Debate among scientists about Global Warming vs Active Cycle

[x-y-no]

I provided the link earlier, but here it is again:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Correlation/amo.sm.data

.

Jan I provided the earlier link to you. So I am assuming that you just glanced over the data and you came to the conclusion that these AMO numbers showed an earlier shift but you did not smooth the data out yourself. Nor did you find a different set of AMO data either . So you made a guestimate.

No ... you gave the link to the unsmoothed data, I gave the link to the smoothed data. I'm not guestimating anything.

NO phases , whether it is the PDO or NAO , ever cosistently stay the same even when they are referred to as decadal trend trends (Like the PDO supposedly turn negative in 98'.)

So I am not sure how you can debate when the AMO flipped by pointing out a minor blip that happened only 25 % of the time between 1990-late 94.

I was offering the smoothed data as evidence that with the noise smooted out, there was a clear positive trend in the AMO well prior to 1995, thus your assertion that the AMO somehow "flipped" abruptly in 1995 is inaccurate. From that, it follows that one cannot simply conclude that the AMO is not the driving force behind large scale circulation changes which might be the cause of the stratospheric changes you discuss.

The current trend is the longest ever according to the data that goes back until 1948 . And it is currently going on a 11 plus year run . So I must admit I am very surprised about your stance on this. It is quite obvious that the AMO trend turned a corner in late 1994.

You keep saying that when the data says otherwise. Maybe this graph I turned up on the web will help:



The AMO data shows something of a sinusoidal form, not a bistable form - and the positive trend started back in the early 80s. I see no abrupt shift in 1994 or 95.

[x-y-no]

How times change in a generation there Tampa. When I was 17 the talk was of an ice age.

On the part of whom? If there were serious belief in the climate science community that an ice age was imminent, you ought to be able to produce at least a few peer-reviewed papers that express that concern. I can produce hundreds of peer-reviewed papers supporting the idea of anthropogenic global warming, so since you are equating the alleged belief in an imminent ice back in the 70's with the present day evidence for global warming, I don't think it's too much to expect that you could produce a handful of peer-rewiewed paper which make that assertion.

But you can't, because they don't exist.

Don't believe me than go read a old issue of Time or News Week.

I bet I can find some old issues of Time and Newsweek which talk about alien abduction, too. That doesn't mean that the scientific community were all "screaming" about alien abduction.

Here's a little clue for you: science is not done in Time and Newsweek. Those are not peer-reviewed journals.

I'm not saying that global warming does not exist. Sure, global warming exists. The earth is warming up and will cool down eventually. What I'm saying is that I don't believe in the human induced global warming.

You're saying a lot more than that. You said "global warming is nothing more than a scare tactic perpetrated on Americans by a bunch of kook environmentalist who have a sympathetic ear in the media." That's a vile slur on thousands of honest and dedicated researchers, and I'm going to continue to challenge you to prove it or retract it.

There have been warm periods followed by cool periods. That is just the nature of the Earth's climate. Why was Greenland warm back when the Vikings lived there a thousand years ago and is mostly ice now? I guess there was global warming back then too......MGC

Nobody disputes the existence of natural climate cycles. But that in no way negates the existence of anthropogenic climate forcing. To say that it does makes about as much sense as claiming that because some forest fires occur naturally, humans cannot cause forest fires.

[cycloneye]

MONTREAL, Quebec (AP) -- U.S. officials told a U.N. conference on climate change that their government was doing more than most to protect the Earth's atmosphere.

In response, leading environmental groups blasted Washington for refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol, a global treaty that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada opened the 10-day U.N. Climate Control Conference on Monday, with about 10,000 experts from 180 nations, to brainstorm on ways to slow the effects of greenhouses gases and global warming. The conference aims to forge new agreements on cutting poisonous emissions, considered by many scientists to be the planet's most pressing environmental issue.

