tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post3627244142148418587..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Australia - plus moreSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85814472810989707972014-10-14T05:38:17.126+11:002014-10-14T05:38:17.126+11:00Thanks Sou. And again, I have no idea what Ragnaa...Thanks Sou. And again, I have no idea what Ragnaar is saying. As far as I can tell, he's saying that an internal system (earth including atmosphere) can warm itself by moving energy around in the oceans (similar to Tisdale). That violates the conservation of energy. There has to be an external forcing. It can't be increased energy from the sun because solar radiation has been on the decline for decades. It could be decreased energy leaving the system...and that is the only possible solution (that agrees with physics). IOW, additional CO2 trapping heat from leaving the internal system. Moreover, that additional heat storage has long been predicted by physicists because a CO2 driven greenhouse effect is what keeps our planet from looking like a snowball. Add more CO2 - guess what, temps go up. It's just basic physics.Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74304448090112127682014-10-12T19:10:49.329+11:002014-10-12T19:10:49.329+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Rum Runnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06198441561400270287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28274688930158255472014-10-12T16:40:23.932+11:002014-10-12T16:40:23.932+11:00Good work, DJ.
I notice that RR didn't acknow...Good work, DJ.<br /><br />I notice that RR didn't acknowledge his "mistake" about the PDO index, where he claimed it went positive over the Australian summer of 2012-13. Nor did he apologise for labelling me a liar when I demonstrated he was wrong, using the same dataset he favoured. <br /><br />Deniers aren't just wilfully ignorant, they are a deceitful lot, aren't they. And overly vocal.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65831397968385256862014-10-12T16:33:47.933+11:002014-10-12T16:33:47.933+11:00I notice that in the image that RR provided, he tr...I notice that in the image that RR provided, he tried to correlate HadCRUT3 with ISCCP cloud cover data. (Which has been the denier favourite of all the cloud cover datasets). <br /><br />I don't know what it is with RR, but he will answer the question being posed with another feigned and unrelated rhetorical question, his latest one being that global warming is now caused by a reduction in cloud cover, and has used a flawed data set to do so.<br /><br />The ISCCP dataset is flawed.<br />See one of many analyses here.<br />http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~dvimont/Papers/Evan_etal_GL028083.pdf<br /><br />Look, there are much better datasets, which was used in this analysis.<br />http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf<br /><br />We know it is much better as there is a strong correlation between outgoing LW and cloud cover, which fails with the ISCCP dataset.<br /><br />Using a dataset which better matches with other datasets reveals that in fact the trend in the ISCCP is spurious, and there has in fact been NO trend in cloud cover, totally throwing out the conjecture that global warming is as a result of cloud cover changes. There has been no trend in cloud cover changes, yet the earth has still warmed, providing conclusive evidence that it's not a result of cloud cover changes, but something else. The only explanation that is able to explain all the other changes noticed, like a decreasing trend in stratospheric temperatures, is anthropogenic greenhouse gases. If global warming was caused by a decrease in albedo, caused by a lowering of cloud cover, there would be also a rising trend in stratospheric temperatures. But the exact opposite is occurring, throwing RR's conjecture out the window.<br /><br />But does RR take any notice of these observations? No. He is ideologically stuck in the mud, unable to move, despite the overwhelming against him. This is your typical reaction by a denier. DJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77510054835188061152014-10-12T14:35:31.624+11:002014-10-12T14:35:31.624+11:00At least 90% of the extra energy being accumulated...At least 90% of the extra energy being accumulated on earth is going into the oceans. <br /><br />http://www.oceanscientists.org/index.php/topics/ocean-warming<br /><br />Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62303457081260146672014-10-12T14:23:15.355+11:002014-10-12T14:23:15.355+11:00Sutton's Law: “The law is named after the bank...Sutton's Law: “The law is named after the bank robber Willie Sutton, who reputedly replied to a reporter's inquiry as to why he robbed banks by saying "because that's where the money is." <br /><br />Our oceans cover about 2/3s of the planet. When we look for the energy, we look there. Land is lacking in energy storage. As was quoted: “A remarkable characteristic of this index (the PDO) is its tendency for multiyear and multidecadal persistence, with a few instances of abrupt sign changes. Based on a variety of studies, sign changes beginning in 1925, 1947, and 1977 have been labeled regime shifts.” While I'd say land does experience regime changes (droughts, heavy annual precipitation, see Australia) I think the larger player is the oceans. They are more variable and have greater reserves than land. It would be reasonable to assume a big controller (though not absolute) of oceanic regions clouds is the oceans. During the hiatus, a number of people are looking at that oceans for what some call the missing heat. I am not aware of many of them looking at land and atmosphere for the missing heat. <br /><br />I am not saying anything about the PDO related to Australia's recorded heat. However an answer could be expected to include the oceans. The PDO currently is the wrong sign for my taste. Bouncing to warm lately. It may be reacting to the maybe, kinda, maybe El Nino. As Sou graph shows, it's confused. If it doesn't stick in the cool phase, then what? Will the system transition into another regime and will that be a warming one? Ragnaarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60428789370629392722014-10-12T13:10:19.977+11:002014-10-12T13:10:19.977+11:00RR wrote "Oceans influence air temperatures. ...RR wrote "Oceans influence air temperatures. Now I wonder if the spike in AUS temperatures in 2012/13 was due to a spike in the PDO at that time…?"<br /><br />Yes. Oceans do influence air temperatures. This is not news. Now, with regard to the PDO we know that during it's negative phase, the PDO will cool Australia by about 0.3C and during it's positive phase it will warm Australia by about 0.3C. (In parts of North America and Alaska this is much larger, about 1.5C) In regard to ocean temperature cycles, the ENSO has a much bigger effect, cooling Australia by about 1C during La Nina (the negative phase) and warm Australia by about 1C during El Nino (the positive phase). During 2010 and 2011 Australia had a record La Nina, causing massive flooding and wiping out the temperature anomaly caused by AGW (many Australian deniers went all ice age cometh during this time).<br /><br />Now given that preceding the summer of 2012/13 and during the summer, the cooling effect of the PDO decreased from about 0.3C to about 0.1C (This is the 'spike' that RR keeps referring to, even though during the entire time the index was negative/cooling), the cooling effect of the PDO was minimal.<br /><br />Look, over the last 100 years, Australia has also had 100 summers, and in those summers the PDO has been either in a positive, neutral or negative phase. Yet it has only been very recently, that the summers have now become anomaly hot, while the effects of the PDO has stayed the same. For the PDO to also now have an abnormally high effect and have a large influence on the summer of 2012-13, you need to provide a physical mechanism for this change in behaviour. So RR, are you able to provide us with a study which suggests that? If not, your argument falls flat on it's arse. DJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89073130063002586822014-10-12T12:56:16.709+11:002014-10-12T12:56:16.709+11:00Billy Bob
BBD, I can't for the life of me see...Billy Bob<br /><br /><i>BBD, I can't for the life of me see what you are driving at. RR has made a clear statement backed by the graphs you yourself posted. </i><br /><br />No, he hasn't.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58281756465724109682014-10-12T12:24:35.096+11:002014-10-12T12:24:35.096+11:00@ Billy Bob - as BBD wrote:
There's nothing m...@ Billy Bob - as BBD wrote:<br /><br /><i>There's nothing more to say. Your entire argument was based on a spurious trend in the ISCCP data.<br /><br />Can't you read?</i><br /><br />RR has been busy trying to pin global warming onto "anything but CO2".<br /><br />He started with the PDO, then he shifted to the AMO, then he shifted to "it's clouds".<br /><br />He's just another nutter from deniersville. Or does your preoccupation with tone "overwhelm your ability to see what's right in front of you".Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78559910704556727792014-10-12T12:17:36.042+11:002014-10-12T12:17:36.042+11:00Rum Runner: "Well that wasn't quite my qu...Rum Runner: "Well that wasn't quite my question. It was more like "what percentage is it?" 100% of both is impossible and illogical. "<br /><br />The oceans don't get hot all by themselves. Something else has to cause them to heat up. The only way the oceans can heat up the atmosphere is if they get hotter themselves, otherwise they've pretty well been in equilibrium with the air for the past few thousand years - until recently.<br /><br />As for attribution, it's likely that we have caused all and probably more than all of the warming since the 1950s, at least. We've also caused cooling which has offset the "more" to bring it back to 100% net.<br /><br />The only other thing that could cause warming is the sun, and earth hasn't been getting any more incoming solar radiation since the 1950s, in fact it's declined a tad. Yet the air and the land and the oceans have kept on getting hotter. Ice has been melting faster and faster. Seas have been rising more and more.<br /><br />We have been putting up a barrier reducing the amount of energy that escapes back to space. That's what is causing earth to heat up. It's not the oceans magically warming up all by themselves and heating the air without letting radiation escape to space. It's greenhouse gases that are slowing the rate at which radiation goes out to space.<br /><br />We've caused probably more than 100% of the warming plus a bit of cooling (from aerosols). The net effect is that we've probably caused exactly 100% of the warming.<br /><br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/<br /><br />http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/15/97-vs-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causingSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70485776506130841192014-10-12T12:04:25.533+11:002014-10-12T12:04:25.533+11:00Rum Runner - no, it was no joke, as you yourself r...Rum Runner - no, it was no joke, as you yourself recognised half way through your comment when you quoted me saying "not unless something is heating the oceans".<br /><br />You claim that the sun increased radiation so much that it caused a rise in Earth's temperature of nearly one degree Celsius over the past century. Well, that's wrong. The sun didn't increase its output by anything like that. As you say, the sun has decreased output - yet the earth hasn't cooled down. The oceans haven't got any colder, they are still accumulating heat. <br /><br />You claim that clouds have suddenly decided to behave differently all by themselves for no reason. Well they don't. If clouds change then something else must have changed to cause that. And it wasn't the sun.<br /><br />At least you are now acknowledging that greenhouse gases make a difference, despite you trying to pin most of it onto clouds and the sun.<br /><br />You've got to answer the question: what is different now that is causing the earth to heat up. That is probably going to bring about changes not seen since Homo sapiens first emerged onto Earth a couple of hundred thousand years ago? That will probably be ten times faster warming than has been seen in 65 million years.<br /><br />http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html<br /><br />It's the fact that we've dug up long-sequestered carbon and are pouring it into the atmosphere. It's upset the balance. Energy is not in balance. There is a lot more staying within the earth system now instead of equal amounts coming in as are going back to space. The oceans are dropping pH and heating up, ice is melting rapidly, the air is getting hotter as is the land surface. Patterns of weather are changing.<br /><br />I can guess why you spend so much time trying to find ways to "refute" science - it offends the image you have of things where humans can do what they like without any consequences. The earth is telling us we can't.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32051158210269279372014-10-12T09:44:13.306+11:002014-10-12T09:44:13.306+11:00BBD, I can't for the life of me see what you a...BBD, I can't for the life of me see what you are driving at. RR has made a clear statement backed by the graphs you yourself posted. Cloud has reduced only slightly, true, but that did not occur in a linear fashion. It was relatively stable till around 91, after which it reduced until around 2000-2002, and since then, again relatively stable.<br /><br />OHC was up and down prior to 1990, but generally around an average of -1, after which it began rising until around 2000, where it has since settled at a around an average of +0.2. <br /><br />RR is not commenting on rates or anything like that - he simply observes that as cloudiness decreased, OHC increased. What the heck is so hard to follow about that?<br /><br />Of course the long term linear trends may not indicate exactly the same thing, but this is where your preoccupation with linear trends overwhelms your ability to see what's right in front of you.Billy Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86083613521985781882014-10-12T05:26:36.624+11:002014-10-12T05:26:36.624+11:00Add plus 2 solar by reduced cloud albedo, store 1 ...Add plus 2 solar by reduced cloud albedo, store 1 and emit 1. <br />What part of this violates energy conservation?<br />The oceans on average have warmed as has the atmosphere. Ragnaarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17023678585517111512014-10-12T03:39:45.056+11:002014-10-12T03:39:45.056+11:00I wouldn't be too concerned...I'm sure our...I wouldn't be too concerned...I'm sure our Rum-rum-rum Runaway will dive back into his rabbit hole sooner than later. Devastating rebuttal to Tamino notwithstanding...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58583570322398516452014-10-12T03:15:23.322+11:002014-10-12T03:15:23.322+11:00@DJ,
"You should become a politician"
...@DJ,<br /><br />"You should become a politician"<br /><br />Ugh no!<br /><br />"as you have certainly nailed down the art of obfuscation, misdirection and not answering the question"<br /><br />Firstly: You asked a question? I didn't see one. Secondly your honour: Projection!<br /><br />"ANOTHER ill-posed rhetorical question. "Is it 100% Anthropogenic Vs 0% oceanic? "" <br /><br />Well that wasn't quite my question. It was more like "what percentage is it?" 100% of both is impossible and illogical. <br /><br />"So to completely rule out anthropogenic influences, as you seem to have done, is a misrepresentation of the paper."<br /><br />..and that's a misrepresentation of what I said! There's a lot of that about. You continue on that vein, selectievly quoting the last of the three papers I selected at random of the many similar available. Let's look at the conclusions:<br /><br />"Conclusions<br />Assuming that at least part of the AMO is of natural origin and given that it has a substantial temperature cycle and large footprint, it should be included in MLR studies as an explanatory variable. This will lower the anthropogenic temperature trend for the past 30years compared to MLR studies neglecting the AMO as shown by Zhou and Tung (2013) and Chylek et al. (2014). However, our results indicate that the degree to which this is the case depends on the choice of AMO description. Using detrended NA SST indicates a strong role for the AMO and thus a relatively low anthropogenic trend but these observations are contaminated by other factors influencing NA SST. More sophisticated AMO descriptions indicate a similar or smaller role for the AMO, and consequently potential higher anthropogenic trends for the past 30years. Our results thus imply that a better understanding of the AMO is required to increase our confidence in the outcomes of these MLR exercises, especially when considering relatively short periods when fluctuations in multidecadal oscillations such as the AMO do not average out."<br /><br />So there we have it. Oceans influence air temperatures. Now I wonder if the spike in AUS temperatures in 2012/13 was due to a spike in the PDO at that time...?Rum Runnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06198441561400270287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40515030336411233082014-10-12T03:02:23.007+11:002014-10-12T03:02:23.007+11:00Well, would you look at that. Another ocean basin ...Well, would you look at that. Another ocean basin where OHC stopped increasing with the imaginary decrease in LMC at the turn of the century...<br /><br /><a href="http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inodc_heat700_-78-10E_0-75N_na.png" rel="nofollow">N. Atlantic OHC 0 - 700m layer</a><br /><br />AMO fans should notice that N. Atlantic OHC <i>increases</i> from ~1970 to ~2000, so it's fairly safe to say that the energy driving modern warming is not coming out of the N. Atlantic. Or OHC would have <i>fallen</i> over the same period. <br /><br />Are some of the basics of physical climatology beginning to fall into place yet?BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51865728027714947772014-10-12T02:56:54.602+11:002014-10-12T02:56:54.602+11:00@ Sou:
"RR what are you rabbiting on about no...@ Sou:<br />"RR what are you rabbiting on about now? The oceans can't heat up the air all by themselves all of a sudden out of the blue"<br /><br />Sou, I take it that was a joke? Are you suggesting that heat exchange between the oceans and atmosphere doesn't take place? No convection? No evaporation? No solar radiation heating the ocean? No LW radiation cooling the ocean (via evaporation)? No conduction? So yes, Sou, the oceans can heat up the air all by themselves.<br /><br />"not unless something is heating the oceans."<br /><br />Uh. The sun! Which, as we've had less cloud in recent years... http://oi61.tinypic.com/2ql4i90.jpg<br /><br />"Nor do I know what point you were trying to make with your AMO chart."<br /><br />It's a great plot isn't it? The take home is simple: the atmosphere gets bossed by the oceans. Yes, as I said elsewhere there's also a trend due either to anthropogenic, or as above, less clouds. What’s the breakdown of Anthro/Cloud Vs Ocean changes? We'll know in 2030 at the bottom of the AMO cycle. Rum Runnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06198441561400270287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6736364938550373552014-10-12T02:51:24.153+11:002014-10-12T02:51:24.153+11:00Compo & Sardesmukh (2007) illustrates positive...Compo & Sardesmukh (2007) illustrates positive water vapour feedback:<br /><br /><i>Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface.</i><br /><br />It's a good example of how CO2 forcing is leveraged by WV. C&S fluffs attribution somewhat with its:<br /><br /><i>The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences</i><br /><br />But nothing's perfect. Otherwise what Sou said. OHC has risen for decades in all major ocean basins. So a forcing is being applied to all major ocean basins. We know it ain't the sun and it ain't spurious trends in LMC cover, which leaves the exhaustively-calculated increase in RF from CO2 and other GHGs. <br /><br />Occam's Razor.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91394463657963001662014-10-12T01:29:37.270+11:002014-10-12T01:29:37.270+11:00Sou
Less cloud => warmer
More cloud => cold...Sou<br /><br /><i>Less cloud => warmer<br />More cloud => colder<br />As the data shows. It's that simple. Comprende Amigo?</i><br /><br />Enough now?BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24000289638860943682014-10-12T01:28:29.574+11:002014-10-12T01:28:29.574+11:00RR
There's nothing more to say. Your entire a...RR<br /><br />There's nothing more to say. Your entire argument was based on a spurious trend in the ISCCP data.<br /><br />Can't you read?BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28675499378659194342014-10-12T01:15:53.755+11:002014-10-12T01:15:53.755+11:00@RR.
You should become a politician, as you have...@RR. <br /><br />You should become a politician, as you have certainly nailed down the art of obfuscation, misdirection and not answering the question. The papers you presented, although very interesting, do NOT actually pertain to the question at hand. That is, how much of the record breaking heat of Australian summer of 2012-13 can be attributed to the PDO.<br /><br />You have now, through the art of misdirection, are suggesting something else with ANOTHER ill-posed rhetorical question. "Is it 100% Anthropogenic Vs 0% oceanic? " Perhaps the answer is that it is 100% Anthropogenic AND 100% oceanic.<br /><br />For instance, the Gilbert P. Compo paper suggests that the land warming is caused by a 'hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections', but the abstract ends with 'The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.' So to completely rule out anthropogenic influences, as you seem to have done, is a misrepresentation of the paper.<br /><br />Then there is the other paper by G. R. van der Werf, that states,<br /><br />"One other outcome of these MLR analyses is that most of the temperature increase over the past 100years is of anthropogenic origin, whether the AMO is included or not and whether the anthropogenic shape is linear or follows the forcing estimates. This indicates that there is no combination of natural factors that can better match the observed temperature pattern than one with a large anthropogenic influence."<br /><br />Basically, the observed global warming is NOT caused by the AMO, but by anthropogenic influences. <br /><br />I don't know what you are trying to achieve, but the papers that you present are within the scope of the current consensus, and do not further support any of your previous, or new assertions. (whatever they are, as you seem to flip-flop and will not commit to a position with all your ill-posed rhetorical questions.)DJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36495097296036275142014-10-12T00:54:21.284+11:002014-10-12T00:54:21.284+11:00RR what are you rabbiting on about now? The oceans...RR what are you rabbiting on about now? The oceans can't heat up the air all by themselves all of a sudden out of the blue, not unless something is heating the oceans.<br /><br />Nor do I know what point you were trying to make with your AMO chart. It goes up and down, so what? What do you think the "O" stands for?<br /><br />From your WFT chart, going from the first peak of the AMO to the last peak so far, global surface temperatures have risen from around minus 0.2 to plus 0.6 degree Celsius - around 0.8 degree Celsius. Yet the AMO peak hasn't shifted, so that extra heat isn't magically coming from the Atlantic.<br /><br />I don't know the point you are trying to make, but if you are asking if the oceans can somehow cause global warming and that greenhouse warming is minimal or non-existent (Tisdale's goblin fires in the oceans or similar), then you've got a lot more reading to do on the subject. Not here - try reading up on the greenhouse effect.<br /><br />Here it is with HadCRUT4:<br />http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4sh/mean:12/plot/esrl-amo/mean:12Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61844443893488191732014-10-12T00:29:55.423+11:002014-10-12T00:29:55.423+11:00@BBD
"Now your claim is that the slight red...@BBD <br /><br />"Now your claim is that the slight reduction in low cloud cover since ~2000" <br /><br />Now, remember what I said earlier about not getting confused about what I claimed, and what your inner voice said that I claimed? <br /><br />Here we are again:<br />"Your claim is that less cloud should lead to an increased rate of warming." <br /><br />I said nothing about rate. My claim (and I really can't believe I have to repeat this again) is:<br /><br />Less cloud => warmer<br />More cloud => colder<br />As the data shows. It's that simple. Comprende Amigo?<br /><br />It is not as you so desperately seem to want it to be anything to do with Increased rate of loss of clouds or accelerated cloud accumulation, or any other contortion you want to make. <br /><br />Rum Runnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06198441561400270287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63084915104455403362014-10-12T00:13:00.899+11:002014-10-12T00:13:00.899+11:00@ George Montgomery
And breathe! I enjoyed that. ...@ George Montgomery<br /><br />And breathe! I enjoyed that. You write well. <br /><br />* Largest influence on air temperatures => should be sub-centennial changes as I mentioned elsewhere. I'd also concede LOD variations, major volcanic eruptions, and probably some other things including solar variations. I congratulate you.<br /><br />* AMO with trend lines! Oh dear. I can give you any trend you like with a sine wave. Take your pick. The point being that trend lines are meaningless with an oscillation. The current peak of the AMO cycle means that any trend line you choose to draw (over say a couple of decades long) will end at the peak of a cycle. If you are really clever you can do it from the trough of one cycle to the peak of another. Wow! Look at this trend! <br /><br />http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1960/mean:30/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1960/mean:30/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1960/trend<br /><br />The AMO is upto ~80 years long for one cycle. The current warm-period (let's call it the '80's to 2010's) co-incides exactly with a rising AMO. So drawing a trend line anywhere in there is going to be bogus. <br /><br />"Like others here, I don't "blindly accept the rubbish (you) feed me." I just don't. I can see that you're going to have trouble living with that but you'll just have to."<br /><br />:-D Fair enough. It's just that I haven't seen any evidence of it yet on the blog. I'll just have to keep looking. Rum Runnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06198441561400270287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67142400531513158082014-10-12T00:10:31.965+11:002014-10-12T00:10:31.965+11:00I don't think the paper (at least the 2014 one...I don't think the paper (at least the 2014 one that I looked at) says what you think it says. From the paper:<br />"One other outcome of these MLR analyses is that most of the temperature increase over the past 100 years is of anthropogenic origin, whether the AMO is included or not and whether the anthropogenic shape is linear or follows the forcing estimates. This indicates that there is no combination of natural factors that can better match the observed temperature pattern than one with a large anthropogenic influence"Joenoreply@blogger.com