The same. On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Robert I Ellison < [email protected]> wrote:
> Huh? > > It is quite clear that what I said was "One potential cause of Pacific > Ocean variability is shown by Lockwood et al (2010)..." Lockwood > looks at this mechanism in the northern hemisphere - but the South > Pole is similarly influenced of course. Judith Lean discussed it more > broadly bringing in some of the potential pathways. Things that have > been discussed widely in the literature for some time. It is not my > theory but comes out the Proceedings of the Royal Society and from > Judith Lean. Far from being 'previously undetected' - a simple google > search would reveal dozens if not hundreds of studies on the UV/ozone > warming/troposphere connection. > > But it is clear that I am discussing the variability of Pacific Ocean > climate states - and looking for origins and influences. The review > of the physical evidence was far broader than these two brief > quotes. > > you "I'll bite. How does this quasi-biennialexplanation solve the > conundrum that > no other known change has had any effect at all on climate? > > me "You imply that no other influence but greenhouse gases causes > climate > > change - but that is just a silly comment." > > you "I've neither implied or actually held such an opinion. Nothing > but a silly > comment, then" > > If I have misunderstood the implication of "no other known change" - > Apologies. But I feel rather that you are being dishonest and > disingenuous and I have no time and no respect for any of it. > > > On Jan 19, 10:14 am, Per Edman <[email protected]> wrote: > > The hypothetical fluctuation leaving no trace would be the UV changes of > the > > "current thinking". It's a hypothesis (check) and it has left no trace on > > known proxies (check) hence my wording. I wasn't asking for evidence of > El > > Niño nor do Ir really believe you thought that I did, while we're on the > > topic of running goal posts. > > > > I am asking for evidence for your current all-explanatory hypothesis of > > hitherto undetected "top-down" UV irradiation that has been invisible in > the > > proxy record causing another undetected quasi-biennial oscillation that > not > > only is responsible for the current warming, but also cause all direct > and > > feedback effects of an increased atmospheric content of CO2, null > somehow. > > > > > "You imply that no other influence but greenhouse gases causes climate > > > > change - but that is just a silly comment." > > > > I've neither implied or actually held such an opinion. Nothing but a > silly > > comment, then. > > > > / Per > > > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Robert I Ellison < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Check the website - > > >http://www.earthandocean.robertellison.com.au/index.html > > > > > This is the fallacy of shifting ground. First of all the sun doesn't > > > change. When I show that latest thinking is that UV changes and this > > > translates into a surface influence through the quasi biennial > > > oscillation to ENSO - that's the theory anyway. Then the ground > > > shifts to a straw man argument about hypothetical flucuations leaving > > > no trace. > > > > > Regardless of the underlying mechanisms - ENSO of course leaves behind > > > evidence nearly all over the planet going back 11,000 years in one > > > proxy record. Physical evidence - not theory or computing - is the > > > main science game. That's in the title of the review article on the > > > website. I haven't discarded anything - just said look here is some > > > peer reviewed science and generally available information that > > > suggests that upwelling in the eastern Pacific causes long term > > > changes in SST and therefore cloud. The evidence in surface > > > observations and modeling support this. The satellite data show that > > > cloud cover change is the dominant cause of climate change in the > > > satellite era. > > > > > You imply that no other influence but greenhouse gases causes climate > > > change - but that is just a silly comment. Read for instance the > > > section on internal climate variability in the recent Royal Society. > > > > > You should be more specific and reference literature - otherwise you > > > waste everyones time. > > > > > Robert > > > > > On Jan 19, 5:24 am, Per Edman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You already quoted Lean. > > > > > > I'll bite. How does this quasi-biennialexplanation solve the > conundrum > > > that > > > > no other known change has had any effect at all on climate? > > > > > > You realize of course that it would be quite difficult to actually > prove > > > > past fluctuations in something that leaves no trace on terrestrial > > > proxies, > > > > which makes it sort of suspect to use such hypothetical fluctuations > as a > > > > basis for discarding data from existing proxies. > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, > > > moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and > policy > > > dimensions of global environmental change. > > > > > Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds > the > > > submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not > > > gratuitously rude. > > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected] > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange > > > > -- > > / Per > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, > moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy > dimensions of global environmental change. > > Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the > submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not > gratuitously rude. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange > -- / Per -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