Dr. Harlan L. Watson, senior climate negotiator for the U.S. Department of State, said that while President Bush declined to join the treaty, the U.S. leader takes global warming seriously. He noted greenhouse gas emissions had actually gone down by .8 percent under Bush.

"With regard to what the United States is doing on climate change, the actions we have taken are next to none in the world," Watson told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the conference.

He is leading a delegation of dozens of American officials at the conference and will be joined by U.S. Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky next week, when 120 government ministers arrive for the high-profile final negotiations.

Watson said the United States spends more than US$5 billion (euro4.3 billion) a year on efforts to slow the deterioration of the Earth's atmosphere by supporting climate change research and technology, and that Bush had committed to cutting greenhouses gases 18 percent by 2012.

Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club Canada, however, accused Washington of trying to derail the Kyoto accord.

"We have a lot of positive, constructive American engagement here in Montreal -- and none of it's from the Bush administration, which represents the single biggest threat to global progress," May said, adding that Washington had "continually tried to derail" the Kyoto process.

The United States, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, saying it would harm the U.S. economy and is flawed by the lack of restrictions on emissions by emerging economic powers such as China and India.

In the first ever meeting of all 140 signatories of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Canada's Environment Minister Stephane Dion is juggling the presidency of the 11th U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Control while facing the imminent collapse.


The above is a press release from the conference in Montreal about what this thread theme is about.So Jan,Jim and others inserted in this debate can comment about this conference and if any results one way or another will come out of it.

[sponger]

Jan, you knew i would have to pipe in! Calling global warming researchers honest dedicated people is no better than calling them all kooks. There have been serious issues with SOME global warming research that was embraced by the broader scientific community. The fact is the anti capitalist socialists have taken refuge in the envirionmental movement and have done more to hurt the cause of serious debate than any other group, IMHO.

Furthermore, disregarding or ignoring the ice age debate of the 60's and 70's is like arguing water isnt wet. That was the envirionmental concern of that time.

Jim, good to see you back, I had asked in a previous thread about solar output over the last 30 years or however far back reliable records go. Is their a correlation between output and avg temps?

[x-y-no]

Jan, you knew i would have to pipe in! Calling global warming researchers honest dedicated people is no better than calling them all kooks.

I said "the vast majority." Scientists are human, so of course there are some small fraction of flakes and even frauds in any field. But the peer-review process is quite good at weeding that out over any extended period of time. MGC is making a far stronger claim, that anthropogenic global warming is a fraud - and for that to be true would require the participation of practically all climate scientists in that fraud. I have known many, many climate scientists through the years and not one of them was any less than honest and dedicated. I'm not going to allow this slur on them to go unchallenged.

There have been serious issues with SOME global warming researh that was embraced by the broader scientific community.

And guess what? Those problems were caught by the very process which MGC is claiming is fraudulent.

The fact is the anti capitalist socialists have taken refuge in the envirionmental movement and have done more to hurt the cause of serious debate than any other group, IMHO.

If you are going to claim that the entire field of climate science, including thousands of researchers are somehow controlled by "anti capitalist socialists" and are therefore cooperating in falsifying all their evidence to perpetrate this fraud, then you'd better have some really strong evidence.

Furthermore, disregarding or ignoring the ice age debate of the 60's and 70's is like arguing water isnt wet. That was the envirionmental concern of that time.

If it were truly the case that there was serious scientific concern about this possibility, then you should have no problem whatsoever producing some peer-reviewed research which expressed such concern. Come on, now ... it really shouldn't be that hard if there really is anything at all to the claim ... pony up, please.

But you see, you won't be able to do that, because it doesn't exist. So claiming that there's even the remotest equivalence between any speculation of that sort back then with the massive scientific basis for anthropogenic global warming today is quite simply a lie.

[Jim Hughes]

I provided the link earlier, but here it is again:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Correlation/amo.sm.data

.

