• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

pacific decadal oscillation

D

darthrender2010

New Member
arg-fallbackName="darthrender2010"/>
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

So I have been confronted by a person who has sent me to this article which proposes a theory of climate change I hadn't heard yet; "pasific decadal oscillation" or pdo.

apparently this was rejected by a peer reviewer or something. Climatology is not my forte, and so I wanted to see if anyone else wanted to take a honest crack at this and see if there's anything to it or not.

To my limited knowledge it looks like he has a compelling case for a majority of climate change, but still can't account for the radical warming post 1980 but relies on a guess that the temperature lags behind the pdo "activity" (for lack of finding a better word) and that we will see a steady decrease in the next 7 years or something.

I don't have enough tact or knowledge to actually email him myself, but to any of you "experts" who could ask him good questions his email (provided in the article) is roy.spencer@nsstc.uah.edu

I'll probably contact potholer too considering he's something of an expert in this field.
 
arg-fallbackName="Squawk"/>
Don't try to respond personally, point him in the direction of a decent book that covers climate change from a sound scientific footing.

I made the decision to educate myself properly on the subject of climate change in the pretty recent past, I thorougly reccommend a book called "The rough guide to climate change" by a chappie called Robert Henderson.

You can think of it as a summary of the peer reviewed work on climate change which covers potential consequences in a scientific manner (ie discussing probabilities and what not) and the range of observations.

I just had a quick look at the little section on PDO (pacific decadal ocscillation), I quote from the book
The Rough Guide To Climate Change said:
It's hard to assess ocena cycles that span more than a few years from peak to peak, because sea surface temperature data before the advent of satellites in the 1970's is notoriously spotty. But many scientists are intrigued by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a seesaw of rising and falling temperatures aross the northwest Pacific, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), in which temeratures across much of the North Atlandtic alternatively warm and cool. Both cycles go for about 20-30 years before switching to their opposite phase. In both cases, the physical dfiver isn't yet known. There's evidence for a link between the PDO and ENSO (Squawk Note, ENSO == El Nino/Souther Oscillation): when the PDO is in its positive phase, El Ninos are more likely. And in the Atlantic, the AMO appears to boost the rist of atlantic hurricanes, though it also complcates assessment of well-publicised and much feard risk to Europes climate
Click to expand...
Page 111, in the little orange box, not sure how to cite it properly.

This little abstract was taken from a section on the influence of the oceans on climate change. It is noted that the most ocean-atmosphere cycle is ENSO, by quite a margin.

When you start to look at climate change properly you start to realise that the complexity of climate on earth is almost mind boggling. The PDO almost certainly plays a part, but to suggest that it is the major factor does not tie in with the observed data.

##edit
I just had a quick skim read of the article too and it's clear that the article has an agenda. As the quote I gave acknowledged, the PDO influences El Nino and so would be expected to coincide with the warming and cooling experienced over the 20th Century, El Nino bringing about the short term changes.

The question being posed by climatologists, if indeed the PDO did turn out to be responsible, would not be "how does the PDO do this", but rather, what effect does a global temperature rise have on the PDO and El NIno. Is this a positive feedback loop, for example. This argument is ridiculously over simplifed. His graphs are a load of crap too, given that he has super imposed 20th century warming rates onto IPCC projected figures (I haven't checked those yet) and waddya know, they come out lower. Well they would, the 20th century warmed slower than the 21st is expected to.
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
"Dr." Spencer is a quack creationist with ties to extremist right-wing/libertarian insane asylums... I mean "think tanks."

Anyone who uses the word "evolutionism" instead of "evolution" is an ideologically-blinded fool who has zero credibility.
 
arg-fallbackName="Pulsar"/>
Yes, Roy Spencer is indeed an IDiot, as can be read from his wiki page:
"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."
Click to expand...
His degree seems legit. But as a rule of thumb, I distrust anyone who creates a website and uses his title explicitly to gain credibility. He definitely has an agenda:

And for the effect of Pacific decadal oscillation, this is adressed in detail in this article. Seems like another myth for Potholer to debunk.
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
Pulsar said:
The idea that the global average temperatures haven't risen since 1998, is a myth.
Click to expand...
No it is NOT a myth... it is a flat-out fucking intentional lie!

Anyone who goes out of their way to lie in the face of easily-found evidence (NASA'S website, for instance) is someone only fools and theists will believe.

Oh, and thanks for linking to the wiki page... I was there, and I totally forgot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top