mufcdiver.

quote:

suricat have a look at these and tell me what you see?

Scratch what I said earlier! This 'reluctance' for ozone to enter the Antarctic polar cell extends throughout the entire archive of daily graphs! Now that I've been through them, check the 1979 daily archive. Same events?

Perhaps this phenomenon has existed, like, forever?

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

What I am about to say is probably quite controversial, so if anyone wants to interject feel free to do so.

There seems to be a 'barrier' that resists the Brewer Dobson Circulation at its entry into the Antarctic 'polar climate cell'. After a brief evaluation of Antarctic topography and the surrounding regions I am lead to believe that this 'barrier' is caused by 'wind shear' between [on the one hand] the polar climate cell and [on the other hand] the Ferrel cell and Brewer Dobson Circulation.

The topography in and around Antarctica is such that the boundary layer imparts little rotational impetus to the atmosphere (ice altitudes also facilitate redirection outwards from the vortex after the event horizon). This results in low wind velocities near the Antarctic vortex and high wind velocities at the Antarctic coast. There is mostly ocean at latitudes lower than the Antarctic coast, thus, little to impart rotational impetus to the atmosphere. This makes the Antarctic polar climate cell a 'weak climate cell' with a lot of 'windy weather' (the atmosphere is usually playing 'catch up' with the planet more often than it does around the North Pole).

I've not found a source of Antarctic weather charts yet (only raw data), but your link to daily ozone graphs and references to Antarctic topography strongly suggest that ozone would have a 'hard time' gaining entry into the Antarctic polar cell irrespective of any ozone catalysts that are present there. This makes me pose the question 'was the ozone hole there all the time until we finally discovered it'?

Makes a good discussion point, no?

Best regards, suricat.

BTW. Were they PSCs that you saw?

Moved from.....another thread

quote:

suricat, I hope David Archibald s paper rang a bell, 'cos we went over some of the data he presents a few months ago(central english ave temp Vs' Solar activity) with TS
I found this graph to go with it http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/4.html

There is nothing loaded about what I say suricat, though it was this very subject that led to my previous suspension so I have got to be careful

mufcdiver.

I don't know how anything I posted could have led to your suspension! This is not the thread that I asked you to reply in! I asked you to reply in TGGD thread ('The Great Green Debate' thread), not the TGGWS thread.

Best regards, suricat.

Sorry suricat. It would appear though that we both got it wrong! The thread in question is in fact "How to be a global warming skeptic" in or around the beginning of January.There was some confusion then about who said what, when. I tried to post a rather lengthy explanation only to be struck by the server problems that we were all suffering at the time(I have since realized that I could have pressed the 'back button' to retrieve my post).In my rage I posted something that the MODS took exception to(rightly I might add)(its sods law that the server would start working then)
I'm sorry if I implied that you had any thing to do with my suspension
Mufcd.

mufcdiver.

OK! My apology to Leo Nithic for using this thread, but I see no alternative for a better understanding of my current bad feeling with mufcdiver!

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

OK muf, no worries! If you've an ongoing problem just post this in The Great Green Debate thread.

Best regards, suricat.

Never thought I'd agree with a Tory especially in the Daily Mail!, good article though(nice pictures used ironically)

Mufcdiver

quote:

Never thought I'd agree with a Tory especially in the Daily Mail!, good article though(nice pictures used ironically)

I agree - we must be getting old.... but then CNN's Ted Turner put the other side of the argument. Google Ted Turner global warming youtube.... what a hoot.

Don't know if this has been mentioned thus far, but the wikipedia entry for the Great Global Warming Swindle says the following:

quote:

The film was shortlisted in the Best Documentary category in the British television industry's 2008 Broadcast awards. It won the prize for Best Documentary at the Io Isabella Film Festival held in Southern Italy.

What a swindle that this was completely ignored by the British media, while they followed with a passion every good word said in favour of 'An Inconvenient Truth'! How's that for objectivity in the media?

