by Judith Curry
I now have some of the presentations from the Santa Fe Conference posted on a web site.
The Conference was discussed on this previous thread.
Check out a good article on the conference written by Rob Nikolewski, a New Mexico journalist. Nikolewski interviewed Muller, myself, Ramaswamy, Monckton.
After talking to scientists and listening to their sometimes arcane presentations that often went over the heads of the unititiated, I reached some conclusions after the 5-day conference.
Conference presentations
The website for the presentations is here. I managed to get 28 presentations (about a third of the total). I’ll highlight a few here, that are relevant to topics that we have been discussing and work ok as stand alone ppt presentations.
Pal Brekke: Does the Sun contribute to Climate Change? JC note: overview of a range of solar issues.
Anthony Davis: Cloud (and Aerosol) Remote Sensing: Thinking Outside the Photon State-Space Box JC note: overview of state of the art aerosol and cloud remote sensing techniques.
Mark Flanner: Arctic climate: Unique vulnerability and complex response to aerosols JC note: addresses the complexity of the radiation environment in the Arctic
Takuro Kobashi: High variability of Greenland temperature over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core
Derek Lemoine: Formalizing uncertainty about climate feedbacks
I was wondering if the location of warming be identified.
I would guess that warming over last century or so has been in mostly in arctic regions, but is this actually known. Or the recent .7 C warming can be characterized as to where and when.
In a warming world one would expect regions to be warming the most and regions cooling the most.
It seems knowing where region are warming and cooling the most may shed light on most recent “pause” in warming.
Don Easterbrook’s slide 14 is a classic expose of the current CAGW debate / fears.
Now where is the debate over the likelihood of such natural events compared to the current angst over the impending “catastrophic” 2 deg C warming?
Slide 27 shows an uncomfortable growing decline in the global temperature trend in all 5 major temperature series.
Global cooling kills far more than global warming.
The slides tell a story that doesn’t make sense because the government has hidden, ignored or suppressed precise experimental data on the Sun for four decades that would explain the slides and also tell the public that government officials have absolutely no control over the forces inside the Sun that sustain life as a continuously evolving process on the surface of a planet that has experienced a continuously evolving climate.
Some of the experimental data are shown in slides at a 2005 conference in Dubna, Russia:
http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm
Government suppression of information on the Sun is documented in a video summary of discoveries over the 1961-2011 period:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Summary_of_Career.pdf
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
The last slide in the talk by solar physicist, Dr. Pal Brekke, promotes his new book – “Our Explosive Sun”
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/santafe/papers/Sun_climate_SantaFe.pdf
The word explosive describes the object that produced our elements, gave birth to the Solar System five billion years (5 Gyr) ago), sustains life, and exerts primary control over Earth’s climate.
Reluctance to admit the Sun’s explosive nature and repulsive forces between neutrons in the solar core have compromised astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, nuclear, particle, solar and space sciences for the past four decades.
It certainly offers a classic example of something.
Those figures you quote are temperatures in central Greenland, not global temperatures.
But of course you didn’t know that did you. Wonder if Don Easterbrook knows.
Having looked at more of Easterbrook’s slides I have to wonder if Easterbrook understands that GISP2 is not a global temperature record.
On one slide in particular he’s claiming that in the last 20,000 years there was a century in which the world warmed 24 degrees F.
And by doing that he’s falsely misleading people that global warming is no big deal. David L. Hagen obviously fell for it for example.
I refer you to slide #5
Last bullet point.
“The GISP2 isotope data reflects Greenland temperatures but excellent correlation with global glacier fluctuations makes it a good proxy for global temperatures.”
It’s wrong. Greenland temperature varies far more than global temperature. It certainly isn’t a good enough proxy for global temperature for him to make the comparisons he does.
Do you really believe him that there was a century in which the entire world warmed anything close to 24 degrees F?
lolwot
Since you object to the evidence, please explain the cause of the variations Easterbrook documents in slides 11-15, and the uncertainties of ice core measurements that support your argument.
Furthermore, please enlighten us as to the temperature and CO2 conditions during the carboniferous period, ~ (300 million years ago) and the variations before and after that!
Re: “he’s falsely misleading people that global warming is no big deal.”
You accuse – without evidence.
By the scientific method and logic YOU have the burden to show that:
1) global warming from anthropogenic CO2 will dominate natural cycles.
2) that the changes are “a big deal”.
3) that Easterbrook knows the above.
4) that Easterbrook is “falsely misleading”.
I fail to see where you have demonstrated any of these, thus your argument fails on logic and on the scientific method.
PS: You may also wish to learn about the: Temperature conditions of coal formation (re Al-hexaphenoxide and Al-tetrahydroxy-diphenoxide complexes)
Very nice work peter.
it takes guts to dive into Icoads
A sidebar on the land temps.
See what carrick did
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/comparing-land-temperature-reconstructions-revisited/#comment-85859
I can heartily recommend delving into ICOADS. If for no other reason than to inoculate yourself against the danger of taking the raw measurements at face value.
Like Webster, I’ve been intrigued by the World War 2 bump in temperatures. My take on it is that it is real, but it’s important to understand how SST data biases might have affected the specific shape of the bump.
The Thompson et al. (2008) paper isolated the 1945 drop by removing ENSO effects from the global series and showed that a large part of the drop occurred over a period of only a few months. That period coincided with a large change in the composition of the ICOADS data base. The drop wasn’t the same size in all areas.
The rapid change is consistent with a switch from mainly US ships making engine room measurements before the drop and mostly UK ships making bucket measurements after. You can see this most clearly in Figure 4b from the paper. The fact that the change reported in Thompson et al. (2008) was so fast means that the diagrams in Webster’s presentation (which are 5-year smoothed) will tend to smear it out.
Some people interpreted the drop as being due to measured temperatures before it being biased warm. Others interpreted the drop as meaning that measured temperatures after it were biased cold. Others have interpreted the drop as being an accurate reflection of what happened to global temperatures in that period.
Since 2008, we’ve looked a little more closely at the transition – as well as SST biases throughout the record – and although the switchover from engine room to bucket can account for all of the drop, it’s not likely. Temperatures during the war were biased warm (more engine room measurements), but the relative bias between that period and the climatology period was much smaller and when you are plotting temperature anomalies, those are the differences you see. Temperatures after the drop were biased relatively cold (more bucket measurements), but there the assessed uncertainties are larger.
I like the idea of using comparisons with land temperatures as a means of investigating this phenomenon, but I’m wary of interpreting a near-coincident drop in both as implying that the SST data are not affected by biases. You’d expect to see a connection between land and sea variability, but without some idea of how the two are related it tells us nothing concrete about the magnitude of the drop in SST.
The comparisons between ERSST and Hadley SST (There are a number of Hadley SST datasets – I think Webster used HadISST) products with ICOADS in slides 27-33 are interesting. Without the notes it’s hard to know exactly what Webster intended to demonstrate for each one. There appear to be differences between the base lines used for the three data sets to calculate dSST and the ICOADS data have not had bucket corrections applied prior to 1941 as the others have. I’ve been mentally zeroing each line over the period 1961-1990.
The general summary that analyses tend to reduce variability is something I’d agree with. It’s noted in the HadISST paper and observations are blended back into the HadISST reconstruction (where we have them) to restore that variance. However, ICOADS will tend to have too much variability because of measurement errors and poor sampling (precisely the problems that interpolated analyses are intended to solve). This is most apparent during periods of sparse data such as the Second World War. One might expect the ‘true’ variability to lie somewhere between the two. It’s definitely worth remembering that comparing analyses and raw measurements needs to take into account measurement and sampling uncertainties.
The ICOADS data are also used in the ERSST analysis so this might be considered a relatively easy test for the analysis to pass. It would be interesting to take newly digitised observations that no one has seen and use those to assess the analyses. Projects like http://www.oldweather.org/ are feeding digitised logbook data into ICOADS and as the analyses have never seen these observations they would constitute a much sterner test of the interpolated values.
John, thanks very much for your input.
Thanks for providing an interesting place to discuss such things.
a large part of the drop occurred over a period of only a few months.
The abruptness of the drop implies that it was a phenomenon consistent with an artifact of changes in measurement methods and/or a consequence of changes in internal ocean dynamics – marine air surface temperature records also showing a drop suggest that it was not entirely artifactual.The abruptness, as well as the greater magnitude for SST than land temperatures tends to exclude a major forcing mechanism (aerosols, ghgs, or solar changes).
It is interesting that following the nadir in about 1950, NH and SH temperatures appear to have trended slightly differently. The NH exhibited a very flat temperature line until the late 1970s, followed by a sharp rise in slope. This is consistent with the “global dimming and brightening” described by Martin Wild and others as a consequence of increases in cooling aerosols followed by a partial reduction in aerosol cooling after the 1970s. The SH, however, showed little evidence of this. Rather than a flat temperature, SH temperature trended slightly upward after 1950, and this changed little after the 1970s, consistent with a much smaller effect of aerosol cooling in the SH, a result that might be expected from the greater NH land mass and industrial activity.
Hi Fred,
All the marine data from and around the Second World War need to be treated with extra caution. The number of observations available in ICOADS at the time is small and there are large changes in (amongst other things) observation times, the fleet of ships making the observations, where and how the observations were made on the ship and the geographical coverage.
The 1945 switch from mainly US to mainly UK will affect all variables in some way. I’m not saying it will have a major effect on all variables, but as an example, marine air temperature suffers from even worse problems than SST in this period. I can’t find an online example of the unadjusted night marine air temperature series (there’s a diagram in Folland Parker and Kates 1984 paper in Nature “Worldwide marine temperature fluctuations 1856–1981” but it’s paywalled), but WWII sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb with an estimated bias of more than half a degree.
All this doesn’t rule out some kind of internal variability, but it does start to map out some of the factors that need to be excluded if you want to understand it in that way.
Much more patient & careful consideration of geometry & spatiotemporal aliasing are needed to understand this:
Month-normalized -SOI integral: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn3.png
Serious discussion of the 1940s peak hasn’t even started if EOP haven’t yet been mentioned:
http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/DataProducts/EarthOrientationData/eop.html
See particularly nutation in obliquity residuals.
Naive data vandalism needs to be arrested. Explorers don’t even have a handle on the nature of the variance.
I give a broad brush overview here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases.pdf
This is a sampling & aggregation issue (not an “unknown mysterious physics” problem as most have assumed). Earth itself aliases & integrates. The aliasing is quasi-discrete. Abrupt change occurs naturally.
We need more SPATIAL sampling & aggregation experts to join the climate discussion and correct the errant physicists that are (due to gaps in their sampling & aggregation foundations) misleading online climate discussions.
Note to signal processing people who are thinking about trying to help: This isn’t simple temporal aliasing. Time travels in only one direction, but spatial gradients turn in time. If you join the discussion, be sober with your assumptions. In particular, please step way back (outside of the paradigm in which you are usually immersed) to recognize the assumptions you are making implicitly (as a function of cultural norms in your field, rather than absolute philosophical fundamentals of pure logic).
Another cautionary note: Be aware that there are those muddling the discussion by trying to conflate terrestrial geomagnetic field spatiotemporal aliasing with terrestrial climate spatiotemporal aliasing. They are able to arouse suspicions of “mysterious unknown physical forces” (to help attract funding to solar science) by recognizing (but not stating explicitly) that the terrestrial climate & geomagnetic fields roughly share gross patterns (but not exactly & not always). In short: Beware confounding of spatiotemporal aliasing (that is being exploited in an attempt to channel funding away from where it needs to be).
Thanks Steve,
Regarding the data from EAU that I used for the analysis: I will post something on Judith’s blog about my recollections of how the data was made available to me by dr. Jones. Strangely, it differs from his recollection. But it has been a long time….
Re the results, I will write up this for publication. I think it is a great opportunity lost not to look at the well-documented climate variability in the first half of the 20th century.
Peter
Tip: Please don’t implicitly assume there aren’t any important spatial phase reversals.
WWI: vernal equinox.
WWII: autumnal equinox.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn3.png
See the section “Early 20th Century: Natural Phase Shifts &/or Synchronized Bias?” (bottom of p.19) here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases.pdf
That’s just a broad brush overview. The pattern is also in geomagnetic aa index, but I would sternly caution about confounding (same driver, different pathways).
Compare with Tsonis’ p.11:
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/santafe/papers/Climateshifts.pdf
Not sure if he’s noticed:
“Also, the transition to increased uniformity across seasons in the late 1950s [ http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn3.png ] is perfectly coincident with the very striking qualitative shift in phase relations noted by Schwing, Jiang, & Mendelssohn (2003).
Schwing, F.B.; Jiang, J.; & Mendelssohn, R. (2003). Coherency of multi-scale abrupt changes between the NAO, NPI, and PDO. Geophysical Research Letters 30(7), 1406. doi:10.1029/2002GL016535.”
EOP:
http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/DataProducts/EarthOrientationData/eop.html
The puzzle piece Piers Corbyn has that Tsonis is missing (so far – & so far as can be told from what Tsonis offers in public view) is the spatiotemporal solar & lunisolar constraints (which regulate quasi-discrete physical aliasing).
Please be sure to look at p.4 in my article. Solar cycle acceleration/deceleration is calculated from sunspot numbers. (Many mistake the SCL’ curve for a smoothing of ERSST.) The solar cycle’s the crank shaft and the westerlies are the drive wheels. In between lie differential transmissions.
Apologies for terseness — always short on free time these days.
Best Regards.
Finally, a good photo of Judith Curry. One that doesn’t make her look like Satan’s sister. Now, I don’t think I would run if I met up with her.
awwww. . . . come on . . .
http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/climate-heretic_1.jpg
Nice photo Judith. Who is it of? :)
Tonyb
Misinformation is easily grasped from visible exteriors of Suns and scientists. That is what the propaganda artists peddle.
The inner character of the Sun and Professor Curry are better reflected in a.) Pal Brekke’s solar images and b.) This image of Professor Curry:
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/santafe/papers/Sun_climate_SantaFe.pdf
http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/climate-heretic_1.jpg
Images of the solar surface are explained by experimental data [1] that show world leaders are totally powerless over the forces that cause climate change.
1. The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1
Oliver, only you could have drawn that connection.
Indeed – along with Girma’s graphs, some things are more predictable than the climate :)
M. Carey,
I realize your farm-boy origins have not provided you with the graces expected in conventional mixed-company. So here’s a couple of tips:
-It is generally considered inappropriate for a free-loader farm-boy, at another’s blog, to disparage the personal appearance of the blog-hostess, even in the form of a back-handed compliment.
-It is also generally considered poor form to deliver a compliment, even a back-handed compliment, with one’s farm-boy fore-finger stuck up one’s nostril.
