Yorkshiresnows

Hi Folks, Was trawling through some links the other night and came across this: http://docs.lib.noaa...50-11-0589a.pdf http://wattsupwithth...-icebergs-melt/ Not saying it means anything ... other than to show that prior to the satellite era, ... we really are in the dark with regards to an accurate picture of Arctic Ice (particularly so prior to the 1940's). Also, have you seen Joe laminate floori's latest update: http://www.accuweath...temp-report.asp Not much on 'accelerating ice melt' in the antarctic ...... but we clearly are very close to a record 'ice-extent' ... !! One of the coldest (if not the coldest) Arctic summers above 80 degrees North ...... according to the Danish Met. Y.S

Hi CC, I'm struggling with the 'accelerating antacrtcic ice loss' statements !!! And, overall we are: Bang on average !! Oh, well ......soon be time for the Polar freeze up. Y.S

Could be .... either that .... or your wrong !! Y.S

Oh come on. Look at the charts yourself. Explain the near record Antarctic ice ..... in this super heated world !!! Oh ....and the global sea ice is .......... pretty much spot on average !! Y.S

You just have to be kidding !!

Hi Folks, The PDO is a cycle of between 20-30 years. Its start and end determination is difficult to predict or call until we are well within each cycle: http://www.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ From the post above it would seem some folks believe that we are already in the middle of the -PDO with no observable impacts. Here are the monthly values from 1900 - 2009: The monthly figures are here: YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1900 0.04 1.32 0.49 0.35 0.77 0.65 0.95 0.14 -0.24 0.23 -0.44 1.19 1901 0.79 -0.12 0.35 0.61 -0.42 -0.05 -0.60 -1.20 -0.33 0.16 -0.60 -0.14 1902 0.82 1.58 0.48 1.37 1.09 0.52 1.58 1.57 0.44 0.70 0.16 -1.10 1903 0.86 -0.24 -0.22 -0.50 0.43 0.23 0.40 1.01 -0.24 0.18 0.08 -0.03 1904 0.63 -0.91 -0.71 -0.07 -0.22 -1.53 -1.58 -0.64 0.06 0.43 1.45 0.06 1905 0.73 0.91 1.31 1.59 -0.07 0.69 0.85 1.26 -0.03 -0.15 1.11 -0.50 1906 0.92 1.18 0.83 0.74 0.44 1.24 0.09 -0.53 -0.31 0.08 1.69 -0.54 1907 -0.30 -0.32 -0.19 -0.16 0.16 0.57 0.63 -0.96 -0.23 0.84 0.66 0.72 1908 1.36 1.02 0.67 0.23 0.23 0.41 0.60 -1.04 -0.16 -0.41 0.47 1.16 1909 0.23 1.01 0.54 0.24 -0.39 -0.64 -0.39 -0.68 -0.89 -0.02 -0.40 -0.01 1910 -0.25 -0.70 0.18 -0.37 -0.06 -0.28 0.03 -0.06 0.40 -0.66 0.02 0.84 1911 -1.11 0.00 -0.78 -0.73 0.17 0.02 0.48 0.43 0.29 0.20 -0.86 0.01 1912 -1.72 -0.23 -0.04 -0.38 -0.02 0.77 1.07 -0.84 0.94 0.56 0.74 0.98 1913 -0.03 0.34 0.06 -0.92 0.66 1.43 1.06 1.29 0.73 0.62 0.75 0.90 1914 0.34 -0.29 0.08 1.20 0.11 0.11 -0.21 0.11 -0.34 -0.11 0.03 0.89 1915 -0.41 0.14 -1.22 1.40 0.32 0.99 1.07 0.27 -0.05 -0.43 -0.12 0.17 1916 -0.64 -0.19 -0.11 0.35 0.42 -0.82 -0.78 -0.73 -0.77 -0.22 -0.68 -1.94 1917 -0.79 -0.84 -0.71 -0.34 0.82 -0.03 0.10 -0.22 -0.40 -1.75 -0.34 -0.60 1918 -1.13 -0.66 -1.15 -0.32 -0.33 0.07 0.98 -0.31 -0.59 0.61 0.34 0.86 1919 -1.07 1.31 -0.50 0.08 0.17 -0.71 -0.47 0.38 0.06 -0.42 -0.80 0.76 1920 -1.18 0.06 -0.78 -1.29 -0.97 -1.30 -0.90 -2.21 -1.28 -1.06 -0.26 0.29 1921 -0.66 -0.61 -0.01 -0.93 -0.42 0.40 -0.58 -0.69 -0.78 -0.23 1.92 1.42 1922 1.05 -0.85 0.08 0.43 -0.19 -1.04 -0.82 -0.93 -0.81 0.84 -0.60 0.48 1923 0.75 -0.04 0.49 0.99 -0.20 0.68 1.16 0.84 -0.24 1.10 0.62 -0.36 1924 1.29 0.73 1.13 -0.02 0.36 0.75 -0.55 -0.67 -0.48 -1.25 0.24 0.11 1925 -0.05 -0.14 0.20 0.86 0.79 -1.08 -0.06 -0.86 0.52 0.04 0.88 1.19 1926 0.30 0.98 -0.50 2.10 1.43 2.03 1.05 1.64 1.18 1.65 1.00 1.06 1927 1.07 1.73 0.15 -0.18 0.30 0.69 -0.31 -0.73 -0.41 -0.62 -0.07 0.07 1928 0.96 0.79 0.52 0.81 0.66 0.15 0.30 -0.72 -1.41 -1.31 0.14 0.98 1929 0.97 0.52 0.50 0.55 1.07 0.50 -0.06 -0.69 0.45 -0.21 1.24 -0.03 1930 0.97 -1.06 -0.43 -0.70 0.06 0.58 -0.45 -0.53 -0.20 -0.38 -0.31 1.20 1931 0.08 1.56 1.13 1.28 1.66 0.39 1.49 0.02 -0.01 -0.17 0.34 1.09 1932 -0.26 -0.58 0.51 1.15 0.64 0.10 -0.12 -0.14 -0.40 -0.29 -0.88 0.02 1933 0.29 0.02 0.15 -0.05 -0.50 -0.68 -1.81 -1.56 -2.28 -1.19 0.55 -1.10 1934 0.17 0.68 1.34 1.63 1.23 0.51 0.44 1.54 1.25 2.10 1.63 1.67 1935 1.01 0.79 -0.11 1.10 0.99 1.39 0.68 0.63 0.98 0.21 0.13 1.78 1936 1.79 1.75 1.36 1.32 1.83 2.37 2.57 1.71 0.04 2.10 2.65 1.28 1937 0.00 -0.49 0.38 0.20 0.53 1.75 0.11 -0.35 0.63 0.76 -0.18 0.55 1938 0.50 0.02 0.24 0.27 -0.25 -0.20 -0.21 -0.45 -0.01 0.07 0.48 1.40 1939 1.36 0.07 -0.39 0.45 0.98 1.04 -0.21 -0.74 -1.10 -1.31 -0.88 1.51 1940 2.03 1.74 1.89 2.37 2.32 2.43 2.12 1.40 1.10 1.19 0.68 1.96 1941 2.14 2.07 2.41 1.89 2.25 3.01 2.33 3.31 1.99 1.22 0.40 0.91 1942 1.01 0.79 0.29 0.79 0.84 1.19 0.12 0.44 0.68 0.54 -0.10 -1.00 1943 -0.18 0.02 0.26 1.08 0.43 0.68 -0.36 -0.90 -0.49 -0.04 0.29 0.58 1944 0.18 0.17 0.08 0.72 -0.35 -0.98 -0.40 -0.51 -0.56 -0.40 0.33 0.20 1945 -1.02 0.72 -0.42 -0.40 -0.07 0.56 1.02 0.18 -0.27 0.10 -1.94 -0.74 1946 -0.91 -0.32 -0.41 -0.78 0.50 -0.86 -0.84 -0.36 -0.22 -0.36 -1.48 -0.96 1947 -0.73 -0.29 1.17 0.70 0.37 1.36 0.16 0.30 0.58 0.85 -0.14 1.67 1948 -0.11 -0.74 -0.03 -1.33 -0.23 0.08 -0.92 -1.56 -1.74 -1.32 -0.89 -1.70 1949 -2.01 -3.60 -1.00 -0.53 -1.07 -0.70 -0.56 -1.30 -0.93 -1.41 -0.83 -0.80 1950 -2.13 -2.91 -1.13 -1.20 -2.23 -1.77 -2.93 -0.70 -2.14 -1.36 -2.46 -0.76 1951 -1.54 -1.06 -1.90 -0.36 -0.25 -1.09 0.70 -1.37 -0.08 -0.32 -0.28 -1.68 1952 -2.01 -0.46 -0.63 -1.05 -1.00 -1.43 -1.25 -0.60 -0.89 -0.35 -0.76 0.04 1953 -0.57 -0.07 -1.12 0.05 0.43 0.29 0.74 0.05 -0.63 -1.09 -0.03 0.07 1954 -1.32 -1.61 -0.52 -1.33 0.01 0.97 0.43 0.08 -0.94 0.52 0.72 -0.50 1955 0.20 -1.52 -1.26 -1.97 -1.21 -2.44 -2.35 -2.25 -1.95 -2.80 -3.08 -2.75 1956 -2.48 -2.74 -2.56 -2.17 -1.41 -1.70 -1.03 -1.16 -0.71 -2.30 -2.11 -1.28 1957 -1.82 -0.68 0.03 -0.58 0.57 1.76 0.72 0.51 1.59 1.50 -0.32 -0.55 1958 0.25 0.62 0.25 1.06 1.28 1.33 0.89 1.06 0.29 0.01 -0.18 0.86 1959 0.69 -0.43 -0.95 -0.02 0.23 0.44 -0.50 -0.62 -0.85 0.52 1.11 0.06 1960 0.30 0.52 -0.21 0.09 0.91 0.64 -0.27 -0.38 -0.94 0.09 -0.23 0.17 1961 1.18 0.43 0.09 0.34 -0.06 -0.61 -1.22 -1.13 -2.01 -2.28 -1.85 -2.69 1962 -1.29 -1.15 -1.42 -0.80 -1.22 -1.62 -1.46 -0.48 -1.58 -1.55 -0.37 -0.96 1963 -0.33 -0.16 -0.54 -0.41 -0.65 -0.88 -1.00 -1.03 0.45 -0.52 -2.08 -1.08 1964 0.01 -0.21 -0.87 -1.03 -1.91 -0.32 -0.51 -1.03 -0.68 -0.37 -0.80 -1.52 1965 -1.24 -1.16 0.04 0.62 -0.66 -0.80 -0.47 0.20 0.59 -0.36 -0.59 0.06 1966 -0.82 -0.03 -1.29 0.06 -0.53 0.16 0.26 -0.35 -0.33 -1.17 -1.15 -0.32 1967 -0.20 -0.18 -1.20 -0.89 -1.24 -1.16 -0.89 -1.24 -0.72 -0.64 -0.05 -0.40 1968 -0.95 -0.40 -0.31 -1.03 -0.53 -0.35 0.53 0.19 0.06 -0.34 -0.44 -1.27 1969 -1.26 -0.95 -0.50 -0.44 -0.20 0.89 0.10 -0.81 -0.66 1.12 0.15 1.38 1970 0.61 0.43 1.33 0.43 -0.49 0.06 -0.68 -1.63 -1.67 -1.39 -0.80 -0.97 1971 -1.90 -1.74 -1.68 -1.59 -1.55 -1.55 -2.20 -0.15 0.21 -0.22 -1.25 -1.87 1972 -1.99 -1.83 -2.09 -1.65 -1.57 -1.87 -0.83 0.25 0.17 0.11 0.57 -0.33 1973 -0.46 -0.61 -0.50 -0.69 -0.76 -0.97 -0.57 -1.14 -0.51 -0.87 -1.81 -0.76 1974 -1.22 -1.65 -0.90 -0.52 -0.28 -0.31 -0.08 0.27 0.44 -0.10 0.43 -0.12 1975 -0.84 -0.71 -0.51 -1.30 -1.02 -1.16 -0.40 -1.07 -1.23 -1.29 -2.08 -1.61 1976 -1.14 -1.85 -0.96 -0.89 -0.68 -0.67 0.61 1.28 0.82 1.11 1.25 1.22 1977 1.65 1.11 0.72 0.30 0.31 0.42 0.19 0.64 -0.55 -0.61 -0.72 -0.69 1978 0.34 1.45 1.34 1.29 0.90 0.15 -1.24 -0.56 -0.44 0.10 -0.07 -0.43 1979 -0.58 -1.33 0.30 0.89 1.09 0.17 0.84 0.52 1.00 1.06 0.48 -0.42 1980 -0.11 1.32 1.09 1.49 1.20 -0.22 0.23 0.51 0.10 1.35 0.37 -0.10 1981 0.59 1.46 0.99 1.45 1.75 1.69 0.84 0.18 0.42 0.18 0.80 0.67 1982 0.34 0.20 0.19 -0.19 -0.58 -0.78 