Jan I provided the earlier link to you. So I am assuming that you just glanced over the data and you came to the conclusion that these AMO numbers showed an earlier shift but you did not smooth the data out yourself. Nor did you find a different set of AMO data either . So you made a guestimate.

No ... you gave the link to the unsmoothed data, I gave the link to the smoothed data. I'm not guestimating anything.

NO phases , whether it is the PDO or NAO , ever cosistently stay the same even when they are referred to as decadal trend trends (Like the PDO supposedly turn negative in 98'.)

So I am not sure how you can debate when the AMO flipped by pointing out a minor blip that happened only 25 % of the time between 1990-late 94.

I was offering the smoothed data as evidence that with the noise smooted out, there was a clear positive trend in the AMO well prior to 1995, thus your assertion that the AMO somehow "flipped" abruptly in 1995 is inaccurate. From that, it follows that one cannot simply conclude that the AMO is not the driving force behind large scale circulation changes which might be the cause of the stratospheric changes you discuss.

The current trend is the longest ever according to the data that goes back until 1948 . And it is currently going on a 11 plus year run . So I must admit I am very surprised about your stance on this. It is quite obvious that the AMO trend turned a corner in late 1994.

You keep saying that when the data says otherwise. Maybe this graph I turned up on the web will help:



The AMO data shows something of a sinusoidal form, not a bistable form - and the positive trend started back in the early 80s. I see no abrupt shift in 1994 or 95.

I was reading something yesterday and I forget where it was but I will try and find it. Anyway I am _Sort Of Paraphrasing_ what Chris Landsea said about the AMO/Atlantic activity in an article.

"It's Not like there is any in between phase or warning.. The activity just automatically starts to immediately increase."


Okay so you want to disregard the stratosphere temperature effects upon the AMO even though it has been shown that the phases of AO , NAO and several others are effected by this. If you consider how everything seems to work it fits together.

But it seems that certain people are not interested in learning how to forecast long term trends better but they want to argue about the smaller less important details about when such and such started.

Like I mentioned to DonalSoutherland over in the Winter Weather Forum earlier this morning. What I wrote about in my discussion has been occurring again during the past couple of weeks.


Warming of the 30 hPa stratosphere 65-90N = cold weather for the east and a negative SOI trend.


Cooling of the stratosphere = warm weather for the east and Positive SOI trend.

Now I have no idea about how the AMO data was smoothed but if you are going to use smoothed data for the AMO then you must smooth the data for the stratosphere as well. You can not bring in smoothed data into a debate to shoot down non smoothed data if the other data might show the same relationship if it was also smoothed.


( A cooling trend was starting to take hold around 1986 -89 only to be interrupted around by solar maximum and then by the warming caused by Mount Pinatubo. )

You know Jan this is why I tend to stay away from debates in forums like this. This comment has nothing to do with what I believe or you believe or proper methodology. Or not being able to take what you bring to the table. This is about precious time and trying to accomplish something.

You are arguing with me about something that has appeared in print before in science journals. Hell even Max Mayfield has said similar things about how the tropics became much more active since 1995 and he's the head honcho. So to say that I am stretching the truth or bringing out smoothed AMO data to say that I am wrong about 1995 is absolutely ridiculous.

Now I have no idea about your training in the meteorological/climate field but I have openly talked about mine before. (Self taught and proud of it.)

So lets just say that the tropical storms, hurricanes, and Majors started to increase at almost the exact same time that the stratosphere started cooling. If you think that this comment is wrong also then I stop here with you on this discussion.

Even this morning you surprise me with your comments about the new AMO graph you are showing. I can not even believe that you are actually saying that a positive AMO trend was starting to occur in the early 80's, just because this is when the negative peak was reached.

I guess the ice age ended , well before the ice melted, just because a warming trend started to occur , after the coldest temperatures were reached?

I am sorry Jan but you are acting like a trial lawyer here and twisting the facts to meet your own criteria.