And, M. Carey, while Dr. Curry may not measure up to the standards of your barnyard aesthetics, she is, to the discerning eye, what a more gallant age would call a handsome lady. A very handsome lady, indeed. Or to put it in terms you can understand–if Dr. Curry was an airplane she’d be B-36.
Before some malicious wag has at me, let me say that I’ve consulted the Urban Dictionary and I see that the term “handsome lady” has taken on a vulgar meaning totally at odds with my usage.
As I learned the term and use it, “handsome lady” has the meaning the Urban Dictionary assigns to “handsome woman”–“A woman with the kind of refined beauty and attractiveness that requires poise, dignity, and strength of mind and character, things that often come with age; not merely sex-appeal. “
Poor Mike. Back on the farm, we would say you’ve stepped in it, and now you can’t get it off your feet. That’s happened to me more than once, so I feel empathy.
M. Carey,
I knew I could count on you to get a country-boy guffaw out of my “gaffe”, such as it is. Please appreciate, M. Carey, that I am rather removed from the latest in trash-talk and so was unaware that a highly complimentary term, in the genteel Southern tradition, has been taken up as a vulgar piece of street language. Hence my vulnerability to “stepping in it” as you so colorfully describe it. I guess the joke is on me and you’ve enjoyed your little laugh, M. Carey. And, let me add, your coarse sense of humor is the perfect complement to your uncouth manners and loutish behavior around women.
You know, M. Carey, my father also grew up on a farm. But, unlike you, he always showed a gentlemanly respect towards women–especially my mom with her proud Southern sensibilities. And if you had ever leveled a crack at my mother, of the sort you offered Dr. Curry, dear ol’ dad would have decked you (he had a gift for fisticuffs), no questions asked. But I guess Iowa produces a different class of farm-boy.
mike, Judith Curry strikes me as having the same qualities as my lovely daughter, who is sexy, sweet, smart, and tough. I think both are strong independent women who can take care of themselves,
Although I did it jokingly, I was serious when I told Judith the media’s photos don’t do her justice. I would have told my daughter the same under similar circumstances.
mike, I suspect you want to place women on pedestals. I want to treat women as my equals. Old-fashion women probably like you better. Modern women probably like me better.
M. Carey,
Good Lord! What is about you greenshirts and your penchant for half-baked amateur psychology.
As for your theory of your superior appeal to “modern women.” Who knows, you may score big in certain “modern woman” circles. Anything’s possible. But I can say that I raised my son to use gentlemanly speech with women and to show courtesy and respect for women. I dunno, M. Carey, he seems to being doing O. K. with the ladies–based on his reports many “modern women” are sick and tired of today’s excess of goofy man-boys and find him to be a welcome and refreshing contrast.
I also have a daughter, M. Carey, who shares all of your lovely daughter’s fine qualities. And , thankfully, she will be with family this Christmas unlike last year’s Yuletide, which she spent in a combat zone–her second such deployment. You know, M. Carey, you may be half-right about that pedestal business, because I guess you could say I do put my daughter on a pedestal. But then that’s where I tend to put Marine Corps officers of the highest caliber. And my daughter demands that any gentleman seeking her company, treat her with courtesy and respect. She has no tolerance for jerks, I can assure you. .
So, M. Carey, are you sure you have the definitive angle on modern
women?
M. Carey,
Let me add that you say your comments directed at Dr. Curry were meant as a joke. You may well, in person, have an engaging personality that ensures your rather outlandish “humor” is received in good fun. But just as the blogosphere does not handle irony well, I suggest it does not do justice to good-natured teasing humor either. Regardless, if you were just joking, then I take you at your word, and withdraw the worst of my prior comments.
I must say, your description of your daughter won me over. If you’ve raised a daughter with her qualities, you must have more than a little going for you. And, then, I also can’t help but have a kindly thought for someone who shares my admiration of B-36’s.
mike, I posted this out of place, and I want to repeat it in case you didn’t see it, so you know i do appreciate your kind words about my parenting. As a father, I am more lucky than good. Some friends who I consider better than me at parenting have not been so lucky.
You may be pleased to hear I can’t break the habit of subjecting women to little acts of chivalry, including opening doors, helping with coats, pulling back chairs, and behaving in other ways that expose my old-fashioned upbringing. However, I think women are amused rather than offended by any suggestion they are weaklings.
I hope you enjoy your daughter’s visit. Make sure she knows she has done you proud.
His comment was not rude nor meant to be. Judith and many others that frequent this site know that it is common knowledge that some people like to use unflattering pictures of Judith on purpose. They cherry-pick this just like they cherry-pick the data. He was im[lying I believe that others try to use bad pictures to make her look like Satan’s sister. Clearly a joke.
He was simply saying it was nice to see a picture that was a good one.
Yes. It’s hard to mistake. And there’s a not-so-subtle sexism to it since people generally don’t care that much about what men look like. They do it to Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin all the time.
“There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.” ~David Evans
prove it?ha. sounds like he thinks that is settled science
For one who didn’t even know what the “hot spot” was after he spent a year going on and on about how it didn’t exist (even though that would provide a further positive- or less negative- feedback if he was right), he also seems to be quite ignorant into climate feedback theory.
Not that I’m endorsing what he said, but this isn’t about theory, this is about evidence.
unfortunately this evidence is completely beside the point.
let’s stipulate it is true. that the system damps the warming.
the question is.
1. how much warming will c02 add
2. how quickly will that happen
3. will the “damping” “work”?
4. How fast
5. what damage will be done in the meantime
6. what does it cost to avert this damage
7. what does it cost to mitigate against the damage
Frankly the way the system has operated in the past is immaterial to a large number of questions we have about the future, the immediate future.
Which has also got nothing to do with “climate feedback theory”.
P.E. – In order to extract some content out of these past few comments about the David Evans statement, could I ask your opinion on three questions:
1) Do you agree with Evans that CO2 warming is damped?
2) What do you believe to be the conventional climate science opinion on this?
3) What do the answers to 1 and 2 tell you about David Evans’ ability to interpret the data reported in the climate science literature?
Fred, I already said that I’m not endorsing what he said. I was just objecting to feedback theory having anything to do with it. That’s all. Feedback theory, in and of itself, does not preclude such dampening.
It just occurred to me that most of the misundersetimations that I get into here are over nomenclature. I tend to want to stick to narrow definitions. Most people don’t care.
P.E. – My point was this, with apologies for using the Socratic method to get to it:
The climate science literature as well as standard texts are universal in explaining that the climate response to CO2 is to damp the warming. This is due to the overriding effect of the Stefan-Boltzmann law which dictates that a warming body sheds more heat. Positive feedbacks (e.g., water vapor) that amplify the CO2 response don’t lead to a runaway climate because of this ultimate damping.
Evans may have confused such positive feedbacks with an undamped response, and believed that current climate science perceives CO2 responses to not be subject to damping.
His statement implies (to me at least) that he doesn’t know what current climate science says about critical principles of climate change. If he did know this, he wouldn’t have suggested that there was anything that needed to be “proved”. His statement is analogous to saying that it has now been proved that the Earth isn’t flat.
Incidentally, the reason I addressed the questions to you instead of Wagathon is that you seem to be receptive to information.
MoshPup,
“the question is.
1. how much warming will c02 add
2. how quickly will that happen
3. will the “damping” “work”?
4. How fast
5. what damage will be done in the meantime
6. what does it cost to avert this damage
7. what does it cost to mitigate against the damage”
1) very little
2) already happened
3) already did
4) done done it
5) none
6) whatever the climate alarmists and idiot politicians already spent and will spend in the fututre before being stopped
7) nothing except for damage by politicians and alarmists
(snicker)
kuhnkat.
learn the future tense
For clarification, I was referring to the idea that feedbacks need to dampen the CO2 response in order to prevent an unstable system.
You do need a net negative feedback (when including the Planck radiant response) but the customary language in climate terminology is to define the Planck feedback as a reference state and so a negative feedback simply implies that you get between about 0 and 1 degree C per CO2 doubling (and is what Evans argues). There is absolutely no evidence of this, and that evidence is primarily observationally-based (esp the paleoclimate record). Those arguing for it are doing so on wishful thinking and faith.
Fred Moolten,
I dare you excuse yourself for using the method of our beloved peripatician!
Just to wrap this whole thing up, it’s fine to say that there’s no evidence of negative feedback. That’s another argument to be carried out in another place. But “he also seems to be quite ignorant into climate feedback theory” implies that the feedback theory itself was an issue. In this case, it isn’t.
I’ve also corrected people when they did violate feedback theory by claiming that with high enough negative feedback, warming can cause net cooling. It can’t. But the constraints of feedback theory don’t place any limit on how much warming can be reduced in response to warming.
This isn’t even control systems theory; it’s basic op amps. It’s quite common to create a unity gain buffer by feeding back the output of a high-gain op amp into itself through the negative input. That’s all I was driving at. Nobody has ever created an inverting amplifier with negative feedback, and the input signal on the positive input.
The behavior of static feedback systems should be obvious after reading a hobbyist book on op amps, but the nomenclature seems to get mangled when we start applying this to climate systems. And it seems like the climate world has only just begun to scratch the surface of the much more complicated dynamic analysis, which is what the control systems people (such as your truly) spend most of their time on.
Climate has been stable. That is proof of Negative Feedback to temperature.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/
steven,
Perhaps you can explain why history is not relevant to climate science?
Quacks need bigger motors!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/science/space/neutrino-finding-is-confirmed-in-second-experiment-opera-scientists-say.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065
still racing for pink slips.
With the missing ‘hot spot’ the jig was up. That is when we knew–in mid ’90s–that the claimed consensus on AGW theory was nothing more than evidence of an ideologically-motivated pathological science.
“At this point, official ‘climate science’ stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory -that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.” ~David Evans
That is funny. In order for a photon to travel at the speed of light and oscillate in three dimensional space it is theorized that a photo can travel at light speed times the square root of 2 along a portion of its true path.
I doubt that any size particle can travel far before doing the Wifffle ball though.
Err, Cap’n. The photon doesn’t travel in a squiggly line. You’re mixing paradigms, and taking illustrations too literally.
Not my theory P.E. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDYQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.superluminalquantum.org%2F2ndQuicycleConference.ppt&ei=3kjKTs7-K8i9tgeD_azaCw&usg=AFQjCNGVrC5mPkscsbA-sv8-jDXI8-cj6w&sig2=SyITfZmjMlCrmJ7ctKzurA
But if a photon has angular momentum in lieu of mass, something has to give.
As I understand the IPCC logic, CO2 absorbs radiation and causes 1 degree C warming. This evaporates some water and the additional water vapour absorbs more radiation and causes another 2 degree C warming.
If this mechanism is true then the earth at +3 degrees should immediately evaporate enough water to drive to +9 degrees. And so on.
This is positive feedback with a gain of 2. Unstable.
It is not happening.
Over to you, IPCC
That’s not the “IPCC logic”, ghl. Rather, the feedback terms can be expressed as a Taylor series that converges over multiple iterations to a limit, and the extra 2 degrees in your example is the final result of all the iterations rather than the initial effect of CO2-mediated warming. The convergence, and hence the stability, is due to the Stefan-Boltzmann (SB) law, which tells us that a warming body will radiate more heat. This is what limits the degree of amplification possible from water vapor or other positive feedbacks. Although the SB response (also called the Planck Response) is often not formally referred to as a feedback in climate science terminology, it is the equivalent of a negative feedback in control theory.
ghl, if water vapour increases the temperature; how come in Amazonia max temp is 37C, in Sahara is 57C? Both are on same latitude / altitude, same distance from the equator and the polls. Water vapour means; day temp lower / night temp higher. Minus H2O in the air, water storages and topsoil moisture > more extreme between day and night. That is not GLOBAL warming or GLOBAL cooling. If you don’t know what is good climate, ask the trees. .
I looked at the Greenland ice core data presentations and both seem to miss pointing out the role that stochastic processes play. There are probably enough distinct forcing factors with a multitude of varying periodicities and amplitudes that it is hopeless to try to deduce deterministic influences. So in the one presentation North looked at, the tidal periodicity was observable, yet how much of an impact does it have?
This is a different perspective that I worked out:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2011/11/multiscale-variance-analysis-and.html
This draws on what Ludecke was trying to do but this is doing it correctly — a simple analytical stochastic model that describes Greenland and Antarctica time series data, along with simulations, and the potential for generating exceedance probabilities for AGW versus natural variability.
You really have to use a stochastic model as there is absolutely no other way to fit probabilities into a prediction and quantifying uncertainties. The deterministic analysis is fine for diagnosing but it doesn’t provide the complete picture.
WHT
I must say, I agree with your concluding statement:
If we can get more of these proxy records for other locations around the world, we should be able to produce better models for natural temperature variability, and thus estimate exceedance probabilities for temperature excursions within well-defined time scales. With that we can estimate whether current temperature trends are out of the ordinary in comparison to historical records.
I regret I do not have the time or tools to devote to more detailed review of your very considerable work.
Are you able to estimate _how much_ more proxy data from other locations it would take to achieve the goal you put forward?
What is interesting is the way that the Greenland ice core proxy measurements fluctuate significantly more over a shorter time period than the Antarctic ice core data. Apparently, this has much to do with the differences between the north and south hemispheres, and how the Arctic Ocean region and northern latitudes can change albedo rapidly.
The time constant difference for fluctuations is 100x between the regions. Perhaps Antarctic is more representative of climate change than Greenland, simply because it is most resistant to change and therefore reveals the actual warming and cooling.
I don’t know if I can answer that yet. This is an ongoing process for me, and whatever I pick up in reading the top-level posts here is the direction I tend to look at. I don’t know how much these bits of evidence have already been reconciled in the jigsaw puzzle.
Web,
This is something interesting,
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2011/11/electromagnetic-fields-and-climate.html
It seems to add a new boundary layer to my model,
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2011/11/more-on-4c-and-other-boundary-layers.html
It’s simple:
Ocean-continent contrast is north-south asymmetric. NH has higher fractal dimension.
Meaningful p-values are unreachable with present levels of understanding. Rather than advocate stochastic modeling, why not do the only sensible thing: more careful data exploration. It’s the only way to avoid paradoxical misinterpretation.
I’d love to hear Fred’s response to Schwartz’s estimates of sensitivity.
Unfortunately, Schwartz hasn’t really contributed anything to the literature that would make anyone believe the previous three decades of research on the topic is all wrong. He had a paper a few years ago with several errors that have long been pointed out, and there’s been a couple of back and forths since then on related issues. A key conclusion from some of those back and forths, as well as a number of other papers (see some by Reto Knutti for example) is that the observational record (which includes the 20th century record, and also responses to volcanic eruptions for example) is an incredibly poor constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity. It’s possible a much longer record, particularly one where anthropogenic aerosol influences can be considered negligible, will be able to tighten our knowledge of this, but the science can only use the modern record as a very loose constraint that, at best, helps to supplement the information gathered from other methodologies (including large member ensemble-based modeling and paleoclimatic evidence).
