General Climate Discussion

[john9001]

Originally posted by Angus
What is a SUV?

sport utility vehicle

[moot]

aka performance caravans.

[john9001]

Originally posted by moot
aka performance caravans.

bloody English, i still say you drive on the wrong side of the road.

[SD67]

Guys, (and gals) I'm beginning to think this global warming isn't all bad

[john9001]

i think SD67 may be on to something here, but i will have to conduct my own study.

[wrag]

Originally posted by Hortlund
So...you guys are really desperate for arguments now huh?

Not really just REALLY tired of all the people that think the U.N. is so wonderful, cause IMHO it AIN'T.

Not even close!

WAY too often, IMHO, claims made by the U.N. are so much KA KA!

They sold out too many times!  They took away peoples weapons claiming that the U.N. would protect them.

Trouble started, the U.N.    ............... LEFT RAPIDLY, and DID NOT return the weapons, and the trusting PEOPLE, now defenseless, DIED!  Often horrible deaths!

I do NOT trust the U.N.

[Holden McGroin]

Sorry for posting on this once again, but I was on the nasa site and came across this:

Source

NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face

Nov.13.07
 
PASADENA, Calif. – A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.

....

The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but then varied on more or less decadal time scales, with signs of an underlying upward trend, until the late 1990s, when it again stabilized. During its strong counterclockwise phase in the 1990s, the Arctic environment changed markedly, with the upper Arctic Ocean undergoing major changes that persisted into this century. Many scientists viewed the changes as evidence of an ongoing climate shift, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.
 
Morison said data gathered by Grace and the bottom pressure gauges since publication of the paper earlier this year highlight how short-lived the ocean circulation changes can be. The newer data indicate the bottom pressure has increased back toward its 2002 level. "The winter of 2006-2007 was another high Arctic Oscillation year and summer sea ice extent reached a new minimum," he said. "It is too early to say, but it looks as though the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to the counterclockwise circulation pattern of the 1990s again."
 

[Angus]

Don't be sorry. Be happy
And we will then be seeing this circulation occuring quite soon I guess.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Sorry for posting on this once again, but I was on the nasa site and came across this:

Source

So why didnt you quote this part?

Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Hortlund
So why didnt you quote this part?

I quoted something that I thought intresting and gave you the link so you could see the whole thing.  I am sorry if I did not highlight your favorite part.

Just wondering, if 'most climate models predict'...  that means some do not. doesn't it?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I quoted something that I thought intresting and gave you the link so you could see the whole thing.  I am sorry if I did not highlight your favorite part.

Just wondering, if 'most climate models predict'...  that means some do not. doesn't it?

Presumably it does. But considering that everyone, including lasz, can make his own climate model (its the sun...) I wouldnt think too much of it. What it refers to is probably those within the current consensus.

But, see, if we chose to highlight my quoted part, instead of your quoted part, we get an entirely different meaning to the article. Which is probably why you ripped a single sentence out of context. When you read the whole article you realize that it actually supports the current global warming consensus...while if one only reads your sentence, one gets the impression that it doesnt.

Which is why it is important to read the entire article.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Hortlund
But, see, if we chose to highlight my quoted part, instead of your quoted part, we get an entirely different meaning to the article. Which is probably why you ripped a single sentence out of context.

You would think an article written by Nasa for a Nasa website about a Nasa study would try not to contradict itself by saying "The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming." in an article which says just the opposite.

I mean they even made a second mistake by quoting Morison saying, "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,"


I'm glad you were able to divine the true meaning.

Thank you

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You would think an article written by Nasa for a Nasa website about a Nasa study would try not to contradict itself by saying "The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming." in an article which says just the opposite.

I mean they even made a second mistake by quoting Morison saying, "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,"


I'm glad you were able to divine the true meaning.

Thank you

Actually, I think much of your confusion here comes from the fact that they are talking about two different things in the article, changes in arctic climate and changes in upper arctic ocean circulation.

I suggest you try to read the article again.

[Jackal1]

Weekend holidays.
The pharmacies are closed.

[Holden McGroin]

Two different things?

"The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming."

Then he discusses how one of these large changes, the upper Arctic Ocean circulation, is multi decadal in nature and not necesarily driven by global warming.  This backs up the quoted assertion at the beginning of the article.

The ocean circulation behavior is the point of the article.  That is the single point in his discussion.

Perhaps you should reread the article.

And this time with an open mind.