General Climate Change Discussion

[Thundery wintry showers]

I had intended to point out that climate, and the environment, changes - that's what it does, that's what it has always done and that is what it will always do. If it were to turn out that mankind had had no effect whatsoever then should we attempt to force the status quo and try to keep the environment in what we perceive to be an ideal state? We could seed the oceans to create an abundance CO2-absorbing creatures, but if our CO2 isn't a problem then is it the right thing to do? Could our artificial enhancement of a particular, seemingly beneficial, aspect of nature have unforeseen knock-on effects? Quite possibly.

In the meantime, and I have said this before, I advocate a policy of steady change towards pollution-free energy and a general cleaning-up, or mending, of our destructive ways. I feel that it would do more harm than good to force through such changes at an unsupportable rate, and it is clearly wrong to jump headlong into a supposed "solution" without considering the consequences - be they environmental or financial consequences, or both.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding from my admittedly badly worded passage.

CB

That sounds mostly relevant to the more extreme ideas for combatting AGW such as schemes to remove CO2 from the atmosphere or cover the Earth in large sheets to hinder solar radiation.

I have to say, if someone could find a way of reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere without it having significant side-effects, and be sure to not reduce it to below pre-industrial concentrations, then I would support it, as while the extent of anthropogenic warming caused by excess CO2 release is unclear, it's close to being a certainty that much of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution has an anthropogenic source. But otherwise, I would consider such ideas to be way too risky and stuff to be used as last resorts for if the situation gets really bad, which as yet it hasn't.

[Solar Cycles]

You do suffer a lot of computer issues, SC, it must be a nuisance: I remember you were having problems providing links at the end of Nov, and probs with (ironically) cut & paste in mid-Dec....perhaps we should club together and buy you a new computer - or at least a virus protection subscription!

I'm sorry you're still having physical probs, too. I think you were in a sling about 6 weeks ago (certainly well before Xmas): I'm amazed you manage to post as much as you do - I've just typed this post with one hand as an experiment, and it certainly takes a great deal longer to get it right.

Ossie

First off this computer is giving me an headache, if it wasn't for being one handed I would launch it out off the window! As for being in a sling AGAIN! well that does get me down. Probably the reason I'm a little OTT with some of my replies ( Apologies all round )

[Methuselah]

First off this computer is giving me an headache, if it wasn't for being one handed I would launch it out off the window! As for being in a sling AGAIN! well that does get me down. Probably the reason I'm a little OTT with some of my replies ( Apologies all round )

Never mind, I think we understand; I for one sometimes get hot-under-the-collar. Hope you get your other hand working again soon btw. :lol:

[Solar Cycles]

Never mind, I think we understand; I for one sometimes get hot-under-the-collar. Hope you get your other hand working again soon btw. :lol:

Thanks Pete, I do enjoy debating, maybe I should seek out some anger management to control ones outburst! :lol:

[Gray-Wolf]

As mentioned before we seem to be in a time where colours are being pinned to the mast. If S.C. is convinced that this (latest) PDO negative will bring him the assured cold (for the next 30 years) then either he or GISS will need to back down soon. i've never heard of a negative PDO bringing forward a new global record for high temps but this is what now seems to be at stake. PDO negative has been being 'expected' for a while now. So little is known of the phenomena as to make 'forecasting' impossible but the general time for a phase (anything from 30 to 70 years) gives a bit of slack. That said 99' would also have been within the correct time frame for the PDO to flip.....and it did! but only for 4 years.Two years later it had another little 'flip' into the negative for 4 years and now? well here we are again, back into the PDO negative phase. I'd be very tempted to 'join up the dots' and call the 'flip' to negative PDO phase back in 99' (with the 'dropping out of phase' being due to anomalous ocean temps resetting the 'trigger points for +ve/-ve ) and cut out all the malarkey.

That would of course mean we are possibly approaching the end of the current phase (seeing as sea surface temps are not playing nice as they used too) and the GISS predictions for both a Nino' and a global temp record marking the end of the PDO negative.

I will side with the adherents and predict that we are seeing the death of PDO negative at the hands of deep ocean warming (warming that has been feeding into the system for over 100yrs) and in future we will see these teensy weensy PDO negative phases but will predominantly suffer PDO positive with bouts of 'super positive/enhanced El-Nino' years. Where this to prove true then we can expect the 'step change' in the rate of warming as this near permanent El-Nino sets in.