Thus, simple regression plots of temperature vs. forcing (with a number of assumptions about ocean heat uptake thrown in) are not very useful, and also not “new” (in fact, looking through 3 or 4 lectures above, I didn’t really find any “new” contribution to science, even if some worthwhile points have been made or restated).
Chris
Here are a few simple questions I expect you will avoid:
Which GCM is the most accurate in forecasting temperature and rainfall as a function of CO2 levels?
What is the reletive accuracy of that model in forecasting just these 2 simple outputs over time?
Please explain why it makes sense to average the outputs of GCMs vs. using the GCM that is known to be the most accurate?
Are you one of the people who want to enact government policy based on the output of the current GCM?
Please explain why it makes sense to average the outputs of GCMs vs. using the GCM that is known to be the most accurate?
It makes no sense to average various GCM experiments,as due to the abscence of solutions for the NS fluid each experiement is solely an experiement on the program generating it,rather then on the idealized NS fluid.ie experiments do not vote.
there is no simple test for “most accurate”
go define that and collect your cookie
1:He had a paper a few years ago with several errors that have long been pointed out, and there’s been a couple of back and forths since then on related issues.
A. everyone makes mistakes
B. he corrected it publically
Dont make me bring up Mann. you’ll be embarassed.
2. After proxies, Hansen regards the observation record as the best evidence, ahead of models.
Use the Schwartz. That ring is bupkis. It came from a cracker jacks box.
-Yogurt
steven,
You say Hansen likes evidence from observation, but the claims he makes are based on things he sees that only seem to exist in his head.
David – I looked at the Schwartz ppt presentation with interest because, while his conclusions can be questioned, his status as a reputable scientist is well deserved. My take on his talk is that if it is ever to appear in print, it will be in a substantially revised and tentative form (as occurred with his earlier work on climate sensitivity).
The relevant published papers on transient climate sensitivity or transient climate response (hereafter TCR) are discussed in detail in the Probabilistic Estimates Of Transient Climate Sensitivity thread, which was based on the 2011 paper by Padilla et al. However, I’ll link to my Comment near the end of the thread because it also links to the Gregory and Forster 2008 paper where I believe the particular empirical method discussed by Schwartz was developed. I was surprised that his talk didn’t reference that paper, since he used exactly that method. Perhaps he mentioned it verbally. Alternatively, it’s conceivable he arrived at the same equations independently, but was unaware of their earlier development because he was unfamiliar with the prior literature.
Both Gregory and Forster 2008 (GF08) and Padilla et al 2011 arrive at similar TCR – respectively 1.3 – 2.3 C or 1.3 – 2.6 C transient warming for doubled CO2, which translates approximately into the canonical 2.0 – 4.5 C range for equilibrium sensitivity. The difference between GF08 and the Schwartz talk resides in the values for the forcings. Schwartz used values starting in 1900, whereas GF08 chose a much later range as a starting point, based on the much larger uncertainty values for the earlier part of the twentieth century. If we look at the linear regression slopes in Schwartz, it’s clear that the slope of a line drawn from 1970 onward would be steeper than one drawn from 1900, and it is this difference that yields the higher values for GF08.
One could argue that the GF08 choice was arbitrary and that one could choose any of a number of earlier starting points, including the 1900 one, arriving at different slopes depending on start point. However, this is where Padilla et al add a rigorous and quantitative dimension to the analysis. Using a recursive Bayesian method by employing a Kalman filter, they developed ranges for TCR that utilized data from each new time point to update and narrow the 90% confidence interval. An example is seen in their Figure 6, which shows that the earlier time points included values in the range found in Schwartz, but as additional data were added, the range converged to the final values they cited. Padilla et al was also notable for the extensive evaluation of the effects of uncertainty on the TCR estimates, including uncertainties in aerosol forcing and natural internal fluctuations.
At this point GF08 as a pioneering effort in this particular approach to TCR, and Padilla et al with its refinements stand, as far as I know, as the only published estimates on this issue, with earlier TCR values derived from different approaches (but yielding similar estimates). Because in particular, Padilla et al have gone well beyond the approach described in the Schwartz talk, I don’t think Schwartz’s work is publishable as it is, at least as far as climate sensitivity is concerned. His discussion of ocean heat uptake is a different issue. I spent less time on it. I’m not sure as to the extent it adds to current literature on the subject, but this deserves attention.
I think its very interesting that Schwartz shows that the sensitivity estimate is quite sensitive to the assumed historical forcings and that since we have a poor handle on aerosol forcings, there is a wide range of possible sensitivities. This seems to me to be the most important take away from his talk. Fred, it seems to me that this uncertainty must also apply to the papers that you seem to like on this subject. It seems to me on the basis of these calculations that a low climate sensitivity cannot be ruled out.
there is a wide range… a low climate sensitivity cannot be ruled out
The Padilla paper is particularly important in addressing the uncertainty issue, with data on how different uncertainty estimates affect the TCR range, including, as you mention, aerosol uncertainty. A much lower climate sensitivity than estimated by GF08 and Padilla et al can never be ruled out, but it has now become so improbable that there should be little expectation to see much outside their range in the future – in fact, the range should narrow.
Because of my interest in the TCR for both practical reasons and because of it doesn’t require GCM simulations to arrive at a sensitivity value, I spent less time on the Schwartz talk’s estimate of equilibrium sensitivity. However, if one looks at his table giving both TCR and ECS values, the ratio of the two is plausible for the higher ECS values but implausible for the lower ones, which would have required the equilibrium temperature response to be only slightly higher than a transient response at about 70 years of increasing CO2. Such a phenomenon would require the ocean to equilibrate far more rapidly than it appears capable of doing based on its heat capacity. For a reasonable ratio of TCR to ECS, see the histogram in Transient vs Equilibrium Climate Responses. Schwartz appropriately, in my view, places more emphasis on the TCR than ECS.
I don’t know how this “improbable” statement is arrived at Fred. If its statistical, it seems to me to carry less weight than the analytical methods used with data by Schwartz. So how is using a shorter time interval than 1900-2000 justified? It seems to me that the longer time interval might be more accurate just because the effect of internal variability would probably be lower. It looks to me that in fact the lower estimates are disliked by the climate scientist community generally perhaps because they disagree with the models. But if history is any indication, the sensitivity of the models could be too high. I’m sure Fred that in 1988 you would have agreed with Hansen’s 4.2K. Schmidt 2006 has 2.6K for the GISS model. I also looked up a recent review paper on climate sensitivity and it still shows the Forster and Gregory 2006 result along with all the other ones in the AR4. The review paper also talks a little bit about uncertainties and the issue of the geographic distribution of the forcings which can be critical. This issue it seems to me is critical to explaining climate change because the feedbacks depend critically on it.
It still seems to me that the bottom line is that the empirical evidence gives rise to a wide range of sensitivities, some of which are a lot lower than the range you quote Fred. I also do not regard the issue between Spencer, Lindzen and Dessler to be settled. I think that a low sensitivity is probably more likely just based on the temperature increase we have seen so far given a CO2 forcing that is about 50% of that from a doubling.
In any case, if in fact the aerosols are causing this low observed sensitivity, it would seem to me to be quite easy to invoke geo-engineering solutions that manipulate upper atmosphere aerosols or even reduce incoming solar radiation. I actually think that a warmer world with more CO2 would be beneficial, just judging from the tremendous biological productivity evident say 100 million years ago.
David – In my view, you are trying much too hard to disregard the evidence in these papers because you want to preserve the possibility in your mind that somehow in the future, the climate sensitivity to CO2 will turn out lower than it now clearly appears to be. I’ll leave you to nurse your wishes.. Let anyone else interested visit the papers by Padilla et al, Gregory and Forster 2008, the Isaac Held link, and the Schwartz talk if they want to make their own judgments.
Regarding your other points, I too don’t regard the issues between Spencer, Lindzen, and Dessler to be entirely settled. My own views of whose conclusions are more likely correct is irrelevant here, because they are evaluating the sensitivity responses to ENSO type short term fluctuations arising regionally rather than globally, originating in the ocean rather than the atmosphere, and alternating between positive and negative states over a period of only a few years rather than persisting for decades – climate responses to such phenomena can’t give us quantitative values for sensitivity to long term forcing from CO2, and both Spencer and Dessler have acknowledged this.
Your statement notion that “it would be quite easy to invoke geoengineering solutions” for the global warming problem is something you might want to reconsider after doing some research on the subject of geoengineering and its potential consequenceS.
Fred, There you go again. I agree that people can visit the papers and evaluate them. Of course you didn’t answer my question regarding the justification for using a shorter period of time by Forster and Gregory vs. Schwartz’s longer time scale. Clearly, it is a central question.
It seems to me that you are going to great lengths to rationalize the view that climate sensitivity is within the range given by GCM’s when the actual data gives a strong possibility of a lower sensitivity. I believe that if in fact, we are overestimating the negative forcing from aerosols, that the data would imply an even lower sensitivity. Quite frankly, it seems likely we are overestimating it for a couple of reasons. First aerosols are washed out of the atmosphere rather quickly and their effect should be stronger in the Northern Hemisphere whereas Judy points out warming has been much more in the Northern Hemisphere. Second, I believe that aerosols are the most difficult to disprove way to explain why the world has not warmed a lot more over the last century. It is simply unknown, but it seems to come down to “if it wasn’t the aerosols, what else could it have been.”
And finally, Fred, your superior tone wears a little thin. You remind me of Kaufman’s characterization of St. Thomas Aquinus as knowing everything and proving everything from the most trivial fact to the most profound cosmic question with equal certainty. This may work with medical patients of a certain age (those raised like yourself in an era where respect for authority was inbred). In an age that saw vertebraeplasty and Vioxx and climategate, its harder to make it work. My brother encourages people to be an “active” patient and to question everything a doctor tells me because the literature rides on so many small and very difficult to measure effects. And then there is the issue of the corruption of the literature and doctors by money. I trust my brother more than you Fred on this one.
Thanks for your comment. The papers are available for anyone who wants to read them, including their choice of intervals (the entire twentieth century for Padilla), the evaluation, of uncertainty, and the recursive procedure for narrowing confidence limits over the course of a long interval. I’m not sure from your comment that you were completely aware of how that was addressed.
Again, I encourage you to read up on geoengineering because it is not as “easy” a solution to global warming as you implied.
Hrm.
I gotta say, the Easterbrook presentation is disappointing. And I owe Dr. Orssengo an apology. With stuff like the imaginatively arranged images in Easterbrook’s presentation floating around, Girma’s graphs suddenly look so much less awful in comparision (though still invalid).
Has Don Easterbrook never heard of the Principle of Superposition, that he implies short-term ‘cooling’ during periods of CO2 rise mean anything other than that there are several factors influencing global temperature, and sometimes they interfere constructively in one direction or another?
Indeed, since he had slides of the PDO and AMO near at hand, why didn’t he perform at least rudimentary comparisons of these oscillations, perhaps detrending the global line by weighted removal of PDO and AMO, if he hopes to discuss what the temperature ought be absent these curves?
(Hint: it ought be considerably flatter; it isn’t.)
Or that, given the known ocean basin trends (ocean basins each being large, but none so large as one sixth the total area of the surface of the globe, I think, and thus finding their contributions to the total global temperature diluted at least by a factor of six), the cumulative and global tendency of temperature to rise due GHE must be considered potentially able to — as it has been shown to overwhelm in so little as sixty or seventy years even the constructive interference of the two powerful AMO and PDO influences — in time overwhelm all such cyclic and regional impacts, and must be counted as possible to be the most dramatic single temperature event since the last ice age, on track to be a half millennial rise as profound as the rises associated with the end of ice ages, which themselves are generally an order of magnitude longer or more?
Or that we are now almost 70% higher than the average level of CO2 of the past 15-20 million years, triple the highest excursion from that mean on record in Antarctic ice cores, and thus maybe there’s cause to think some of the assumptions he makes may be questionable, as they’re based on a world that stopped existing in 1750?
Other than that, an entertaining slideshow.
Not nearly as entertaining as you post. Your “has been shown to overwhelm” and “we are now almost 70% higher” are hilarious. Rave on.
I don’t understand the Easterbrook presentation at all. He might as well draw pictures of clouds and point out farm animals in the patterns, for all the insight I can get out of it. There are methodical approaches of getting at the underlying patterns of physical phenomena but pulling together a bunch of anecdotal observations is not the way I do it.
David Wojick & Fish Beware
You’re quite right; always best to check the math and show the processes used:
Present day CO2 level = ~390 ppmv
Mean CO2 level for ~800,000 years (per Vostock, EPICA, etc.) = ~230 ppmv (within range of 180-280 ppmv on 99.9995% of measurements, or more simply, 230 +/-50 ppmv)
Geophysical estimate of current era of CO2 levels stable within the 230 +/-50 range? 20 million years+.
((390/230) – 1 ) * 100 = ~69.6 (percent above mean)
(50/230) * 100 = ~21.7% (percent range of 99.9995% of observed CO2 levels from the 230 ppmv mean in ice cores)
69.6/21.7 = ~3.2 times rise (ie excursion) above the global mean of the past 20 million years, and climbing.
Any other questions?
GIGO. CO2 ice core records are not accurate. There’s no pre-industrial CO2 level, just like there’s no pre-industrial temperature. 180-280 ppmv is simply laughable. We have direct CO2 measurements from 1800s and early 1900s. They may not be background, but even today’s non-background measurements are not higher than in ~1940, for instance.
There are also balloon/rocket measurements from the late 19th century on. CO2 hockey stick is even worse than the temperature one.
You must be talking about Jaworowski and Beck. Well, the former just died a few days ago.
I really don’t understand why you must lie when the data is easily available for everyone to look at..
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/CO2%20Measurements%201812-2004.jpg
WHT, your link doesn’t work for me. I am not talking about Jaworowski and Beck. I am talking about real direct measurements of CO2 from 1800s and 1900s.
Sadly, it appears at this time http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com is treated as malicious by protection software, so tread with caution.
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003893.html
And in particular http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
The difficulty of taking CO2 level measurements close to biological and industrial vectors is signficant, and I think Beck too dismissive of these difficulties given the simplicity of using Arctic, Antarctic and remote island sources, which are in extraordinary agreement to form the 230+/-50 ppmv baseline. He does however have a fascinating and erudite discussion that is not to be ignored; much can be learned from it.
