Very Strong, Negative Arctic Oscillation having Widespread Impact
crunch
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2010/01/very_strong_negative_arctic_os.html
"The phase of the AO is described in terms of an index value. In
December 2009 the AO index value was -3.41, the most negative value
since at least 1950, according to data from the NOAA Climate
Prediction Center"
Please comment fully.
David Christainsen - Meteorologist
Newton, Mass. USA
Tom McDonald
> Accuweather
> http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2010/01/very_strong_negative_arctic_os.html
>
> "The phase of the AO is described in terms of an index value. In
> December 2009 the AO index value was -3.41, the most negative value
> since at least 1950, according to data from the NOAA Climate
> Prediction Center"
>
> Please comment fully.
You first. What do you think of the article.
--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
Dawlish
>
> Please comment fully.
Give me one good reason why anyone should, when you don't bother to do
so?
crunch
> crunch wrote:
> > Accuweather
> >http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2010/01/very_strong_negative_ar...
>
> > "The phase of the AO is described in terms of an index value. In
> > December 2009 the AO index value was -3.41, the most negative value
> > since at least 1950, according to data from the NOAA Climate
> > Prediction Center"
>
> > Please comment fully.
>
> You first. What do you think of the article.
>
> --
> Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
Big Picture -
The article SHOUTS to me that Mojib Latif, not to
mention Svensmark, is right -
Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling
is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”
"Indeed, global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning. Last
week, it was argued by Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel at the
UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that cooling may continue
through the next 10 to 20 years.
His explanation was natural changes in North Atlantic circulation and
not in solar activity. But no matter how it is interpreted, the
natural variations in climate then penetrates more and more.
One consequence may be that the sun itself will show its importance
for climate and thus to test the theories of global warming. No
climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth, on the contrary.
This means that projections of future climate is unpredictable. A
forecast [that] says it may be warmer or colder for 50 years, is not
very useful, for science is not able to predict solar activity."
Dawlish
> On Jan 7, 11:14 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > crunch wrote:
> > > Accuweather
> > >http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2010/01/very_strong_negative_ar...
>
> > > "The phase of the AO is described in terms of an index value. In
> > > December 2009 the AO index value was -3.41, the most negative value
> > > since at least 1950, according to data from the NOAA Climate
> > > Prediction Center"
>
> > > Please comment fully.
>
> > You first. What do you think of the article.
>
> > --
> > Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
>
> Big Picture -
>
> The article SHOUTS to me that Mojib Latif, not to
> mention Svensmark, is right -
>
> Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling
> is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts” >
>
> "Indeed, global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning. Last
> week, it was argued by Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel at the
> UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that cooling may continue
> through the next 10 to 20 years.
>
> His explanation was natural changes in North Atlantic circulation and
> not in solar activity. But no matter how it is interpreted, the
> natural variations in climate then penetrates more and more.
>
> One consequence may be that the sun itself will show its importance
> for climate and thus to test the theories of global warming. No
> climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth, on the contrary.
>
> This means that projections of future climate is unpredictable. A
> forecast [that] says it may be warmer or colder for 50 years, is not
> very useful, for science is not able to predict solar activity."
>
> David Christainsen - Meteorologist
> Newton, Mass. USA
One month of a negative AO, after months of the AO being close to the
mean and it SHOUTS to you that Svensmark is correct?
Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” –
“enjoy global warming while it lasts” (from Sept 2009, FYI)
Try this.
Over the last 60 months, back to Nov 2004 (NOAA figures):
56 months (93%) have been in the top 10 warmest for that month in the
last 130 years.
38 months (63%) have been in the top 5 warmest for that month in the
last 130 years.
18 months (30%) have been in the top 2 warmest for that month in the
last 130 years.
Also........there has been an extended solar minimum for half of that
time, from which we may be just emerging , we have had a negative PDO
during all of this time and we presently have only a moderate El Nino,
but yet November was probably the warmest November on record, as an
average of all 5 global temp records.
This is what Svensmark thinks: “global warming stopped and a cooling
is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”
What does that SHOUT to you, Crunchie?
Natsman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nothing shouts to me, but the continuing evidence quietly suggests
that far from warming, the planet MAY be entering a cooling phase.
Either way, it'll do one thing or the other, or stay as it is. That
would mean that AGW had a 33% possibility of being correct, and if it
was a). It wouldn't matter a jot in the scheme of things and b). it
would be a far beneficial scenario for mankind, although of course
corrupt government would jump on the band wagon and make it difficult
(and expensive) for everyone.
Rising sea levels? Nah. Runaway temperatures? Nah. Storm and
tempest that would drive us to the very edge of extinction? Hardly.
Unsupported alarmism, all of it, and it is being recognised for what
it really is.