As I say, only 2 years to wait for the conclusion of this particular conundrum :lol:

[jethro]

Whilst we don't have a complete understanding of the PDO and it's workings, we do know quite a lot. One of the things we do know, is that atmospheric conditions and wind are the primary forcers; anomalous ocean temps don't reset 'trigger points for +ve/-ve, neither do deep ocean warming or SSTs.

"Finally, note that the three hypothesis considered

here—advection along isopycnals, wave propagation,

and atmospheric connections—are not mutually exclusive,

and in fact all three are present in the model. Our

findings therefore suggest that in a system where all

three are operating, and in the presence of realistic levels

of decadal midlatitude variability as well as ENSO variability,

the atmospheric connection dominates"

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-044...2-13-6-1173.pdf

[Gray-Wolf]

Whilst we don't have a complete understanding of the PDO and it's workings, we do know quite a lot. One of the things we do know, is that atmospheric conditions and wind are the primary forcers; anomalous ocean temps don't reset 'trigger points for +ve/-ve, neither do deep ocean warming or SSTs.

Surely the arctic amplification we have been seeing for the past 7 years (and the move towards a diffferent arctic setup of air pressures) has it's trickle down impacts on such?

We know that we have observed storms/L.P. systems moving ever northwards and likewise the polar jet and 10c ocean isotherm. surely all this 'change' doesn't go un-noticed by the great 'natural cycle maker' in the sky???

[Admiral_Bobski]

As I understand it, the 30-year PDO phases between +ve and -ve are general trends, not permanent features. That is to say that during a +ve phase the PDO is generally positive (though negative periods can occur, and hence La Ninas can occur) and during a -ve phase the PDO is generally negative (though positive periods can occur, and hence El Ninos can occur). If this is the case then an El Nino in the next year isn't going to spell doom for the expected negative PDO phase. Are the 4-year flip-flops that have happened just a transitional period between phases?

CB

[Rob]

i'm a bit confused by the whole global warming situation situation, is there actually any scientific evidence to back this theory up or is the world just going through a different climate phase?

[jethro]

Surely the arctic amplification we have been seeing for the past 7 years (and the move towards a diffferent arctic setup of air pressures) has it's trickle down impacts on such?

We know that we have observed storms/L.P. systems moving ever northwards and likewise the polar jet and 10c ocean isotherm. surely all this 'change' doesn't go un-noticed by the great 'natural cycle maker' in the sky???

But all that assumes that the PDO is driven by such events, as you can see from the paper I linked to, this is not the case.

The Arctic has lost similar amounts of ice before (see Polyakov) the fact that since 1979 we have had the luxury of satellite data to follow the trend, doesn't in it's self mean what is happening is unique. Our measured accuracy and instantaneous access to that information is unique. The PDO has continued on its' merry way before now, with us almost oblivious to the state of the Arctic; awareness of a situation doesn't change that.

Yes, Captain B, that's exactly how the phases work. At no point in the past have we ever had a period of 30 years with either exclusively El Nino or La Nina.

Rob: bit of both IMO, depends entirely upon who you ask. There's loads of info in this section of the forum, have a read through, see what conclusion you reach.

Edited January 27, 2009 by jethro

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm not finding anything from polyakov about sea ice 'extents' matching ,or being below, 2007 levels in his papers? I'm finding he has studied the Kara ,laptev,Chuki, East Siberian sea ice variability from 1900 to present but ,again does not mention a time when all the basins were devoid of ice come the end of melt season. I think I need you to direct me to the papers covering the Arctic Sea proper and the evidence he uses to show ice loss in this area since 1900.

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

The above shows the variability of the index and it seems (to me after a rumage) that only strong El-Nino years pull the index into -ve and, as C-Bob says, there is a bit of chopping and changing between +ve and -ve during phases but it is hard to track down (as I'm getting ever bog eyed) a comparable period to the 99' flip that wasn't in a period designated PDO-ve.

[jethro]

I'm afraid you've lost me.

Polyakov's papers are available via Google. He doesn't detail minutia of Arctic ice coverage, his studies are about trends and ocean currents - I'm sure you're aware of this as I've linked the papers countless times before.

Are you saying the Arctic melt has changed the PDO? That somehow less ice means a negative phase PDO is no longer sustainable? I think that's what you're saying (?); if you are then all I can say is I've not seen a shred of evidence or even an on-going study questioning this possibility. I think you're on your own with this one (unless you've got a paper to back it up?).

[noggin]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...ed-ecd53cd3d320

Well, loads to read here, including, courtesy of Dr John Theon (retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist), naughty James Hansen and useless computer models. Al Gore gets a mention too......I believe he is making some big speech today. Should be interesting. :winky:

[Thundery wintry showers]

Again, though, no actual scientific evidence against AGW in that article apart from the downsides of relying upon climate model forecasts which are prone to error- as I have already conceded many times over.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm afraid you've lost me.

Polyakov's papers are available via Google. He doesn't detail minutia of Arctic ice coverage, his studies are about trends and ocean currents - I'm sure you're aware of this as I've linked the papers countless times before.

Are you saying the Arctic melt has changed the PDO? That somehow less ice means a negative phase PDO is no longer sustainable? I think that's what you're saying (?); if you are then all I can say is I've not seen a shred of evidence or even an on-going study questioning this possibility. I think you're on your own with this one (unless you've got a paper to back it up?).

I believe I'm saying that the 'predicted' changes in global circulations (atmosphere and oceans) have already measurably begun. We know we have been witnessing the predicted 'Arctic Amplification' for some time now, we know that the 10c isotherm is tending north wards, we know storm systems are trending ever north, we have seen the NAO be strongly positive in a way not seen before so why not alterations in the PDO?

None of us are saying the planet is not warming but you insist that until you've seen a paper on it you cannot accept that the planet is responding to this warming then we may as well sit and twiddle our thumbs until one appears.

Papers generally come about after the event when the numbers are crunched and the math is checked, we are watching the event and I am merely postulating as to the 'meaning of the event'. I do not expect other than the same in return :winky:

Edited January 28, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Devonian]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...ed-ecd53cd3d320

Well, loads to read here, including, courtesy of Dr John Theon (retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist), naughty James Hansen and useless computer models. Al Gore gets a mention too......I believe he is making some big speech today. Should be interesting. :winky:

Is the sum total of opposition to AGW and sceptical 'science' these days the spoutings of the spokesman for one of the most right wing US senators there is? Is that really it?

I'm reasonably intelligent, so I'm not convinced by 'Hanson is bad, Hanson is bad, Hanson is bad (Gore is fat) Hanson is bad' being chanted at me every day.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

Dev, It was Jingle Bells, Hansen smells that convinced me!

[noggin]

I'm reasonably intelligent, so I'm not convinced by 'Hanson is bad, Hanson is bad, Hanson is bad (Gore is fat) Hanson is bad' being chanted at me every day.

I cannot see where Dr Theon said that. Did I miss it? It is possible that I did. Could you point it out to me please?

[jethro]

I believe I'm saying that the 'predicted' changes in global circulations (atmosphere and oceans) have already measurably begun. We know we have been witnessing the predicted 'Arctic Amplification' for some time now, we know that the 10c isotherm is tending north wards, we know storm systems are trending ever north, we have seen the NAO be strongly positive in a way not seen before so why not alterations in the PDO?

None of us are saying the planet is not warming but you insist that until you've seen a paper on it you cannot accept that the planet is responding to this warming then we may as well sit and twiddle our thumbs until one appears.

Papers generally come about after the event when the numbers are crunched and the math is checked, we are watching the event and I am merely postulating as to the 'meaning of the event'. I do not expect other than the same in return :winky:

No, I'm not saying "let's sit and twiddle our thumbs until a paper turns up". What I'm saying is that salinity, ice loss and Arctic SSts do not drive the PDO. The impacts of the PDO maybe felt in the Arctic but those impacts do not feed back into the systems which generate it. I'm asking if you have evidence to the contrary?

I really do think you're barking up the wrong tree with this one GW; here's a selection of papers to demonstrate why, what you're saying does not stack up at all.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...7e69ad99ac7d9c0

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...f434bc639ddc7e9

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?reques...AL%3E2.0.CO%3B2

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/PubServices/19...fs/Overland.pdf

http://geology.gsapubs.org/cgi/content/full/37/1/71

[Devonian]

I cannot see where Dr Theon said that. Did I miss it? It is possible that I did. Could you point it out to me please?

Noggin, I did not say he did. It's about the feel I get these days 'chanted at me every day'.

