Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Yorkshiresnows

Members
  • Content Count

    319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Yorkshiresnows

  1. This cannot be a serious post .......... is it !!!!? Extent looking good ..... Anomaly chart showing the past 30 year increasing trend. Latest image looking healthy !!! Y.S
  2. Hi V.P I think I understand the point you are making ....... there is a lot of uncertainty ? Okay, yes agree. Y.S
  3. Hi Pete, Yes I do think that we will need to wait and see. The paper is trying to state something important but as Spencer admits, he had to sanitise it somewhat to get all the reviewers to pass it through. There is a lot more in his book (which I have read) which forms a good backdrop to the paper (some of the results are discussed more openly in here). The point is that the satellite data (limited though it is) are not showing what would be expected from a climate system that is supposed to be super sensitive. That is, what feedbacks can be observed from the satelites are negative and not positive. So that is very important if confirmed as accurate as clearly this would have implications as to the magnitude of impacts that increasing Co2 emissions may have. His theory (goes outside the paper here) allows for the fact that changes in cloud cover (low levels cloud cover) may be expected to occur with long term changes in oceanic cycles - e.g.PDO states (as well as any possible increase in water vapour content of the atmosphere - as per IPCC - don't forget the modals currently assume a complete positive feedback on temperature of increased water vapour with no adjustment for probable changes in cloud cover). As small changes in clouds can impact on the radiative absorption of the oceans and can potentially impact on climate. This could be very important and more research is needed to look into this area. I'd point you also to one of the conclusions in the paper: "The most likely mechanism for this iternal radiative forcing is nonfeedback fluctuations in low clouds, though nonfeedback variations in water vapor or high clouds might be a significant component of the decorrelated portion of the thermally emitted longwave radiative flux". I would expect his next paper where he is looking at "a direct apples-to-apples comparison between the satellite-based feedbacks and the IPCC model-diagnosed feedbacks from year-to-year climate variability" to be more explicit particularly as his preliminary indications are that the satellite results are "outside the envelope of all the IPCC models". I think that these are very exciting times (and thank God he is at least being acknowledged on here as a scientist, rather than a 'crackpot' as stated from certain quarters on this forum when I presented some of his data and ideas a few months back). Y.S
  4. Hi Folks, Further to the recent postings it would seem that there is likely to be a response to the recent Roy Spencer paper, so I guess we will see what gives. The paper is heavily sanitised but the principal thrust (reading between the lines) is that where there is evidence of feedback forcing this is primarily negative and not positive - that forcing can inherently occur within the closed system ...... which is most likely due to low level cloud changes (but then I have the advantage of having the book, which makes this very clear). Here is the latest from Roy on his blog: http://www.drroyspencer.com/ (emphasis I have added in bold) "I am seeing increasing chatter about one or more papers that will (or already have) debunked my ideas on feedbacks in the climate system. Yet, I cannot remember a climate issue of which I have ever been so certain. I understand that most people interested in the climate debate will simply believe what their favorite science pundits at RealClimate tell them to believe, which is fine, and I can’t do anything about that. But for those who want to investigate for themselves, I recommend reading only our latest and most comprehensive paper in Journal of Geophysical Research. It takes you from the very basics of feedback estimation — which I found I had to include because even the experts in the field apparently did not understand them — and for the first time explains why satellite observations of the climate system behave the way they do. No one has ever done this before to anywhere near the level of detail we do. [unfortunately, our 2008 paper in Journal of Climate, I now realize, had insufficient evidence to make the case we were trying to make in 2008. I believe our claims were correct, but the evidence we presented could not unequivocally support those claims. Only after finishing our most recent 2010 paper did I realize the insufficiency of that previous work on the subject.] Then, once you think you understand the main points we make in the new JGR paper, read any other critiques or criticisms that catch your fancy. As a teaser, one of the clear conclusions the new paper supports is this: The only times that there is clear evidence of feedback in global satellite data, that feedback is strongly negative. All I ask is that you evaluate whether anyone can come up with a better explanation than what we have given for the structures we see in the satellite observations of natural climate variations. Do not settle for others’ vague arm-waving dismissals based upon preconceived notions or what others have told them. You engineers and scientists from other fields are capable of understanding this, and I am appealing to you to bring fresh eyes to a field where the research establishment has become hopelessly inbred and too beholden to special interests to see that which is staring them in the face. This is the main reason why I wrote The Great Global Warming Blunder…the evidence is simple enough for the science-savvy public to understand. But the experts do not see the evidence because they refuse to open their eyes " Y.S
