Sceptic Links Discussion

[Iceberg]

The Hart Man article is interesting, I am not sure there there is a direct causal connection between Ozone levels and ENSO events.

It's interesting that for most of the period of Ozone depletion we have largely been in a positive ENSO background set up. That is likely to change over the next 20 years.

It's certainly believable that changes to the underlying Vortext QBO and ENSO have knockon impacts. Interesting but not sure it really effects AGW theory in any way.

[jethro]

Blimey this thread is moving in 20 different directions at the same time.

As to Antarctica, ice gain and temperature.

Why does it matter that Antarctica is cooling slightly ?, if indeed it is, the number of sites on antarctica where temp is measured is minimal (certainly concerning it's size), and the instrumentation tends not to last very long (in the south pole winter) all these sites are non manned and fully automated.

I think we've been through this before and my belief is that lack of ozone encourages a colder stratospheric condition and hence increase the south polar vortex, which in turn keeps the cold in, the greater temp gradient with the warmer SST's will also encourage a more active SPV.

On to Greenland Grace Gravity measurements have indicated a larger than expected net loss of ice over Greenland.

Mr Micheals might not believe this, but thats his problem.

I wanted to look up the gas bubble contamination of C02 results but still haven't had chance.

Yes of course PDO, NAO AO etc, etc effect ice in the N.Hemp. But all these cycles have been in place over the last 20 years but the ice retreat has been pretty much one way.

For your Info the GM's do take these cycles into account and predict a slight growing in the ice coverage around 2015 or so. for some reason Sceptics seem to think that anybody that support AGW theory doesn't believe in natural cycles and this couldn't be further from the truth.

Anybody got a link to the Petr Chylek Peer Reviewed or publically released paper. ?.

My understanding of all this is far from complete but I thought the natural cycles ran positive/negative in favour of ice expansion(?). If this is the case and these cycles have been in the positive phase for the last 20-30 years as I understand they have been, then surely it is difficult to accurately assess ice loss due to AGW. The comparisons needed to measure recent ice loss against old ice loss would have to be done when these cycles were aligned, ie compare recent ice loss (during positive phase) with old ice loss or gain during another positive phase. I don't see how measurements over say a twenty year time span can be calibrated to reflect both positive and negative phases when these phases or natural drivers span a greater number of years. If ice loss or expansion is compared for two separate positive or two separate negative phases then the net result would surely give a greater indication of what is caused by AGW as opposed to natural variation? As far as I know we don't have that kind of date from the last, largely positive phase against which todays' climate and ice loss can be compared. Do we?

[Iceberg]

The cycles have not been in a largely positive phase.

The PDO has but turned background phase around 7 years ago.

During the last 5 years we have had negative phases the AO, NAO, and PDO, even with a mostly neutral ENSO.

[jethro]

The cycles have not been in a largely positive phase.

The PDO has but turned background phase around 7 years ago.

During the last 5 years we have had negative phases the AO, NAO, and PDO, even with a mostly neutral ENSO.

I stand corrected if this is the case, as I say my knowledge is far from complete on this. I'm sure I've read somewhere that although say the NAO has neg+pos phases on short time scales, it also has larger time scales/cycles where one phase is of higher occurance than the other. I'll try and find the article again.

[Admiral_Bobski]

The cycles have not been in a largely positive phase.

The PDO has but turned background phase around 7 years ago.

During the last 5 years we have had negative phases the AO, NAO, and PDO, even with a mostly neutral ENSO.

I thought that particularly the AO and NAO had been mostly positive for at least the last two years now (or certainly the last two winters). I kept an eye on the AO and NAO this winter just gone and only saw them dip into negativity a couple of times, and then not for very long before turning positive again. (I was watching the figures on Metcheck.)

CB

Edited June 26, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

Anybody got a link to the Petr Chylek Peer Reviewed or publically released paper. ?.

No, I can't find it. What I have found seems to suggest they're talking about a few stations around the coast. But, without reading the article (and that means taking an afternoon to go to Exeter Met library) I can't be sure.

This, of course, makes the demands to through the original National Review piece somewhat problematic.

[Iceberg]

I am struggling to find the past 2 years worth but certainly for the past 3 months the index hasn't gone above 2.