My own report of 20 million years has several sources, however I’m quite satisfied with figures of 10-15 million years as being somewhat more reliable (eg http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5958/1394.short — I understand WUWT launched rather savage attacks on this paper and its authors when it came out, so it’s unsurprising it has come through review unscathed and is frequently cited as authoritative.)
Those are obviously bad measurements. No way can CO2 fluctuate to that degree since the adjustment time is very long..
WHT, CO2 does fluctuate to that degree all the time. You KNOW that. You probably think that “global background” CO2 does not fluctuate to that degree.
You really got yourself into a trick box buried in a very deep hole with this one. That’s what happens when you don’t have logic on your side.
Let me explain.
CO2 fluctuates according to the carbon cycle, which is obviously seasonal and the atmospheric concentrations will “breathe” with temperature variations. But across multiple years, once the CO2 becomes an excess concentration, it will sequester out of the system only very slowly. So if some huge spike appears, which is what that diagram I posted of “real CO2 measurements” shows, that CO2 will only damp out of the system slowly. Yet it doesn’t, and actually those same measurements shows that CO2 drops as fast as it rises.
Unless of course you want to believe that the CO2 is that sensitive to global temperature, which would mean that the temperature fluctuations in the 1800’s were HUGE. That becomes the logical conundrum. You see, if the temperature during the 1800’s didn’t change accordingly, then there would be nothing to drive the CO2 to those wild swings.
The trick box is that you either (1) believe that CO2 changed by 100 PPM during various times in the 1800s and then have to admit that CO2 has a huge sensitivity to global temperature or (2) believe that the measurements were not very good at all. Either choice, you fail !
I have only been studying this climate science thing for a little while now, and it is remarkably easy to get the hang of the logic.
WHT,
Atmospheric CO2 concentration can (and does) fluctuate to the degree of >100 ppmv within hours. However when there’s enough wind, CO2 falls quickly to the background level.
Now, we have numerous CO2/wind data from the 19th and the early 20th century. Many of them are very accurate. We also have balloon measurements from higher altitudes (background). Surface measurements with enough wind are also ~background. Those data simply do not support any constant “pre-industrial” CO2 level.
Web,
I tend to agree with Edim on the CO2 variation in the NH, but not even close to sure how much it might have varied. I was looking for rain water analysis for something to compare but with no luck, most don’t include anything lower than SOx+
Do you know if there were CO2 tests on the other glacial cores, alpine especially?.
Yes, and that is why so many of those measurements from the 1800’s are bogus. In one year, 1855 it is 390 PPM and the next year it is 300 and then stays at 290 PPM for the duration except for these obviously bad data points.
This is a rehosting of the graph:
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/552/co2measurements18122004.jpg
Listen, if you have done as much experimental work as I have, you can just look at these graphs and tell that the data contains garbage.
As to the rest of what you are saying, I can see that you are now into heavy back-pedaling. Especially when you say this:
Yes, the ones that are around 290 PPM are probably accurate.
Perhaps you just want to stop pushing this line of reasoning.
“Yes, the ones that are around 290 PPM are probably accurate.”
There are very few around 290 ppmv and they’re from the cold late 19th century. Even then, the most are higher around/higher than 300 ppmv. During the early 20th century warming, CO2 increased.
Like I said, there are many surface CO2 data with complementary wind data. Those data do not support stable “pre-industrial” background CO2 level. Science should study and analyze those data. It would be very interesting to compare modern data with the historical from the same places.
I predict again that, if the cooling continues and intesifies, annual atmospheric CO2 growth will decrease and eventually shift negative.
Geophysical estimate of current era of CO2 levels stable within the 230 +/-50 range? 20 million years+.
Source?
We estimate CO2
concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest
Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and find an erratic decline
between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing
from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon
burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24Myr ago), atmospheric CO2
concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable
than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred
during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago
http://globalchange.nasa.gov/KeywordSearch/Metadata.do?Portal=GCMD&KeywordPath=Parameters|PALEOCLIMATE|PALEOCLIMATE+RECONSTRUCTIONS|ATMOSPHERIC+CIRCULATION+RECONSTRUCTION&NumericId=18491&MetadataView=Full&MetadataType=0&lbnode=mdlb2
BartR,
I have no doubt that a great deal of the change is due to CO2. I am a bit troubled by the lack of understanding of the combined properties of CO2 and the constant references to a discredited paper. I have gone through the Arrhenius paper and tried to figure out why he recanted his original estimates for the 1.6 (2.1) which is in better agreement with Callendar and the more recent estimates. Have you read Arrhenius’ paper?
I suggested a post humous online peer review a while back since his published paper is constantly brought up and his recantation never mentioned. To me, a questionable paper is odd basis for such an important theory.
Since the tropopause should be equally depressed as the surface temperature is increased by the atmospheric effect, if energy is to be conserved, there appears to be a bit of a misunderstanding of the impact that CO2 can have. After all, it only absorbs in a relatively small portion of the total surface emission spectrum.
Webhubbletelescope has made pretty good progress with the ice core records and things seem to be diverging from theory. Unless you consider a stable Antarctic and Tropopause consistent with theory.
Bart R. Yeah,
69.6 % above mean with no significant temperature change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4WMdwIwrSw
So exactly how does Antarctic Ice cores relate to NH temperatures?
What was the temperature change in the tropics during the last glacial?
Why is global warming so regional?
~69.6% of something that’s only ~0.0001 of the atmosphere, and more importantly a mere ~5% of the contribution of GHE, and you’re claiming ‘no significant temperature change’ when that change itself, when compared to the net ~33 deg C contributed to the Earth’s temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius), is also on the scale of ~5% (about 0.7 deg C)?
Hrm. 5% increase in contribution to GHE (component of additional CO2E to mix of all condensing and noncondensing GHGs in atmosphere on average). 5% increase in GHE-caused temperature.
Coincidence?
How to global baselines in CO2 from Antarctic ice cores relate to regional temperatures? As a global baseline, which can be derived by removing regional influences from the regional temperature.
Bart I completely understand that what the change in the CO2 concentration should do. The question would be why it is not doing it in the Antarctic and since you brought up Arrhenius, why it is not doing it in the tropics. Arrhenius estimated the greatest increase in global temperature at latitude 25 north.
As for the Antarctic being a good baseline for global temperature it is pretty good, but scaling that baseline to the NH is a bit problematic. Based on the overly simplistic T=alpha*ln(cf/co) it would be impossible to tell. There is a bit more to radiant physics than just the concentration of one gas. Web, has some interesting theories there.
What impact would CO2 have if the temperature of the effective radiant layer of the gas were -60C relative to the surface source of the OLR? Where is that in Arrhenius’ equation? What would the the maximum possible Greenhouse impact given 238Wm-2 absorbed in the lower atmosphere with 174Wm-2 absorbed at the surface and 64Wm-2 absorbed in the troposphere?
Inquiring minds want to know?
CDFB
There’s a global rise in CO2. There’s a proportional global rise in temperature. The correlation is extremely good, on the global scale on the multidecadal timespan.
Sub-global correlations and sub-decadal timespans are of questionable value in exactly the same way as sub-millimeter measurements of the length of a coastline are questionable when estimating the time it takes to drive along the coast road.
One expects wildly divergent measurements as an effect of the fractal dimensionality of smaller scales and spans in every complex enough system.
There are theorems of Chaos Theory that allow one to correlate the fractal dimensionality of various measures, and I’ve seen some years ago — but sadly cannot reproduce — some arithmetic showing how well the fractal dimensionality of CO2 and temperature correspond.
This is an astounding result, which is a very compelling fingerprint pointing to CO2-temperature correlation.
Bart R, you claim to be a student of fallacies. By far the most common fallacy infecting the climate debate is false confidence, an inductive fallacy. If you do not know, or understand, the problems with ice core proxy estimates, etc., too bad. Claiming to know what CO2 levels have been for millions, or even hundreds, of years is fallacious.
David
Claiming to know what CO2 levels have been for millions, or even hundreds, of years is fallacious.
Huh.
Those darned archaeologists who claim to know something about pyramids and mummies, fossils and dinosaurs, the geophysicists who describe the formation of the planet billions of years ago.. all of those exhibit far more false confidence, if what you say is true.
Or, Dr. Too-Good-For-Physics-Because-Philosophy-Is-Enough, the false confidence may be yours, in dismissing, y’know, real sciences because of your work in the Sociology of Marketing.
Bart R
The graph that is “invalid” is yours that ignores the 1880s and 1940s peaks and the 1970s valleys with your smoothing of the annual global mean temperature data.
http://bit.ly/uoEXKj
Girma
You say I ignore the 1880s, 1840s and 1970s peaks and valleys.
I say I look at them far more closely than do you:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1917/to:1940/trend/normalise/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1940/to:1963/trend/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1970/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1963/to:1986/trend/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/trend/normalise/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1986/trend/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1970/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:1975/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:1945/to:1975/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:1915/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:1885/to:1915/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:199/mean:211
PDO observations do not begin until 1917 on alternating 23-year trends, however that’s still close enough to the 1910 valley to know that constructive interference with AMO (shown as linear trends every 30 years starting 1885, a 5 year Atlantic and 7-year Pacific lag from the global, implying possibly that it is global temperature driving SST, not the other way around) is strongly correlated at that time to the dual SST oscillation nadirs, and also that the 1880 peak corresponds somewhat to an AMO/PDO dual zenith. Indeed, it correlates better to the mutual peaks of AMO/PDO than to 1880, once solar cycles (not shown) are removed.
In short, the 1880, 1910, 1940 and 1970 peaks and valleys are extremely well explained by Principle of Superposition of just three waves: AMO, PDO and Inverse Hale Cycle giving the apparition of a rising (at 0.06 deg C/decade) 60-year cycle that has no other mechanical explanation proffered in the graphs Girma presents, and does not explain why Girma’s curve ought occur by coincidence and also requires Girma further to show why the factors in this superposition do not participate in his peaks and valleys.
The AMO and PDO and solar cycles each themselves alone contribute an order of magnitude less to the amplitude of the temperature than we see in the portions of the graph since 1980 that are explained only by CO2 level, once these three waves are removed.
Girma
To show some of the difficulties of Graphical Methods:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/to:1882/trend/normalise/scale:0.5/plot/esrl-amo/mean:163/mean:167/plot/esrl-amo/from:1882/to:1914/trend/normalise/scale:0.5/plot/esrl-amo/from:1978/to:2010/trend/normalise:0.5/scale:0.5/plot/esrl-amo/from:1946/to:1978/trend/normalise/scale:0.5/plot/esrl-amo/from:1914/to:1946/trend/normalise/scale:0.5/plot/esrl-amo/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12
The by-eye best fit for AMO (green line smoothed to remove other influences) is a 64 year period peaking in 1882, 1946 and 2010 and lowest in 1914 and 1978.
However, the unsmoothed yellow line shows that this hypothesis is approximate only within wide margins.
We have too little data to accurately measure the periodicity of this putative wave, and need at least two and a half additional centuries of observations before a satisfactory fit could be established, all other things remaining equal.
Note how this curve provides almost zero explanation for the long term temperature rise observed in HadCRUT, which began substantially below AMO and rose to significantly above it.
(cont’d)
Likewise, with the PDO’s probably 53 year cycles — only somewhat more difficult due the far shorter and far more variable data:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1908.5/to:1935/trend/normalise/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:199/mean:211/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1935/to:1961.5/trend/normalise/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1961.5/to:1988/trend/normalise/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1988/trend/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:163/mean:167/from:1900/plot/jisao-pdo/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/from:1900/plot/jisao-pdo/trend
We have data in WfT only since 1900, with peaks in 1935 and 1988, and lows in 1908, 1961 and expected in 2014.
Again, PDO does nothing to explain the rising global trend — indeed, PDO is falling overall. (As is frequently pointed out, about 1/3rd of all regional measures are either not measurably rising, or are falling.) PDO influence ought have reduced global temperatures significantly in the past decade, which remains the warmest decade in the instrumental record.
BartR, said, ” triple the highest excursion from that mean on record in Antarctic ice cores,”
You live in the Antarctic? Maybe you should take an excursion there. The Antarctic ain’t excursin’ :)
easterbrook presentation was a hoot.
steven mosher
I wasn’t even there, but I admit to laughing out loud just looking at the ppt.
Dr. Curry,
Stephen Schwartz showed on page 20 a value of 21.2 +/- 2.1 W per (yr m^2 K) as a result, but the corresponding slope on the figure reads 14.1 +/- 1 W per (yr m^2 K) for the heat capacity Cu, but I couldn’t find his explanation for it in the previous or following slides.
Does anybody have an idea to help me out.
Best regards
Günter
Sorry typo its W yr per (m^2 K)
If I interpret his figure correctly, the 21.1 refers to heat capacity, while the 14.1 refers to heat uptake after accounting for heat loss from the upper ocean to other compartments including the deep ocean. (I’ll also take this opportunity to correct my description of his talk in an earlier comment as a ppt presentation – it is simply reproduced here as a pdf from his slides)
Fred,
Thanks, good hint. I think it would be good if Judith could clarify that, since looking at his slides it is very misleading, but ict could be also that the ocean signal accounts only for 2/3 of the absorbed energy because of ocean surface area.
Regards
Günter
Re: Anastasios Tsonis
AMO/NAO/PDFO
you expressed wish for someone to sort these out. http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/04/scenarios-2010-2040-part-iii-climate-shifts/
I think your readers may find some of the AMO-NAO relationships apparently resolved : http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/theAMO.htm
M. carey | November 20, 2011 at 3:35 am
Considering your posting history here … Any woman (or man, for that matter) who aspired to be (or could be considered as) your “equal” could only be described as an underachiever.
Yes, that is what he means. Drag them down to his level.
Peter J. Webster
Note: A =>1880, F(or G)=>2000s
That is what I have been addressing in this blog forever and the following is my interpretation.
http://bit.ly/cO94in
Until this natural interpretation is disproved, it must be accepted as valid.
All the aerosols, volcanoes and greenhouse emissions have not changed the global warming trend trajectory of 0.06 deg C per decade for the last 160 years as shown below.
http://bit.ly/vpkwvv
As a result, the effect of aerosols, volcanoes and greenhouse emission on the climate is nil.
“Until this natural interpretation is disproved, it must be accepted as valid.”
dear god. you are hopeless.
Steven
I believe 100% what the data says:
http://bit.ly/vpkwvv
What does the above data shows?
Aerosols, greenhouse emissions, volcanoes don’t affect the global warming trend. As a result, their effect on climate is NIL!
I look at Nature’s beauty
(No, not you Judy!)
And can only see God’s making.
Until this interpretation is disproved
(No, not you Judy!)
It must be accepted as valid.
Anastasios A. Tsonis
Thank you Anastasios.