  5. Fair point Dev ..... but I am not aware that there has been any independent investigative comittees set up to look into the statistical methods he used and which then went on to critisise ..... unlike a certain Dr Mann. Y.S
  6. Great post, I was attempting to put something similar down and you beat me to it. Roy Spencer is an Expert in the field ...... perhaps others should not so easily dismiss his findings. Y.S
  7. Hi Folks, A little more on the case for the recent paper by Roy Spencer. The below is taken directly from his blog. Its a nice description of the current situation regarding cloud feedback science (though clearly written from one side of the argument). The emphasis's I have added. I received a question from a reader today regarding why the writer of a recent article ( http://e360.yale.edu...searchers/2313/ the state of the science on cloud feedbacks did not mention our newly published work.The usual suspects were questioned, but there was nothing new there. Cloud feedbacks are just as uncertain today as they were 20 years ago, blah, blah. More of the same. Now, I would like to think our new paper (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf) demonstrated not only the main reason why cloud feedbacks have remained so uncertain, but why their estimation from satellite data tends to give the illusion of a sensitive climate system. None of the so-called experts mentioned what has been ignored as a potential climate change mechanism: Natural cycles in cloud cover. I had wondered for years why no one investigated the possibility, and our work clarified for me that this indeed is a huge question mark that most researchers do not even realize exists. Unfortunately, I predict it will be at least 2 years before our paper is digested and believed by influential people in the climate community…if even then. (They still think the truth is lurking in computer models somewhere…just turn this knob a little more to the right left…) This brings up the issue of how entrenched some ideas get in the scientific community, and not only for scientific reasons. Dr. Roy in a Previous Millennium In an earlier life, my claim to fame was demonstrating that satellite passive microwave radiometers could be used to measure rainfall over land. My first paper on the subject (actually, my first published paper ever) had the cover illustration on the front of Nature magazine. Ha! If they only knew I would grow up to be a “denierâ€. At the time (1983) the established scientists working with NASA wanted to build the first weather radar to fly in space. While this was a worthy effort in its own right — finally realized with the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) — one of the radar’s original justifications was to measure rainfall over land. My work was apparently providing evidence it was not needed. So, as a post-doc newcomer to the field, I was rocking that boat. For me, that experience was when I lost my innocence. My research worldview was shaken. Scientists are not objective after all! Gasp! Now, even after over 20 years of telling people of all of my subsequent experiences that only reinforced my claim that scientists are not objective, it seemed like no one was particularly worried about this. Then Climategate broke upon the scene. Scientists behaving badly! Gasp! What Was I Talking About? Oh, Yeah, Cloud Feedbacks So, what I am getting around to is that it will take a long time before the climate research community looks at, understands, and believes what we have done. Sometimes I have half-jokingly mentioned that it will probably take an IPCC-ordained scientist to “discover†the same thing. I experienced that behavior, too. NASA research centers can be pretty competitive with each other. If it wasn’t invented at their center, it wasn’t invented. So, getting back to the original question: Why did this science writer not mention my work in his summary article on cloud feedbacks? I’m afraid he’s the last one I would expect to know. Consider: 1) Most scientists, let alone science writers, will not even be aware that our paper has been published. 2) Even if they know it has been published, they won’t bother to read it because they have already heard it conflicts with IPCC orthodoxy. 3) Even if they dare read it, they probably won’t take the time to understand it, and so they will revert to the IPCC party line, anyway. 4) Even if they read it and understand it, they will not recognize its importance. After all, the reviewers made sure our paper was sanitized so that it would not make any outright claims that could potentially shake the faith of the Believers. The reader will instead have to know enough about the field to figure out for themselves what the implications are. Fortunately, I have been getting some good feedback in recent days (Hah! Feedback!). A nice note from Lord Monckton basically said, “NOW I see what you have been talking about!†A blog reader who doesn’t even do climate research read the whole paper and understood it. Now, THAT is cool. But, while this is heartening, we still need the mainstream climate scientists to pay attention. Unfortunately, scientific discovery never was the purpose of the IPCC, and you disagree with them at your professional peril. Y.S
  8. Water vapour as a greenhouse gas is far more potent than CO2 and even small changes in low height cloud cover would have an impact on the radiative budget of the Earth (blocking sunlight and the ocean absorbance of solar irradiation). Of course changes in high level cloud would have an opposite effect, trapping heat. No we don't take the role of clouds as read ... that is the whole point and even the IPCC admit there is a lot more to know about how increasing water vapour in a warming climate will impact on this aspect. It is the biggest uncertainty that there is. So far the climate models all assume a +positive feedback response alone. It is this which is being shown to be highly questionable from Roy Spencers group. You could argue that changes in PDO / AMO and other ocean cyclical factors may also have a role to play in changing the status quo in this regard. I believe (at least from what I have read) that a change in cloud cover of just 1% would be sufficient to account for the warming seen since the start of the 20th century. Would seem perfectly sensible to investigate whether natural cyclical factors have any bearing on the warming seen and whether changes in cloud cover are a possible part of the mechanism. Y.S
  9. Its funny how predictable certain folks are ........ Anyway, I'd suggest that what this does show is that the mechanics of feedback and forcing are complicated with many unknowns still to be unravelled. The role of clouds is (and as the IPCC admits) on feedback is still an unknown quantity that could potentially be a big player. Why don't you and SSS read the book ...... now that he has published data on his central claim, you can at least get over the 'its in a book and therefore has not been peer reviewed and is therefore crap' stance. You might actually like what you see. Better still, go and post your views on his blog and see if you get a response. I see that he is answering comments on the paper at the moment. Or you could just rubbish another paper that dares to question the 'consensus view' on climate forcing. Y.S
  10. Hi Folks, There is a new piece of research by Roy Spencer' group on the role of that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research: The papers title is: "On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing" http://www.drroyspen...ll-JGR-2010.pdf As a synopsis this paper puts meat on the central claim of Dr Spencers most recent book " The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists" and Dr Spencer's belief that climate researchers have mixed up cause and effect when observing cloud and temperature changes. This as a result, the climate system giving the illusion of positive cloud feedback. Here's a following extract from Dr Spencers blog (http://www.drroyspencer.com/), discussing the publication: "Positive cloud feedback amplifies global warming in all the climate models now used by the IPCC to forecast global warming. But if cloud feedback is sufficiently negative, then manmade global warming becomes a non-issue. While the paper does not actually use the words “cause†or “effectâ€, this accurately describes the basic issue, and is how I talk about the issue in the book. I wrote the book because I found that non-specialists understood cause-versus-effect better than the climate experts did! This paper supersedes our previous Journal of Climate paper, entitled “Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration“, which I now believe did not adequately demonstrate the existence of a problem in diagnosing feedbacks in the climate system. The new article shows much more evidence to support the case: from satellite data, a simple climate model, and from the IPCC AR4 climate models themselves. Back to the Basics Interestingly, in order to convince the reviewers of what I was claiming, I had to go back to the very basics of forcing versus feedback to illustrate the mistakes researchers have perpetuated when trying to describe how one can supposedly measure feedbacks in observational data. Researchers traditionally invoke the hypothetical case of an instantaneous doubling of the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere (2XCO2). That doubling then causes warming, and the warming then causes radiative feedback which acts to either reducing the warming (negative feedback) or amplify the warming (positive feedback). With this hypothetical, idealized 2XCO2 case you can compare the time histories of the resulting warming to the resulting changes in the Earth’s radiative budget, and you can indeed extract an accurate estimate of the feedback. The trouble is that this hypothetical case has nothing to do with the real world, and can totally mislead us when trying to diagnose feedbacks in the real climate system. This is the first thing we demonstrate in the new paper. In the real world, there are always changes in cloud cover (albedo) occurring, which is a forcing. And that “internal radiative forcing†(our term) is what gives the illusion of positive feedback. In fact, feedback in response to internal radiative forcing cannot even be measured. It is drowned out by the forcing itself. Feedback in the Real World As we show in the new paper, the only clear signal of feedback we ever find in the global average satellite data is strongly negative, around 6 Watts per sq. meter per degree C. If this was the feedback operating on the long-term warming from increasing CO2, it would result in only 0.6 deg. C of warming from 2XCO2. (Since we have already experienced this level of warming, it raises the issue of whether some portion — maybe even a majority — of past warming is from natural, rather than anthropogenic, causes.) Unfortunately, there is no way I have found to demonstrate that this strongly negative feedback is actually occurring on the long time scales involved in anthropogenic global warming. At this point, I think that belief in the high climate sensitivity (positive feedbacks) in the current crop of climate models is a matter of faith, not unbiased science. The models are infinitely adjustable, and modelers stop adjusting when they get model behavior that reinforces their pre-conceived notions. They aren’t necessarily wrong — just not very thorough in terms of exploring alternative hypotheses. Or maybe they have explored those, and just don’t want to show the rest of the world the results. Our next paper will do a direct apples-to-apples comparison between the satellite-based feedbacks and the IPCC model-diagnosed feedbacks from year-to-year climate variability. Preliminary indications are that the satellite results are outside the envelope of all the IPCC models. No doupt some will find this interesting .... and others will not !! Y.S
  11. Hi Jethro, Thanks for posting those links. Y.S
  12. Yes it was .... it provided a clear means to show that past climate was pretty flat until most likely human derived greenhouse gas emissions forced an unprecedented rise in temps. The whole IPCC third summary report centered its arguments around this issue ...... and that graph. Its not the be all and end all, I agree, but it was made an important issue in selling the whole greenhouse gas derived global warming issue to the general public. But, if there were past periods where similar temperature changes had occureed on a global scale, this then opens the possibility that natural cyclical events / drivers have a role to play. Surely to god at least that point isn't up for debate ?
  13. SSS Its the overwhelming weight of evidence against the 'Hockey-stick' papers, along with other non-tree ring proxy series that makes the argument. Not everybody who is critical can be wrong. Independant panel conclusions also back this up and please stop insulting Wegman. You Cherry pick your arguments. Deep climate or Climate audit whatever. The Hockey stick is dead, the maths used mined the data and the tree ring proxy series used (which appears in all the Mann Papers) have been highly questioned as being unsuitable. This latest report is just another nail in the coffin. I have posted previous papers than use non-tree ring proxy data and which have shown no hockey stick. Known history would add weight to a medieval warm period and little ice age (certain for the Northern hemisphere) ..... the only thing that does not stack up is those ridiculous hockey stick papers. Its a joke and always has been. Yet we are all to believe its okay and all the other folks are not 'proper scientists' or have somehow misunderstood the mighty Mann ..... come off it. Y.S
  14. What a ridiculous post. I simply cannot believe anybody could so miss the key points of this so superbly well as you do. Stunning So every statatician who has looked at and then critisised the Mann papers .... are competely wrong ........ ?!!!! Absolutely priceless, please please enlighten me. What exactly is incorrect in all the independant summations. What is incorrect in the Wegman and NAS reports, the studies carried out by Mkintyre and now Blakeley and McShane that has got it so completely wrong. They all come up with broadly the same key points ...... must be a 'conspiracy' !! Love your quote in bold ....... couldn't apply to you could it. You continuously rubbish one set of work over another ...... because it serves your view point. Sorry this does not wash with me, or should it with anybody else. If you cannot see that this recent paper finds serious flaws and backs up what others have already indicated in regards to the use of temperature proxies ... even when using the same proxy series as used in Mann 2008 and for which it is known there are the usual suspects in there (Bristlecone pine series and the Tilanjer Lake sediments) and still shows that you could just as easily have come up with an opposite answer ..... then well...... no need to go any further. Why don't you read the paper. I have and I am no statatician, but you can clearly see the general thrust of what they attempted and concluded. Have a look at section 3.3 titled 'Validation Against Pseudo-proxies and then section 3.5 Variable selection: True proxies versus Pseudo-Proxies page 15 on up to the graph on page 30. This graph shows three back-casts of the data. One showing and replicating what Mann reported, the other two, more or less the opposite .... Only the one using regression of a single principal component provides the 'hockey stick' ...... when they used regression on ten proxy prinicpal componets and a separate two-stage modal ....... no hockey-stick. Read the conclusions on page 41. Here's a nice comical look at it all: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2773 Y.S
  15. Hi V.P, The point in all this was that Mann refused to show how he worked the data. Information was asked for repeatedly but he would not release it in regards to the 98/99 papers. You can see some of what went on here: http://www.uoguelph....APEC-hockey.pdf Or check out the climate audit site which has a ton of information. There was no disclosure in either paper to the verification (correlation) statistics that couteracted his choice (his team had used a single measure that showed a correlation where other more obvious measures had not). No discussion of this, or to what this could mean to the outcome was discussed. If any paper is demonstrating something as important and controversial as what the Mann papers were (basically re-writing climatic history), you'd think that the Journal would endeavour to see how the data was used to generate the results. Yes, agree with your last point, for papers that are heavily reliant on statistical manipulations of the data, stataticians and computer programmers should be included on the review pannel ....... which is where the NAS, Wegman reports as well as Mcintyre's work all comes in. Y.S
  16. SSS Oh so now real climate is a site to visit when climate audit is not ....... . Complete claptrap ... but I expected no less. You proclaim garbage for one report against another ......yet they both undermine the Mann Papers principal workings .... don't you get it !!! That the NAS critisised the statistical measures but then came away with that the results were 'probably correct' was based on the available other study data at the time which used the same flawed sets of proxy data that Mann had used. Have a look at the correspondance that was undertaken by McIntyre at the time (its available at climate audit). All reports have heavily critisised the techniques used ...... its taken nearly 10 years for the whole thing to be uncovered and undone, when this should have been obvious much sooner. The whole point was that the techniques were flawed and actually mined the data for 'hockey stick' shapes weighting those few proxy series that showed what they were looking for above all others using the discredited tree-ring proxies. That was the point then, and that is the point now. This recent paper just shows once again what a complete load of tosh it was. Here is a reminder of what exactly was going on with the data: http://www.uoguelph....APEC-hockey.pdf Y.S
  17. Hi Dev, The whole point and relevance ... that was taken up by the IPCC of the Mann Hockey stick papers was that they 'smoothed out' past temperature variations .... what else could you possibly take from it ? That there were serious flaws not picked up at review, that Mann refused to allow release of the computer code and mathematical techniques actually used on the proxy data, and the whole McIntyre saga of uncovering the truth, is there in the public domain for all to see. Nobody is saying anything about a conspiracy, only that the paleoclimatic processes of data submittance and review have in the past been too lapse. That the IPCC jumped all over the 'Hockey-stick' paper and graph (appearing on multiple pages of the third assessment report), when there was other data available at the time suggesting that this was at least controversial.... is for others to make up their own minds. But we've been through all this before and I have illustrated my points throughout the various threads in this regards and provided references and other papers. Others have quite fairly added their own views and beliefs to the opposite. This latest paper is to my mind further vindication of McIntyre and McIndricks critique (as well as the Wegman and NAS reports). Y.S
  18. Hi Dev and all, Good points made by V.P . The whole thrust of the paper (which I have read) is to state that the temperature proxies can be really little more use than complete guess work for reconstructing past temperature. Don't forget than Mann used a predominance of tree-ring proxy data for the 98/99 and indeed the 2008 papers. These have been heavily critisised by the likes of McIntyre and others as not being suitable markers for temperature change. All prxy data has its flaws, but tree-ring data more than most. What we know (and lets be honest has been pretty obvious) is that the Northern hemisphere has gone through recent warm and cool cycles ..... The Mann papers were an attempt to get rid of the medieval warm period and little ice age ... thereby allowing a greater weight of argument to be given for the role of AGW to the 20th century warming. Handle of hockey stick and sharp upturn of the blade. That's why the IPCC stuck that silly graph all over the IPCC third assessment report in 2001 (without the data being given proper review). What we have seen from more recent work (most importantly using non-tree ring proxy data), is that these studies by Mann were flawed and that the medieval and little ice age periods were likely global events (prior to the 'hockey-stick' papers that was