0.58 0.39 0.84 0.37 -0.25 0.26 1983 0.56 1.14 2.11 1.87 1.80 2.36 3.51 1.85 0.91 0.96 1.02 1.69 1984 1.50 1.21 1.77 1.52 1.30 0.18 -0.18 -0.03 0.67 0.58 0.71 0.82 1985 1.27 0.94 0.57 0.19 0.00 0.18 1.07 0.81 0.44 0.29 -0.75 0.38 1986 1.12 1.61 2.18 1.55 1.16 0.89 1.38 0.22 0.22 1.00 1.77 1.77 1987 1.88 1.75 2.10 2.16 1.85 0.73 2.01 2.83 2.44 1.36 1.47 1.27 1988 0.93 1.24 1.42 0.94 1.20 0.74 0.64 0.19 -0.37 -0.10 -0.02 -0.43 1989 -0.95 -1.02 -0.83 -0.32 0.47 0.36 0.83 0.09 0.05 -0.12 -0.50 -0.21 1990 -0.30 -0.65 -0.62 0.27 0.44 0.44 0.27 0.11 0.38 -0.69 -1.69 -2.23 1991 -2.02 -1.19 -0.74 -1.01 -0.51 -1.47 -0.10 0.36 0.65 0.49 0.42 0.09 1992 0.05 0.31 0.67 0.75 1.54 1.26 1.90 1.44 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.53 1993 0.05 0.19 0.76 1.21 2.13 2.34 2.35 2.69 1.56 1.41 1.24 1.07 1994 1.21 0.59 0.80 1.05 1.23 0.46 0.06 -0.79 -1.36 -1.32 -1.96 -1.79 1995 -0.49 0.46 0.75 0.83 1.46 1.27 1.71 0.21 1.16 0.47 -0.28 0.16 1996 0.59 0.75 1.01 1.46 2.18 1.10 0.77 -0.14 0.24 -0.33 0.09 -0.03 1997 0.23 0.28 0.65 1.05 1.83 2.76 2.35 2.79 2.19 1.61 1.12 0.67 1998 0.83 1.56 2.01 1.27 0.70 0.40 -0.04 -0.22 -1.21 -1.39 -0.52 -0.44 1999 -0.32 -0.66 -0.33 -0.41 -0.68 -1.30 -0.66 -0.96 -1.53 -2.23 -2.05 -1.63 2000 -2.00 -0.83 0.29 0.35 -0.05 -0.44 -0.66 -1.19 -1.24 -1.30 -0.53 0.52 2001 .60 .29 0.45 -0.31 -0.30 -0.47 -1.31 -0.77 -1.37 -1.37 -1.26 -0.93 2002** 0.27 -0.64 -0.43 -0.32 -0.63 -0.35 -0.31 0.60 0.43 0.42 1.51 2.10 2003** 2.09 1.75 1.51 1.18 0.89 0.68 0.96 0.88 0.01 0.83 0.52 0.33 2004** 0.43 0.48 0.61 0.57 0.88 0.04 0.44 0.85 0.75 -0.11 -0.63 -0.17 2005** 0.44 0.81 1.36 1.03 1.86 1.17 0.66 0.25 -0.46 -1.32 -1.50 0.20 2006** 1.03 0.66 0.05 0.40 0.48 1.04 0.35 -0.65 -0.94 -0.05 -0.22 0.14 2007** 0.01 0.04 -0.36 0.16 -0.10 0.09 0.78 0.50 -0.36 -1.45 -1.08 -0.58 2008** -1.00 -0.77 -0.71 -1.52 -1.37 -1.34 -1.67 -1.70 -1.55 -1.76 -1.25 -0.87 2009** -1.40 -1.55 -1.59 -1.65 -0.88 -0.31 -0.53 0.09 0.52 0.27 -0.40 0.08 2010** 0.83 0.82 0.44 0.78 0.62 -0.22 ** Derived from OI.v2 SST fields A graphic comparing monthly PDO values for 1982-2002 derived from the v1 and v2 sst products is available at http://jisao.washing...v1v2PDOComp.png URL: ftp://ftp.atmos.wash...ICES/PDO.latest and http://jisao.washing.../pdo/PDO.latest Given the predominance of positive values during 2003 to 2007, I would suggest that we have only just entered the current -PDO phase and it has yet to really manifest. (Also please check accu-weather Joe laminate floori's blog - see earlier posts) Y.S