That is what the observed data shows:
http://bit.ly/sxEJpK
http://bit.ly/szoJf8
Girma
Alternatively, and without using invalid methods:
AMO ~64 year cycle
PDO ~53 year cycle
Mutual constructive peaks approximately every 64×53 = 592 years
Observation shows if peaks are within the same decade, an apparent peak on the global temperature curve (unsurprising, as sub-decadal measures are too short to establish significant trends) results, which is every 59.2 years, or about a 60 year cycle (with proviso).
We see exactly this in the 1940’s and 1880’s, and likewise the low points in the 1910’s and around 1970.
Likewise, about two thirds of all peaks will not correspond, and the result will either be destructive interference or only weak constructive interference.
However, the proviso is that these peaks and valleys are not going to be at exact 60-year (or whatever) intervals, but will tend to drift as the 53 and 64 year periods desynchronize.
Likewise, when the shorter PDO is bracketed between peaks of the longer AMO, there will appear to be a 0.06 deg C/decade rising trend on this part of this illusory 60-year cycle.
However, that illusory rise ought become an illusory fall by 1980.. which didn’t happen.
Instead, the warmest decade in the instrumental record ensued by around 2000, a time which ought have been moderate and ought sharply fall from 2010’s AMO peak, thence from that moderate level until the moderately low point in 2015.
In other words, there’s destructive interference between PDO and AMO and so the current decade more accurately reflects global temperature with PDO and AMO removing each other, as also ought have happened in the late 1950’s.
Which means there is some other explanation. Perhaps it is solar activity. But the best fit is CO2E moderated by aerosols.
Bart
http://bit.ly/rx8k07
You curve has already hit the roof of the upper global mean temperature boundary. Where will you hide when the temperature bounces back and cools until 2030s? What will then happen to the very successful AGW political movement?
Girma
I have some questions about “the upper global mean temperature boundary.”
Why can’t I see it?
Is it made of glass?
Is it plexiglass?
Where is it?
Is it an aerogel floating above the troposphere?
Is it made of aether, or quintessence?
I see it’s been passed before.. and several times its been approached and then the temperature has turned back without getting very close to it at all.
Why, when we don’t compress the curve, and dispose of those extraneous vestiges that do nothing but make the curve artificially resemble your fictional hypothesis, the illusion you cling to so disappears entirely:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:203/mean:207/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/trend/plot/esrl-co2/mean:7/mean:11/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2000/trend/offset:0.25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2000/trend/offset:-0.25
Please to explain.
Use less voodoo this time.
Bart
I have some questions about “the upper global mean temperature boundary.”
Why can’t I see it?
Is it made of glass?
Is it plexiglass?
Where is it?
It is the line that passes through the annual global mean temperature peaks for 1880s, 1940s & 2000s!
http://bit.ly/vTSi5E
It is the thick line!
Can you see it?
What “Compress:12” does is it calculates the annual global mean temperature.
Are we going to argue whether our globe has an annual cycle?
Why do you want to hide the ANNUAL global mean temperature pattern by including the freezing winter and the scorching summer in each year?
Girma
Let me rephrase my question.
You claim a magic line passing through the lowest of the annual mean temperatures at the apparent peaks from the linear trend line is “the upper global mean temperature boundary”.
And yet both the preceding peak and the following peak decades (1880’s and 2000-ish) exceed this linear trend line not once but several times.
Likewise with the linear trend line of opposite sign and same amplitude.
And, to add to the curiousity, you must cherry pick the linear trend line by carefully arranging both the start and end points.
I mean, I can see it’s the linear trend from 1880 to 2000 on HadCRUT, but you extend it by manufacturing a scaled, detrended, offset simulacrum that has no physical correspondence to reality to make it look like it extends to the start of the dataset.. when there is nothing in reality that remotely resembles this fictitious thick line.
So the question I have is, “What is the physical mechanism?”
I can see the argument for a physical mechanism for the Hale Cycle – the planetary magnetosphere is measurably affected by associated sunspot activity, resulting in changing levels of cosmic rays, altering cloud albedo. That makes some sense, and there’s evidence to support the claim.
I can see arguments involving ocean oscillations and moving heat up and down in the ocean due currents.
But this numerological mysticism involving looking for things that rhyme with sixty and drawing imaginary lines that correspond to absolutely nothing in the real world.. that’s pure bunkum.
The real world doesn’t contain an upper global temperature forcefield that bounces heat off of it based on the lowest common multiples of the year in the Julian calendar.
What is the exact PHYSICAL reason for 0.25 being your offset?
What is the exact reason (mechanical or graphical) for starting a linear trend line in 1880?
I know why I chose 203 and 207 for my two pass filter. (It was an error, by the way, to use those numbers.) Can you tell me what I was thinking and what the numbers ought be, and why?
I know why I used 7 and 11 for the Mauna Loa two pass filter, and why I normalised. Do you? Can you explain?
What exactly is the meaning of your use of detrend 0.83 and offset 0.38 or 0.37 or 0.36, and scale 0.00001?
What is the standard error associated with your “roof of the upper global mean temperature boundary?” The confidence interval? The standard deviation?
How is its equation derived?
Please, proceed Dr.
What is the exact PHYSICAL reason for 0.25 being your offset?
It is half the oscillation due to thermohiline circulation of about 0.5 deg C described in the following paper.
http://bit.ly/nfQr92
What is the exact reason (mechanical or graphical) for starting a linear trend line in 1880?
In a curve with oscillation, the starting and end points of trend calculation must be at the same phase of the oscillation. We know 1880s & 2000s are global mean temperature peaks. As a result, they can be used as start and end points of trend calculations.
What exactly is the meaning of your use of detrend 0.83 and offset 0.38 or 0.37 or 0.36, and scale 0.00001?
It is my method of drawing any line using woodfortrees.
I used the scale: 0.00001 to change the global mean temperature data into a horizontal line. (Blue Line)
http://bit.ly/uTgjDD
Detrend rotates the line.
Offset translates the line vertically.
By trial and error, using various values for detrend and offset, I rotated and translated the above line so that it has the same slope and position as the trend line for the global mean temperature data from 1880 to 2000. For this condition, detrend:0.83 & offset:0.63.
http://bit.ly/ueVmRu
Next I drew additional lines to represent the upper and lower global mean temperature boundary lines.
http://bit.ly/tSFm0v
What is the standard error associated with your “roof of the upper global mean temperature boundary?”
It is less than the observed change in global mean temperature between successive years of abut 0.25 deg C.
1956 -0.335333
1957 -0.0850833
How is its equation derived?
Use woodfortrees
#Selected data from 1880
#Selected data up to 2000
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00513159 per year
1880 -0.483548
2000 0.132243
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
Global mean temperature trend= 0.0051*(Year-1880)-0.48
Upper global mean temperature boundary line = 0.0051*(Year-1880)-0.23
Equation for upper global mean temperature (GMT) boundary line = 0.0051(Year-1880)-0.23
Estimate for GMT peaks using the above equation:
GMT peak for 1880 = 0.0051(1880-1880)-0.23 = -0.23 deg C
GMT peak for 1940 = 0.0051(1940-1880)-0.23 = 0.08 deg C
GMT peak for 2000 = 0.0051(2000-1880)-0.23 = 0.38 deg C
Observed peak GMTs:
1880s=>0.25 deg C
1940s=>0.1 deg C
2000s=>0.52
Which gives a very good estimate.
CONCUSION
Climate Data:
http://bit.ly/ujFJGP
The data shows no change in climate since 1880 (the observed oscillation is not a climate change)
The data shows a long-term warming of about 0.5 deg C per century that is not affected by aerosols, greenhouse missions and volcanoes.
What is this long-term global warming that started before 1880s caused by?
That is what climate science need to answer, not the cyclic warming starting from 1970s.
Girma | November 21, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
“CONCUSION” has two S’s, as in “CONCUSSION”.
Which would explain a lot. ;)
What is the exact PHYSICAL reason for 0.25 being your offset?
It is half the oscillation due to thermohiline circulation of about 0.5 deg C described in the following paper. (Knight et al, 2005)
Except it isn’t.
Right way to present the amplitude of an oscillation on a graph is to first detrend it. This removes errors of perception of skewness and kurtosis and allows for clean comparison.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:113/mean:127/detrend:0.6156/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.6156/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2000/trend/detrend:0.6156/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2000/trend/offset:0.25/detrend:0.6156/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2000/trend/offset:-0.25/detrend:0.6156
What do we see when we uniformly detrend the graph?
We see your claims simply fall apart.
Why should your claims based on Knight et al (2005) fall apart, when your citation is to a decent paper?
Because you aren’t doing a very good job of reading the paper you cite.
“The regression of simulated global and Northern Hemisphere mean decadal temperatures with the THC are 0.05 ± 0.02 and 0.09 ± 0.02C Sv1 respectively, implying potential peak-to-peak variability of 0.1 and 0.2C.” (L20708 p.2)
See the difference? Knight el al refer to the Northern Hemisphere, not the entire globe. Further, they are talking about regression with 0.05 +/- 0.02 C. Their figures work within the context they use them.
The meaning you attribute qualities to your graph that it does not possess, and claims to Knight et al (2005) they do not make.
Unless you are saying that this is all just a big misunderstanding, and that Knight et al (2005)’s interpretation is exactly what you mean:
Ocean oscillations contribute to the shape of the global temperature curve through superposition of the sum of oceanic curves on the global curve (together with other influences).
Knight et al (2005) are silent on the precise contribution of CO2 to the global temperature curve other than, “This natural reduction would accelerate anticipated anthropogenic THC weakening, and the associated AMO change would partially offset expected Northern Hemisphere warming. This effect needs to be taken into account in producing more realistic predictions of future climate change.”
In other words, the opposite of your claims.
Misattribution to published academic works of views not found within is generally considered a form of plagiarism, a serious type of academic dishonesty.
Please explain your action.
Also, please explain why you insist on reverting to the scale -0.000001/offset +/-1 framing of your graphs, which decreases resolution and hides how different what your graphs show from what you say they show.
Girma
“What is the exact reason (mechanical or graphical) for starting a linear trend line in 1880?
In a curve with oscillation, the starting and end points of trend calculation must be at the same phase of the oscillation. We know 1880s & 2000s are global mean temperature peaks. As a result, they can be used as start and end points of trend calculations.”
We can also use the 1910/1970 pair, the 1880/1940 pair, the 1940/2000 pair, and every other pair 60 years distant within the data.
When we do, we see something curious: the trend lines are not parallel.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1890/to:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1920/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1930/to:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1885/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1895/to:1955/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1905/to:1965/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1915/to:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1925/to:1985/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1935/to:1995/trend
If you _do_ find a period on any of the global temperature graphs that has every start and end point throughout create a parallel trend line, then you will have identified the period of a cycle.
You won’t, as there isn’t one.
Girma
What exactly is the meaning of your use of detrend 0.83 and offset 0.38 or 0.37 or 0.36, and scale 0.00001?
It is my method of drawing any line using woodfortrees.
I used the scale: 0.00001 to change the global mean temperature data into a horizontal line. (Blue Line)
Detrend rotates the line.
Offset translates the line vertically.
By trial and error, using various values for detrend and offset, I rotated and translated the above line so that it has the same slope and position as the trend line for the global mean temperature data from 1880 to 2000. For this condition, detrend:0.83 & offset:0.63.
Next I drew additional lines to represent the upper and lower global mean temperature boundary lines.
Dr. Orssengo, surely you must realize that these manipulations and transformations are not needed, and not valid.
While you see no fault in applying this ‘straightedge’, it is superfluous; superfluities in graphs are suspect, and should be avoided simply because they may distract or deceive the eye.
If you must add imaginary lines, it is preferrable you show the linear trend line with its offset, and then put your ‘straightedge’ before and after the linear trend line, to clearly show by different colors where the line supported by fact begins and ends, and where the fictitious extrapolation lies. And also, in your narrative, clearly state what you have done and why.
It is not enough to say, “what does your eye tell you!” The hand that painted the false image has the duty to declare its work.
When you use a straight line to frame your graph, as discussed, in ways that decrease the size of the image, you also decrease the resolution of the graph.
This steals information from the eye.
There may be valid reasons to do this: if the additional line adds information (such as laying down a line showing a component of the curve from solar or ocean oscillation), then it is quite understandable.
If it’s done to move the graph out from under the text labels, that could be valid.
If it’s done just to hide inconsistencies in the image, that’s clearly dishonest.
As there is no way to distinguish extraneous lines without explanation from lines added to deceive the viewer, we remove extraneous lines we do not need, to avoid the charge of fraud.
Try doing that.
Why did they choose to plot the global mean temperature as anomaly as follows?
http://bit.ly/tI3ORn
Instead of as the actual global mean temperature as follows?
http://bit.ly/vSoObR
AGW believers (including Bart) prefer the former we sceptics the latter.
Why do the believers do that?
To provide “scary scenarios”
Girma
What is the standard error associated with your “roof of the upper global mean temperature boundary?”
It is less than the observed change in global mean temperature between successive years of abut 0.25 deg C.
1956 -0.335333
1957 -0.0850833
I believe you’re evading the question.
Indeed, you do point out an important factor, by chance.
With the size of error year-to-year, we had our first incentive to lengthen the timespan used to track global temperature change.
This may indeed have been the origin of the 30-year timespan for identifying a ‘climate’ as opposed to ‘weather’ graphically and statistically.
I couldn’t say for sure, not reading the minds of early climatologists.
However, when careful work is done to examine the fractal dimensionality of global temperature measures, we find that indeed there is a lower bound below which no measure of temperature trend can be considered globally meaningful. This ontic limit of Chaos Theory is distinct from the aleatory limit of our errors and instrumental precision, or even of the limit produced by noise in the signal.
But I digress.
How is its equation derived?
Use woodfortrees
#Selected data from 1880
#Selected data up to 2000
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00513159 per year
1880 -0.483548
2000 0.132243
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
Global mean temperature trend= 0.0051*(Year-1880)-0.48
Upper global mean temperature boundary line = 0.0051*(Year-1880)-0.23
Right, right. Got it.
A 120 year slope selected on false faith in a cycle of unknown period that cannot be found, and that even when we use your 60-year cycle for the last decade, we get:
#Time series (hadcrut3) from 1850 to 2011.75
#Selected data from 1950
#Selected data up to 2010
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0116502 per year
1950 -0.288732
2010 0.41028
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 0.0607743
And for the most current 60 years?
#Selected data from 1951.75
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0117119 per year
1951.75 -0.27079
2011.75 0.431921
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 0.0805658
1.17 deg C/century. More than double the rate of the overall n60 trend from 1880-2000.
What could this mean?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1951.75/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950.5/to:2010.5/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1949.25/to:2009.25/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1948/to:2008/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1947.75/to:2007.75/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1946.5/to:2006.5/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1945.25/to:2005.25/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1944.25/to:2004.25/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1943/to:2003/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1942.75/to:2002.75/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1941.5/to:2001.5/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940.25/to:2000.25/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1939/to:1999/trend
Why, it means pretty much every year for the past 13 (I used 1.25 years, to show seasonal effects were unimportant), there’s been a significant increase in the slope.
That’s right, comparing 60-year slopes shows global warming has increased fairly consistently since 1998.
Now do you see why your graphical techniques are just plain wrong, Dr. Orssengo?
Bart
Sorry for posting without editing.
Bart, I think we better agree to disagree.
Let the observation in the next couple of years be the judge.
I am extremely confident of my position. I am prepared to put a $1000 USD bet on it.
This is because the climate pattern that has been valid for the last 160 years is not going to change in the next twenty years.
We must have global cooling until about 2030, and warming should resume after that.
Bart, what is wrong with the following animation?
http://bit.ly/ocY95R
Girma | November 22, 2011 at 2:22 am |
I believe even the most casual reader would agree we disagree.
However, it’s not where we disagree about climate that concerns me, but about much more fundamental issues.
Your graphs are deceitful. This may be a holdever from your gamesmanship, or an unintentional product of naivety in the fields of presentation of evidence and graphical methods and statistical analysis, or some pathological condition; however the reasons your graphs lie does not concern me, too.
They depict invalid methods and spread unreliable technique.
Let’s review their technical failings that upon notice constitute (this being, again, notice) academic fraud if they are continued:
1. You crop existing information without explicit warning that you do so simply because it weakens the argument for your hypothesis.
2. You reduce the resolution of your graph needlessly and without explanation in ways that help hide how poorly your hypothesis fits the data.
3. You reduce the scale of the variable of interest of your graph consistently, which again hides how poorly your hypothesis fits the data.
4. You plagiarise your one ever supporting paper, that is you attribute to it things it does not say and take from and apply without proper analysis portions of it and claim they work with your graph, while ignoring the standard error term (which is 40%!) of the value you take from the graph (0.5 deg C) and move from NH SST to the global temperature curve. This is a serious scholarly transgression sir, it must be answered.
5. You ignore information brought to your attention using your own reasoning that contradict your claims. Here’s one more example:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1951.83/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1949.5/to:2009.5/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1947.25/to:2007.25/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1945/to:2005/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1943.75/to:2003.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1941.5/to:2001.5/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1939.25/to:1999.25/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1937.25/to:1997.25/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1935/to:1995/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1933.75/to:1993.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1931.5/to:1991.5/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1929.25/to:1989.25/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1927/to:1987/trend/plot/best/from:1950.42/trend/plot/best/from:1948.25/to:2008.25/trend/plot/best/from:1946/to:2006/trend/plot/best/from:1944.75/to:2004.75/trend/plot/best/from:1942.5/to:2002.5/trend/plot/best/from:1940.25/to:2000.25/trend/plot/best/from:1938.25/to:1998.25/trend/plot/best/from:1936/to:1996/trend/plot/best/from:1934.75/to:1994.75/trend/plot/best/from:1932.5/to:1992.5/trend/plot/best/from:1930.25/to:1990.25/trend/plot/best/from:1928/to:1988/trend/plot/best/from:1926.75/to:1986.75/trend
The past quarter century or more of endpoints of 60-year trends (covering 84 or 85 years) showing just enough data to establish a good confidence interval (to explain why no earlier data is used); between the start and end of the quarter century, the rate of warming increases SEVEN times over land, and is consistent both on the HadSST and on land only on BEST measured solely on 60 year trendlines.
SEVEN times in about a quarter century. Seasonal variation removed. 60-year cyclic variation removed. Both land and sea increase fairly uniformly, though land increases at double the rate of the sea.
How does your hypothesis explain this SEVENFOLD increase that you claim is not there?
How does your hypothesis explain why the land only rate of warming is triple what you claim should be produced by a 60 year trend? Or that the global warming is 50% higher than your claims should support?
6. You do not provide references on your longrunning series of widespread presentations, allowing readers to see the many hundreds of objections, criticisms and observations about your claims over the years.
7. Your wager defies Bayesian logic, and is itself nonresponsive on what conditions you may consider would frustrate the result. A single decade or less varying from the global trend is in all practical ways meaningless; even one (to three) variances on the multidecadal scale in twenty would not seriously challenge the AGW hypothesis to a statistician’s thinking.
So, this $1000 USD trashtalk of yours is really ridiculous.
You want to be taken seriously at this late date?
Put the letters after your name on the line, Dr. Orssengo.
Gather up all your presentations, footnote them with links to the many places online in the past three years you’ve posted them so reviewers can see the comments they’ve garnered, and submit them to qualified, competent mathematical referees.
If a panel of serious credentialed academicians with the qualifications to judge presentation of evidence to a scholarly standard agree that there are no substantial deficits in your graphs, then by all means you will silence this critic. Otherwise, give back your advanced degree, as the work you present here is not worthy of such standing.
Bart, R
I completely agree with you.
1) A primer for disproving IPCC’s theory of man made global warming using observed temperature data
http://bit.ly/9Lmt93
2) Predictions Of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections
http://bit.ly/dd7wCk
3) Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data as a Pendulum
http://bit.ly/rr4WOs
Girma Orssengo, PhD, MASc, B. Tech
Does the fact that the perception of AGW changes with scaling tells you something?
Believers=> http://bit.ly/tI3ORn
Skeptics=> http://bit.ly/vSoObR
Dr. Orssengo | November 22, 2011 at 12:42 pm |
You completely agree with me?
That’s quite the accomplishment. Even I don’t completely agree with me.
However, as you agree, let’s get started.
How do you propose we select a panel of competent mathematical referees?
I suggest we should limit the list to people with Phd’s in Statistics, Mathematics, or with similar qualifications or credentials such as make them credible on graphical presentation of evidence.
Since there are questions of academic and professional ethics, perhaps someone with experience in ethics proceedings would be desireable as well.
I see your blind links lead to WUWT, which I’m just not going to bother with myself, but I don’t see any reason why the panel shouldn’t review what you’ve posted there, too.
Also, this ‘scary story’ motive you impute to AGW ‘believers’ (which I was not until after the release of BEST, when the evidence finally became incontrovertable, long after I’d begun pointing out to you the flaws with your methods), it should be disposed of vigorously and immediately.
You say ‘sceptics’ prefer a view of the graphs that makes the scaling less scary.
Does the fact that the perception of AGW changes with scaling tells you something?
This is of course purest balderdash.
The perception of evidence changes radically with scaling, of course. This does not tell us anything about the evidence or about the hypothesis (other than to inform fractal dimensionality), but it tells us everything about hiding information.
I look through a microscope and see bacteria. Do you back away and announce that sceptics prefer to look without the lenses? Or would that be the septic preference?
Does not the very name “Wood for Trees” tell you anything about the meaning of scale in the treatment of evidence?
Were your argument exactly what you claim it, then the following would be the graph you ought offer:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/offset:287.15/plot/gistemp/compress:12/normalise/offset:287.5/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend:0.00001/detrend:0.75
After all, in Kelvins, the temperature you seek is 273.15 higher than the one you portray, above Absolute Zero.
Isn’t that the ultimate ‘nonscary’ graph?
Pretty much contains zero information, too.
Also, note, you insist on speaking of trends, but mainly show anomaly with one single trend at a time.
Someone really interested in trends would show trends. Many of them. Comparing them. Studying them. Revealing their meaning.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1951.83/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1949.5/to:2009.5/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1947.25/to:2007.25/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1945/to:2005/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1943.75/to:2003.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1941.5/to:2001.5/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1939.25/to:1999.25/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1937.25/to:1997.25/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1935/to:1995/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1933.75/to:1993.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1931.5/to:1991.5/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1929.25/to:1989.25/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1927/to:1987/trend/plot/best/from:1950.42/trend/plot/best/from:1948.25/to:2008.25/trend/plot/best/from:1946/to:2006/trend/plot/best/from:1944.75/to:2004.75/trend/plot/best/from:1942.5/to:2002.5/trend/plot/best/from:1940.25/to:2000.25/trend/plot/best/from:1938.25/to:1998.25/trend/plot/best/from:1936/to:1996/trend/plot/best/from:1934.75/to:1994.75/trend/plot/best/from:1932.5/to:1992.5/trend/plot/best/from:1930.25/to:1990.25/trend/plot/best/from:1928/to:1988/trend/plot/best/from:1926.75/to:1986.75/trend
Your graphs don’t care about trends.
They care about hiding how poorly they speak to the evidence, and telling a fiction by plagiarizing and distorting the views of others.
Otherwise, you wouldn’t in your narratives describe things happening in the graphs that are not there. You’d understand that the standard error of the 0.5 deg C plagiarized from Knight et al 2005 (on a different dataset no less) you claim on your ‘roof’ is 40%, much higher in proportion than the standard error on anomaly readings.
So, how do you propose we select referees to review whether or not the work you’re presenting is competent at the PhD level, on the understanding that if a competent panel of independent referees finds your work seriously wanting, you will surrender your postgraduate credentials, Mr. Orssengo?
Bart
The main disagreement between you and I is that I believe all the variation in global mean temperature between the upper and lower boundary lines are due to ocean cycles and must not be included in any trend calculation.
The only valid climate signal is the long-term global warming trend of 0.06 deg C per decade clearly shown below.
http://bit.ly/vSoObR
This is my point in the climate dispute.
I submit the above statement to all for judgment.
Girma
Tch.
“The main disagreement between you and I is that I believe all the variation in global mean temperature between the upper and lower boundary lines are due to ocean cycles and must not be included in any trend calculation. “
You misidentify very much my intentions and motivations.
They are in this case purely aesthetic.
I find lying in graphs ugly, and plagiarism offensive to the nose.
Compare the two graphs below. One is land only. The other is sea only.
Looking at endpoints of 60-year trends, based on the very observations you make about 60-year trends, we have removed the influence you claim of oscillations.
We have two pure, clear graphs presenting since the mid-1970s (well after CO2 observations are available at WfT, and also well over the 30-year minimum for confirming a trend) showing a startling degree of correlation between global temperature and global CO2 levels. And we have selected only and exactly data which cannot vary from parallel if your 60-year oscillation claim is true.
These trends are fairly uniform (go ahead, you can try them month by month and see how long between observations — not very — it takes before the rise is practically homogenous), not in their parallelism, but in their movement away from parallel, reflecting increasingly warming 60-year climates with all ocean influence (as you argue) filtered out, (correlating well with CO2 after the mid-1970’s, did I mention?).
We can even see something else clearly — the mid-century bump appears even when we trend it out by taking 60-year averages!
This is an amazing result indicating that the bump is very definitely not only and entirely related to any 60-year trend, but also must come from other factors too. It’s more pronounced on sea than on land, so perhaps is some combination of non-60-year ocean oscillations (like PDO at 53 years and another oceanic event or three?)
And yet the post 1970’s rise is much stronger over land than over sea, making it very certain that ocean contribution and 60-year contribution (if there were a non-oceanic 60-year cycle). This also tells us the seas are resisting the warming influence, acting as buffers and sinks. For how long can land outpace sea before the land-sea thermal gap leads to unstable regimes I cannot speculate.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1950.42/to:2010.42/trend/plot/best/from:1946/to:2006/trend/plot/best/from:1942/to:2002/trend/plot/best/from:1938/to:1998/trend/plot/best/from:1934/to:1994/trend/plot/best/from:1930/to:1990/trend/plot/best/from:1926/to:1986/trend/plot/best/from:1922/to:1982/trend/plot/best/from:1918/to:1978/trend/plot/best/from:1914/to:1974/trend/plot/best/from:1910/to:1970/trend/plot/best/from:1906/to:1966/trend/plot/best/from:1902/to:1962/trend/plot/best/from:1898/to:1958/trend/plot/esrl-co2/mean:7/mean:11/normalise/offset:0.2
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1951.83/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1947/to:2007/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1943/to:2003/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1939/to:1999/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1935/to:1995/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1931/to:1991/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1927/to:1987/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1923/to:1983/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1919/to:1979/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1915/to:1975/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1911/to:1971/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1907/to:1967/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1903/to:1963/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1899/trend:1959/plot/esrl-co2/mean:7/mean:11/normalise/offset:-0.02
And the challenge wasn’t for all to judge, Mr. Orssengo, but for a qualified panel to judge.
How hard is that to understand?
Bart
My claim is exceedingly simple.
I believe all the variation in global mean temperature between the upper and lower boundary lines are due to ocean oscillations and must not be included in any trend calculation.
The only valid climate signal in the global mean temperature data is the long-term global warming trend of 0.06 deg C per decade of the upper and lower boundary lines clearly shown below.
http://bit.ly/vSoObR
I submit the above claim to all for judgment.
It’s wrong.
Mr. Orssengo | November 23, 2011 at 2:38 am |
“My claim is exceedingly simple.
Well, yes.
It’s a scientific claim, there’s sufficient data to judge it, there’s a simple method to confirm whether the regular oceanic oscillation you claim is the sole source of the changes we see and supports the rise you assert.
I’ve plotted — as anyone who wishes to do can — the 60-year trendlines on the data. If your claim is true, then all of the 60-year trendlines on at least some dataset will be more-or-less parallel within standard error. This is a mathematically incontrovertable method that has been used time and again in other fields.
On this basis, your claim simply fails, and you have not addressed or responded to this specific glaring failure of your hypothesis. Being nonresponsive to demonstrated failure of your hypothesis falls below the standard of conduct of a PhD.
Which is my simple claim, Mr. Orssengo. Your conduct falls below the standard expected of your credentials. You should surrender your advanced credentials due ethical lapses of plagiarism and dishonesty which reflect poorly on the issuing institutions. You ought do so before someone from said institutions, or their accrediting bodies, notices. Or you ought amend your conduct.
“I believe all the variation in global mean temperature between the upper and lower boundary lines are due to ocean oscillations and must not be included in any trend calculation. “
This belief of yours is not born out by testing.
As the simple, clean and repeatable test disconfirms your belief, therefore variation in the global mean temperature between the upper and lower boundary lines are quite valid to include in trend calculations. This applies not just to 60-year trendlines, but also to all otherwise sufficient comparisons properly made.
Further, even if your claim were borne out or could not be disconfirmed, there are ample methods to remove suspect sources of variability from a trend, which any competent data analyst ought be aware.
“The only valid climate signal in the global mean temperature data is the long-term global warming trend of 0.06 deg C per decade of the upper and lower boundary lines clearly shown below.”
(Offensively dishonest graph link removed for aesthetic reasons.)
Clearly, your argument is specious.
