, the main chunk then relocated further towards Canada,initially the PV brought in a west/sw flow before being pushed south.
We did see a chunk of the PV pushed south I think in December 2010 that landed right over the UK but again high pressure over the pole and a negative AO. I think we might be talking about different things SI, I was more talking about the limpet PV position, you know the rounded blob over Greenland that just sits there .
Damn and blast, that's that theory busted then.
-
2
-
Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change
in Climate Change
Posted
Lol, I present evidence as to when the PDO switched but the goalposts get moved because it doesn't back up the theory of using oceanic heat diatribution as the cause of the pause. The only proof we will get is real time observational from the here and now, so it's a case of watch this space and keep an eye out on those surface temps over the coming years as that's where we'll see any changes a coming.