Wikipedia entry

I recorded the program ('The Great Global Warming Swindle') and have watched it several times. I have also shown it to many of my friends and they are all of the opinion that it is a real positive eye opener. Comments in the press that there are "lies", "wrong diagrams", etc. may be so. Compared with the lies served by the CO2 "army", however, they are far from lies.
Many others with me have spent numerous hours trying to find any proof (and I mean scientific proof) that CO2 emission has anything to do with climate change but have found nothing.
It is not surprising as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is very low and is self-regulating as when the level increases it will be absorbed by the oceans and vice versa. Furthermore the CO2 emitted by nature from rotting leaves, sea weed, and the ocean bottoms, etc. is incredibly much bigger than what comes from all human inventions (cars, air-planes, etc) put together.
It is important that we preserve the atmosphere but I think we need to be balanced where we put in the efforts, as the efforts for minimising CO2 "foot prints" is totally over represented.

Being a nuclear physicist, specialised in Plasma Fusion, I know that the earths needed energy will soon come from an unlimited clean source. As this is still a bit controversial you don’t see much in the media about it, but if you wonder why some big projected Wind Farms around the world have been cancelled, you know now why!!! and it is just around the corner!!

Why not send the program again. I will see to that anyone I know will watch it. We need a debate in the matter before too many ££Billions have been wasted.

Thanks…

quote:

Being a nuclear physicist, specialised in Plasma Fusion, I know that the earths needed energy will soon come from an unlimited clean source. As this is still a bit controversial you don’t see much in the media about it, but if you wonder why some big projected Wind Farms around the world have been cancelled, you know now why!!! and it is just around the corner!!

Its been "just around the corner" for knocking on forty years hasn't it? This isn't another false dawn again is it?

Not all legacies seem so enduring..... where's the 'Empirical falsification thread' gone?

And on the subject of Empirical falsification is this testimony by Roy Spencer an empirical falsification of AGW.

And the graphs thread...

I expect it is because C4 don't like being critised, despite all their banging on about "Free Speech". It's OK for them to produce a lie-filled documentary that critises the IPCC, but not OK for us mere minions to critise them for doing it!

Bah!

that's "criticised" and "criticise"

(fingers were moving too fast!)

Maybe I'll complain to Ofcom about them censoring our threads...

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
And on the subject of Empirical falsification is this testimony by Roy Spencer an empirical falsification of AGW.

"Roy Spencer’s testimony before congress backs up Monckton’s assertions on climate sensitivity"

Wow! Monckton's still around? Thought we saw the last of him after his "calculations" were found to be error strewn.

Not even the Daily Telgraph mention or quote him anymore!

Oops! Just seen the thread at the top of the list...

(I still think there's a conspiracy though!)

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
And on the subject of Empirical falsification is this testimony by Roy Spencer an empirical falsification of AGW.



"Roy Spencer’s testimony before congress backs up Monckton’s assertions on climate sensitivity"

Wow! Monckton's still around? Thought we saw the last of him after his "calculations" were found to be error strewn.

Not even the Daily Telgraph mention or quote him anymore!


God Bless Dave Rado!

Who's Dave Rado?
I guess from the mere fact that you're championing him RP, that he must have some major rod up his rear about mankind!

Son of Mulder.

quote:

And on the subject of Empirical falsification is this testimony by Roy Spencer an empirical falsification of AGW.

If you watch the near 2½ hour long legal proceeding as I did (further to your 'link'), you'd realise that RS was only there as representing 'another opinion'. It 'looks' as though the court wants to find a reason for the 'impeachment' of the president of the US of A (or at least someone of great 'stature') on the grounds of, and I say this 'without' conviction, the requirements of their 'clean air act'!

It's a lot of time to invest into viewing the due process of the court (2½ hours), but it puts everything into full context. The link is above Roy Spencer's picture from your link (and roll over the bottom of the player screen to get an 'on screen' prompt which allows you to watch the full proceedings). I had this post refused last night (I 'stupidly' placed a direct link to the vid. Doh!).

I hope you can spare the time to watch it. If not here's where he 'simplifies' his full paper on climate sensitivity.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-Sensitivity-Holy-Grail.htm

Further to this, I think that Roy Spencer is alluding to the sensitivity of the 'climate thermostat' that I've proposed for some time now (unofficially), but he calls it 'NON-radiative forcing'. Although water vapour (WV) is a 'positive' 'feedback' to warming in a 'radiative model' it is also a very dynamically chaotic 'negative' 'feedback' in a 'thermal transmission model'. Because it's 'buoyant' and generates 'clouds'.

Best regards, suricat.