You return to your conclusion again and again after disconfirmation of each basis you are found wanting on, replacing with new graph that simply cosmetically hides the failings of the last one. This is confirmation bias of the most transparent sort.
“I submit the above claim to all for judgment.”
Mr. Orssengo, the problem is that you have a PhD. A certain standard of competency, academic propriety and ethical conduct is expected, behavior such as yours leads astray those who rely on your credentials to mean something about your abilities and claims.
So calling on ‘all’ to judge is exactly what you surrendered when you accepted your advanced academic standing.
The appropriate deciders of these glaring issues of your conduct are the ethics review bodies of your field and your institutions, and the bodies who govern them.
The annual global mean temperature has been bounded by the upper and lower boundary lines that have a warming trend of about 0.06 deg C per decade for the last 160 years as clearly shown below.
http://bit.ly/vSoObR
As a result, it is reasonable to assume it will continue to be bounded by these two lines at least for the next couple of decades, contradicting IPCC’s claims of further 0.2 deg C per decade warming for business as usual CO2 emission scenario.
http://bit.ly/oZUpdc
In the next decade if IPCC claim of further 0.2 deg C per decade warming is found to be correct, I will change from a skeptic to a believer of AGW.
However, that would be violating the 160 years long climate pattern.
Bart
Don’t you see the pattern in the following global mean temperature data?
http://bit.ly/mRN3LU
Mr. Orssengo | November 23, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
You have proposed a pattern out of by-eye estimation, which due its cyclic nature could not be confirmed without well over a century more data, speculating it may be due ‘natural variability’ (which in itself is no explanation), and feeding this hallucination with plagiarized information from Knight et al 2005 which you clearly do not well understand, else you would be able to give straight answers about the standard error of 40% of this ‘roof’ (the apparent amplitude of your ‘wave’).
However, we are saved from the hopelessness of the confusion your invalid approach engenders, as we can see by-eye the period of the cycle you suspect is 60 years.
An unalterable property of cyclic behavior is that every point on a curve has a like amplitude in the unmodulated corresponding point one period removed from it. This allows us to crudely test your hypothesis, which we have done (repeatedly).
Were your hypothesis true, then all 60-year trendlines on at least some global temperature dataset must be approximately parallel, or at the very least perturbed only very slightly and tending to revert to the mean from other natural variability.
As has been shown, since the mid-1970’s, the endpoints and slopes of 60-year trendlines (especially over land) rapidly depart from the necessary prediction of your hypothesis.
Thereby your claims are falsified, and every conclusion you have drawn from your supposition is inoperative and moot.
There are valid and robust methods for removing bias from epicyclic data. Have a look at:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:41/mean:61/isolate:123/normalise/plot/best/mean:11/mean:13/from:1809.25/plot/best/mean:41/mean:61/isolate:123/normalise
If you really are interested in what the trend of global temperature is over land (and very persuasively reflecting trends over sea, merely emphasized in the rising trend after 1960), then simply plot any set of at least five evenly spaced trendlines whose start and endpoints are at least 17-years separated and coincide with the intersection of the red and blue lines on the BEST isolates and linear trend isolates curves.
You need not even restrict yourself to BEST for such trends.
All such trendlines would be valid representations of the climate temperature trend.
I am certain you will find the results closely match AGW and correlate well with CO2E levels.
Bart R
It appears that you make the erroneous assumption that “natural variability in itself is no explanation”.
Your argument is flawed for the simple reason that most of what our climate has done in the past and will do in the future is caused by some sort of “natural variability”, for which “there is no explanation” as yet.
Climate science is in its infancy, Bart, and the whole sum of climate knowledge today probably only covers less than a percent of all that is still unknown.
Climatologists think they can explain the late 20th century warming cycle, but are unable to explain the statistically indistinguishable warming cycle of the early 20th century. They try to rationalize “explanations” for the mid-century cycle of slight cooling, as well as for the current period of no warming, but these are weak and contrived.
As a result, “natural variability” is not only a very good explanation, it is the “null hypothesis” of climate change.
Max
My reply=> http://bit.ly/uXy8jw
Mind you this is only an APPROXIMATELY cyclic pattern.
manacker | November 23, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
I believe you’re confuting “‘natural variablity’ in itself is no explanation,” and, “‘natural variability in itself’ is no explanation.”
There’s no need for any assumption the way I stated it, so using Occam’s Razor, let’s go with that meaning:
If one says “it’s all due to natural variability”, one may be making a true statement.
One is still not _explaining_ it all.
An explanation might detail natural variability and describe the mechanisms: for instance I list ocean oscillations (mainly AMO and PDO) plus solar influences (namely the Hale Cycle) and define the mechanism as the Principle of Superposition. I’ve provided an explanation.
I then can test my explanation, and find that it partly accounts for warming trend, but does not entirely explain either the all the variability in the data, nor especially does it explain the sharp rise in temperature globally starting in the last third of the century.
I can further _explain_ that specific sharp rise in temperature by the suggestive correlation of the rise with CO2E levels, by the GHE mechanism, and be left with a very, very small amount of unexplained variability.
If I were really adventurous, I could go after the major volcano and continent-spanning forest fire events, and tap aerosol figures, and any remaining strong episodes of solar activity, and the corresponding mechanisms of those, but that’s far more than WfT is competent to allow me to examine.
What I meant was simply that Girma’s proposals either lack mechanical explanation, or these mechanical explanations he’s ventured in the past fail on validation and verification.
Another way to look at it is, if we remove the very notable signal of CO2E from the temperature curve, we get something far more like the pristine temperature curve of the era of natural variability you reminisce nostalgically over.
Either way, Girma’s still conducting himself below the level of competence and ethics one ought expect of his credentials.
Girma | November 23, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
My reply=> http://bit.ly/uXy8jw
Mind you this is only an APPROXIMATELY cyclic pattern.
Mind you it also isn’t a cyclic pattern, too.
So you’ve extended your line from 120 years to 130 years? Why?
And what other trend lines from each dataset do you intend to compare to these .. 65 year oscillations? (Approximate?)
If they’re so approximate as you imply, ought you not supply better narrative of the mechanical cause, the reasoning, the meaning of what you’re trying to tell the viewer of the graph?
Are you implying the AMO (at about 64 years long) is the source of the natural variation in the global temperature?
If so, shouldn’t you be able to show some parallel 64-year trend lines on some temperature curve? (Of course comparing like curve to like curve.)
It seems you’re discussing trends, but displaying amplitude. Which is it? Amplitude? Trend?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/compress:24/detrend:0.75/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:24/normalise/detrend:0.75/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1870/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1855/to:1985/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1865/to:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1875/to:2005/trend
Because on HadCRUT, which has enough data to check 130 year trends, we see exactly the same rise you deny is possible on the approximate cycle length you propose.
You have not answered the challenge to your hypothesis, Mr. Orssengo.
And you have not addressed your plagiarism.
AMO variability is pronounced: its range (0.49 deg C) is larger
than either the range of interannual to decadal variability
(0.46 deg C) or the integrated trend over the period 1870–1999
(0.38 deg C).
…
The quasi-periodic nature of the model’s AMO
suggests that in the absence of external forcings at least,
there is some predictability of the THC, AMO and global
and Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures for several
decades into the future. We utilise this to forecast decreasing
THC strength in the next few decades.
http://bit.ly/nfQr92
Bart R | November 20, 2011 at 6:38 pm
“Instead, the warmest decade in the instrumental record ensued by around 2000”
Only after the invalid adjustments made to the temperature records lowering all the old values and raising the young ones.
GIGO.
A. C. Osborn
Cite? Link? Reference?
BEST says the adjustments aren’t invalid. I can’t find errors in BEST’s rationale supporting this contention.
It’s true, BEST shows that there’s enough Uncertainty early in the instrumental record that the global temperature may have exceeded the current global temperature, but that’s on extrapolation of Uncertainty, not on actual measurements themselves.
So, please, by all means clarify for me exactly what you mean by invalid, and when and where these adjustments happened.
I’m open-minded, and understand well that for some purposes some treatments of data may indeed be invalid.
Educate me, if you would.
Bart R. writes “With stuff like the imaginatively arranged images in Easterbrook’s presentation floating around, Girma’s graphs suddenly look so much less awful in comparision (though still invalid).”
Can you enlighten me, please. Why are Girma’s graphs “invalid”.? I have seen all sorts of arm waving, and wild claims that what Girma has done is wrong, but no-one ever seems to give any details as to WHY Girma is wrong.
Can you give a detailed explanation please?
Cancel this request. I found the detailed discussion on the Smith and Stern thread. A fascinating discussion.
Jim Cripwell
You place far too much faith in me, if you believe I can explain all of why Girma is wrong.
Re. Mark Flanner on climate physics and atmospheric radiation: he argues against ignoring tipping points in the Arctic.
Unfortunately, sources such as blogs often associated with ClimateEtc have previously spun his research into claims that the research shows that ‘soot, not CO2, is warming the Arctic’. Apparently people believe what they want or feed their egos with what their followers want to hear: however, this type of deliberate misrepresentation of research conclusion is easily recognizable, and not smart.
In the North, people are tired of sites that fuel (excuse the pun) willful ignorance and indifference to what is happening in relation to human-induced global climate change in the Arctic. The ignorance and indifference so often demonstrated and even encouraged at ClimateEtc is not a contribution to the science or the situation.
Please do check out Mark’s research activity. As many already have begun to understand from related research over the years, changing pollution activity is magnifying the impact of soot and over-riding the relative cooling effects of sulfates while enhancing the warming effects of AGW. Careless or deliberate misreporting of this type of ongoing research is not helpful and always demonstrates a problem with the accountability of the person misrepresenting the information. Mark’s research has not called into question the important role of CO2 in global warming and Arctic melt.
And since so called ‘soot-capture’ is relatively easy, North Americans should consider stepping on it with the help of engineers – in addition to providing leadership on other actions required to slow or limit the effects of human-caused climate change in the Arctic (which among other things, directly impacts U.S. waters and the state of Alaska).
Martha
I had some books circa 1860 concerning scientific expeditions to the arctic to investigate the notable melting of the ice during that era. They remarked on the noticeable cause and effect of soot which they identified as coming from the US.
Whilst we may disagree as to the ‘catastrophic’ effects of co2, as you say soot capture should be relatively straight forward and would be a major benefit at limited cost.
tonyb
FYI, I wrote a paper in 1995 on this topic, which may be of interest:
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_TSOTTE160-161.pdf
HI Judith
Did SHEBA confirm your findings?
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-118861852/sheba-surface-heat-budget.html
tonyb
yes, sheba pretty much confirmed the ideas i developed in the early 90’s. however, issues related to aerosols (which I included in the original sheba prospectus) were axed in SHEBA budget cuts and “prioritization.”
Judith
I noted that you quoted the IPCC as one of your references to your 1993 paper. But that of course was from 1990 before they went mad..
.tonyb
Yes, Virginia there really was a LIA and MWP… Only scientific turkeys ever pretended otherwise.
Wagathon
OK I give up. Where has Virginia made any comment on this thread, or are you just anticipating her calling by? :)
tonyb
“. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.” ~EDITOR
Wagathon
You mean this
http://www.stormfax.com/bios.htm
Charming and heart warming (and highly topical) I’m sure, but presumably it was a passing muse on your part rather than a response to anyone?
tonyb
Engineers don’t have deep pockets. That requires money. Engineering a baghouse is a waste of engineers. A monkey could do it.
I have concerns about how black carbon (soot) impacts the Arctic climate on the basis of Mark’s and other investigations. Collectively, these are the basis for mitigation policy being formulated that may not have the desired effect.
At the Conference, I spoke after Mark, presenting:
Characterization and Direct Radiative Impact of Arctic Aerosols: observed and modeled
I was asked to give an empirical perspective on the radiative impacts of Arctic aerosol, in contrast to the model results presented by Mark. While I am an affiliate of the NOAA Global Monitoring Division, the following remarks reflect only my personal viewpoint. Without verbal commentary (and omitted animation), some of my slides are not easy to interpret. Below, I will attempt to explain several to make my point. Where appropriate, citations are made with references listed after the concluding slide.
First, there is 100% consensus that the Arctic has a “complex response to aerosols” as Mark notes and Judy expressed very well in her 1995 paper. We still struggle to understand the complicated interactions between Arctic aerosols and clouds and their impact on the surface radiation budget. My (animated) Slides 3 and 4 illustrate some peculiarities of the Arctic in this regard. Highly variable, long-range transport of many different types of aerosol occurs during the transition from Arctic night to day, while snow and ice melt and the surface albedo decreases. It is not possible to model these processes accurately on the temporal and spatial scales necessary to make reliable impact assessments. Despite valiant efforts to do so, uncertainties are very large. There are, however, a few valuable data sets and observational studies that provide insights. I highlight a few of these in my talk.
Contrary to claims that reflective surfaces increase the likelihood that atmospheric aerosols exert a positive radiative forcing in the Arctic, empirical evaluations suggest the opposite. Using high quality radiometric measurements from the NOAA baseline observatory near Barrow, Alaska we have quantified direct aerosol radiative forcing (DARF) for a variety of aerosols commonly transported to the Arctic. Our measurement strategy and network activities are described in Slides 5-10. The definition and quantification of DARF (or radiative forcing efficiency) are covered in Slides 13-15. DARF increases with decreasing solar zenith angle (14), or as the melt season progresses. We can simulate the empirical results reasonably well (Slide 16). Having attained ‘closure’ we use the model to evaluate other situations we do not (yet) have data for. For example, Slide 17 shows how the magnitude of DARF increases as the surface becomes darker (albedo decreases), and the well known TOA warming over bright surfaces
BOTTOM LINE: the ‘direct’ radiative effect of aerosols is to cool the surface, indicated by the negative values (slopes) of forcing efficiency. This applies also to aerosol mixtures containing soot over snow/ice. Furthermore, cooling is enhanced as the melt season progresses due to greater solar insolation and decreasing surface albedo.
Slide 18 (modeled heating rate profiles) shows that as layer heating increases with increasing AOD (turbidity), surface cooling increases due to the additional attenuation of sunlight. And if you add soot (Slide 19), the additional absorption further enhances differential heating/cooling to increase atmospheric stability. This can lead to a ‘semi-direct effect’ in which cloud formation is suppressed. Because clouds warm the snow/ice surface most of the year at high latitudes, suppression leads to a net cooling effect. Also, (not shown but well accepted) is an indirect effect of aerosol that increases cloud albedo, which also tends to cool the surface. So the presence of aerosol tends to cool the surface in three ways; via direct, in-direct and semi-direct effects. The degree of cooling is then dependent on many factors, including composition, optical properties, solar geometry and surface type. An important point is that for a given aerosol type and composition, radiative forcing efficiency increases with solar insolation and as albedo decreases during the melt season, leading to systematically greater cooling.