Hi G.W, Yes, if we continue to warm within the -PDO cycle and with low solar activity, I would indeed re-consider my position. I have always made this clear. You state that the system is closed ..... but it is not. Cloud feedbacks are a mechanism by which the earths surface (I'm talking oceans here) ability to absorb solar irradiation can be affected, changing the albedo and affecting climate. How come the earth warms and cools over each and every PDO cycle, you can see simple effects via each and every LA Nina or El Nino. Check out the Accu-weather Joe laminate floori link on my earlier post. Time will tell ......... lets see what wins out !! Funny how the models (CPC) are predicting a BIG cool down next year. Y.S

Crikey !! Anyway, ...... obviously I'm not the only one with silly views ..... Here's somebody else that seems pretty keen on cycles and the PDO' potential role. http://www.accuweath...bal-warming.asp I just pointed out a huge flaw in earlier post .... but you seem happy enough to dismiss that. If cO2 does not have the forcing power you suggest (and there is plenty of discourse within the IPCC on exactly how it does it) ....... then your argument will be wrong. The truth is we just do not know for sure ....... as you well know. You keep coming across as knowing more than anybody else ...... which is just complete cobblers in my view. Mann's hockey stick papers include tree-ring proxy data, and that includes the 2008 version. He can only get a hockey stick by the inclusion of the fabled Tilander lake mud series or inclusion of tree-ring proxies and used these to bolster a false argument i.e from 2008, if you take away the tree-ring proxy data I can still get a hockey stick (but I have to include the false Tilandjer Lake sediment series), and if I remove the Lake sediment series I also get a hockey stick (relying on the critisised tree-ring proxy series). Take away both ..... I do not see a hockey stick !!!! Hey, come off it, you spent god knows how many posts defending that silly graph and now you state that most reconstructions have the LIA and medieval warm period so what is the fuss all about ........ No, that was not what Mann was attempting to get away with. His graphs 1998/1999 showed no LIA and no Medieval warm period ...... that was the whole point. The IPCC shoved that graph all over the third assessment report to illustrate the view that the globe had not seen such warming before and that globally the past 2000 years was pretty static ....... the shaft of the Hockey stick. It was therefore all down to Co2 and man. http://climateaudit.org/ http://climateaudit....9/12/nas-mm.pdf Here's why the obsession with north American tree-ring proxies (not my obsession ... just appears throughout the key papers !!) http://climateaudit....yre-ee-2005.pdf Here's the Wegman report ...... the one you think is flawed !! http://www.uoguelph....egmanReport.pdf Background on the participants .... and questions asked and answered. http://www.uoguelph....pakResponse.pdf What we can clearly see today is that this was not so, and no I disagree with you on how the reconstructions all show the current warming as being greater than the medieval period ..... that is just not so. Nobody can state for certain as today we can measure year to year variations e.g. 1998 warmest in current era, 1999 was not. Past temperature reconstructions that far back only look at an average for 20-30 year intervals .... sometimes more. As such the medieval warm period could have had several years warmer than 1998 .... or perhaps not. The truth is we will never know unless warming continues over the next few years. Y.S