This winter was largely positive, last winter largely negative, but overall for most of this decade we have been in a less zonal set up and more blocked set up. Hence the background state is defined as negative.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I am struggling to find the past 2 years worth but certainly for the past 3 months the index hasn't gone above 2.

This winter was largely positive, last winter largely negative, but overall for most of this decade we have been in a less zonal set up and more blocked set up. Hence the background state is defined as negative.

Thanks for clearing that up, Iceberg.

I shall be back later with more...

CB

[jethro]

Well I've had a quick look around and I made a boo boo, I knew I'd read something, somewhere but it was actually about the AO not the NAO having positive/negative phases with cycles lasting 20-30 years, also the PDO has similarly timed phases too. I've attached a few links so folks can see where I got the info from.

http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/19...ve/k121699.html

http://jisao.washington.edu/ao/index2.html

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

[Iceberg]

Took a little while as I had to ftp the data down format it and then produce a graph.

Attached are the graphs for NAO, AO and PNA from 2000-2007 measurements taken on a daily basis.

It's quite clear that we are not currently in a positive warming cycle, pretty much all of them show neutral conditions.

This I hope supports the fact the no known natural cycles have contributed to the recent run of almost record warmth global temps. ENSO has also largely been neutral during this time.

The warming that occured between 1920 and 1950 was and has been attributed to such cycles.

If a new warmth cycle had arisen I would have expected it to have effect the above cycles in some way.

That really leaves a change in Solar as the only other likely cause other than AGW. However despite the amount of research that has gone into it. NO peer reviewed science has shown that solar can possible be the cause of all the observed warming.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Iceberg

[jethro]

Thank you Iceberg.

I think you and I must be at crossed purposes here, when I mentioned the various cycles a couple of pages back it was in response to a post from HP about Ice Caps and polar melt; not warming climate or AGW. My understanding from what I have read is that these cycles in their different phases effect the Ice Caps in different ways. The impression created in the media at large is that the ice is melting due to warmer temps, an easy correlation to demonstrate as everyone knows what happens to an ice cube when warmed. I was trying to draw attention to the fact it isn't really that simple, other natural drivers have a greater impact on the ice than AGW.

[Iceberg]

Sorry Jethro but it still holds true, Artic ice is at it's lowest for 50 years but the natural cycles which are by and large neutral don't seem to have played much of a role in this.

Matt

[jethro]

Sorry Jethro but it still holds true, Artic ice is at it's lowest for 50 years but the natural cycles which are by and large neutral don't seem to have played much of a role in this.

Matt

But the links I provided above quite clearly show this not to be the case. Both the AO and PDO have been in strongly positive cycles, both of which effect and enhance polar melt quite separate to the AGW aspect. The global climate is warming, the proportion of which that is down to AGW is still subject to speculation and using the melting ice caps as a demonstration of this, is in my view misleading.

[jethro]

No, I can't find it. What I have found seems to suggest they're talking about a few stations around the coast. But, without reading the article (and that means taking an afternoon to go to Exeter Met library) I can't be sure.

This, of course, makes the demands to through the original National Review piece somewhat problematic.

I've got the article so no need for a trek to the library. I couldn't find it in its' complete form anywhere on the net so I bought a copy, trouble is that only gives you on-line access for 24 hours and is covered with copywrite warnings, do not publish, do not broadcast, do not display on internet, blah blah blah. Given all that, to put a link up on here from there or cut&paste it seemed a tad foolish, it does allow you to print one copy, which I have. When I've had a chance to read it properly, I'll let you know what it says.

[HighPressure]

Its been difficult trying to keep up with the thread and comments especially with reference to my direct question yesterday Re: ICE MELT.

I choose to dump the text in rather than give a link as a large chunk of the article was not relevant to my question. Sources are irrelevant when you make a statement, it could well of been my old granny the question was if it was correct or not? I am not sure I am any the wiser now as I was when I posted it. Yes the measurement technique and time spans have been shot at, but no one has said it was not or at least no one has said it could not be true? From this I can only deduce that there exists some doubt in the amount of ice reduction?

Ozone depletion.

Thanks for the links all very helpful, here is a link to the IPCC special report into Ozone:

www.ipcc.ch/press/SPM.pdf

And I found this very interesting too:

http://www.theozonehole.com/climate.htm

My first thoughts at the IPCC conclusions on Ozone depletion on the climate seem to be put as fact, yet when you read further you realise they are not sure at all on what is likely to happen as ozone depletion starts to replenish. It just seems odd to me that the IPCC can make such matter of fact statements yet say they are only happy to run a model to 2015?

