On 17/02/2016 12:50, dawlish wrote:
Idiot.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a particularly tolerant, liberal or thoughtful response really. Save
it for people you know. There are a number of us who may appear as
idiots from what we write on here but without knowing us personally or
our current mental or physical state of health I think it is wrong to
mock. Perhaps ignore or engage would be a better strategy in his case.
Dave

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
...

Statistics are a useful tool if they tell you anything that can be used
with certainty.

Probably! (But what a classic...)

Thank you Dave. If you can interpret the gobbledygook in that post, that would be excellent. It's a post from an idiot.

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:59:21 +0000
John Hall wrote:

In message -jade, Graham P
Davis writes
One tipping point that may be worth considering is the one
associated with the bistable nature of the North Atlantic current
system. The NAD may flip from being a warm offshoot of the Gulf
Stream to a cold one sourced from the Labrador current. Over the
past week or so, I've been wondering whether this flip, which I read
about nearly fifty years ago, may be the result of surface water
salinity changes rather than the much-trumpeted Ocean Conveyor.

Interesting. Do we know roughly when previous flips may have occurred?

Sorry, I can't remember whether the book mentioned particular instances
and, if it did, when they were. It mentioned that the flips were
sudden and had been correlated to cold periods in the climate of NW
Europe. The data on the changes in current were derived, as
I recall, from foraminifera in ocean-bed cores whilst climate-change
data came from Greenland ice-cores. If any of this sounds familiar,
it's because the scientists in "The Big Chill" Horizon programme
claimed to have done the same thing for the first time - only they were
actually beaten to the punch by thirty years or more.

One reason why I'm doubtful of the theory that the reduction in
salinity of the deep currents causes a slowdown in the Gulf Stream is
that I was totally unimpressed by the scientists on the programme.
Claiming to have discovered things that nobody had seen before is
either dishonest or ignorant, whereas saying that the Gulf Stream
might stop altogether is just ignorant. When they got so much wrong
on the programme, I've begun to wonder why I ever thought they were
capable of getting one thing right. Still, stopped clocks are right
twice a day so anything's possible.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

On 17/02/2016 15:20, dawlish wrote:
Thank you Dave. If you can interpret the gobbledygook in that post, that would be excellent. It's a post from an idiot.


dullish the arrogant ****er strikes again!

On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 16:23:32 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:59:21 +0000
t. When they got so much wrong
on the programme, I've begun to wonder why I ever thought they were
capable of getting one thing right. Still, stopped clocks are right
twice a day so anything's possible.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

Graham, can you recall was the more recent study one that included examination of tree rings from Newfoundland forests (or the like!)? My dimming memory recalls something along those lines when the claim was 'new' and indicative of slow down in the Atlantic current..? The trees having showed dramatic growth restrictions over a period of time, etc, etc.

Then again, I might be barking up the wrong tree(ring)..and succumbing to Film or storybook fiction overload!

Google is your friend here.

On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 21:21:31 UTC, JCW wrote:
Had a quick read of this, understood very little of it, but of course caught the last few lines which read:

"The first of these oscillations may even turn out to be as strongly negative as around 1810, in which case a short Grand Minimum similar to the Dalton one might develop. This moderate-to-low-activity episode is expected to last for at least one Gleissberg cycle (60-100 years)."

The remaining extract he

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...64682608003787

This should give rise to further discussion / analysis by those with interest and knowledge of cycles and their possible or potential impact on weather?

A Dalton minimum-type possibility, eh?


The transcript of the BBC's "The Big Chill" is he
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...illtrans.shtml

The abrupt changes had been known before the ice core data was made available by Richard Alley and friends, but it was not known how abrupt they were - only three years for the first half of the Younger Dryas ending.

The THC did stop, but was that the cause of the YD or was it a result of the YD?

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 07:16:50 UTC, Alastair wrote:


The transcript of the BBC's "The Big Chill" is he
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...illtrans.shtml

The abrupt changes had been known before the ice core data was made available by Richard Alley and friends, but it was not known how abrupt they were - only three years for the first half of the Younger Dryas ending.

The THC did stop, but was that the cause of the YD or was it a result of the YD?

Thanks for the link, Alastair.

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:32:30 -0800 (PST)
JCW wrote:

On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 16:23:32 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:59:21 +0000
t. When they got so much wrong
on the programme, I've begun to wonder why I ever thought they were
capable of getting one thing right. Still, stopped clocks are right
twice a day so anything's possible.


Graham, can you recall was the more recent study one that included
examination of tree rings from Newfoundland forests (or the like!)?
My dimming memory recalls something along those lines when the claim
was 'new' and indicative of slow down in the Atlantic current..? The
trees having showed dramatic growth restrictions over a period of
time, etc, etc.

Then again, I might be barking up the wrong tree(ring)..and
succumbing to Film or storybook fiction overload!

I hadn't bothered to look for any papers by them, watching "The Big
Chill" was enough to put me off.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...illtrans.shtml

I'm really fed up with scientists re-inventing the wheel or discovering
yet again than water is wet.

Just one example:
I think it was in the same book where I read about the bi-stable nature
of the N Atlantic currents that the author explained how ice isn't
slippery because it melts under pressure and that it is due to
the molecular structure of the ice at the ice-air interface. A few
months ago in the New Scientist, there was an article on the recent
discovery that ice isn't slippery because it melts under pressure and
that it is due to the molecular structure of the ice at the ice-air
interface.
Aaaaargh!

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/