Why did Dr Gray wait until much later to actually forecast the considerable tropical increase, if the early 1980's was when the AMO was starting to change to positive ? It was obvious to him then, and to everyone else now, that it had not changed at all. That is why he waited until the mid 90's and this is why we are currently seeing what we are seeing.


Jim

[terstorm1012]

I dunno Jim, I really agree with both you and X-Y-No! There's something that tells me that you're both on the same page and just not seeing it.

Is it possible, since greenhouse emissions keep solar energy from escaping back into space, that increased solar energy could aid an accelerated global warming (caused by 6billion+ humans and their industry)?

I really think that there is, and you've both presented data that proves this to me.

One last thing---Jim---Pinatubo Eruption caused cooling not warming as i recall.... The summer that followed it was the chilliest in decades. I remember it as the one summer we didn't go to the pool at all because it was too cold. It also was, incindentially, the summer of Andrew. I could be wrong though.

[sponger]

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html


Good site for some balance to the debate

[Jim Hughes]

Jan, you knew i would have to pipe in! Calling global warming researchers honest dedicated people is no better than calling them all kooks. There have been serious issues with SOME global warming research that was embraced by the broader scientific community. The fact is the anti capitalist socialists have taken refuge in the envirionmental movement and have done more to hurt the cause of serious debate than any other group, IMHO.

Furthermore, disregarding or ignoring the ice age debate of the 60's and 70's is like arguing water isnt wet. That was the envirionmental concern of that time.

Jim, good to see you back, I had asked in a previous thread about solar output over the last 30 years or however far back reliable records go. Is their a correlation between output and avg temps?

Well there has been a sharp space weather increase since the mid 50's compared to the prior 100 years but I really never intended to get into a GW debate in this discussion. I thought this was about why the tropics have gotten active.


But I have said within this forum before that I stand in the middle of the debate or very slightly tilted towards the space weather connection. But I am continually trying to understand the space weather connection to weather/climate trends.

I can assure you that this is more then what the majority of the meteorology/climate establishment has been doing. I am always talking to someone within the weather/climate field at one time or another and their lack of space weather knowledge just shows me how little this field has been investigated and the amount of research dollars into this research has been pathetic.

Think about this for a second. How in the heck can a self taught layman be ahead of many parts of the science community ? I am one person , with one computer , and this is a part time interest , and I have spoken about things _before_ they have appeared in science journals? I am sorry but the science community should be embarrassed by this.



Jim

[x-y-no]

I was reading something yesterday and I forget where it was but I will try and find it. Anyway I am _Sort Of Paraphrasing_ what Chris Landsea said about the AMO/Atlantic activity in an article.

"It's Not like there is any in between phase or warning.. The activity just automatically starts to immediately increase."

If he said something like that about Atlantic storm activity, I have no dispute. Our dicussion was about the AMO, not storm activity.

Okay so you want to disregard the stratosphere temperature effects upon the AMO even though it has been shown that the phases of AO , NAO and several others are effected by this. If you consider how everything seems to work it fits together.

I'm not disregarding anything. I'm questioning the claimed causality. I think it's far more reasonable to think that the oceans, with their many orders of magnitude higher energy capacity, are driving these atmospheric phenomena rather than the other way round.

But it seems that certain people are not interested in learning how to forecast long term trends better but they want to argue about the smaller less important details about when such and such started.

I don't think that's fair at all. Because I'm questioning your reasoning I'm automatically not interested in forecasting long term trends? That's nonsense.


...

You are arguing with me about something that has appeared in print before in science journals. Hell even Max Mayfield has said similar things about how the tropics became much more active since 1995 and he's the head honcho. So to say that I am stretching the truth or bringing out smoothed AMO data to say that I am wrong about 1995 is absolutely ridiculous.

Now I have no idea about your training in the meteorological/climate field but I have openly talked about mine before. (Self taught and proud of it.)