As I stated before I may not be a scientific bod like many of you but I have studied a lot of graphs in my time, look at these 2:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f...ture_Record.png

(I know its Wiki but its an accepted chart.)

Now this measurement of Antarctic Ozone:

http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/tour_images/total_ozone.gif

If you flip the Ozone graph and superimposed the dates 1955-1995 on to the temperature chart I think the results are quite interesting. I bet the IPCC wished that CO2 followed as closely

[jethro]

HP, I've reached the same conclusion too re: ice depletion, I think it is less than clear and not as easily explained away as a consequence of AGW, as has been protrayed. ( or even portrayed)

It's soooooooo nice to see someone else reading, researching and making up their own, informed opinion. I'm not a science bod, I'm jo public but like you, can understand stuff, read graphs and that's all it takes isn't it?

I haven't read the ozone link but I will do tomorrow.

Edited June 26, 2007 by jethro

[Iceberg]

I read the links Jethro, but the paper is from 1999. It it right to some degree, take AGW out of the equation and the AO is probably the most important driver.

However I say again how can the record ice loss/levels seen this decade be explained by the AO or Ozone effecting the AO if the AO has average a negative -0.019 over this period. My graph and the figure quoted can't just be dismissed they come directly from NOAA and include data upto the end of May 07.

I say again AO and PDO have NOT been in strongly positive cycles during 2000-2007 the graphs produced directly and clearly say this. If anybody doesn't believe me I am more than happy to send them the raw data sets from NOAA so that they can plot this themselves.

[Iceberg]

Blimey this thread is moving in 20 different directions at the same time.

As to Antarctica, ice gain and temperature.

Why does it matter that Antarctica is cooling slightly ?, if indeed it is, the number of sites on antarctica where temp is measured is minimal (certainly concerning it's size), and the instrumentation tends not to last very long (in the south pole winter) all these sites are non manned and fully automated.

I think we've been through this before and my belief is that lack of ozone encourages a colder stratospheric condition and hence increase the south polar vortex, which in turn keeps the cold in, the greater temp gradient with the warmer SST's will also encourage a more active SPV.

Unsurprisingly I agree HP about the Antarctic as per my previous comment on this thread.

It helps to explain the anomaly of cooling which is Antarctica, GCM which now take this role into account now also model antarctica much more accurately.

As to how it effects the Artic, Studies show that it possibly helped to drive the AO during the 90's however a step change has since occured (IMO more likely due to the increased effects of AGW). The AO by itself is nolonger a driver/or indicator of the artic from 2000-2007.

As to the link between Ozone and Temp could the link not work the other way AGW increases temps, which in turn help to bring down CFC's.?, not sure I believe this but it's a thought.

The lack of Ozone is due to man made chemicals, these obviously go in an upward trend, but you need a direct causal effect to match up global temps to co2 or ozone depleation and the increasing PV doesn't really seem to fit the bill.

[Hiya]

Its been difficult trying to keep up with the thread and comments especially with reference to my direct question yesterday Re: ICE MELT.

I choose to dump the text in rather than give a link as a large chunk of the article was not relevant to my question. Sources are irrelevant when you make a statement, it could well of been my old granny the question was if it was correct or not? I am not sure I am any the wiser now as I was when I posted it. Yes the measurement technique and time spans have been shot at, but no one has said it was not or at least no one has said it could not be true? From this I can only deduce that there exists some doubt in the amount of ice reduction?

Ozone depletion.

Thanks for the links all very helpful, here is a link to the IPCC special report into Ozone:

www.ipcc.ch/press/SPM.pdf

And I found this very interesting too:

http://www.theozonehole.com/climate.htm

My first thoughts at the IPCC conclusions on Ozone depletion on the climate seem to be put as fact, yet when you read further you realise they are not sure at all on what is likely to happen as ozone depletion starts to replenish. It just seems odd to me that the IPCC can make such matter of fact statements yet say they are only happy to run a model to 2015?

As I stated before I may not be a scientific bod like many of you but I have studied a lot of graphs in my time, look at these 2:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f...ture_Record.png

(I know its Wiki but its an accepted chart.)