Note that aerosols do enhance thermal emissions in a direct and in-direct sense (due to an increase in emissivity), a warming effect at the surface. When considering the annual cycle, however, thermal effects are most likely an order of magnitude less than SW (albedo) effects. By mid-end of April in the central Arctic there is 24 hours of sunlight and SW effects definitely swamp LW (thermal) effects.
In this regard, I do not agree with Mark’s suggestion that the “Prevalence of thin clouds facilitates a significant longwave aerosol indirect effect in the Arctic (Lubin and Vogelmann, 2006; Garrett and Zhao, 2006), offsetting indirect cooling effects.” The NET seasonal impact of aerosols is to cool the surface because of the convolution of effects illustrated in Slides 14 and 17.
Second point: for the sake of brevity, SKIP to Slide 28
Role of Black Carbon:
The suggestion here is that the “darkening” of snow by deposition of soot has a greater effect than the combined “dimming” effects of aerosol in the atmosphere (that I described above), and thus BC has contributed to the decline in sea ice, and amplified Arctic warming…
Mitigate BC and reverse, or at least slow down this decline, is a popular idea with policy-makers, expressed by Martha this way:
“…since so called ‘soot-capture’ is relatively easy, North Americans should consider stepping on it with the help of engineers –“
TonyB agrees with Martha:
… soot capture should be relatively straight forward and would be a major benefit at limited cost.
There is no dispute that depositing soot on snow will cause a decrease in its albedo. The question is, by how much and over what spatial scales does this occur, and does this have a significant impact compared with natural variations in albedo? Also, for sea ice decline to be attributed to darkening by BC, BC concentrations must be increasing in the Arctic, be anti-correlated with the decline in sea ice extent.
This is not the case, at least not for the period showing a pronounced decline (Slide 29). BC has decreased in the atmosphere, near the surface, and most likely in the snow pack itself since the mid 1980s.
The balance of my presentation focuses on three independent observational records of BC in the Arctic that must be given serious consideration but tend to be overlooked by the modeling community.
Slide 30, a complicated one, shows profiles of BC concentrations from a number of aircraft campaigns, showing relatively low concentrations in recent years compared with historical (mid 1980s) values. Unfortunately, there are not many similar aircraft observations through time to verify a trend. Also, the early records are questionable due to use of different measuring devices, but are thought to be accurate within about 30%. We assign only moderate confidence to this analysis.
However, independent, in situ observations from three representative ground stations (Slide 5) show that BC concentrations in the Arctic have decreased quite markedly since the mid 1980s (Slide 31), corroborating the aircraft observations to some extent.
Finally, without giving details, Slide 33 calls attention to a comprehensive snow survey conducted in the Arctic during the International Polar year. The Doherty et al. paper summarizes analyses in which IPY results are compared with a similar survey performed in the mid 1980s. Their conclusion is clearly stated.
Collectively, these three, very distinct data sets, acquired throughout the Arctic, show a significant decrease in BC since the 1980s, and thus darkening by soot deposited in the snow is an unlikely contributor to the decline in sea ice.
The observational evidence suggests that ‘mitigation’ of anthropogenic BC in the Arctic has already occurred by virtue of clean air policies enacted globbally (and in large part due to the demise of the Soviet Union perhaps). While a proponent of clean air, I am doubtful further mitigation will achieve the desired result with regard to the Arctic. Arctic BC is already at modest levels and natural sources, such as smoke from boreal wildfires cannot be mitigated. Also, BC is co-mixed with sulfate aerosols (Slide 4, pie) that cool the surface very efficiently by backscattering sunlight. Currently, the scattering (cooling) effect of atmopsheric aerosols probably more than offset the warming effect of soot deposited in the snow.
Thus, a more pristine Arctic may result in warming at the surface, quite the opposite effect of that desired. It’s complicated!
Judith
Thanks for posting these presentations (i particularly enjoyed the one on the sun) It is clear from the spread of views that the science is not setlled.
The science is not settled, Rob, because world leaders:
a) Were frightened by the destructive force of nuclear energy in the explosion that vaporized Hiroshima on July 6, 1945;
b) Secretly decided to end the nuclear and space races in 1971 and Unite Nations against Global Climate Change;
c.) Failed to recognize the creative force of nuclear energy in the explosion that generated our elements and gave birth to the Solar System five billion (5 Gyr) ago [1]; and
d.) Do not see benevolence in the nuclear forces that sustain life as a dynamic process on this ball of dirt orbiting a pulsar [2].
There can be no Thanksgiving for those who live in fear.
1. “Plutonium-244 fission xenon in the most primitive meteorites” http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994RadAc..64..167K http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1994Data.htm
2. . “Is the Universe expanding?”, J. Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)
http://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang102.html
“b) Secretly decided to end the nuclear and space races in 1971 and Unite Nations against Global Climate Change;”
So secretly that only them and Oliver K. Manuel know.
1. Claud Lafleur, “No More Dreams, Mr. President”
http://claudelafleur.qc.ca/Nomoredreams.html
2. “Another Ice Age”, Time Magazine US (1974)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
3. “The Cooling World,” Newsweek (1975)
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
The science is not settled, but with each passing year we get closer. Too bad for the warmists it’s in the direction of negating their hypothesis. In a practical sense you’d think that 13 years and counting of no warming despite much higher Co2 levels would be more than enough… in a reasonable world… to pronounce their models flawed and their theory a bust. But this is not a reasonable world. It’s a world of unfalsifiable hypotheses (just try to falsify “climate change”), crooked scientists, and astonishingly negligent journalists.
“In a practical sense you’d think that 13 years and counting of no warming despite much higher Co2 levels would be more than enough”
Except there has been warming in the past 13 years. Eg:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/how-fast-is-earth-warming/
The phrase ‘torturing the data’ comes to mind.
lolwot
Omigod!
Tamino has just told us “it’s warming, except for…”
He should go out and take a look at all those thermometers out there (even the ones next to AC exhausts and parking lots).
They (HadCRUT3) all tell us it has been cooling since the new century and decade started in January 2001 at a rate of about 0.06C per decade, while IPCC had told us it would warm by 0.2C per decade.
Ouch!
Max.
mike, thank you for the kind words. As a father, I am more lucky than good. Some friends who I consider better than me at parenting have not been so lucky.
You may be pleased to hear I can’t break the habit of subjecting women to little acts of chivalry, including opening doors, helping with coats, pulling back chairs, and behaving in other ways that expose my old-fashioned upbringing. However, I think women are amused rather than offended by suggestions that they are weaklings.
I hope you enjoy your daughter’s visit. Make sure she knows she has done you proud.
M. Carey,
Sorry I missed your comment earlier, I only just looked this far down the thread. Please don’t worry, your shocking, brutally-candid revelations are safe with me.
Thank you so much for your kind wishes for my family and let me also wish you and your family a warm and happy Holiday Season.
Don, I know you want me to insult you with a snappy rejoinder, but I don’t see any profit in that for me.
Judith Curry
Thanks for citing links to the various reports. I haven’t looked at them all as yet, but I found the report on solar influence on climate by Pål Brekke to be very interesting.
In its AR4 WG1 report, IPCC has conceded that its “level of scientific understanding” of “solar forcing” is “low”.
The data cited by Brekke may help to fill this gap.
Brekke gives compelling evidence for the premise that there has been a strong correlation between solar activity and global climate in the past.
Natural climate cycles (PDO, AMO, ENSO) are compared to swings in solar activity.
Mention is made of the ongoing CLOUD experiment at CERN. The correlation between galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and low cloud cover is shown, with a good correlation even for the most recent years.
CGR trend over past 100 and 40 years is compared with various observed polar as well as tropical climate changes.
Evidence is presented that solar activity was at a record high over past 50 years.
Charts show that GCRs have been rising and total solar irradiance (TSI) has been declining since ~2000.
At the same time, there has been no global temperature increase since ~2000 despite a 25% increase in human CO2.
Question is raised:
Today the Daily Telegraph re[ports a formal break in the Royal Ranks supporting the environmentalist dogma!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064054/Prince-Philip-blasts-useless-wind-farms-Lord-Lawson-backs-attack-wind-power.html
All serious climatologists will want to scan the slides in the talk by solar physicist, Dr. Pal Brekke, and ponder at least the title of his forthcoming book – “Our Explosive Sun”,
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/santafe/papers/Sun_climate_SantaFe.pdf
See also the 2004 National Geographic article by Curt Suplee, “Living with the Stormy Star.”
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0407/feature1/index.html
The adjectives “stormy” and “explosive” describe features of Earth’s heat source that produced our elements, gave birth to the Solar System five billion years (5 Gyr) ago), sustains life, and exerts primary control over Earth’s climate.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1
As noted above, reluctance to admit the Sun’s violent nature and repulsive forces between neutrons in the solar core have compromised astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, nuclear, particle, solar and space sciences for four decades (1971-2011).
Judith Curry
(Repeat post with corrected formatting)
Thanks for citing links to the various reports. I haven’t looked at them all as yet, but I found the report on solar influence on climate by Pål Brekke to be very interesting.
In its AR4 WG1 report, IPCC has conceded that its “level of scientific understanding” of “solar forcing” is “low”.
The data cited by Brekke may help to fill this gap.
Brekke gives compelling evidence for the premise that there has been a strong correlation between solar activity and global climate in the past.
Natural climate cycles (PDO, AMO, ENSO) are compared to swings in solar activity.
The correlation between galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and low cloud cover is shown, with a good correlation even for the most recent years.
CGR trend over past 100 and 40 years is compared with various observed polar as well as tropical climate changes.
Charts show that GCRs have been rising and total solar irradiance (TSI) has been declining since ~2000.
There has been no global temperature increase since ~2000 despite a 25% increase in human CO2.
Evidence is presented that solar activity was at a record high over past 50 years.
Question is raised:
Estimates are presented that indicate the “Sun is headed for a rest period”, with a solar minimum around 2042.
Summary and conclusions included:
IMO this presentation raises a serious question concerning the IPCC claim and model assumption that only 7% of past climate forcing (since 1750) has been from the sun.
Max
Frankly until it is recognized that the IPCC has done for climate science what the UN food for oil program did for food for the hungry, and climate science gets out from under the could of corruption and distortion, this entire exercise is moot.
“hunter | November 21, 2011 at 8:46 am | Reply
Frankly until it is recognized that the IPCC has done for climate science what the UN food for oil program did for food for the hungry”
Maurice Strong ran them both.
But how to expose this? We’re essentially talking to ourselves in my opinion. I continue to believe we have to somehow cut through the complacence of the MSM. Ultimately, those guys are in the business of selling newspapers and when they begin to see that there’s a real story here….what amounts to one of the greatest frauds in history…they’ll begin writing about it.
So where are the skeptical scientists who would be willing to engage in a little bit of activism? I don’t even letters to the editor. How about trying to slip a guest column past them? I’m not naive. I understand how difficult it is. I’ve written a good dozen letters to the NYT’s, everyone of them ignored. But who am I? As far as they’re concerned, I’m some random nut. But it’s not so easy to ignore letters from respected scientists from prestigious universities.
I’m just not seeing any effort.
Call to Pal Brekke the author of the Santa Fe presentation
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/santafe/papers/Sun_climate_SantaFe.pdf
for further information
I just viewed the SF presentation by Pal Brekke.
It predicts solar output up to 40 years ahead, but only 2-3 years ago, the top solar scientists were predicting strongest SC24 cycle ever.
8 years ago I published unique numerical formula describing past and extrapolating the future solar activity:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Pal Brekke (the author of the Santa Fe presentation) gives his assessment which is not much different to the output of the above formulae, and it is apparently based on the three quotes on page (slide) 36, which have no relevance to the 30-40 years prediction output as shown on page (slide) 37, as the quoted scientists would have confirmed at the time the quotes were published.
Pal Brekke what is actual basis (is it just a ‘hunch’ or there is more to it, reputable science requires specific details) of the long term assumption of the solar activity as shown in your presentation?
Pal Brekke were you aware of the above solar formula, published 8 years ago, widely publicised by the author on many internet sites ranging from the comments on ‘Nature’ , New Scientist, WUWT, SC24, Real Climate, Open Mind, and many others ?
Just taking a look at Brekke’s presentation:
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/santafe/papers/Sun_climate_SantaFe.pdf
I see this:
“[…] there is no trend in the GCR data”
Too much focus on amplitude & anomalies. Blind disregard for cumulative effects of nonstationary multivariate phase. The discussion cannot advance with such severe misconception.
Multivariate phase-aware conception is not optional for those who actually want to understand nature. I mean no disrespect, but people are being way too sloppy with their abstraction and it would be irresponsible to not point this out.
Tip: Listen more carefully to the data instead of relying so ridiculously on abstract misconception (that is actually razed by the data).
Misinterpretation of neutron count rate (“cosmic ray flux”) data is widespread. The data supply info about the shape & movement of the atmosphere. People often complain about “bad data” etc. The data are what the data are. It’s up to us to interpret them carefully. Sometimes they convey useful info other than what people think they are supposed to convey. Nevermind such idealism; the only sensible choices are real.
Regards.
Further notes in response to Brekke’s presentation:
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/santafe/papers/Sun_climate_SantaFe.pdf
“Forcing functions MAY NOT operate globally.”
Absurd …but it’s CERTAINLY true that global averages are misleading those who ignore other data summaries such as spatiotemporal gradients (so maybe Brekke’s conception’s accurate and his wording’s just loose, perhaps to cut down on wordiness).
Earth’s spatial response filter varies over the year and also over the solar cycle as the solar input vector varies. Since Earth has no clock physically locked to average solar cycle length, the pulse-position modulation is differential. Thus, it’s not solar cycle length but rather RATE OF CHANGE of solar cycle length that contains the info confirming that the solar cycle is the crank shaft connected to the westerly drive wheels via DIFFERENTIAL transmission.
Ask any mechanic if the crank shaft rotates at the same rate as the drive wheels. They’ll laugh HEARTILY at you for asking SUCH a stupid question.
(Due to differential transmission, the coherence is in acceleration/deceleration.)
I don’t prefer this role of being the one who has to point such things out (at constant guarantee of being severely misunderstood), but it would be unconscionably irresponsible to keep quiet.
It’s tragic that our western education systems have not provided a common enough functional numeracy base for everyone to immediately appreciate the sheer simplicity. Part of the reason why Piers Corbyn doesn’t publicize all of his findings has become crystal clear.
“Jerry North: Looking for Climate Signals in Ice Cores
JC note: finds evidence of solar and tidal cycles”
Is this file available elsewhere on the web in a different format? (I don’t presently have access to any software that can open this file.)