So lets just say that the tropical storms, hurricanes, and Majors started to increase at almost the exact same time that the stratosphere started cooling. If you think that this comment is wrong also then I stop here with you on this discussion.

Even this morning you surprise me with your comments about the new AMO graph you are showing. I can not even believe that you are actually saying that a positive AMO trend was starting to occur in the early 80's, just because this is when the negative peak was reached.

I guess the ice age ended , well before the ice melted, just because a warming trend started to occur , after the coldest temperatures were reached?

I am sorry Jan but you are acting like a trial lawyer here and twisting the facts to meet your own criteria.

You keep conflating storm activity with the AMO.

I think we agree that Atlantic storm activity is in large part driven by the AMO, but my point is simply that this does not mean that there was an abrupt shift in the AMO at the same time as there was an abrupt increase in storm activity in 1995. The data says otherwise - with the AMO having more gradually increasing over quite some time prior to the increase in storm activity.

Now I understood you to be arguing that the changes in stratospheric conditions reflected some phenomenon which drives the AMO (and hence indirectly Atlantic storm activity). You supported this argument, as I undersood you, by pointing out that the changes in stratospheric conditions led the abrupt change in storm activity. But this ignores the fact that the AMO had been trending towards positive for years prior to the abrupt increase in storm activity. It still seems more reasonable to me to think that the cause of the AMO is (as has long been hypothesized) variation in the THC driven by salinity, and that the resultant change in SSTs drives the large scale atmospheric circulation in such a way as to cause the changes in stratospheric conditions you describe.

Why did Dr Gray wait until much later to actually forecast the considerable tropical increase, if the early 1980's was when the AMO was starting to change to positive ? It was obvious to him then, and to everyone else now, that it had not changed at all. That is why he waited until the mid 90's and this is why we are currently seeing what we are seeing.


Jim

My recollection is that Dr. Gray was predicting the current high activity phase as long ago as the late '70s.

[Jim Hughes]

I dunno Jim, I really agree with both you and X-Y-No! There's something that tells me that you're both on the same page and just not seeing it.

Is it possible, since greenhouse emissions keep solar energy from escaping back into space, that increased solar energy could aid an accelerated global warming (caused by 6billion+ humans and their industry)?

I really think that there is, and you've both presented data that proves this to me.

One last thing---Jim---Pinatubo Eruption caused cooling not warming as i recall.... The summer that followed it was the chilliest in decades. I remember it as the one summer we didn't go to the pool at all because it was too cold. It also was, incidentally, the summer of Andrew. I could be wrong though.

terstorm1012,


If you go back over my earlier comments in this thread or some of my other past comments in one of my AMO discussion you will see that I have said that the global warmers' can make a strong case about global warming by way of it effecting ozone levels. (Thinning it )

So I have no problem with that stance. Although then we need to look at what caused some earlier warming trends and why did that ozone deplete then because they seem to go hand and hand.

Your right Pinatubo did cause a cooling effect down below but it caused a warming trend in the lower stratosphere just like all major volcanic eruptions. So here we go again.

We have always thought that this cooling was only caused by the blocking of the sunlight. But could this also be related to the warming of the stratosphere, which then changes the teleconnection feedbacks, which then causes a cooling in the lower troposphere ?

This is exactly what changes in the ozone levels do. They cause temperatuee gradients in the stratosphere and this has an effect upon the troposhere by way of atmospheric and oceanic teleconnection feedbacks.


Jim

[x-y-no]

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html


Good site for some balance to the debate

I'm still waiting for you to provide some citations to peer-reviewed papers from the '70s which suggested we were facing an imminent ice age. It really shouldn't be hard if there's anything to the claim at all ... so pony up, please.

Offering a link to a site which is just a laundry-list of the same old falsified and/or misleading claims doesn't cut it.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

I wonder if hot towers in the eyewall of storms could be enhanced by greater oceanic heat contents...if such an increase in oceanic heat
content were to theoretically take place...