Now this measurement of Antarctic Ozone:

http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/tour_images/total_ozone.gif

If you flip the Ozone graph and superimposed the dates 1955-1995 on to the temperature chart I think the results are quite interesting. I bet the IPCC wished that CO2 followed as closely

I am taken aback, thank you for bringing this to my attention.

[Iceberg]

But the problem is you could plot truncy rates at schoool and it would show the same trend match.....

[Devonian]

Its been difficult trying to keep up with the thread and comments especially with reference to my direct question yesterday Re: ICE MELT.

I choose to dump the text in rather than give a link as a large chunk of the article was not relevant to my question. Sources are irrelevant when you make a statement, it could well of been my old granny the question was if it was correct or not? I am not sure I am any the wiser now as I was when I posted it. Yes the measurement technique and time spans have been shot at, but no one has said it was not or at least no one has said it could not be true? From this I can only deduce that there exists some doubt in the amount of ice reduction?

Ozone depletion.

Thanks for the links all very helpful, here is a link to the IPCC special report into Ozone:

www.ipcc.ch/press/SPM.pdf

And I found this very interesting too:

http://www.theozonehole.com/climate.htm

My first thoughts at the IPCC conclusions on Ozone depletion on the climate seem to be put as fact, yet when you read further you realise they are not sure at all on what is likely to happen as ozone depletion starts to replenish. It just seems odd to me that the IPCC can make such matter of fact statements yet say they are only happy to run a model to 2015?

As I stated before I may not be a scientific bod like many of you but I have studied a lot of graphs in my time, look at these 2:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f...ture_Record.png

(I know its Wiki but its an accepted chart.)

Now this measurement of Antarctic Ozone:

http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/tour_images/total_ozone.gif

If you flip the Ozone graph and superimposed the dates 1955-1995 on to the temperature chart I think the results are quite interesting. I bet the IPCC wished that CO2 followed as closely

Correlation being causation you mean? What is going on? Please explain to me how you think ozone controls global surface temperature.

Edit: your first link explains, rather well, the effect of changes to ozone on the Stratosphere. But it does not make a case for ozone loss in the stratosphere effecting the lower atmosphere's temperature to any marked degree, and it certainly does not blame ozone for GW.

Edited June 27, 2007 by Devonian

[Devonian]

Correlation being causation you mean? What is going on? Please explain to me, or link to, how you think ozone controls global surface temperature.

Edit: your first link explains, rather well, the effect of changes to ozone on the Stratosphere. But it does not make a case for ozone loss in the stratosphere effecting the lower atmosphere's temperature to any marked degree, and it certainly does not blame ozone for GW.

Drat! how do you delete posts? this was an edit that went wrong

[jethro]

Drat! how do you delete posts? this was an edit that went wrong

Well I'm glad your edit button went wrong, without wishing to be rude in anyway what so ever and I mean this in an entirely positive manner; that post is the first I've read from you which demonstrates you have read another persons' post and are trying to understand their viewpoint/question. If all your posts were phrased in such a way, you and I wouldn't have locked horns half as often.

Ice berg: I'll answer your post later, I've got to go out.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I read the links Jethro, but the paper is from 1999. It it right to some degree, take AGW out of the equation and the AO is probably the most important driver.

However I say again how can the record ice loss/levels seen this decade be explained by the AO or Ozone effecting the AO if the AO has average a negative -0.019 over this period. My graph and the figure quoted can't just be dismissed they come directly from NOAA and include data upto the end of May 07.

I say again AO and PDO have NOT been in strongly positive cycles during 2000-2007 the graphs produced directly and clearly say this. If anybody doesn't believe me I am more than happy to send them the raw data sets from NOAA so that they can plot this themselves.

Doesn't positive AO lock the cold into the arctic region? And doesn't negative AO allow the cold to spill south? Cold winter up far north with a positive AO last winter!!!

BFTP

Edited June 27, 2007 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Devonian]

Well I'm glad your edit button went wrong, without wishing to be rude in anyway what so ever and I mean this in an entirely positive manner; that post is the first I've read from you which demonstrates you have read another persons' post and are trying to understand their viewpoint/question. If all your posts were phrased in such a way, you and I wouldn't have locked horns half as often.

The very first post. Of all those I've made the only one. Thanks very much

Edited June 27, 2007 by Devonian