In any event, it wouldn't be CO2 that was the culprit - it never has
been, despite being a scapegoat for the alarmists.
CK
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
What about my monthly temperature analysis for the last 5 years above?
Or is that a little too difficult for the denialists to find an answer
to.......so it is better swept under the denialist carpet instead?
Natsman
>
> - Show quoted text -
I take it you mean "realist"? The denialists would appear to be your
lot.
You can squirm, and scream, and shout, too if it pleases you. Some of
us are quietly confident that common sense will prevail. It'll take
time, but it WILL prevail.
CK
Dawlish
Well if you are "quietly confident", or if Crunchie is really
confident, or if any other denialist is confident of temperatures
falling, then address the question of why those 5-year statistics are
as they are, despite low solar output and a negative PDO (there was
also a La Nina during those 5 years too, I might add). If it has been
getting colder, why doesn't it show? Svensmark is confident, Crunchie
is ever so confident, the denialist blogosphere is always confident,
you are "quietly confident" and it seems that you are all just
confidently waiting for the global temperatures to fall............but
they aren't.
If it was ever going to get colder, surely all the conditions have
been perfect for it to do so, during the last 5 years. So why haven't
temperatures fallen?
Last Post
> What about my monthly temperature analysis for the last 5 years above?
> Or is that a little too difficult for the denialists to find an answer
> to.......so it is better swept under the denialist carpet instead?
• Dawlish, when you relate climate skeptics to
Nazi Holocaust Deniers the you label your
self Nazi— I hate Nazis
• Your "monthly temperature analysis for the
last 5 years"? It was useless when you began
and even worse now.
Don't sweep it —
shove it where the sun don't shine
Dawlish
> On Jan 7, 12:19 pm, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What about my monthly temperature analysis for the last 5 years above?
> > Or is that a little too difficult for the denialists to find an answer
> > to.......so it is better swept under the denialist carpet instead?
>
> • Dawlish, when you relate climate skeptics to
> Nazi Holocaust Deniers the you label your
> self Nazi— I hate Nazis
Who did that? You are climate denier, not a holocaust denier.
>
> • Your "monthly temperature analysis for the
> last 5 years"? It was useless when you began
> and even worse now.
> Don't sweep it —
> shove it where the sun don't shine
Try the analysis yourself. It's perfectly accurate. Unfortunately, you
don't like the results. If the world has stopped warming, why don't
the monthly temperatures show that its stopped warming? Here's the
link to the NOAA stats so you can have a go.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php
Remember that these stats correlate well with the other 2 surface
measures and both of the satellite measures, one of which is
administered by a renowned climate sceptic (not denialist) Roy
Spencer. (Just before you try to say the data is somehow suspect). I'm
a sceptic too, but unlike him, I'm more and more persuaded by this
kind of data showing continuing warmth.
Don't even think about attacking me, for no more reason than you are
very challenged by those temperature stats. Instead, address the
question of why it hasn't been cooler over the last 5 years, given all
the pointers towards cold that have been present.
It would also be really nice if Crunchy would comment too, as he
introduced the thread and then ignores questions that come as a result
of it. Instead, he starts yet another thread expecting, nay,
*demanding* full comments - as he did on this one. Well now you've
responded, you've got a *full* comment Crunchy. Now explain those
stats that I've presented you with.
crunch
> On Jan 7, 8:15 pm, Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
> Don't even think about attacking me, for no more reason than you are
> very challenged by those temperature stats. Instead, address the
> question of why it hasn't been cooler over the last 5 years, given all
> the pointers towards cold that have been present.
>
> It would also be really nice if Crunchy would comment too, as he
> introduced the thread and then ignores questions that come as a result
> of it. Instead, he starts yet another thread expecting, nay,
> *demanding* full comments - as he did on this one. Well now you've
> responded, you've got a *full* comment Crunchy. Now explain those
> stats that I've presented you with.
Not until you call me "Mr. Christainsen"; get the point?
(<<Kelly>>)
Dawlish
Don't bother cross posting then.
You can't justify anyone's theories Crunchy until the actual outcome
temperatures back them. They don't; simple as that.
You call yourself "Crunch". I'm just being playful with the Crunchy.
The Ting tings come to mind with you and cloud-cuckoo land is not far
behind for your ideas as a climatologist.
If you don't want difficult-to-answer replies, keep your postings
saying "comment fully" to your quasi-supernatural quaker newsgroups in
the future. OK?
leona...@gmail.com
>
> > On Jan 7, 12:19 pm, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What about my monthly temperature analysis for the last 5 years above?
> > > Or is that a little too difficult for the denialists to find an answer
> > > to.......so it is better swept under the denialist carpet instead?
