Debate among scientists about Global Warming vs Active Cycle

[x-y-no]

I have heard many people within the field say almost those exact same words. (Abrupt change)

Abrupt change in what? Storm activity? The AMO?

Come on your fair person Jan. I know you had to have heard that 1995 was when the switched basically got turned on.

The hard numbers for the AMO are listed below at this URL.

Not one negative monthly value has occurred since October 1994. These numbers speak for themselves as to what has occurred with the AMO since 10/94.


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


Jim

Look at the smoothed numbers and you'll see a trend which had been ongoing for some time.

We know we're near the positive peak, so the fact that the index has been consistantly higher than the long-term average isn't surprising, nor do I see that there's something magical about a positive index in terms of whether the physical phenomenon we're talking about could be driving large-scale circulation (including the stratosphere).

[P.K.]

My primary argument against man made global warming is the 1930's. I challenge any of you to go back to the record books of the 1930's. Notice that the majority of record highs set back during that period.

There was indeed a significant warming trend in North America in the 1930s, but that trend was not global. See, for instance, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/200 ... uedyS.html

I've had a quick look at the CET (Central England Temperature series which goes back to 1659) and the warmest years on record are (Warmest first) 1990, 1999, 1949, 2002, 1997, 1995, 2004, 1989, 2003, 1959, 1733, 1834, 1921, 1779, 1868, 2000, 1945, 1994, 1781, 1938.......

By the way we were told last week it is looking likely that the mean global temperature for this year will be very high and could even be the warmest year on record.

[P.K.]

Just for comparison to temperatures over there I have quickly plotted the CET figures in R.

[Jim Hughes]

I have heard many people within the field say almost those exact same words. (Abrupt change)

Abrupt change in what? Storm activity? The AMO?

Come on your fair person Jan. I know you had to have heard that 1995 was when the switched basically got turned on.

The hard numbers for the AMO are listed below at this URL.

Not one negative monthly value has occurred since October 1994. These numbers speak for themselves as to what has occurred with the AMO since 10/94.


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


Jim

Look at the smoothed numbers and you'll see a trend which had been ongoing for some time.

We know we're near the positive peak, so the fact that the index has been consistantly higher than the long-term average isn't surprising, nor do I see that there's something magical about a positive index in terms of whether the physical phenomenon we're talking about could be driving large-scale circulation (including the stratosphere).

Sorry Jan I am not going to debate with anyone about what time the AMO switched, or it's smoothed averaged, or when storm intensity started to increase. This would be a waste of time and I am honestly surprised that we even got to this point.

Gray and his team opened up, at the top of the page, of their 2004 extended forecast with these exact words.

" The recent upturn in Atlantic basin hurricane activity which began in 1995"

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/fo ... 04/aug2004



Look there are plenty of people out there who are saying that global warming is causing this increase. You can argue about the ozone relationship and have a case with global warming but like I said I have left out two other variables that seem to put some other pieces together here. So one could make a strong case about the cyclical nature of this.


Jim

[x-y-no]

Sorry Jan I am not going to debate with anyone about what time the AMO switched, or it's smoothed averaged, or when storm intensity started to increase. This would be a waste of time and I am honestly surprised that we even got to this point.

Gray and his team opened up, at the top of the page, of their 2004 extended forecast with these exact words.


" The recent upturn in hurricane activity which began in 1995"

Yes, exactly: " The recent upturn in hurricane activity which began in 1995".

So what's the problem? The AMO had been trending upward for some time and the smoothed data went positive in 1990. Hurricane activity went into an intense phase beginning in 1995. The latter is thought to have been driven by the former. I'm pretty sure that's what I've been saying.

Look there are plenty of people out there who are saying that global warming is causing this increase. You can argue about the ozone relationship and have a case with global warming but like I said I have left out two other variables that seem to put some other pieces together here. So one could make a strong case about the cyclical nature of this.


Jim

Look, all I'm saying is that I think the causality is quite likely the other way 'round. The bulk of atmospheric ozone is generated at high altitude in the tropics and is transported poleward (eventually sinking) by large-scale circulation. It seems likely to me that if there is a correlation between the AMO and stratospheric ozone concentrations, it's reasonable to think that the oceans with their far higher heat capacity are the driving force rather than the other way around.

That said, I'm willing to think about it further when I have some more time.

[Jim Hughes]

Sorry Jan I am not going to debate with anyone about what time the AMO switched, or it's smoothed averaged, or when storm intensity started to increase. This would be a waste of time and I am honestly surprised that we even got to this point.

Gray and his team opened up, at the top of the page, of their 2004 extended forecast with these exact words.