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Excellent article with arguments on manifold sides of this
multifaceted debate:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/11/29/h ... index.html

[Jim Hughes]

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html


Good site for some balance to the debate

I'm still waiting for you to provide some citations to peer-reviewed papers from the '70s which suggested we were facing an imminent ice age. It really shouldn't be hard if there's anything to the claim at all ... so pony up, please.

Offering a link to a site which is just a laundry-list of the same old falsified and/or misleading claims doesn't cut it.

I remember very well how the news media/newspaper inustry was talking about it back in the 1970's. Especially after those harsh winters in 76-78.

But that is different from what you want. It would be hard to dig up a 30-40 year old research paper on the internet.

I think Lamb and Eddy were two people who may have tried to say that one might be developing. But I say this cautiously since I am not 100 % sure.

This also does also not mean the majority believed this. But nobody was running around back then screaming about global warming either.


Jim

[Jim Hughes]

My recollection is that Dr. Gray was predicting the current high activity phase as long ago as the late '70s.

I believe your recollection is correct but he did not put his money where his mouth was until the mid 90's. This was when the AMO had actually turned both predominantly and continually positive.

So Gray sitting on his trigger finger for that length of time even shows how unconvinced he must have been. So the minor blips that the smoothed data show were just that. Minor and meaningless in the whole scheme of things.


Jim

[sponger]

If you would read the material with an open mind, instead of out right dismissing evidence contrary to your firm held beliefs.

My favorite from this link is

In the 1970's concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.

For those of you who do not know Steve, He is a Climatolgist and green house expert from Stanford. Good ole Steve started his career stating that man made pollution was blocking out the Sun and would lead to the next ice age. National Geographic, Time and Science Magazine all ran similar articles.

So he has changed his mind because the data changed. Lets see what this scientist thinks about solid research...


Taken from Global Politics, Political Warming
by Doug Bandow
Copyright 1997 News World Communications Inc.

Unfortunately, the debate has become highly political. Stephen Schneider, who once warned of a new ice age, has complained that "it is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides." Despite being a scientist, he admitted: "I don't set very much store by looking at the direct evidence." Why not? "To avert the risk we need to get some broad-based support, to capture public imagination. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make some simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have' " So much for genuine scientific discourse. Explained Mr. Schneider: "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest' "

He's not interested in direct evidence, presumably because, as even the Sierra Club's Bruce Hamilton acknowledges, "If you look at the science, it's all over the map." Past polls have found that most climatologists do not believe human-induced warming has occurred. Activists cite the latest report of the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but lead author Benjamin Sanger complains that "it's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the chapter." He cites the report's many caveats: "We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue was a done deal."


Wow! Talk about agenda before science!

[x-y-no]

If you would read the material with an open mind, instead of out right dismissing evidence contrary to your firm held beliefs.

I looked through the whole page, and there wasn't anything there I haven't seen and examined with an open mind long ago. As I said, it's a laundry-list of falsified and misleading claims.

My favorite from this link is

In the 1970's concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.

I recall Schneider as doing some popularized writing about the general possibilty of rapid climate change. It's certainly possible that in that context he speculated about the possibility of unrestrained particulate emissions leading to cooling, but that's a very different thing from the huge body of peer-reviewed research which exists today in support of AGW.

I have repeatedly asked for some evidence that the notion of an imminent ice age was receiving any serious scientific consideration comparable to that which AGW does today. If it were, there would be a significant body of peer-reviewed research on the topic from that time. Even if the papers themselves are not available online, references to them surely would be.

But you can't do that, because they don't exist. Just admit it already - you're dead wrong about this. No shame in being wrong now and then - the only shame is in continuing to insist on a falsehood after you've learned better.

[x-y-no]

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html


Good site for some balance to the debate

I'm still waiting for you to provide some citations to peer-reviewed papers from the '70s which suggested we were facing an imminent ice age. It really shouldn't be hard if there's anything to the claim at all ... so pony up, please.