>
> > • Dawlish, when you relate climate skeptics to
> > Nazi Holocaust Deniers the you label your
> > self Nazi— I hate Nazis
>
> Who did that?
• You did 5 lines above. We all know you are
stupid but why flaunt it.
>You are climate denier, not a holocaust denier.
>
• Dawlish you are both a fascist fool and a liar.
I am a climate skeptic and
> > • Your "monthly temperature analysis for the
> > last 5 years"? It was useless when you began
> > and even worse now.
> > Don't sweep it —
> > shove it where the sun don't shine
>
> Try the analysis yourself. It's perfectly accurate.
• BSI = BSO
> Unfortunately, you
> don't like the results. If the world has stopped warming, why don't
> the monthly temperatures show that its stopped warming? Here's the
> link to the NOAA stats so you can have a go.
>
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php
>
> Don't even think about attacking me, for no more reason than you are
> very challenged by those temperature stats. Instead, address the
> question of why it hasn't been cooler over the last 5 years, given all
> the pointers towards cold that have been present.
>
CLIMATE AND OCEAN SCIENTISTS PUT UNDER NEW SPEECH RESTRAINTS —
Any Scientific Statements “of Official Interest” Must be Pre-Approved
Washington, DC — Federal climate, weather and marine scientists will
be subject to new restrictions as to what they can say to the media or
in public, according to agency documents released today by Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under rules posted
last week, these federal scientists must obtain agency pre-approval to
speak or write, whether on or off-duty, concerning any scientific
topic deemed “of official interest.”
This new order covers the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), which includes the National Weather Service and
the National Marine Fisheries Service. Commerce’s new order will
become effective in 45 days and would repeal a more liberal “open
science” policy adopted by NOAA on February 14, 2006.
Although couched in rhetoric about the need for “broad and open
dissemination of research results [and] open exchange of scientific
ideas,” the new order forbids agency scientists from communicating any
relevant information, even if prepared and delivered on their own time
as private citizens, which has not been approved by the official chain-
of-command:
• Any “fundamental research communication” must “before the
communication occurs” be submitted to and approved by the
designated “head of the operating unit.” While the directive
states
that approval may not be withheld “based on policy, budget,
or
management implications of the research,” it does not define
these
terms and limits any appeal to within Commerce;
• National Weather Service employees are allowed only “as
part of their routine responsibilities to communicate
information
about the weather to the public”; and
• Scientists must give the Commerce Department at least two weeks
“advance notice” of any written, oral or audiovisual
presentation prepared
on their own time if it “is a matter of official interest to
the Department
because it relates to Department programs, policies or
operations.”
“This ridiculous gag order ignores the First Amendment and disrespects
the world-renowned professionals who work within Commerce agencies,”
stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Under this policy, National
Weather Service scientists can only give out name, rank, serial number
and the temperature.”
While claiming to provide clarity, the new Commerce order gives
conflicting directives, on one hand telling scientists that if unsure
whether a conclusion has been officially approved “then the
researcher must make clear that he or she is representing his or her
individual conclusion.” Yet, another part of the order states non-
official communications “may not take place or be prepared during
working
hours.” This conflict means that every scientist who answers an
unexpected question at a conference puts his or her career at risk by
giving an honest answer.
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Dawlish
wrote:
Hmmm Facsist fool and a liar........I didn't read any more. Goodbye.
crunch
Kelly loves to snipe but cannot take a punch.
Dawlish
And you cross-post to include this newsgroup alongside your
supernatural one, but can't reply when someone from this newsgroup
replies to your demand to "comment fully" by commenting and showing
you how *actual* global temperatures contradict what would be expected
by your minority denialist heroes and your own odd beliefs, Crunchy.
Oh sorry, it's not that you can't reply, it's that someone adds a "y"
to your posting name so you won't. My mistake, forgot. *.))
leona...@gmail.com
>
> Hmmm Facsist fool and a liar........I didn't . Goodbye.
• I could have called you Nazi because it fits
Since you did not the rest you might have
found out why you ARE a liar.
Another featue of fascist fools and Dawlish:—
_closed_minds_.
leona...@gmail.com
>
> And you cross-post to include this newsgroup alongside your
> supernatural one, but can't reply when someone from this newsgroup
> replies to your demand to "comment fully" by commenting and showing
> you how *actual* global temperatures contradict what would be expected
> by your minority denialist heroes and your own odd beliefs, Crunchy.
> Oh sorry, it's not that you can't reply, it's that someone adds a "y"
> to your posting name so you won't. My mistake, forgot. *.))
• You should not deign to criticize others when
you do not have you own act together — Fool!!!
Keep on calling others 'denialist' and I will
continue to call you "Nazi" the shoe fits so
so wear it and stop spamming.