Talk:Pacific decadal oscillation
|WikiProject Environment / Climate change||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
PDO cool phase
This article appears to attribute the 40-70's global cooling to a PDO cool phase, which is distinctly dodgy. Sources please. William M. Connolley 22:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC).
Redirect to self
"Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation" appears to link to a separate article, but that article is actually a redirect page that links back to this one.
At one point in the article we see "(inter)Decadal Pacific Oscillation", as though they are the same, then the assertion that IPO is similar but different (affecting the Southern hemisphere), then a note that it's all different from the QDO, without further definition or explanation of what QDO might be. ???? -- Craig Goodrich 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I also found all that confusing too, five years later. This subject has been in the news recently  so at least the lead of this article could do with being a bit more accessible to non-experts (like me). Qwfp (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- They're similar in form? What two locations are involved in the PDO shift, where is the PDO water bulge, and where are the PDO thunderstorms? -- SEWilco (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does the Reconstructed PDO graph completely fail to show any 20-40 year patterns from before 1900? The 1900-2000 graphs look fairly convincing at first glance, but one warm period followed by one cool period followed by another warm period doesn't necessarily indicate a long term pattern. It could just as well be that the cool period was an anomaly that wasn't common before and should not be expected after. This article seems to be more certain of itself than its sources are.
 This article states "the PDO can last a great deal longer, 20 to 70 years, unlike El Nino or La Nina that typically persist less than 18 months." 20-70 years? And also "Recently, unusual atmospheric conditions, not consistent with the PDO or other phenomenon, have been observed in the North Pacific, leading some scientists to believe the ocean's full fury is still being underestimated, as it might possess another "climate-controller" in its arsenal."
The references don't seem to link to any very recent articles on the PDO neither. The one above was the most recent at 2004, 5 years behind us. Is there anyone who knows more about this topic than I do who can shed some light on whether the scientific community is as certain about the PDO and its mechanisms as this article seems to be? --Sckchui (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
A new article, but has a fairly decent review of the origin of the PDO. Since I imagine this article has few people watching it, this message serves mostly as a reminder to myself to actually write a section on hypotheses for the PDO. -Atmoz (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
What are units on graph ordinates?
I just came across the term "Pacific Decadal Oscillation" in the commentary of Elizabeth Kolbert in the April 12, 2010 issue of The New Yorker. I'd never heard of term, and was happy to find this entry at Wikipedia. I'm puzzled by the graphs however, as the ordinates aren't labeled. Are they records of temperature or pressure? What are the units of measurement? I went to some of the links on this page but (in my hurried review of them) could not figure out the units for the ordinates on similar graphs there either.Fagiolonero (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Relation to global warming
Can anyone help me add his viewpoint on this matter? Do I have to cite the peer-reviewed science directly, or can I just quote Spencer's web site (at first)? --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I really have to chuckle at this. Let's write it in plain English. The prevailing hypothesis is that the PDO is caused by "reddening", aka brownian motion, aka "random walk noise", in the ENSO, and "stochastic", aka random, atmospheric influences. Why don't they use even plainer English and just say "We don't yet have a clue"? ;o) 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
North Pacific Gyre Circulation
The equation appearing in this section appears to be incorrect.
The dimensional units on the right-hand side of the equation are length/unit time/unit time, i.e., dimensions of acceleration.
The dimensional units on the left-hand side of the equation are length/unit time and length/unit time/unit time, respectively.
This suggests that the first partial differential term should be written as the second partial derivative with respect to time.