Offering a link to a site which is just a laundry-list of the same old falsified and/or misleading claims doesn't cut it.

I remember very well how the news media/newspaper inustry was talking about it back in the 1970's. Especially after those harsh winters in 76-78.

Even it that's true - newspapers are not peer-reviewed journals. I recall the news media writing a bunch of nonsense about the Bermuda Triangle back then too, but that doesn't mean the scientific community took the idea seriously.

But that is different from what you want. It would be hard to dig up a 30-40 year old research paper on the internet.

I don't insist on having the papers themselves. Citations will do. If it truly were such a prevalent idea in climate science as these AGW skeptics are claiming, there really ought to be hundreds of papers out there, but I'll settle for a handful.

I think Lamb and Eddy were two people who may have tried to say that one might be developing. But I say this cautiously since I am not 100 % sure.

This also does also not mean the majority believed this. But nobody was running around back then screaming about global warming either.


Jim

Of course not ... the idea of global warming was very new at that time, and it took a couple of decades of serious research for it to get to the level of confidence we've reached now. Seems to me that fact supports my view of this issue rather than this claim that it's all a fraud.

[Jim Hughes]

[img] http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/teled ... series.gif


I have hopefully added the image to this discussion . If not the URL is at the end of this thread.

I was going to wait on this for another discussion but I seemed to have gotten pulled into this debate so I will give a few more hours of my time to it today.

This is a time series of the 3 month running mean index of the Northern Hemisphere's Polar Eurasian teleconnection. This is an indice that shows the overall strength of the circumpolar circulation and the polar vortex.

Now in my previous Stratosphere/AMO discussion I touched base on many space weather subject matters. I briefly touched base on the importance of different things in reference to many different weather/climate patterns.

I talked about the approximate 11 and 22 year solar cycle and how the magnetic polarity of the sun's poles (Which effects the different components of the interplanetary magnetic field) can have an effect upon the cyclical nature of the phases of different atmospheric and oceanic teleconnections.

In other words, variable "A" may cause a teleconnection to have a negative phase during this solar cycle but it can cause a positive phase in the next solar cycle. One could speculate about how the different magnetic field vectors in each cycle interact with the earth's electrical environment by way of how the GCR's (Galactic Cosmic Rays) reach the earths environment.

The table shows the Polar Eurasian anomalies since 1950. If you consider when solar minimum is, and you understand what happens as the solar cycle cranks up , you can possibly understand what is occurring.

The level of GCR's starts to rapidly decrease a couple of years after the cycle starts up because the increased solar eruptions cause a forbush decrease here on earth. This means that the earth is on the receiving end of less cosmic radiation now. (GCR's are very strong energetic particles.)

If you go to the Oulu neutron monitor website you can see by adding the dates to the graph of how and when the changes occur. The current sunspot cycle, Cycle 23 , started in May 1996.

http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/

Just start it there and end it now. You can either download a graph or hard data. It's up to you. You will see that in the spring of 1998 (Which is when the La Nina formed, no coincidence) a strong decrease started to occur.

Now take a look at the Polar Eurasian Graph. This was when the anomalies started to consistently turn negative.

If you look back to the previous cycle, Cycle 22, ( 9/86 -5/96 ) you Will see that the negative GCR decrease occurred around 1988. (La Nina developed again...see a pattern? )

Let's take look at the graph again and see what happened in 1988. Wow ! A positive trend develops because the relationship has flipped flopped.

Go back another cycle ( 76-86) and you seem the same thing. A negative trend develops in 1978.

In 1966 we see saw the positive trend develop and we saw a negative trend develop in 1956.


So it is best to delay the solar minimum year by two years to see the effect.

1956-66 (Negative)

1966-78 (Positive)

1978-88 (Negative)

1988 -98 (Positive)

1998-??? (Negative)


http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/teled ... series.gif



Am I the only one seeing this pattern ?




Jim[/img]