|
Post by glennkoks on May 10, 2021 2:57:58 GMT
Copy, Paste and stick everything you can on a jump drive because the newest movement from the AGW crowd is to erase the AMO. "Today, in a research article published in the same journal Science, my colleagues and I have provided what we consider to be the most definitive evidence yet that the AMO doesn’t actually exist." www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/03/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation/Currently even NOAA recognizes the existence of the AMO not only from modern instruments but from paleo-climate proxies and has this to say: Is the AMO a natural phenomenon, or is it related to global warming? Instruments have observed AMO cycles only for the last 150 years, not long enough to conclusively answer this question. However, studies of paleoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium. This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation. In the 20th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain. Now that it is showing signs of flipping from it's warm phase to it's cold phase there will be a huge push to erase it's very existence.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 10, 2021 5:36:36 GMT
Then there will be just one less thing to blame when tropospheric temperature anomalies go negative, That's assuming that the AMO, which has been flatline holding in there beyond where some have thought it should already have dropped. Part of the reason seems that its measure is a latitudinal mix of the gyre and the NAD. The NAD went negative some time back. But the gyre, south of about 45N is holding it up. They are going to be hard pressed to explain the coming/proceeding declines on AGW. They will try of course. But, when coupled with the longer-term temperature declines in ENSO, which appear to be proceeding apace as the cumulative, reduced oceanic heating effects of twin lower solar cycles kick in, their 0.04% solution is looking weaker and weaker. After all, if the 0.04% solution is to bring about catastrophic warming, then surely it can overcome the effects of mere solar cycle changes. The models are undeniably falling ... as is the logic.
The AMO has been around too long probably, to be totally erased. It should really be subdivided into two areas. North of ~45 N and 20 to ~45 N. The difference between the two regions would become more apparent.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 10, 2021 14:25:30 GMT
Then there will be just one less thing to blame when tropospheric temperature anomalies go negative, That's assuming that the AMO, which has been flatline holding in there beyond where some have thought it should already have dropped. Part of the reason seems that its measure is a latitudinal mix of the gyre and the NAD. The NAD went negative some time back. But the gyre, south of about 45N is holding it up. They are going to be hard pressed to explain the coming/proceeding declines on AGW. They will try of course. But, when coupled with the longer-term temperature declines in ENSO, which appear to be proceeding apace as the cumulative, reduced oceanic heating effects of twin lower solar cycles kick in, their 0.04% solution is looking weaker and weaker. After all, if the 0.04% solution is to bring about catastrophic warming, then surely it can overcome the effects of mere solar cycle changes. The models are undeniably falling ... as is the logic. The AMO has been around too long probably, to be totally erased. It should really be subdivided into two areas. North of ~45 N and 20 to ~45 N. The difference between the two regions would become more apparent. The real problem with these 'proxies' based on for example pressure differentials and temperatures is that they are often emergent phenomena. So they themselves depend on some other change(s) to occur before they ' emerge'. This makes it easy for climate 'scientists' to claim that the phenomena are 'not real'. The same climate 'scientists' who happily talk of 'teleconnections' something that happens but they cannot ( be bothered to) find the mechanism. For example La Nina teleconnection to Rain/Snow in North Africa and the Middle East.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 10, 2021 18:55:34 GMT
While some may be giving up on the AMO as a "stand-alone" climate oscillation, it may yet be found to be tied to other oscillations. This chart is a bit messy, but it seems to show a dramatic temperatue "upshift" of about 1C in Jan-Apr. CET temperatures about 1986 ... coinciding with the start of solar cycle 22 and the mid-point of the AMO shift that started during the last solar minimum in the 1970s. One will remember that the Great Pacific Climate Shift occurred in 1976, just at the large increase from SC20 to SC21. The AMO shifted direction at just that time. Coincidence? This 1C higher Jan-April CET temperature plateau has been very consistent over the last 30 years. But note that CET April, 2021 temperature deviations dropped to the lowest levels since 1986. At the start of new solar cycle 25. Can we now expect the AMO to start its downward trend? Ever wonder how fast temperatures can change? Just look at that 1986-1990 shift.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 10, 2021 20:59:00 GMT
Michael Mann. Because the models don't show it, it can't be reality. To describe this another way, because a machine created by man(n), doesn't show something in a virtual calculation, it can't exist in reality. Or, to put it another way, "I reject your reality and substitute it for my own". www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-w
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 10, 2021 21:51:41 GMT
Michael Mann. Because the models don't show it, it can't be reality. To describe this another way, because a machine created by man(n), doesn't show something in a virtual calculation, it can't exist in reality. Or, to put it another way, "I reject your reality and substitute it for my own". www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-wBeyond weird. I was taught that observation and data trump theory and dogma every time. While it is possible that subtle oscilations may be missed and/or exagerated ... but if they exist in the data but not in the models, then the models must be questioned first ... particularly if no documented problems are found with the data. Otherwise you risk being classed as a snakeoil salesman. Regretably, snakeoil is in demand these days. And illusion attracts a crowd. My male dog should have puppies any day ... and I just cannot understand what is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 11, 2021 0:25:14 GMT
Gift suggestion for MM:
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 11, 2021 0:45:57 GMT