Hi There CM, Good post. Funny how the Southern ice has been increasing since 1979 whilst the polar ice has been decreasing ........ couldn't be anything to do with the PDO could it !!!! http://www.accuweather.com/video/407515952001/sea-ice-and-common-sense-explain-global-warming.asp Y.S

Hi G.W How they exactly came about and why they lasted and waned as they did is open to question, but clearly CO2 was not a factor. Cycles / PDO / AMO Ocean currents / Gulf stream and of course solar activity (see Landsheidt). If this was so back then, then its is possible that cycles hold a part of the answer to now (PDO test coming up and of course the possibility of a Maunder type solar minimum). The predictions are currently for a colder 2011 (and cooling second half of 2010 ... though as Kold has previously posted, the real dive will likely be towards the latter part of this and into next year due to the warm Atlantic). Time will as ever tell. Y.S

SSS Perhaps you should take the time to read back over some of your recent postings !! I've got the 2008 updated Loehle's graph right in front of me: Even allowing for a 0.5 degree increase, you can clearly see the medieval warm period and also LIA ........ CAN YOU NOT ? His conclusions were not affected at all by the corrections he made: "A climatic reconstruction published in E&E (Loehle, 2007) is corrected for various errors and data issues, with little change in the results. Standard errors and 95% CI are added. The MWP was significantly warmer than the bimillennial average durig most of the period 820-1040 AD. The LIA was significantly cooler that the everage during most of 1440-1740 AD. The warmest tridecade of the MWP was warmer than the most recent tridecade, but not significantly so". Here is his map of proxy locations (does not use a predominance of tree-ring proxies from the USA like a certain Dr Mann !!): Given that we know for fact that the Northern hemisphere experienced a temperature profile that looked like the above and there are numerous non-tree ring proxy data reconstructions (see previous posts and in particular the reference to the Indo-pacific warm pool paper) this also fits in with this picture ..... ...... or we can believe that these events were not global ...... based on the heavily flawed, de-bunked and downright ridiculous hockey stick graph of Dr Mann's (I have not insulted him, only his work in this area), for which the IPCC dropped the graph like a hot potato from its fourth assessment report !!! Spencer's review (its a review), is based on multiple peer reviewed papers and is a different possibility. You seem unable or willing to grasp this concept. His area of relevant expertise is in modelling to which he is heavily critical of the IPCC ..... as are may others including a certain Dr Robert Linzden. Dr Roy Spencers work on cloud feedbacks are also relevant and new. You seem to want to put greater weight on anybody who upholds the status quo view and heaviy critisise anything and everything else. I will state again ... Co2 is a greenhouse gas and I am sure has contributed to the warming we have seen, but when you take a stand back and look at the big picture, the amount of warming down to just CO2 emissions seems implausible. Some of it yes, but natural cycles could also be contributing greatly. Your last statement is a laugh ...... you mean that the alternative science does not stand up to your scrutiny ........... I couldn't care less. You believe what you will. Y.S

Hi SSS, No, if you followed the IPCC forecasts (there were a series of these on an earlier post a few months ago and also shown on ACCU-WEATHER (I do not have the charts to hand), you would clearly see that all of the climate models would have us a great deal warmer than we are currently. To my mind we have not moved much in the past 10 years ...... that's obvious from just looking at the charts (El, nino years are always going to spike). We have also been in +PDO since ........ 1979 with a predominatly warm Pacific so its not so suprising that we have been warming. This does not discount a partial role of green house gas effects. The test will be when we really dip into -PDO. The following figure is from a NOAA study of the impact of the PDO variability on the California Current ecosystem and shows the approximately 60-year cycle of the PDO and the corresponding northern Pacific Ocean temperature regimes [www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Hydropower/Columbia-Snake-Basin/upload/Briefings_3_08.ppt] Note the major switch over in 1979 ! If the cycle follows the predicted pattern: Latest July Temp figures now added .... the spike is less than 1998 and yet we are at a higher base state: If you could get over your belief in Mann's hockey stick pudding and acknowledge the fact that the past 2000 years has seen upturns and dips in Global temperature, then you could perhaps at least stomach the possibility that the earths climate has ever been in flux and that natural cycles have occurred in the past and quite possibly are the major reason for what is occurring now: Craig Loehle, "A 2000 year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies, "Energy and Environment 18 (2007): 1049-1058 Wang Hui-Jun et al., "El Nino and the Related Phenomenon Southern Oscillation (ENSO): The Largest Signal in Interannual Climate Variation", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (1999): 11071-11072 Craig Loehle, "A mathematical analysis of the divergence problem in dendroclimatology, "Climate change (2008) Gilbert p.Compo and Prashant D. Sardeshmukh, "Oceanic Influences on recent continental warming,"Climate Dynamics 32 (2009): 333-342 D.H. Douglass, J.R.Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer, "A Comparison of Tropical Temperature Trends with Model Predictions, "International Journal of Climatology 27 (2007). http://www.drroyspen...encer_07GRL.pdf http://www.drroyspen...model-evidence/ http://www.drroyspen...Braswell-08.pdf Try not to dismiss everything that anybody posts because its not to your view. Apologies for the messy layout of this post, no time at the moment. Y.S

Hi Blast Good pos, the real test is nearly upon us. +PDO = warmer ocean = melting polar ice // -PDO should see the reverse of this begin to take hold. Lets see what happens. Y.S Hi Dev, Its been one of the coldest summers in many a year in the arctic (see previous posts and links). Its the relatively warm ocean temperatures that seems to be the problem. Whether this is down to AGW or the phase of the PDO is of course all part of the debate. Y.S

Hi Kold, Yes, good points made. I guess that a lot will depend of whether the Hurricane season picks up and stirs the Atlantic pot .... so to speak. A higher frequency of storms should lead to a quicker cooling of the Atlantic ? Y.S

Hi There: Well, lets take a quick look: My view is that would indicate little to no warming (we are on the way down now this particular year). Also, take SSS view that the last 12 months have been the warmest o record ...... h'mmmmmm I don't think so. A lot depends on which data set you take. The most accurate way would be to measure like for like ..... and if you do this you don't see the picture as portrayed: http://wattsupwithth...ion/#more-22648 Here's what good old Joe laminate floori thinks of the situation (posted direct from his blog): Check this out. I don't know if I want to laugh, or cry, at how they get away with this (the people claiming warmest ever). Amazing how these folks (who shall remain nameless) get away with this. I mean that... the more YOU can look at actual data, the better for all of us. I use this site to keep not only Europeans informed on other sources of info, but as I have found out, the entire globe! It has led to some viscous attacks on me from those not wishing to have all this information out. In any case, take a look at this: ACTUAL SATELLITE DATA LINK SO THERE IS NO MISTAKE ON TEMPS! Given the issuances that this is the warmest year ever, we can easily see by comparing the actual temps of 1998 to this year that this is not true. Here is the link for all the OBJECTIVE satellite temps since we started this method, which of course is more objective than adjusted temps from pre-satellite eras. You can look for yourself. Go back to the the year 1998 and stack the temps up against 2010. Remember, in the history of the planet, the NON-BIASED measurement of temps can be compared to you starting to weigh yourself every day... a week ago. That you get up every morning and one morning find yourself 1/10th of a pound heavier is not a big deal. What's more, the reports on the warmest ever are like weighing yourself on your bathroom scale and seeing one thing, then going over and weighing yourself in the gym and seeing the other. The satellite era temps are the doctor's office (even more accurate... wrestler's) scale way of measuring and cannot be confused with the bathroom scale, which not only is not as accurate but can be adjusted up and down, depending on what the user is up to! Sattellite data link is here: http://vortex.nsstc....t2lt/uahncdc.lt What do you think ? Y.S

Thing is SSS, it is very difficult to have a 'debate' with you. It seems to be simply a case of you coming over as much more knowledgable than anybody else. Going back to the Hockey stick farce, I pointed out to you that the recent Mann papers contained the same flawed proxy series so heavily criticised the first time around (as did a lot of the supporting papers from authors closely associated with Mann .. and that the same flawed statistical techniques were used, despite you stating otherwise. You failed to accept that as a fact. No matter what references I present, you shout that the authors are biased, flawed or are not real scientists (e.g. Roy Spencer amongst others). Based on your own assessment ! I acknowledge that your view is backed by science and that there are a host of papers (some of which you have fairly presented) and that you could indeed be 100% correct in all you say. Truth is we just do not yet know for certain. However, there is an alternative view (for which there is also good science ... just take a look at Joe laminate floori's blog or some of Roy Spencers papers on cloud feedbacks (Robert Linzden as well, several 2009 papers I believe) that would support the role of natural cycles in having a major part to play. You simply cannot get away with stating that the alternative view is a load of rubbish. Particularly in light of the IPCC's lack of consensus on the actual feedback mechanism that is supposed to account for the warming (a 200-300% amplification factor based on something that cannot be measured and could just as easily be a negative rather than positive feedback is rather shaky in my view). Also, just take a look at the current picture. There has been little to bugger all warming over the past 10 years and we look to be going into a cooling phase ....... there's a ton of stuff on PDO etc, (lots that have been posted previously, and like you I cannot be bothered to dig them up again for the sake of old arguments), but with an increase in CO2 of 5-7% (going back to 1992), then if the CO2 theory was so robust ...... why the pause ..... unless there is a natural element ...... that could be quite a major component of the 20th century climate change. That is all I am saying. Lets be fair, as I have perhaps overstated my arguments in my responses to you, so you have performed likewise. So lets move on. As I stated in my previous post, there is a real test coming up. If warming resumes over the next few years despite going into a -PDO with low solar activity, then you are correct and my alternative view is fit for the bin. That should be fair enough for us both? Y.S

Its funny, but I sort of thought that you might see it like that !!! Clearly its another crank review with crank publications cited. Just as well we have you to keep us all on the straight and narrow. La Nina is now coming on strong, the PDO turning ...... which will cool the globe (I am convinced on this). If this prediction is correct, there must be a role for ocean-atmospheric cycles and climate ..... So here's a test ? Y.S

Hi Kold, Further to your above post: Here's the latest from Roy Spencer's site: "Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) measured by the AMSR-E instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite continue the fall which began several months ago. The following plot, updated through yesterday (July 29, 2010) shows that the cooling in the Nino34 region in the tropical east Pacific continue to be well ahead of the cooling in the global average SST, something we did not see during the 2007-08 La Nina event ; note the global SST values have been multiplied by 10): Looks pretty impressive ? Y.S

<P> </P> Hi Dev, Fair enough: http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf Decent review article, covering much the same stuff as by many others. Covers both sides. Y.S

So am I !!!http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/air_kiss.gif No he doesn't, he puts one side and does not acknowledge there is another. Peter Taylor's 'review' (say that again ... review), is backed up by multiple peer reviewed papers in all areas ........ This constitutes a different view, ... you cannot simply ignore it or state its a load of tosh. You have obviously not read or looked at the evidence as a whole. Where does he apply an even handed or scientific approach? Where does he provide the alternative references which back up (and are what Peter Taylor used) the alternative view ? He quotes that Richard Linzden was co-author on the relevant IPCC paper section, but fails to point out that he resigned in protest at the contents, to which he disagreed most strongly. ......... His stance is that any increase in water vapour component to the atmosphere would lead to an increase in cloud formation (which to my mind seems a perfectly plausable outcome !!) leading to a negative feedback effect ...... THE IPCC MODELS DO NOT COMPUTE THIS AS A POSSIBLITY ........ FACT. I could go on and on and on ....... but to what point. His earlier efforts on defending Michael Mann were laughable (I exposed the fact he had not even read the updated hockey stick paper, ...... and here we go again). WHY DON'T YOU ALL GO AND READ JESTRO'S EARLIER POSTED REVIEW PAPER (which contains a ton of relevant and upto date references). and then come back on here and state that SSS has provided a decent appraisal ...... complete and utter joke. Anyway, you folks knock yourself out. We're warming yeah, and we're all doomed, its all down to CO2. Funny how all models now (as predicted back in January by Joe laminate floori) suggest we are about to cool big time (check out the other threads and also Accuweather blogs). Cheers Y.S

Take care V.P. Text books on here just do not 'cut the mustard' ! Y.S Hi Kold, Yes, agree with all of the above. Second half year cool down is imminent in my opinion. Y.S

Hi Pete, Nice and diplomatic, a generous response. Been away for a week and I'll think I'll take a little longer before posting much on here again, ...... there seems little point in attempting to open a good scientific debate. There is actually more than simply two sides of this debate, as the argument is not polarised. There is of course some degree of warming attributable to manmade green house gas emissions ......... its how much, and much more importantly, what component is made by natural cycles. SSC'S does not see it ...... and probably never will. His posts are a complete wind up and quite arrogant (and in my view ignorant of what the whole purpose was in posting). So best if I bow out for a while. Lets see what the second half of 2010 brings !! Good health and have a great weekend. Y.S

Oh Dear, Thank goodness there is somebody here with good sense and scientific judgement who could expose the ridiculousness of the video. Well thanks Starry Skies, you've saved everybody loads of time and effort. Of course, now that you have exposed these lies and ravings, we can all accept the science as you see it ....... your the one,. Just who do you think you are? Have you any credentials? What are your qualifications, do you have any peer reviewed publications in the relevant field so that we can see that you are a TRUE SCIENTIST, one worthy of such a review? If not, then how in Gods name can you STATE its a load of rubbish .... that's your personal view ....... NOT A FACT. (You seem to have failed to point out that all of the points he makes are backed up by multiple peer reviewed scientific papers ...... if you'd read the book you might have noted that fact ..... or you chose not to mention it !!). The Earth is round and not flat by the way. I'll add this one more time as you clearly dismiss anything that does not back up you own views:"http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf" (the review paper posted by Jethro) ........ funny how the same stuff that Peter Tylor is outlining is present within this paper, ..... oh and as obviously you dismiss anything in a book, the references are provided for you in this review paper (could always take a look at Climate audit or Roy Spencer's blog, publications, or indeed many others ..... multiple scientists are saying the exact same thing. Fact, The IPCC computer modal projections work on an amplification factor. Co2 alone just doesn't do it. Fact. The amplification factor is between 200 and 300% (see review paper and above) and based on the increase in atmospheric water vapour in a warmer climate. Fact. The models assume no negative feedbacks via the potential for a warmer atmosphere to generate greater cloud density. Fact. The role of clouds and their impacts are poorly understood. Fact. To accurately model the 20th century warming the models were tweaked with varying assumptions to the role of sulphar particulates (which shows up in the varying model predictions ........ none of which match the current global temperature). Y.S > <BR><BR>Yeah, best not bother GW, just add another few doomsday posts on thinning ice..... perhaps something on rotting ice (and don't look at the situation in the Antarctic, ... it would only cause you consternation). Y.S

Well, you are entitled to your view Pete. But, please watch the video and hear what the guys says ...... if nothing else, you will get a good story ! Y.S