" The recent upturn in hurricane activity which began in 1995"

Yes, exactly: " The recent upturn in hurricane activity which began in 1995".

So what's the problem? The AMO had been trending upward for some time and the smoothed data went positive in 1990. Hurricane activity went into an intense phase beginning in 1995. The latter is thought to have been driven by the former. I'm pretty sure that's what I've been saying.

Look there are plenty of people out there who are saying that global warming is causing this increase. You can argue about the ozone relationship and have a case with global warming but like I said I have left out two other variables that seem to put some other pieces together here. So one could make a strong case about the cyclical nature of this.


Jim

Look, all I'm saying is that I think the causality is quite likely the other way 'round. The bulk of atmospheric ozone is generated at high altitude in the tropics and is transported poleward (eventually sinking) by large-scale circulation. It seems likely to me that if there is a correlation between the AMO and stratospheric ozone concentrations, it's reasonable to think that the oceans with their far higher heat capacity are the driving force rather than the other way around.

That said, I'm willing to think about it further when I have some more time.

I can wait for your response but I have never been somebody who sits back and waits to long when I feel like certain things need to be looked at closer. My orginal discussion thread about the stratosphere/AMO has been dead so I decided to pick up the phone and make a call to the tropical expert's.

I have no problem doing this since I really do not get intimidated by either celebrities or the experts within certain science fields. They breathe air just like you and I.

What's this got to do with what we have been talking about? Well I just called out to CSU around an hour ago, in between our exchanges, and I talked to Phil Klotzbach. I had talked to him previously on another ocassion around 5-6 months back and I had also e-mailed him some older e-mail discussion material after our first talk.

We only talked for about 5 minutes or so but I thought it was courteous of him to take my call.

His voice was rather scratchy because he has a cold but he either said that he has been trying to follow my older e-mail discussion data more closely (Space weather) or that he was following certain things that I had previosuly written about within this forum. (I sent him forum URL discussions)

He told me to send him the URL of my new discussion in regards to the Stratosphere & and the AMO. I know he is very busy with their upcoming 2006 forecast coming out so I do not expect to hear back from him any time soon. But he did say that he would eventually get back to me.

So I look foward to hearing back from them if they ever look over what I am talking about. I will let them decide about the possible influence.


Jim

[MGC]

A vile slur? Nope, I just happen to hold an opinion shared by millions of intelligent Americans whom don't believe the propaganda. As I recall, many of these same researchers were screaming ice-age back in the 60's and 70's because of the cold. Face it, there is little credibility in the radical environmental crowd whom attempt to scare people with these crazy doomsday prophecies.......MGC

[x-y-no]

A vile slur? Nope, I just happen to hold an opinion shared by millions of intelligent Americans whom don't believe the propaganda.

Yes, saying that "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" is indeed a vile slur on the the many dedicated and honest researchers in the field. You are accusing these honest people of being liars, of participating in an enormous fraud. I'm not just going to let that pass unchallenged.

As I recall, many of these same researchers were screaming ice-age back in the 60's and 70's because of the cold.

That's quite simply false. You won't be able to find any documentation of this claim in the scientific literature because it doesn't exist. A few people like Chrichton and George Will have attempted to back this claim up with some selected quotes, but those quotes were lifted badly out of context.

Face it, there is little credibility in the radical environmental crowd whom attempt to scare people with these crazy doomsday prophecies.......MGC

What the heck does the "radical environmental crowd" have to do with anything? We're talking about a huge preponderance of peer-reviewed scientific research here.

[Jim Hughes]

So what's the problem? The AMO had been trending upward for some time and the smoothed data went positive in 1990. Hurricane activity went into an intense phase beginning in 1995. The latter is thought to have been driven by the former. I'm pretty sure that's what I've been saying.

I am curious what kind of smoothed data are you exactly referring to here? Time wise. Is this something you came up with real quick or is there some hard data at a website?


The AMO is supposed to have turned negative in 1971. One can see that it also had some early monthly negative trends in the early to mid 60's but they were inconsistent just like the positive trends in the late 80's-early 90's.

Jim

[MGC]

I do believe that man made global warming is a fraud. Many Americans do. I've looked at the historical record and am convinced that this warm phase is just that. Eventually the pendulum will swing back to the cold side it is just a matter of time. Only God knows when it will happen. Perhaps a severe cold period like the one that triggered the dark ages will happen? I wonder if the Vikings would buy into these theories while Greenland froze over?........MGC

[x-y-no]

So what's the problem? The AMO had been trending upward for some time and the smoothed data went positive in 1990. Hurricane activity went into an intense phase beginning in 1995. The latter is thought to have been driven by the former. I'm pretty sure that's what I've been saying.

I am curious what kind of smoothed data are you exactly referring to here? Time wise. Is this something you came up with real quick or is there some hard data at a website?

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

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

The AMO is supposed to have turned negative in 1971. One can see that it also had some early monthly negative trends in the early to mid 60's but they were inconsistent just like the positive trends in the late 80's-early 90's.

Jim

My point is that the AMO did not abruptly switch from one stable binary mode to another in 1995, but rather had been trending back upwards for some time. Thus it is not at all clear to me that the changes in upper-stratosphere conditions you are describing predate any related change in the AMO.

[x-y-no]

I do believe that man made global warming is a fraud. Many Americans do.

So you freely accuse thousands of dedicated and honest scientists of being liars participating in a massive fraud, but you won't even defend your own false claim that "those same researchers" were saying we were headed into in ice age back in the '60s and '70s or admit you were wrong about that.

I have an opinion of such behavior, but I won't state it lest I get myself suspended.

[cycloneye]

I have an opinion of such behavior, but I won't state it lest I get myself suspended.

No Jan please dont do it.

I am delighted that this debate at this thread is going on smoothly with the in favor or not being said but with respect.Let's continue to do it this way and all will benefit one way or another on both sides and the members who dont know much about this hot theme also can benefit learning in the proccess about all of this.

[caribepr]

I do believe that man made global warming is a fraud. Many Americans do. I've looked at the historical record and am convinced that this warm phase is just that. Eventually the pendulum will swing back to the cold side it is just a matter of time. Only God knows when it will happen. Perhaps a severe cold period like the one that triggered the dark ages will happen? I wonder if the Vikings would buy into these theories while Greenland froze over?........MGC

Are you saying this in reference to the upswing in the hurricane cycle or just generally, that the concept of global warming is in itself fraudulant? To back yourself up saying "Many Americans do." is not a back up in my opinion, unless you include statistics of American points of view along with "the rest of the world" - and in both cases include the opinions of the scientific communities of both the United States and the rest of the world studies on the subject.
Just curious, as I don't know any Vikings.

[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 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.

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.

It's hard to discuss relationships when we seem to not even be able to pinpoint a time frame of when things occurred.



Jim

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Global Warming...whether natural or anthropogenic...leads to
hotter SSTs which means that hurricanes will increase in intensity but not
necessarily frequency. We will likely see many more Category 4/5
hurricanes than NORMAL (for previous active cycles)...but NOT NECESSARILY more storms overall....IMHO....

That's the opinion of a 17 year old schoolboy....but I am learning
more gradually....

[MGC]

How times change in a generation there Tampa. When I was 17 the talk was of an ice age. Don't believe me than go read a old issue of Time or News Week. 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. 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

[Jim Hughes]

Okay so we have the chicken and the egg in reference to whether the stratosphere cooled first , which means less ozone, or the AMO caused the stratosphere to cool. We also can leave open the idea that a different variable (Space weather?) has controlled both.

Many research papers are out there in regards to the how certain teleconnections are effected by the winter time temperature trends in the polar stratosphere. (Artic Oscillation, NAO, Aleutian Low. etc...)

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/s ... ure_10.gif

There seems to be an inverted temperature anomaly between the lower stratosphere and the lower troposphere.


http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/LS704.gif

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/LTLS704.gif


One could speculate about many things involving space weather. I have previously spoken before about some research done by Tinsley and others regarding the GCR (Galatic Cosmic Ray ) effect upon cloud cover.

Some of these research papers talked about how the GCR levels seemed to have an effect upon the maritime stratocumulus cloud coverage. More GCR's meant more stratocumulus clouds. There by having a cooling effect upon the earth because of their albedo/reflect ability. They do not trap heat like the cirrus clouds.

Well maybe this is a double edge sword. The increase in outgoing long wave radiation could enhance ozone production above these clouds. This in turn would have an effect upon the Artic Oscillation (AO) and several other teleconnections over the long run.

An increase in ozone at the North pole is going to mean warmer temperatures in the stratosphere , which means that the dice will be loaded for a negative AO. This means colder weather down below for a good deal of the northern hemisphere.


Less GCR's, which we have been seeing, especially during the past 10-15 years, means less stratocumulus clouds. Less reflect ability...Hence less ozone...cooler stratosphere...warmer earth. How much. Don't know?



Jim

[Ivanhater]

lol, the debate is still going strong! only at storm2k

[Jim Hughes]

lol, the debate is still going strong! only at storm2k

I am really just trying to debate about the cyclical nature of the tropics and not about global warming as a whole. I can understand how this can get intermingled. Especially with my last post.

I just figured I would throw that out there to think about in reference to worldwide GW since I had been thinking about this possible link for quite some time now.



Jim