PDO explains GW revisited

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

PDO explains GW revisited

Postby seedload » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:24 pm

Assume the following:

1) There was a Little Ice Age.
2) A linear recovery since the Little Ice Age of 0.5 degree C per century.
3) A multi-decadal Oscillation of global temperature (the PDO).

Add it all together.

What do you get?

The observed temperature record.

Image

Notice the little green arrow. This is where we are vs the IPCC predictions.

Sorta explains everything doesn't it.

Further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syun-Ichi_Akasofu
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/recovery_little_ice_age.pdf

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Postby IntLibber » Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:53 am

ENSO is a bit more accurate in matching the temp changes. ENSO is primarily driven by the irradiation/insolation/albedo of the western pacific. This is impacted by Chinese coal plant aerosols and particulates, dust blown out of the aussie outback, as well as solar cycle related variations in galactic cosmic rays that are a significant impact on cloud formation.

icarus
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Postby icarus » Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:34 am

If your plotted prediction holds up the anthropogenic global warming theory should be thoroughly discredited sometime before 2020. Those tenured climate scientists who have shovelled up all this politicised crap had better make sure their pensions are safe, from legal action too I might add.

Torulf2
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Postby Torulf2 » Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:44 pm

It’s always a way to fit data to some curves.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Postby seedload » Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:30 pm

Torulf2 wrote:It’s always a way to fit data to some curves.


It is harder to fit data to a curve doing something simple than doing something complex. Look at the difference.

1) Take the temperature record. Subtract the oscillation. Arrive at linear warming that started well before there was extra CO2.

2) Start with a theory that CO2 causes warming. Go to the temperature record. Lop off part of it. Ignor the fact that the first part of the remaining record shows warming without extra CO2. Explain why the middle part of the record shows cooling by coming up with another man made cause - basically soot. Explain late record warming as definitively and unanamously caused by CO2. Resort to the PDO to explain recent flattening of warming. Create a computer model using some assumptiions that amplify the CO2 warming. Make sure the computer model fits the late century warming. Claim that the computer model proves disaster is on its way.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Postby seedload » Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:52 pm

icarus wrote:If your plotted prediction holds up the anthropogenic global warming theory should be thoroughly discredited sometime before 2020. Those tenured climate scientists who have shovelled up all this politicised crap had better make sure their pensions are safe, from legal action too I might add.


I wish it were my thought or my picture. Please follow the links at the bottom of my original post. This is the work of a serious man looking at a serious issue who has come up with a very simple and very reasonable way to explain our warming trend. In the PDF he backs it up - again keeping it simple. There is an elegance to this that I appreciate.

Agreed that if his ideas hold up, we will know soon. Unfortunately, cap and trade will have already done its damage.

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Postby IntLibber » Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:26 pm

icarus wrote:If your plotted prediction holds up the anthropogenic global warming theory should be thoroughly discredited sometime before 2020. Those tenured climate scientists who have shovelled up all this politicised crap had better make sure their pensions are safe, from legal action too I might add.


Why do you think they are trying to shove something down our throats by govt fiat now? So when the cooling of the PDO/ENSO happens, they can take credit and say "we were right", then when it starts warming again, they'll say, "We need even more effort, taxation, restrictions, caveman living".

Like gun control advocates it is impossible to confuse them with the facts, their minds are made up and they have an agenda.

TallDave
Posts: 3113
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:46 pm

seedload wrote:2) Start with a theory that CO2 causes warming. Go to the temperature record. Lop off part of it. Ignor the fact that the first part of the remaining record shows warming without extra CO2. Explain why the middle part of the record shows cooling by coming up with another man made cause - basically soot. Explain late record warming as definitively and unanamously caused by CO2. Resort to the PDO to explain recent flattening of warming. Create a computer model using some assumptiions that amplify the CO2 warming. Make sure the computer model fits the late century warming. Claim that the computer model proves disaster is on its way.


Heh. Very nicely summed up.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Postby Helius » Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:52 am

IntLibber wrote:
icarus wrote:If your plotted prediction holds up the anthropogenic global warming theory should be thoroughly discredited sometime before 2020. Those tenured climate scientists who have shovelled up all this politicised crap had better make sure their pensions are safe, from legal action too I might add.
...
Why do you think they are trying to shove something down our throats by govt fiat now? ...


There will be a *huge* influx of revenue when they sell the initial trade shares. Big coal doesn't mind Cap and trade either. They were threatened by the IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) and had their congressional lackeys kill it in 1994. I'm convinced the IFR would have taken a huge chunk out of the coal market for electrical generation, and would have lead a surge in relatively inexpensive electrical generation. Big Coal doesn't fear Cap and trade, and they don't much mind Wind or Solar either. We're going to get lots of all four. My advice? Buy a woodlot.

Cap and trade: Well, so much for the "bottom up" approach we've heard so much about last fall.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests