quote:
I found the Realclimate article you quote a hoot.
I only quoted it "a hoot" (as you say) because the region that the "red spot" is expected in is open to TOA where IR energy is "expelled" into space. Thus, it won't get warm (or red)! That is, unless the troposphere expands by a hitherto unforeseen extent (and in that event I'd expect that region to have chaotic tendencies also, unlike the "no weather strat analogy" that the tropo extends into).
quote:
My scepticism just grows and grows.
Hardly surprising SoM, but remember that language (use of the "tongue") is always evolving. Don't know about you, but I have trouble keeping up with it. This must be either the onset of senility, or the realisation that there is a need for a basic standard. Don't worry, I'm sure you are only looking for a basic standard (there doesn't seem to be one with climate science)!
quote:
Try this.
And.
quote:
They claim the continuous graph is not global but anthropic CO2 is meant to be a global signature so should be clear in the continuous non-global record.
I've linked these two together because it leads back to many moons ago when we were discussing a "pump hunt" scenario.
Unless centrifugal effects are accepted (as well as the coriolis effect) it is impossible to rationalise PDO, or AMO with the attractors that generate their existence (or to differentiate PDO and AMO as attractors, or separate systems). Earth is still "over-spun". Thus, is not in an equilibrium of any description in the long term.
Best regards, suricat.