Michael Mann. Because the models don't show it, it can't be reality. To describe this another way, because a machine created by man(n), doesn't show something in a virtual calculation, it can't exist in reality. Or, to put it another way, "I reject your reality and substitute it for my own". www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-wBeyond weird. I was taught that observation and data trump theory and dogma every time. While it is possible that subtle oscilations may be missed and/or exagerated ... but if they exist in the data but not in the models, then the models must be questioned first ... particularly if no documented problems are found with the data. Otherwise you risk being classed as a snakeoil salesman. Regretably, snakeoil is in demand these days. And illusion attracts a crowd. My male dog should have puppies any day ... and I just cannot understand what is wrong. The data must be adjusted.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on May 11, 2021 1:08:29 GMT
While some may be giving up on the AMO as a "stand-alone" climate oscillation, it may yet be found to be tied to other oscillations. This chart is a bit messy, but it seems to show a dramatic temperatue "upshift" of about 1C in Jan-Apr. CET temperatures about 1986 ... coinciding with the start of solar cycle 22 and the mid-point of the AMO shift that started during the last solar minimum in the 1970s. One will remember that the Great Pacific Climate Shift occurred in 1976, just at the large increase from SC20 to SC21. The AMO shifted direction at just that time. Coincidence? This 1C higher Jan-April CET temperature plateau has been very consistent over the last 30 years. But note that CET April, 2021 temperature deviations dropped to the lowest levels since 1986. At the start of new solar cycle 25. Can we now expect the AMO to start its downward trend? Ever wonder how fast temperatures can change? Just look at that 1986-1990 shift. I've always referred to the 60-year Ocean Current Cycle. The AMO is a key part but so far this down cycle its not carrying its share of the load while other oscillators are aiding the cooling. Based on history the AMO should go negative in the future. The warmists will regret any claims that the AMO (and 60 year cycle) isn't real. When temperatures stay low over the next several years, they will need an excuse. I made a prediction here several years ago that the warmists would someday after temperatures don't go up as predicted,jump on the 60-year cycle concept and claim that when the upswing begins things will get really bad. They, of course will overstate the warming by a factor of 2 to 4 as they always do.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 11, 2021 2:57:36 GMT
They should become an object of derision as they begin to be viewed as the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Heat! We're all gonna die and it's CO2s fault. Cold! And we're all gonna die and it's CO2s fault. Ya can't fool all of the people all of the time. And their low-attention-span followers are going to fall away. Most people don't pay much attention, but they're not stupid. The more stupid the argument looks, the less likely they are to buy it ... particularly when their gasoline price triples.
Along these lines, the most recent bit of double-speak stupidity I have read was the paper claiming that the Little Ice Age was caused by the regrowth of forests in Eastern North America after the native populations were decimated by European introduced diseases. Yes, new forests took enough CO2 out of the atmosphere to cool the whole Northern Hemisphere by 0.6 to 1 C. But they will continue to try. And the more weird they get, the more stupid they will look.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 11, 2021 20:17:16 GMT
They should become an object of derision as they begin to be viewed as the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Heat! We're all gonna die and it's CO2s fault. Cold! And we're all gonna die and it's CO2s fault. Ya can't fool all of the people all of the time. And their low-attention-span followers are going to fall away. Most people don't pay much attention, but they're not stupid. The more stupid the argument looks, the less likely they are to buy it ... particularly when their gasoline price triples. Along these lines, the most recent bit of double-speak stupidity I have read was the paper claiming that the Little Ice Age was caused by the regrowth of forests in Eastern North America after the native populations were decimated by European introduced diseases. Yes, new forests took enough CO2 out of the atmosphere to cool the whole Northern Hemisphere by 0.6 to 1 C. But they will continue to try. And the more weird they get, the more stupid they will look. Heinrich Heine (1797 - 1856)
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 11, 2021 20:19:59 GMT
Gift suggestion for MM: You missed the blue touch paper at the bottom
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 11, 2021 22:18:30 GMT
Gift suggestion for MM: You missed the blue touch paper at the bottom Liar! Liar! Pants on fire?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 12, 2021 17:13:33 GMT
They should become an object of derision as they begin to be viewed as the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Heat! We're all gonna die and it's CO2s fault. Cold! And we're all gonna die and it's CO2s fault. Ya can't fool all of the people all of the time. And their low-attention-span followers are going to fall away. Most people don't pay much attention, but they're not stupid. The more stupid the argument looks, the less likely they are to buy it ... particularly when their gasoline price triples. Along these lines, the most recent bit of double-speak stupidity I have read was the paper claiming that the Little Ice Age was caused by the regrowth of forests in Eastern North America after the native populations were decimated by European introduced diseases. Yes, new forests took enough CO2 out of the atmosphere to cool the whole Northern Hemisphere by 0.6 to 1 C. But they will continue to try. And the more weird they get, the more stupid they will look. Its not science, they start with an objective then publish to suit.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 12, 2021 17:27:54 GMT
They should become an object of derision as they begin to be viewed as the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Heat! We're all gonna die and it's CO2s fault. Cold! And we're all gonna die and it's CO2s fault. Ya can't fool all of the people all of the time. And their low-attention-span followers are going to fall away. Most people don't pay much attention, but they're not stupid. The more stupid the argument looks, the less likely they are to buy it ... particularly when their gasoline price triples. Along these lines, the most recent bit of double-speak stupidity I have read was the paper claiming that the Little Ice Age was caused by the regrowth of forests in Eastern North America after the native populations were decimated by European introduced diseases. Yes, new forests took enough CO2 out of the atmosphere to cool the whole Northern Hemisphere by 0.6 to 1 C. But they will continue to try. And the more weird they get, the more stupid they will look. Its not science, they start with an objective then publish to suit. Isn't the idea nowadays to first decide the result you need then produce the research to suit?
|
|