I've read Morano's screed you link to, I've read the WUWT cutnpaste of it, I've read the comments therein. If you think they compliment 'Hansen' perhaps you could post a few of the compliments - I could not find one :lol:

[noggin]

Noggin, I did not say he did. It's about the feel I get these days 'chanted at me every day'.

I know that, really, Dev. I was just being a bit naughty because I feel the same way about what gets chanted at me every day!

Did me a world of good to get it out of my system though....I hope yours did the same for you! :lol: :lol:

[Kained]

Perhaps were not looking at the core of the arguement, when Albert Einstein wrote his paper on mass-energy equivalence, he was not well known, he was not at the top of the field, he didn't have the sort of credentials people are putting so much onus on.

What he did have was good solid science.

Science is not something to be locked away behind credentials, science is something that should be verifiable and repeatable. Given the right environment and methodology i could split an atom, i could sequence my DNA so i should be able to replicate climate models and test for validity given a set of parameters.

[Devonian]

It's all well and good deferring to the "higher authority" and absolutely we should listen to the scientists in all this but the problems arise when one authority is held up as being the final word.

I'm afraid there are some folk, and Dev is a prime example (apologies D, not picking on you in particular) who will time and again say sorry, it's not the IPCC or it's not Hadley, ergo, it's irrelevant.

VP's right, it does stifle debate, it does instigate dogma and for what it's worth, IMO that's precisely what it's designed to do.

Hello, it's that dogma word again...

And what is accusing people of 'instigating dogma' to 'stifle debate' designed to do? Help debate along? Is it 'an argument based on logic, mathematics, or science.'? No it is not.

Here is the science. And, guess what, I think (not know, not appeal to a higher authority, I think) you'll dismiss it because (dare I cheekily say) it doesn't fit your dogma?

We get no where because, fundamentally, people disagree. I don't see disagreement as a problem, that's what we have these debate. I don't much care for being accused of what I've been accused (both yesterday and today) of but I'm still here and I can can dish it out (either science or personal stuff) as needed

So, lets debate, in our own styles. I don't like being accused of being dogmatic, others don't like my deferring to those who know more than me. That's how it is.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

There's no problem with making reference to a higher authority - the problem comes when you enter an argument, but rather than making a case you simply say "I suggest you read what so-and-so has to say because they're at the top of their field so they must be right." Much like climate models, just because they're clever and complex (or, in this case, study complex things) doesn't make them automatically correct.

As VP intimates, if you think that the experts are right then that's fine, but if you're not going to actually discuss points then there's no point in jumping into the fray. Making reference to a higher authority is fine, but it's not fine when you do nothing but refer to a higher authority. There's no point in entering a debate if you're not going to actually debate anything.

Yes, a lot of articles that are referred to may be complete nonsense, but why not explain why they're nonsense.

TWS has repeatedly pointed out the flaw in many a skeptic's reasoning: it is not a logical argument to say that, effectively, "A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true" or some such.

Similarly, though, it is not a logical argument to say "so-and-so is at the top of his field, so what he says must be true," since I think almost anybody could find a historical example of a top scientist being wrong (look at Einstein's views on Quantum Mechanics, for example).

It's interesting to note that there are several articles "proving" AGW that start out with the premise that mankind is causing (or contributing to) climate change, study a phenomenon with this in mind, explain how it could be caused by man, and hold it up as proof of AGW, which is very similar to TWS's false logic argument ("AGW is true, this phenomenon can be explained by AGW, therefore AGW is true"). Standing on the shoulders of Giants is all well and good, but only if the Giants were right in the first place...!

CB

[Devonian]

Perhaps were not looking at the core of the arguement, when Albert Einstein wrote his paper on mass-energy equivalence, he was not well known, he was not at the top of the field, he didn't have the sort of credentials people are putting so much onus on.

Of course. But, Einstein is now the authority, he has the credentials, which, it seems to me, kind of means the argument is he now becomes less credible?

What he did have was good solid science.

Science is not something to be locked away behind credentials, science is something that should be verifiable and repeatable. Given the right environment and methodology i could split an atom, i could sequence my DNA so i should be able to replicate climate models and test for validity given a set of parameters.

Can you replicate subduction zones? Indeed, can you show, prove, what happens 20 miles under the ground except by (gulp) modelling it? Nope, ...No more than you can prove anthro climate change - imo.

We can't replicate Earth.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Devonian