2011-03-02 09:20:08PDO rebuttal
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.65

Here we go. Please don't forget to check the "what the science says" box, I had a lack inspiration when I wrote it.

2011-03-02 10:44:56comments
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

For some reason your link didn't work.  Here it is.

I think it would be worthwhile to add a discussion that PDO and similar oscillations don't create heat; they basically just move it around from oceans to air and vice-versa, so while they might cause the surface air to warm, they won't cause the air and oceans to both warm simultaneously, which is what we're observing from the current warming.

For "what the science says", I would say something like that.  That PDO neither creates nor retain heats, but rather just moves it around, and PDO doesn't have a positive trend over the past century anyway.  Some other edits:

"Hypothesis" is misspelled.

"apparent visual correlation between warming periods and the positive phase of the PDO"

"Although the PDO has a strong interannual variability, the two phases show a prevalence of either the positive or the negative pattern."  Not sure what you're trying to say in this sentence.

"this is the reason why some skeptics think that the PDO put the brakes on global warming."

"we may say that the PDO is a reddened version of ENSO"  What do you mean by "reddened"?

"As noted before, some skeptics claim that the PDO is responsible for the 20th century temperature trend"

"In this brief post I've tried to highlight some features of the PDO that I believe are important"

2011-03-03 09:51:01
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.103

Made the changes. The two unclear senteces now read:

"Although the PDO may vary from year to year, it shows a tendency to be either in the positive or in the negative phase."

and

"To make it simple, we may say that the PDO is atmospheric "noise" interacting with ENSO."

Not sure they are clearer now, please let me know.

Added a paragraph on the heat moved around

Changed the "what the science says" box

2011-03-03 17:15:02Better
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233
Okay, you're saying PDO tends not to be neutral. That's much clearer. By the way, this post reminds me of Barry's third entry on Spencer's book, talking about how he cooked his graph. You might even be talking about the same cooking. Might be worth a link to is post (which I think we're publishing tomorrow).
2011-03-03 18:08:30
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.212.221

Typos

1. Paragraph 2 -"can not be the cause any long term term"

2. 2nd paragraph after figure 2 - "This fact alone should make the alert bell ring before" = alarm bell

3. PDO IN THE PAST - "Tipically"

Reads very well to me.

2011-03-03 23:10:53
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209

Thank you guys. Let's wait for other comments; then, John, you can plan to publish it whenever you think it's appropiate.

P.S. I know it has been already said several times but, just as a reminder, I think that our internal review process is  priceless.

2011-03-04 03:31:00
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.161

I forgot to add the link to Barry's Spencer's blunder part 3.

2011-03-04 04:51:39live
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

I went live with the rebuttal and drafted up a blog post.  Feel free to edit the title or anything else, Riccardo.

2011-03-04 06:35:35
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.161

There is the aknowledgement left from the previous rebuttal.