assumed as correct in any case from a whole number of historical records). Non of this is proof that AGW is not happening (so please don't all shoot me down), but it does allow the possibility that natural cycles can / could have had at least a part to play in the recent warming that we have witnessed. This is relevant to current discussions on the role of the PDO / AMO / Solar cycles etc. In any event, having read a massive amount on the hockey stick issue, I am really pleased that there is now further data available to show it was a complete mess. More importantly (and I wholeheartedly agree with V.P), where conclusions are made in scientific papers that use complicated mathematical techniques to obtain the relevant endpoints, how this was done and with what data should be made readily available for relevant reviewers to assess. That this was not done for the initial 98/99 Mann papers was a disgrace (in my opinion). Y.S
  19. Hi Folks, Not sure if anybody has already posted this but ... there is a new publication due to be issued on temperature proxy reconstructions (McShane and Wyner 2010) submitted into the "Annals of Applied Statistics" listed to be published in the next issue. This paper is a direct rebuttal to the proxy reconstructions of Mann. Instead of trying to attack the proxy data quality issues, they assumed the proxy data was accurate for their purpose, then created a bayesian backcast method. Then, using the proxy data, they demonstrate it fails to reproduce the sharp 20th century uptick: Here's the famous chart before ....... And now after ........... The 'after' chart backs up multiple non-tree ring proxy studies (as well as the multiple criticisms by McIntyre, McKitrick and others) Here is the submitted paper: http://www.e-publica...onfirm=63ebfddf Here is the abstract: "We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago". Y.S
  20. SSS We are at a higher base rate ... are we not !!!!! Therefore of course there is always going to be the chance of extreme events ..... why is that so very odd, if we are at a warmer state than 20-30 years ago, why would there not be the chance of one extreme event or another breaking a record. They were being broken throughout the 90's Every waning El-Nino pumps heat into Europe during the summer months ...... thats a given.... http://www.accuweather.com/video/524147818001/1998-still-beating-2010-by-objective-standards.asp Y.S
  21. Hi V.P, Just been looking at some information posted over on Roy Spencer's blog in regards to downward radiation flow ..... he's conducted some 'backyard Experiments' : http://www.drroyspencer.com/ See what you think? Y.S
  22. G.W Please can you quit quoting the Russia heatwave as evidence of anything ...... you know that this pattern of weather is predicable, has happened before (2003) and is often associated with decaying Nino summers, its not particularly unusual at all (the pattern of weather that is). Check it out for yourself: http://www.accuweath...hannel=vbbastaj It was also forecast back in the winter: Here's the latest thoughts on this from Joe laminate floori: "What is going on in Russia is similar to what went on in France in 2003 and is being caused by the same overall pattern. The headlines scream.. worst in 1000 years... heck lets make it a million years.. cause if we know its a 1000 then we can assume what ever we want. This is the constant battle cry of people who wont explain before hand why a specific event is going to happen ( we are boiling here in the states, yet NOAA had a cool summer) but then run to the all encompassing climate change as the reason.. It is despicable, and deceitful. If you cant see your hand in front of your face, how can you tell me you know what lays beyond. Simply look at the analogs of the reversing el nino, a warm AMO and a warm mediterranean and you get your forecast. The extremes we are seeing in one place can be argued counterweight the cold that is being in the southern hemisphere, not as widespread, because there is not nearly as much land to feedback to expand the area of extremes. But its there. And the idea it would be a very warm summer lends itself to such extremes. But Los Angeles Cal, is having one of their coldest summers on record. No screams about that. Remember back after winter. I (Joe laminate floori) made a forecast for a warm summer for europe overall, and while I wanted to score my points with the main subject of the blog, I said the further east and south you go, the more it would be hot. But I said that this is the summer, at least in the scoring point for my forecast, London, that would be the barbecue summer. Well London has had 33 PERCENT OF NORMAL PRECIP and is 4.2 above normal. Last year it was 3 above normal and 104% of normal precip, but wet and cooler northwest. Point is, its a hotter, drier summer. And the other point is that when you have a reversing Nino during a warm AMO with a warm mediterranean you are likely to have alot of heat in europe in the summer into Russia. In 03, it set up further west, the blend of all the year is west east and right into Russia. But not letting people know that such things are in the ballpark given the pattern, and then trying to play it up as something that cant happen and is, is simply feeding off the reliance of the ignorance of people not to look and understand" Y.S
×
×
  • Create New...