World's ocean temps are warmest on record.

[Sanibel]

No offense, but the "crap science" appears to be on the side of those who were telling us earth was cooling over the last decade.

[caneman]

For those of you who aren't already sold out politically on GW. Read what RIchard Lindzen (M.I.T. Professor) has to say: http://www.ecoworld.com/climate/global-warming-greentech.html

[MGC]

High SST and lack of TC activity are directly correlated IMO. No hurricanes to transport all that heat poleward, no upwelling of the ocean. The oceans are stratified. With all this warm water I swear Al Gore said there would be an uptick in Cat-5 hurricanes.....where are they?......MGC

[gigabite]

Earth Sun orbital distance is the most likely factor in the year to date hurricane count. The smaller the Earth Sun Distance the higher the global high pressure as a factor of a thickening of the plasma phase. After the August 15, 2009 conjunction with Jupiter the Earth will begin a widening of it’s orbit that could increase the opportunity for global low pressure development for the next 30 years. With the lengthened solar minimum there could be a dramatic cooling effect also associated with this orbital perturbation.

The 2010 latitude of the Sub Lunar Intercept will drop 4.6 degrees from it’s high over the last three years and headed for a low swing in 2016, 3.2 degrees below the 1996 low swing, the threat of the warmest “El Nino” on record is probable, AGW or not.

A reasonable person would consider this the “eye of the storm.”

[x-y-no]

This thread didn't belong in Talkin Tropics. Moved.

[Sanibel]

I think there's a basic question being conspicuously avoided here. Several posters said recent claims that earth was cooling over the last decade combined with a fast spread of arctic ice and cool temperatures over North America last winter proved Global Warming was a hoax. Without appealing to emotional feelings of "selling out" or scapegoating Al Gore, how do you account for the record high Sea Surface Temperatures (in relation to your claims earth was cooling)?

[gigabite]

Whereas I said in earlier post and it was my contention before Mr. Gore came on the scene. The capacity of the planets oceans to absorbed carbon dioxide have been seriously diminished by run off. That said it is not likely that shortfall of capacity in addition any increase in human output can change climate as fast as a 2 earth diameter shift in Earth's orbit.

[x-y-no]

Whereas I said in earlier post and it was my contention before Mr. Gore came on the scene. The capacity of the planets oceans to absorbed carbon dioxide have been seriously diminished by run off. That said it is not likely that shortfall of capacity in addition any increase in human output can change climate as fast as a 2 earth diameter shift in Earth's orbit.

What? A shift of two earth diameters is tiny - that would equate to approximately 0.0035% change in total solar energy ( 149,000,000^2 / (149,000,000 - 26000)^2 = 1.000349 )

[gigabite]

What? A shift of two earth diameters is tiny - that would equate to approximately 0.0035% change in total solar energy ( 149,000,000^2 / (149,000,000 - 26000)^2 = 1.000349 )

.0035% of an astronomic number. if you use the nasa horizons ephemeris you can get a hard number for that relationship. I think if you use that and compare it to the tao array you will hit the same numbers I get. Then you should compare the aphelion distance to the hurricane count. now, usf has a dynamic long range forecasting tool. I think maybe averaging is "old school."

[x-y-no]

What? A shift of two earth diameters is tiny - that would equate to approximately 0.0035% change in total solar energy ( 149,000,000^2 / (149,000,000 - 26000)^2 = 1.000349 )

.0035% of an astronomic number. if you use the nasa horizons ephemeris you can get a hard number for that relationship. I think if you use that and compare it to the tao array you will hit the same numbers I get. Then you should compare the aphelion distance to the hurricane count. now, usf has a dynamic long range forecasting tool. I think maybe averaging is "old school."

No. 0.0035% change. It's an elementary application of the inverse square law.

If you think you've found some correlation between aphelion distance and either hurricane frequency or ENSO, by all means let's see the statistical analysis. But frankly it doesn't pass the smell test that such a tiny change in insolation should have any appreciable effect.

[gigabite]

http://home.att.net/~gigabite/ORBITDISTvsHURFRQ.gif

This was a study I did in 2007.
Unfortunately my personal work load increases as the economy shrinks, so it hasn’t been updated.
I have a spread sheet that churns it out in dynes if you prefer, but there will be some time slippage before I can plot the results.

[gigabite]

http://home.att.net/~gigabite/esnoVSmoonlatitude.gif

As the latitude of the midsummer new moon drops the likelihood of a sever el nino increases.

[brunota2003]

Ummmmmm....en Inglis por favor?

[gigabite]

http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/%28Gh%29/g ... /rcnt.rxml

2016 = 1997

[x-y-no]

http://home.att.net/~gigabite/ORBITDISTvsHURFRQ.gif

This was a study I did in 2007.
Unfortunately my personal work load increases as the economy shrinks, so it hasn’t been updated.
I have a spread sheet that churns it out in dynes if you prefer, but there will be some time slippage before I can plot the results.

Frankly, I don't see any obvious visual correlation. And given the large standard deviation in hurricane number, you'd need a substantially longer series to calculate a meaningful Pearson coefficient.

[gigabite]

you'd need a substantially longer series to calculate a meaningful Pearson coefficient.

Well sure, the point is that the red line is not a statistical variable it is a baseline. It varies in a predictable fashion. The nature of the baseline is a quasi biennial oscillation, and being a celestial mechanism that varies gravity which varies all tides including atmospheric tides.

The issue was with MGC's exasperation concerning AGW and the Storm Count. I am only stating with this graph that from a holistic perspective the earth weather universe extends well above 700 millibars.

[SaskatchewanScreamer]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/spu ... oking-gun/

What do people here think of Dr. Roy Spencer's findings?

[vbhoutex]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/spurious-warming-in-new-noaa-ocean-temperature-product-the-smoking-gun/

What do people here think of Dr. Roy Spencer's findings?

I'm glad to know that there is at least one out there that doesn't just buy into the immediate "evidence" but checks it out himself in an obvious scientific way and isn't afraid to "go against the grain". I have not nearly enough knowledge to judge his findings, but find what he stated interesting in light of other information previously offered. Proof that AGW isn't happening? NO! It is but I am of the camp that does not believe all the gloom and doom associated with it. I am by no means a model citizen when it comes to reducing my carbon footprint, but I do as much as I can.

[x-y-no]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/spurious-warming-in-new-noaa-ocean-temperature-product-the-smoking-gun/

What do people here think of Dr. Roy Spencer's findings?

Well, Dr. Spencer has made some really serious errors in the past (I'm thinking particularly of his article "Internal Radiative Forcing And The Illusion Of A Sensitive Climate System") but that doesn't mean he's wrong in this case. At least on its face, that jump in 2001 looks very suspicious. On the other hand, it's pretty hard to see how it would have been missed by NASA, so I wonder if this isn't possibly known and accounted for.

[vbhoutex]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/spurious-warming-in-new-noaa-ocean-temperature-product-the-smoking-gun/

What do people here think of Dr. Roy Spencer's findings?

Well, Dr. Spencer has made some really serious errors in the past (I'm thinking particularly of his article "Internal Radiative Forcing And The Illusion Of A Sensitive Climate System") but that doesn't mean he's wrong in this case. At least on its face, that jump in 2001 looks very suspicious. On the other hand, it's pretty hard to see how it would have been missed by NASA, so I wonder if this isn't possibly known and accounted for.

That is a good point Jan. I wonder if it is addressed in any way in the NASA report?