Medieval Warm period due to NAO
Discussion
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
The IPCC don't have a triple A rating. When a view is orchestrated, you need the right view to get in the orchestra. Expaining it makes it no better.
ludo said:
The point is that it is the argument that matters, not the source.
There is a difference between data and information, you need an scientific argument to turn the former into the latter as otherwise the data are just numbers without meaningful interpretation.
Anyone who is willing to say that there is no correlation between CO2 and sea levels ought not to make any great claim that their views are based on data.
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
The IPCC don't have a triple A rating. When a view is orchestrated, you need the right view to get in the orchestra. Expaining it makes it no better.
ludo said:
The point is that it is the argument that matters, not the source.
...
nigelfr said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
The IPCC don't have a triple A rating. When a view is orchestrated, you need the right view to get in the orchestra. Expaining it makes it no better.
ludo said:
The point is that it is the argument that matters, not the source.
...
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
At the time of the first Earth Day in 1970 Kenneth Watt of UC Davis is quoted as follows: "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."
You do know what the word "if" means don't you?nigelfr said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
The IPCC don't have a triple A rating. When a view is orchestrated, you need the right view to get in the orchestra. Expaining it makes it no better.
ludo said:
The point is that it is the argument that matters, not the source.
...
nigelfr said:
Try to play the ball, not the man please.
turbobloke said:
The latest 'PistonHeads: Sources Matter' request from ludo, for a peer-reviewed source was 1055 today on the Sea Level Rise Scam thread.
were you able to supply one?BTW have you come up with an argument that refuted the Dominges paper that contradicts your position on ocean heat content yet?
Jasandjules said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
At the time of the first Earth Day in 1970 Kenneth Watt of UC Davis is quoted as follows: "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."
You do know what the word "if" means don't you?turbobloke said:
nigelfr said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
The IPCC don't have a triple A rating. When a view is orchestrated, you need the right view to get in the orchestra. Expaining it makes it no better.
ludo said:
The point is that it is the argument that matters, not the source.
...
nigelfr said:
Try to play the ball, not the man please.
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
The latest 'PistonHeads: Sources Matter' request from ludo, for a peer-reviewed source was 1055 today on the Sea Level Rise Scam thread.
were you able to supply one?ludo said:
BTW have you come up with an argument that refuted the Dominges paper that contradicts your position on ocean heat content yet?
I thought I had, but possibly not. Was it this Domingues/z, dated 2008 iirc?http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/ab...
Related to this?
Changes in global upper-ocean heat content over the last half century and comparison with climate models
John Church(1,2), C Domingues(1), N White(0), S Wijffels(1), P Barker(1), P Gleckler(3)
(1) Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Hobart, Tasmaia, Austria
(2) Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Sandy Bay,Tasmania, Australia
(3) Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Livermore, CA, USA
In terms of update requested to your 2008 source, Dr Craig Loehle has published this version of the data in 2009 which you may find difficult to criticise w how you would like in view of your earlier comment that the discussion matters more than the source (unless you wish to retract that) though I said - and still think - that the data matters most:
There's an interesting discussion areound that, as the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide plot matches very well in terms of ocean temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide changes through thermal dissolution and degassing.
So we have up, down, and steady as she goes. Pielke sums it up:
Dr Roger Pielke said:
While the analysis presented in my paper, that was completed by Josh Willis, indicates the uncertainties are too large to definitively conclude that there has been cooling, the lack of warming in both papers are in conflict with the predictions of the global climate models...
turbobloke said:
nigelfr said:
Sailing perilously close to "Reductio ad absurdum" there, old chap. Wouldn't want to have to accuse you of stooping to cheap rhetorical tricks.
Yes it would be inappropriate, and you;d be falling foul of your earlier post if you did:nigelfr said:
Try to play the ball, not the man please.
And I do like a happy ending.
BTW It's holiday time and I've got guests arriving so that means little time for posting.
Once again it's been a blast. Big thanks to all the genuine debaters and not such a big thanks to the mass (except for the few funny ones.)
Cheers, take care.
nigelfr said:
turbobloke said:
Maybe this is now overlapping with the Sea Level Rise Scam thread but as somebody else started asking:
D'oh. That bottom chart ain't CO2 concentration but rate of change in CO2 concentration. ludo said:
nigelfr said:
turbobloke said:
Maybe this is now overlapping with the Sea Level Rise Scam thread but as somebody else started asking:
D'oh. That bottom chart ain't CO2 concentration but rate of change in CO2 concentration. 
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Also here ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf see figure S9
Enjoy.
Now I really have to go.
Caio.
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
The latest 'PistonHeads: Sources Matter' request from ludo, for a peer-reviewed source was 1055 today on the Sea Level Rise Scam thread.
were you able to supply one?However, I have since found out that it is a red-herring anyway (i.e. an assertion that while correct is irrelevant to the point) as it is stratospheric CO2 that controls the transfer of IR into space, not trophospheric CO2. You have been given the details of the 50 year old physics that has demonstrated that to be the case, we are still waiting for a meaningful response.
Note I even suggested a simple experiment that would prove the saturation argument and falsify the models, so tell me, why hasn't it been done?
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
BTW have you come up with an argument that refuted the Dominges paper that contradicts your position on ocean heat content yet?
I thought I had, but possibly not. Was it this Domingues/z, dated 2008 iirc?http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/ab...
turbobloke said:
Related to this?
Changes in global upper-ocean heat content over the last half century and comparison with climate models
John Church(1,2), C Domingues(1), N White(0), S Wijffels(1), P Barker(1), P Gleckler(3)
(1) Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Hobart, Tasmaia, Austria
(2) Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Sandy Bay,Tasmania, Australia
(3) Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Livermore, CA, USA
same group, what is the problem, can you find a criticism of the second paper in the blogsphere but not the first?Changes in global upper-ocean heat content over the last half century and comparison with climate models
John Church(1,2), C Domingues(1), N White(0), S Wijffels(1), P Barker(1), P Gleckler(3)
(1) Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Hobart, Tasmaia, Austria
(2) Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Sandy Bay,Tasmania, Australia
(3) Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Livermore, CA, USA
turbobloke said:
In terms of update requested to your 2008 source, Dr Craig Loehle has published this version of the data in 2009 which you may find difficult to criticise
yes, because it is published in Energy and Environment, a journal that isn't carried by the majority of university libraries and I can't find an accessible version on line. As always you shouldn't judge and argument from its source, but on its intrinsic strength; however at the moment, that is all I have to go n. The fact that it is written by someone who is not a specialist in this area and in Enegry and Environment (which has demonstrated very poor standards of reviewing) makes me sceptical, but not disbelieving. I would need to see the actual paper to know whether the method is sound, for instance did he include the corrections made to the ARGO data etc.turbobloke said:
w how you would like in view of your earlier comment that the discussion matters more than the source (unless you wish to retract that) though I said - and still think - that the data matters most:
There's an interesting discussion areound that, as the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide plot matches very well in terms of ocean temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide changes through thermal dissolution and degassing.
The flaws in which (picking a single set of measurements instead of the global CO2 time series and looking at the rate of change of CO2 rather than the actual levels) have already been pointed out. The recent variability in the Mauna Loa data seems directly attributable to ENSO.There's an interesting discussion areound that, as the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide plot matches very well in terms of ocean temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide changes through thermal dissolution and degassing.
Aiming to avoid another attrition loop, and bearing in mind mentions of phase relationships between natural cycles, here are some interesting links with regard to the PDO (and one AMO) and climate:
PDO clouds and climate, global warming as a natural response to cloud changes associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/glob...
The 1977 to 1998 PDO warm period paralleled global warming on that timescale (~same rate as 1910 to 1945):
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/glac...
PDO Gleissberg forcing and climate:
http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/Power...
And penultimately something datawise on the AMO to spice up life:
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/35/amoanomaly.p...
Finally, commentary (argument? discussion) from Tsonis:
"I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing". Dr. Anastasios Tsonis said. Scientists note that the air and ocean systems of the Earth are now showing signs of synchronizing with each other. Eventually, the systems begin to couple and the synchronous state is destroyed, leading to a climate shift. "In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century," Tsonis said. "The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001." The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000. Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have. "But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand first the natural variability of climate and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said. Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.
Prof Don Easterbrook has projected resumption of natural modest climate warming several decades ahead (~ 2045) he says it's nothing to do with carbon dioxide though: "It’s merely a continuation of warm/cool cycles over the past 500 years...An interesting question is the similarity between what we are seeing now with sun spots and global temperature and the drop into the Little Ice Age from the Medieval Warm Period. Could we be about to repeat that? Only time will tell–We might see a more pronounced cool period like the 1880 to 1910 cool cycle (when many temp records were set) or a milder cooling like the 1945-1977 cool cycle. In any case, the setting up of the cool phase of the PDO seems to suggest cooler times ahead, not the catastrophic warming predicted by IPCC and Al Gore.”
It will be interesting to see how wedded people are to the "play the ball not the man" and "the argument is more important than the source" viewpoints.
As before I'm of the view that the data is paramount and more useful than both, but wouldn't disagree totally with either sentiment.
PDO clouds and climate, global warming as a natural response to cloud changes associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/glob...
The 1977 to 1998 PDO warm period paralleled global warming on that timescale (~same rate as 1910 to 1945):
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/glac...
PDO Gleissberg forcing and climate:
http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/Power...
And penultimately something datawise on the AMO to spice up life:
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/35/amoanomaly.p...
Finally, commentary (argument? discussion) from Tsonis:
"I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing". Dr. Anastasios Tsonis said. Scientists note that the air and ocean systems of the Earth are now showing signs of synchronizing with each other. Eventually, the systems begin to couple and the synchronous state is destroyed, leading to a climate shift. "In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century," Tsonis said. "The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001." The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000. Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have. "But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand first the natural variability of climate and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said. Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.
Prof Don Easterbrook has projected resumption of natural modest climate warming several decades ahead (~ 2045) he says it's nothing to do with carbon dioxide though: "It’s merely a continuation of warm/cool cycles over the past 500 years...An interesting question is the similarity between what we are seeing now with sun spots and global temperature and the drop into the Little Ice Age from the Medieval Warm Period. Could we be about to repeat that? Only time will tell–We might see a more pronounced cool period like the 1880 to 1910 cool cycle (when many temp records were set) or a milder cooling like the 1945-1977 cool cycle. In any case, the setting up of the cool phase of the PDO seems to suggest cooler times ahead, not the catastrophic warming predicted by IPCC and Al Gore.”
It will be interesting to see how wedded people are to the "play the ball not the man" and "the argument is more important than the source" viewpoints.
As before I'm of the view that the data is paramount and more useful than both, but wouldn't disagree totally with either sentiment.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff