On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:46:40 -0700, chemist wrote:

On Jul 23, 5:11Â*am, "boonz" wrote:
Influence Of The Southern Oscillation On Tropospheric Temperature

23 Jul 2009

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature

J. D. McLean

Applied Science Consultants, Croydon, Victoria, Australia

C. R. de Freitas

School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of
Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

R. M. Carter

Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville,
Queensland, Australia

Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and global
tropospheric temperature anomalies (GTTA) are compared for the
1958?2008 period. GTTA are represented by data from satellite microwave
sensing units (MSU) for the period 1980-2008 and from radiosondes
(RATPAC) for 1958-2008.

After the removal from the data set of short periods of temperature
perturbation that relate to near-equator volcanic eruption, we use
derivatives to document the presence of a 5- to 7-month delayed close
relationship between SOI and GTTA.

Change in SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA for the
29-year-long MSU record and 68% of the variance in GTTA for the longer
50-year RATPAC record.

Because El Niño?Southern Oscillation is known to exercise a
particularly strong influence in the tropics, we also compared the SOI
with tropical temperature anomalies between 20°S and 20°N.

The results showed that SOI accounted for 81% of the variance in
tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics.

Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a
consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a
maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial
volcanism causes ad hoc cooling.

That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years
fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5-7 months earlier
shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most
of the temperature variation.

Received 16 December 2008; accepted 14 May 2009; published 23 July
2009.

Citation: McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (2009),
Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J.
Geophys. Res., 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD011637.shtml

Warmest Regards


So what drives the SOI?

--
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."- John Stuart Mill

http://regruntled.wordpress.com/

On Jul 24, 11:13*am, netvegetable wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:46:40 -0700, chemist wrote:
On Jul 23, 5:11*am, "boonz" wrote:
Influence Of The Southern Oscillation On Tropospheric Temperature

23 Jul 2009

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature

J. D. McLean

Applied Science Consultants, Croydon, Victoria, Australia

C. R. de Freitas

School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of
Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

R. M. Carter

Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville,
Queensland, Australia

Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and global
tropospheric temperature anomalies (GTTA) are compared for the
1958?2008 period. GTTA are represented by data from satellite microwave
sensing units (MSU) for the period 1980-2008 and from radiosondes
(RATPAC) for 1958-2008.

After the removal from the data set of short periods of temperature
perturbation that relate to near-equator volcanic eruption, we use
derivatives to document the presence of a 5- to 7-month delayed close
relationship between SOI and GTTA.

Change in SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA for the
29-year-long MSU record and 68% of the variance in GTTA for the longer
50-year RATPAC record.

Because El Niño?Southern Oscillation is known to exercise a
particularly strong influence in the tropics, we also compared the SOI
with tropical temperature anomalies between 20°S and 20°N.

The results showed that SOI accounted for 81% of the variance in
tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics.

Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a
consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a
maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial
volcanism causes ad hoc cooling.

That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years
fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5-7 months earlier
shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most
of the temperature variation.

Received 16 December 2008; accepted 14 May 2009; published 23 July
2009.

Citation: McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (2009),
Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J.
Geophys. Res., 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD011637.shtml

Warmest Regards

So what drives the SOI?



--
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."- John Stuart Mill

http://regruntled.wordpress.com/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good question. I'd love to have the money to research the thing. I
have a curious
'feeling' that it has a lot to do with the convection cycles of magma
(which we know
little about)and the heat exchange from magma to the ocean.

It has **** all to do with CO2 at any rate.

Mark Addinall.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:30:10 -0700, addinall wrote:

So what drives the SOI?



--
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."- John Stuart Mill

http://regruntled.wordpress.com/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good question. I'd love to have the money to research the thing. I
have a curious
'feeling' that it has a lot to do with the convection cycles of magma
(which we know
little about)and the heat exchange from magma to the ocean.

It has **** all to do with CO2 at any rate.


So why the almost perfect correlation between CO2 levels and global
temperature?

http://tinyurl.com/nobrwy

--
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."- John Stuart Mill

http://regruntled.wordpress.com/

On Jul 24, 11:47*am, netvegetable wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:30:10 -0700, addinall wrote:
So what drives the SOI?

--
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."- John Stuart Mill

http://regruntled.wordpress.com/-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good question. *I'd love to have the money to research the thing. *I
have a curious
'feeling' that it has a lot to do with the convection cycles of magma
(which we know
little about)and the heat exchange from magma to the ocean.

It has **** all to do with CO2 at any rate.

So why the almost perfect correlation between CO2 levels and global
temperature?

http://tinyurl.com/nobrwy


Cherry picking date ranges will do the trick.And everyone is aware
that if this planet gets a little warmer, the sea outgasses some
percentage of CO2. Shrug. I have been telling people that this is
(global warming) pure kiddology for two decades. Perhaps the world is
catching up with me again.

I remember some years ago when I made a rather BOLD statement in here
that went along the lines of 'SADDHAM HUSSEIN HAS NO WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION'. I was taken to task over that because the 'concensus'
amongst the 'analysts' in t' whole wide wurld sed there was. I read
the volumes of paper published by the UN after Gulf I and couldn't
figure out why 99.999999% of the analysts in the world hadn't figured
out something ****ing glaringly obvious.

Same deal here. It is getting COLDER again. That worries me. I want
to see the planet back up to its comfortable 17C average. This is
waaaaaaayyyyyy to close to a major ice age event. And since we don't
have any nukes, it might ge awful nippy in the mornings hey?

If one was to be bothered enough to visit a library, and loiter around
551.x, one may notice that this planet fluctuates between 12C and 22C
at regular intervals. Pushing a million, trillion, squillion dollars
at the weather is not going to change that one eensy-weeny bit.
Canute demonstrated this to the people of Briton.

Mark Addinall

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 02:37:56 -0700, addinall wrote:

Good question. Â*I'd love to have the money to research the thing. Â*I
have a curious
'feeling' that it has a lot to do with the convection cycles of magma
(which we know
little about)and the heat exchange from magma to the ocean.

It has **** all to do with CO2 at any rate.

So why the almost perfect correlation between CO2 levels and global
temperature?

http://tinyurl.com/nobrwy


Cherry picking date ranges will do the trick.And everyone is aware that
if this planet gets a little warmer, the sea outgasses some percentage
of CO2.

It loses some of its ability to absorb CO2 as it warms up yes. If the
temperature remains above a certain level, you will get an excess release
of CO2 from the oceans some 800 years later, as the flush out deep ocean
sediment.


Shrug. I have been telling people that this is (global
warming) pure kiddology for two decades. Perhaps the world is catching
up with me again.

Haven't you changed your tune a bit though recently? I'm pretty sure not
so long ago you were denying utterly that any warming was taking place.

http://tinyurl.com/n9x9m6

Now you've shifted your ground to conceding that it's real, but that it's
some kind of natural phenomenon that you can't explain. And also, that
it's mysteriously disappeared (which you also can't explain).

[snip boasting about iraq]


Same deal here. It is getting COLDER again.

I still don't know how you can say that, given that the top ten hottest
years have all been in the last 12.

http://tinyurl.com/mtdcdr


That worries me. I want
to see the planet back up to its comfortable 17C average. This is
waaaaaaayyyyyy to close to a major ice age event. And since we don't
have any nukes, it might ge awful nippy in the mornings hey?

Ice ages are caused by major geological events, like the formation of new
mountain ranges, or they're caused by changes in the Earth's orbit, or
extreme variations in solar output. Are you saying that one of these has
occurred and scientists haven't noticed?

[snip]




--
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."- John Stuart Mill

http://regruntled.wordpress.com/

Now you've shifted your ground to conceding that it's real, but that it's
some kind of natural phenomenon that you can't explain. And also, that
it's mysteriously disappeared (which you also can't explain).


And nor can the climate models that are used as the basis of the AGW scare
campaign.

Big difference is that I don't claim to have an accurate computer model of
climate change which doesn't in any way match reality, and nor am I using
these clearly and demonstrably incorrect models to demand huge changes to
how the world works.

Fact is, the climate warms and cools. Not one of the climate models predicts
cooling, ever, none of them can explain the natural variability. There is no
model which even vaguely manages to "predict" the climate changes that have
occurred in the past. Given the models have repeatedly been proved wrong,
why would anybody believe they can predict the future if they cannot even
predict the past? You would have to be stupid to believe in a climate model
which is demonstrably wrong.

On Jul 25, 11:41*pm, netvegetable wrote:

Now you've shifted your ground to conceding that it's real, but that it's
some kind of natural phenomenon that you can't explain. And also, that
it's mysteriously disappeared (which you also can't explain).

Obviously we are all in luck that you CAN explain it all. It's simple:
There is not enough money being taken out of everyone's electric bill
to properly stop AGW. Simple. Plausible. and lies.

On Jul 24, 2:37*am, addinall wrote:
On Jul 24, 11:47*am, netvegetable wrote:





On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:30:10 -0700, addinall wrote:
So what drives the SOI?

--
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."- John Stuart Mill

http://regruntled.wordpress.com/-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good question. *I'd love to have the money to research the thing. *I
have a curious
'feeling' that it has a lot to do with the convection cycles of magma
(which we know
little about)and the heat exchange from magma to the ocean.

It has **** all to do with CO2 at any rate.

So why the almost perfect correlation between CO2 levels and global
temperature?

http://tinyurl.com/nobrwy

Cherry picking date ranges will do the trick.And everyone is aware
that if this planet gets a little warmer, the sea outgasses some
percentage of CO2. *Shrug. *I have been telling people that this is
(global warming) pure kiddology for two decades. *Perhaps the world is
catching up with me again.

I remember some years ago when I made a rather BOLD statement in here
that went along the lines of 'SADDHAM HUSSEIN HAS NO WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION'. *I was taken to task over that because the 'concensus'
amongst the 'analysts' in t' whole wide wurld sed there was. *I read
the volumes of paper published by the UN after Gulf I and couldn't
figure out why 99.999999% of the analysts in the world hadn't figured
out something ****ing glaringly obvious.

Same deal here. *It is getting COLDER again. *That worries me. *I want
to see the planet back up to its comfortable 17C average. *This is
waaaaaaayyyyyy to close to a major ice age event. *And since we don't
have any nukes, it might ge awful nippy in the mornings hey?

If one was to be bothered enough to visit a library, and loiter around
551.x, one may notice that this planet fluctuates between 12C and 22C
at regular intervals. *Pushing a million, trillion, squillion dollars
at the weather is not going to change that one eensy-weeny bit.
Canute demonstrated this to the people of Briton.

Mark Addinall- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

When glaciers stop disappearing and the arctic ices over again to what
it was 20 years ago I'll start believing it is cooling.

Harry K

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 07:29:31 -0700, harry k wrote:

When glaciers stop disappearing and the arctic ices over again to what
it was 20 years ago I'll start believing it is cooling.

I'd be open minded if they simply provided some evidence. But selectively
drawing lines from 1998 to 2008, for instance, doesn't really shine a
light on anything except their own bias. Nor does narrowing down the
sample from 2005 to 2008.

--
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."- John Stuart Mill

http://regruntled.wordpress.com/